Chapter 1
General Provisions — Extraordinary Process

29-1-101. Application of equitable remedies.

The provisions of this Code relating to injunctions, appointment of receivers, and other extraordinary process, apply equally to equity proceedings in any court.

Code 1858, § 3766; Shan., § 5547; Code 1932, § 9717; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-102.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 2.

Comparative Legislation. Prelitigation remedies:

Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-113-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-5-1 et seq.

Ky. CR Rule 1 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-13-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 526.010 et seq.

N.C.  Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 65.

Va. Code § 8.01-620 et seq.

Cited: Churchwell v. Callens, 36 Tenn. App. 119, 252 S.W.2d 131, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Statute was not applicable to a purchaser's claim that an oral contract was unenforceable because the testimony was clear that the transaction did not involve the sale of real property; rather, a purchaser agreed to lease a building that housed a market. Mesad v. Yousef, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2018).

29-1-102. Injunction pending litigation.

In real actions, and in actions for the recovery of personal property in specie, the court in which the suit is pending may restrain the injury, removal, or destruction of the property by process of injunction, until the cause is finally disposed of.

Code 1858, § 3767; Shan., § 5548; Code 1932, § 9718; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-103.

Cross-References. Injunction after creditor's bill, § 29-12-102.

Injunctions, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 576.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, §§ 4, 5.

Law Reviews.

Burying (With Kindness) the Felicific Calculus of Civil Procedure (Linda S. Mullenix), 40 Vand. L. Rev. 541 (1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Railroad and Public Utilities Commission.

State court properly refused to enjoin the enforcement of an order of railroad and public utilities commission putting into effect intrastate rates, pending proceedings before interstate commerce commission. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry. v. Railroad & Public Utilities Com., 161 Tenn. 592, 32 S.W.2d 1043, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1930).

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 11.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 216, 217.

Contingent or defeasible future interest, right of owner of, to injunction against injury to, or trespass on, property. 144 A.L.R. 784.

Encroachment of trees, shrubbery, or other vegetation across boundary line, injunction for. 65 A.L.R.4th 603.

Flood protection measures. 5 A.L.R.2d 57.

Incompetent person, injunction to protect property of, prior to his adjudication as such. 107 A.L.R. 1401.

Injunction as remedy of tenant against stranger wrongfully interfering with his possession. 12 A.L.R.2d 1192.

License to use real property, injunction as proper remedy by licensor after revocation. 38 A.L.R. 1138, 56 A.L.R. 1110.

Injunction 15-18.

29-1-103. Receivers pending litigation.

The courts are all vested with power to appoint receivers for the safekeeping, collection, management, and disposition of property in litigation in such court, whenever necessary to the ends of substantial justice, in like manner as receivers are appointed by courts of chancery.

Code 1858, § 3768; Shan., § 5549; Code 1932, § 9719; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-104.

Cross-References. Drainage district, appointment of receivers when in default, § 69-5-929.

Receivers, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 66.

Receivership to protect tax lien, title 67, ch. 5, part 22.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 347, 351, 357.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Receivers, § 3.

Law Reviews.

Forms of Relief, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 400.

The Tennessee Court System — Criminal Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 319.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

How applied for. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

Defendant filing counter affidavit has sufficient notice of application for appointment of receiver. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

2. Appointment.

A receiver may be appointed at any stage of a cause, and without a prayer for that purpose, if the facts stated authorize the appointment; and it may be made at the instance of a mortgagee defendant against a codefendant, if essential to the relief to which the complainant is entitled, in which case the court may decree in favor of one defendant against another, and may compel tenants of a party to a suit to pay rents to the receiver. Henshaw, Ward & Co. v. Wells, 28 Tenn. 568, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1848); Williams v. Noland, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 151 (1874); Bidwell v. Paul, 64 Tenn. 693, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1875); Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 398 (1875); Merrill v. Elam, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 513 (1875); Moore v. Knight, 74 Tenn. 427, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 270 (1880); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

A receiver will not be appointed where the person in possession is no party to the suit, or where he claims under the party who moves for the appointment. Mays v. Wherry, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 34 (1875).

The appointment of a receiver was within the sound discretion of the chancellor. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Ellis, 16 Tenn. App. 551, 65 S.W.2d 250, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a limited liability company (LLC) member's request for the appointment of a receiver because the member retained bo causes of action for damages against the LLC upon which a request for a receiver could attach. Huggins v. McKee, 500 S.W.3d 360, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2016).

3. —Necessity of Appointment.

The burden is on the applicant to establish a proper case, by a strong showing to justify interference with actual possession, by the appointment of a receiver. And an affidavit which does not aver facts, and is not made by a party, but by his solicitor, and only on the affiant's “information and belief,” and not disclosing the solicitor's means of information and belief, is clearly insufficient. Davis v. Reaves, 70 Tenn. 649, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1879); Pearson v. Gillenwaters, 99 Tenn. 446, 42 S.W. 9, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 51, 63 Am. St. Rep. 844, 63 Am. St. Rep. 844 (1897); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

4. —Nature and Operation of Appointment.

The appointment of a receiver is an interlocutory order, and is ordinarily in the nature of granting extraordinary process, for it neither settles nor prejudices rights, and is only resorted to for the purpose of preserving the property, pending the litigation, for the benefit of the successful party. It might be otherwise, if the appointment was not within the competency of the court, as when the contest is over the legal title to land, or does not extend to the rents, for then it would affect possession, which is itself a right. State v. Allen, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 512 (1873); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Bramley v. Tyree, 69 Tenn. 531, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1878); Johnston v. Hanner, 70 Tenn. 8, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1878); Roberson v. Roberson, 71 Tenn. 50, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1879); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

5. —Order of Appointment.

Order appointing is not invalid because entered under the style of the dependent rather than the original cause. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

A decretal order appointing a receiver with judicial powers in excess of those possessed by the chancellor is irregular if not void. Instances given. Breeden v. Hurley, 13 Tenn. App. 599, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

6. —Appeal from Appointment.

The appointment of a receiver is a matter of sound discretion with the chancellor; and, ordinarily, the order of appointment in a case clearly within the competency of the court, cannot be superseded, nor will a bill of review lie to revise the appointment when made by an order of court on its minutes. Cone v. Paute, 59 Tenn. 506, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1873); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Bramley v. Tyree, 69 Tenn. 531, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1878); Johnston v. Hanner, 70 Tenn. 8, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1878); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

If a receiver is appointed where the person in possession is no party to the suit, the order of appointment may be superseded, and the supersedeas will not be discharged by the appellate court. Richmond v. Yates, 62 Tenn. 204, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1873).

Where the appointment of a receiver is not within the competency of the court, as where the contest is over the legal title to land, or the right of complainant does not extend to the rents, or the receivership would deprive the defendant of his homestead right, such appointment will be superseded under § 29-1-102. The distinction is between the want of power and the discretionary exercise of a conceded power, and a motion to discharge such supersedeas will be disallowed. Cone v. Paute, 59 Tenn. 506, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1873); Richmond v. Yates, 62 Tenn. 204, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1873); Morford v. Hamner, 62 Tenn. 391, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1874); Hoge v. Hollister, 67 Tenn. 533, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1876); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Christian v. Clark, 78 Tenn. 291, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (1882); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

A receiver may be appointed after final decree and after an appeal, while the suit is still in court, the appeal being set aside, and the appellant allowed to appeal from such final decree and the order appointing the receiver, and without any supplemental bill being filed, in cases of emergency. Merrill v. Elam, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 513 (1875); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

An order appointing a receiver is interlocutory, no matter at what stage of the case it may be made, and can neither be appealed from directly, nor superseded under the special provisions authorizing the supersedeas of certain interlocutory orders; but such an order is brought up for revision by a general appeal from the final hearing, and will remain in force if executed, unless otherwise ordered by the appellate court, and, if not executed, it may be executed by the appellate court, upon application, either directly or by procedendo to the court below. Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883); Downing v. Dunlap Coal, Iron & R.R., 93 Tenn. 221, 24 S.W. 122, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1893); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

Supersedeas will be denied where appointment of receiver is in accord with the “ends of substantial justice.” Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

7. — —Effect of Appeal.

Where a party is only entitled to a receiver upon the recovery of a judgment, but obtains an order appointing one after judgment, but before an appeal is perfected by the defendant, which he afterwards prays and perfects, such appeal annuls and vacates the judgment, and with it the order for a receiver. Allen v. Chadburn, 62 Tenn. 225, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (1873).

8. — —Review of Appointment.

Sufficiency in law of grounds for appointment of receiver is reviewable by Supreme Court, when. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

Objections to matters of form in application for receiver are not reviewable on collateral attack in the appellate court, when. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

Great weight is given to conclusions of lower court as to facts found. Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

9. — —Appointment of Receiver.

Where it is alleged in the bill “that the security is scarcely sufficient to pay the debt claimed, and the appeal is in forma pauperis,” receiver may be appointed in the appellate court, when asked for in the bill, though none was appointed by the court below, and no steps taken in that direction. Bidwell v. Paul, 64 Tenn. 693, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1875); Hoge v. Hollister, 67 Tenn. 533, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1876).

Appellate courts may appoint receivers. Fleming v. Fleming, 8 Tenn. App. 315, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

10. — —Remand.

Neither the remand of a cause after a decree by the appellate court, nor the death of the receiver appointed by that court, will take the property out of the custody of the court; and a purchaser from one of the litigants pending the litigation will not be allowed to interfere with the possession of a new receiver, by independent suit, without leave of the court first obtained by permission pro interesse suo. Brien v. Paul, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 357 (1877).

11. Purposes of Appointment.

12. —Real Estate.

A receiver may be had for the protection of the interests represented by a trust deed, at least where the debtor is insolvent and the land will bring less on foreclosure than the debt secured by the deed. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Ellis, 16 Tenn. App. 551, 65 S.W.2d 250, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

13. — —Growing Crops.

The interest of a deed of trust in growing crops was sufficient ground for the appointment of a receiver. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Ellis, 16 Tenn. App. 551, 65 S.W.2d 250, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

14. — —Rents and Taxes.

A judgment creditor, who has filed his bill to reach the equitable interest of his debtor in land previously mortgaged to another, is entitled to a receiver if the rents are required for the payment of his debt, subject to the right of the prior mortgagee to take possession; but the receiver will be dispensed with, upon the owner's giving bond and security to account for the rents. Cone v. Paute, 59 Tenn. 506, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1873); Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 398 (1875).

The failure of the party in possession of land in litigation to pay the taxes is sufficient to authorize the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property, rent it out, and collect and hold the rents, and to pay the taxes to save the property from loss by sale for taxes. Cone v. Paute, 59 Tenn. 506, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1873); Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 398 (1875); Hamilton v. Wynne, 3 Shan. 33 (1878); Darusmont v. Patton, 72 Tenn. 597, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1880); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

15. — —Vendor's Lien.

Where a complainant seeks to enforce his vendor's lien, a receiver will not be appointed if it is no part of the contract of sale, either express or implied, that the vendor shall appropriate anything but the land itself, by sale, for the satisfaction of his purchase money. Morford v. Hamner, 62 Tenn. 391, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1874); Seat v. Knight, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 262 (1876); Lockhart v. Gee, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 332 (1877); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Roberson v. Roberson, 71 Tenn. 50, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1879); Moore v. Knight, 74 Tenn. 427, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 270 (1880); Pearson v. Gillenwaters, 99 Tenn. 446, 42 S.W. 9, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 51, 63 Am. St. Rep. 844, 63 Am. St. Rep. 844 (1897); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

16. — —Legal Title.

The court is slow to appoint a receiver of land in the peaceable possession of one party under a claim of right, when the contest is between claimants of the legal title; but this rule does not apply where the property is already in the custody of a receiver in suits between adverse claimants, and a third party, claiming adversely to all the other litigants, asks that the receivership be continued. State v. Allen, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 512 (1873); Cassetty v. Capps, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 524 (1877); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Davis v. Reaves, 70 Tenn. 649, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1879); Roberson v. Roberson, 71 Tenn. 50, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1879); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903); Fleming v. Fleming, 8 Tenn. App. 315, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

17. — —Mortgagor and Mortgagee.

If mortgagor does not retain right to possession, and the property is inadequate, receiver may be appointed, at the instance of the mortgagee or beneficiary in a deed of trust, during the progress of a necessary suit to foreclose, especially where the mortgagor is insolvent. Henshaw, Ward & Co. v. Wells, 28 Tenn. 568, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1848); Williams v. Noland, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 151 (1874); Bidwell v. Paul, 64 Tenn. 693, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1875); Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 398 (1875); Bramley v. Tyree, 69 Tenn. 531, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1878); Hamilton v. Wynne, 3 Shan. 33 (1878); Moore v. Knight, 74 Tenn. 427, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 270 (1880).

Where the maker of a mortgage, by its express stipulations, is allowed to retain possession of the property until a foreclosure of the same, he is entitled to the possession and rents, and it is error for the court to appoint a receiver in such case as the condition of a continuance. Chadbourn v. Henderson, 61 Tenn. 460, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 206 (1873).

18. — —Sale of Land.

Real estate, in the hands of a receiver pendente lite, deteriorating and depreciating in value, requiring funds to insure and guard it, and no one being obliged to advance such funds, and which must be ultimately sold, may be sold before final hearing. Cleaves v. Ferguson, 2 Shan. 560 (1877). See Stewart v. Love, 71 Tenn. 374, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1879), approving this case, but holding that the sale will not be made in advance of the final hearing in a suit to enforce a lien, where the property is not in the custody of the court.

19. — —Partition.

Chancery will not, pending a suit for a sale of land for division among cotenants, interfere, by the appointment of a receiver, with the lawful possession of one of the tenants, where it does not appear that he disputes the title or interferes with the possession of his cotenants, especially if there be no sufficient averment of insolvency. Cassetty v. Capps, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 524 (1877); Davis v. Reaves, 70 Tenn. 649, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1879); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

20. —Personal Property.

Upon a bill to foreclose a mortgage of personalty by sale, a receiver will not be appointed where the property is adequate to meet the debt, and the mortgagor gives bond for the forthcoming of the property to answer the decree. Williams v. Noland, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 151 (1874); Johnson v. Tucker, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 398 (1875); Hughes v. Tennison, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 641 (1878).

The defendant in an attachment suit is like the mortgagor in possession upon a bill to foreclose, and, in such case, the rule is to leave him in possession, or to appoint him receiver upon giving good security, in the absence of anything tending to show that this course would, in the particular instance, be improper. Williams v. Noland, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 151 (1874); Hughes v. Tennison, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 641 (1878).

Appointment of receiver to impound trust or mortgaged property, in advance of the maturity of the debt, is within the competency of the chancery court, and will be made upon a bill filed by the trustee and beneficiaries, where the defendant is insolvent, the property inadequate to secure the debts, taxes unpaid and accumulating, or it is hazardous to leave the property in the possession of the defendant, or where he has absconded and left the state; and the appellate court has no power to supersede such action of the chancery court, upon an application for a supersedeas; nor can the grantor's capacity to contract be determined on a motion to appoint a receiver. Johnston v. Hanner, 70 Tenn. 8, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1878); Lincoln Sav. Bank v. Ewing, 80 Tenn. 598, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 211 (1883); Downing v. Dunlap Coal, Iron & R.R., 93 Tenn. 221, 24 S.W. 122, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1893); Troughber v. Akin, 109 Tenn. 451, 73 S.W. 118, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1903).

21. —Administration of Estates.

Receiver will be appointed until administration can be granted, where litigation or other impediments exist. Smiley v. Bell, 8 Tenn. 378, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1828); Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 113 Tenn. 421, 82 S.W. 1131, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 106 Am. St. Rep. 851, 68 L.R.A. 852 (1904).

In a suit or proceeding in chancery for the administration of a decedent's insolvent estate, the chancellor may appoint a receiver and take the assets out of the hands of the administrator, when in danger of being lost, without a bill being filed for the purpose of removing him, making the direct charge of mismanagement and breach of trust, and giving the opportunity to answer and defend. Roberson v. Roberson, 71 Tenn. 50, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1879).

22. —Actions at Law.

A receiver will not be appointed, at instance of complainant, to secure expected judgment in action of tort against a corporation. Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 113 Tenn. 421, 82 S.W. 1131, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 106 Am. St. Rep. 851, 68 L.R.A. 852 (1904).

23. —Management of Business.

While a chancery court has the power to appoint a receiver to manage and conduct the publication of a newspaper, it “will not take upon itself the responsibility of continuing the publication of a political paper by a receiver any longer than is absolutely necessary to prevent a sacrifice of the property.” Gwynne v. Memphis Appeal-Avalanche Co., 93 Tenn. 603, 30 S.W. 23, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1894).

24. Office of Receiver.

A receiver is a person indifferent between the parties, appointed by the court to receive the rents, issues, or profits of lands or thing in question in a court of chancery, pending the suit, when it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party should do it. He is considered as an officer of the court appointed for the benefit of all parties who may establish rights in the property or funds in his hands, which are in the custody of the law for all who can make out title to the same. Waters v. Carroll, 17 Tenn. 102, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1836); Berry & Cleveland v. Jones, 58 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 248, 27 Am. Rep. 742 (1872); Ross v. Williams, 58 Tenn. 410, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 277 (1872).

The effect of the appointment of a receiver is to remove the party in possession of the property where he is a party to the suit, no right remaining in him by virtue of such possession; and any application he may make for the purpose of interfering with the discretion of the receiver must show abuse of his authority to the prejudice of the applicant. Payne v. Baxter, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 517 (1876).

The appointment of a receiver, in the absence of a statute so providing, does not vest title in him. Maryland Casualty Co. v. McConnell, 148 Tenn. 656, 257 S.W. 410, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1924).

A receiver stands in shoes of person over whose property he has been appointed such. McConnell v. McCleish & Thomas, 159 Tenn. 520, 19 S.W.2d 251, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1929); French v. Buffatt, 161 Tenn. 500, 33 S.W.2d 92, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1930).

The receiver is an officer of the court, appointed by him and subject to his instructions in respect to the property that he deals with. KMC Co. v. Nabors, 572 S.W.2d 255, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

25. —Suits by Receiver.

The receiver may maintain suit in his own name, and the addition to his name indicating that he is receiver of certain parties is merely descriptio personae. Such suit cannot be maintained in the name of the parties for whom he is receiver, because the legal title is in him. Wray v. Jamison, 29 Tenn. 186, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1849).

The dignity of the chancery court, within the same jurisdiction, cannot be asserted by an action of replevin in a common law court, brought by a receiver in chancery, against a person not a party to the chancery suit, having in fact a superior right to the possession of the property. Conley & Harrison v. Deere, Mansure & Co., 79 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1883).

A receiver is entitled to sue on bond to principal just as the latter could prior to receivership, subject to defenses good against latter. King's, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 169 Tenn. 404, 88 S.W.2d 456, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1935).

26. — —Foreign Receivers.

A foreign receiver, without legal title to the property sued for or to the claim sued on, sues under rule of comity; and the privilege to do so will not be accorded where the suit is inimical to the interests of local creditors or in contravention of local public policy. Hardee v. Wilson, 129 Tenn. 511, 167 S.W. 475, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1914).

Where a superintendent of banks of New York has title to assets he cannot as quasi receiver maintain suit for stock assessments until judicial determination of the amounts needed for liquidation. Van Tuyl v. Carpenter, 135 Tenn. 629, 188 S.W. 234, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1916).

If a foreign receiver has the legal title to the property sued for or to the claim sued on, he has generally the right to sue in this state. Van Tuyl v. Carpenter, 135 Tenn. 629, 188 S.W. 234, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1916).

A foreign receiver with legal title to the property sued for or to the claim sued on sues as a matter of right, not comity, in a federal court. Oakes v. Lake, 290 U.S. 59, 54 S. Ct. 13, 78 L. Ed. 168, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 448 (1933).

27. — —Limitations.

Limitations run and continue to run against a receiver, statutory and contractual. King's, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 169 Tenn. 404, 88 S.W.2d 456, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1935).

28. —Suits Against Receivers.

An original bill against a receiver, by a party to the suit in which the receiver was appointed, is unnecessary, unwarranted, and a contempt of court. Payne v. Baxter, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 517 (1876).

For persons, not parties to the suit, who claim adversely to the receiver, to enjoin interference with their possession does not constitute contempt of the court of appointment. French v. Buffatt, 161 Tenn. 500, 33 S.W.2d 92, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1930).

29. —Liability for Property.

Any loss or injury to the property, without fault of the receiver, must fall on the owner, and not the receiver or party at whose instance he was appointed; nor is a receiver liable for interest, unless he made interest on the fund. Wall v. Pulliam, 52 Tenn. 365, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 269 (1871); Ross v. Williams, 58 Tenn. 410, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 277 (1872).

It is the duty of the party, at whose instance a receiver is appointed, to see that he performs his duty and accounts according to law, and he is liable to the party injured for all loss occasioned by the failure of the receiver to do his duty. Terrell v. Ingersoll, 78 Tenn. 77, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1882); Downs v. Allen, 78 Tenn. 652, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1882).

Where the collection of debts is enjoined or property is impounded, the party at whose instance it is done is bound to see that a receiver is promptly appointed to take charge of such impounded property and effects, and to secure them by proper legal proceedings. Terrell v. Ingersoll, 78 Tenn. 77, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1882); Downs v. Allen, 78 Tenn. 652, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1882).

30. —Accounting.

It is the duty of a receiver in chancery to make a full report and pass his accounts, at least once a year, and a failure will subject him to the risk of having his claim for compensation excepted to and disallowed. Any party to the cause in which he is appointed, and interested in the property or its incomes, is entitled, upon motion, to have an order for such report, and a reference for an account. Lowe v. Lowe, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 515 (1873); Stretch v. Gowdey, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 565 (1877).

31. —Compensation.

A surviving partner appointed receiver at his own instance, under claim of right to wind up the business, is not, ordinarily, entitled to compensation, in the absence of any stipulation therefor. Berry & Cleveland v. Jones, 58 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 248, 27 Am. Rep. 742 (1872); Todd v. Rich, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 107 (1874); Condon v. Callahan, 115 Tenn. 285, 89 S.W. 400, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 62, 112 Am. St. Rep. 833, 1 L.R.A. (n.s.) 643 (1905).

Receivers are entitled to such compensation as is usually allowed by law, or by contract between individuals for similar services, to be ascertained by proof of facts, and not by the opinions of witnesses; and the burden of the usual compensation should be borne, ordinarily, by the income, and five percent on the amount received and disbursed seems to be the customary allowance. Stretch v. Gowdey, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 565 (1877).

There should be payment of compensation to surviving partner for completing construction contract, where the contract contemplated that both parties should render services, and the contract was left unfinished upon the death of one partner. The allowance should be made in view of the large profits realized. Condon v. Callahan, 115 Tenn. 285, 89 S.W. 400, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 62, 112 Am. St. Rep. 833, 1 L.R.A. (n.s.) 643 (1905).

32. —Fees and Costs.

The party at whose instance land is improperly, but on a correct statement of facts, placed in the hands of a receiver, is liable for the costs of the receivership, and such rents as the receiver would be liable for. Lockhart v. Gee, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 332 (1877).

Receivers will not be allowed attorney fees for legal services rendered by themselves, though they may be allowed reasonable attorney fees for counsel employed by them. State use of Meriwether v. Butler, 83 Tenn. 113, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1885).

A receiver of attached property cannot have fees fixed in chancery court after appeal had been perfected and case disposed of in appellate court without a remand. Recourse is by independent suit on the bond, or in some instances by way of taxation as costs. James v. Williams, 20 Tenn. App. 420, 99 S.W.2d 831, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers §§ 25, 26.

75 C.J.S. Receivers §§ 1, 8, 45.

Conclusiveness of order of one judge appointing receiver on another judge in same case. 132 A.L.R. 85.

Contingent or defeasible future interest, right of owner of, to appointment of receiver. 144 A.L.R. 796.

Jurisdiction of action involving appointment of receiver to foreign corporation. 155 A.L.R. 1246, 72 A.L.R.2d 1222.

Reciprocal insurance association, jurisdiction to appoint receiver for. 141 A.L.R. 785.

Remainderman's right, upon life tenant's failure to make repairs, to appointment of receiver. 128 A.L.R. 228, 175 A.L.R. 1434.

Undivided or successive interests in property or fund, right to appointment of receiver in action between persons owning or claiming to own. 127 A.L.R. 1228.

Valuation of securities in determining question of insolvency justifying appointment of receiver. 133 A.L.R. 1068.

Receivers 15-19.

29-1-104. Receiver's bond.

The clerk and master, when so directed by the order of the judge or chancellor, shall take bond and security from the receiver, or the complainant, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of the receiver.

Code 1858, § 4453 (deriv. Acts 1833, ch. 47, § 1); Shan., § 6269; Code 1932, § 10559; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-106.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction Over Surety.

Where a surety on the bond of a receiver appointed by the chancery court gets into his possession a part of the trust fund, the court has jurisdiction of him to make upon him an order to act in personam, for the preservation of the fund. Seidenbach, Swab & Co. v. Denklespeil, 79 Tenn. 297, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1883).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers §§ 102-106.

75 C.J.S. Receivers §§ 76, 77.

Receivers 51, 212-218.

29-1-105. Courts' powers over extraordinary process.

In all proper cases, also, any of the courts may use all other extraordinary process of the court of chancery, and in the same way as that court, when necessary to effect the ends of justice.

Code 1858, § 3769; Shan., § 5550; Code 1932, § 9720; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-107.

Cross-References. Power of judges in general, § 17-1-204.

Cited: Sanders v. Traver, 109 S.W.3d 282, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. 2003).

Collateral References. Injunction 202-206.

29-1-106. Judges granting extraordinary process.

Injunctions, attachments, except as otherwise provided, writs of ne exeat, and other extraordinary process are granted by the chancellors, circuit judges, and judges of criminal and special courts.

Code 1858, § 4434 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 4, § 9); Acts 1871, ch. 49; Shan., § 6246; mod. Code 1932, § 10533; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-108.

Cross-References. Names included in process, § 21-1-202.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 3.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 101; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 24.

Law Reviews.

Domestic Relations — 1957 Tennessee Survey (William J. Harbison), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1082.

The Tennessee Court System — Criminal Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 319.

Cited: Churchwell v. Callens, 36 Tenn. App. 119, 252 S.W.2d 131, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952); Anderson v. Ellington, 300 F. Supp. 789, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591 (M.D. Tenn. 1969).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Authority to Issue Injunction.

A court of chancery has jurisdiction to entertain an original bill to restrain the execution of its own decrees in a proper case. Montgomery v. Whitworth, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 174 (1873); Clark v. Henderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 506 (1873); Anderson v. Mullenix, 73 Tenn. 287, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1880).

Taxpayers may enjoin a misappropriation of railroad funds by county officials to the payment of other debts than the railroad debts, for which they were raised, until that is wholly extinguished, where such misappropriation is threatened under an illegal provision of a statute. Kennedy v. Montgomery County, 98 Tenn. 165, 38 S.W. 1075, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (1897).

By statute, the power to grant injunctions is entrusted to all chancellors and judges interchangeably. The granting of an injunction is within the discretion of the trial court, which discretion is not reviewable except in cases of manifest abuse. Thompson v. Menefee, 6 Tenn. App. 118, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

Incumbent sheriff who was defeated at election was not entitled to enjoin victor from taking office pending outcome of contest proceeding. Hagan v. Henry, 168 Tenn. 223, 76 S.W.2d 994, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1934).

Where a temporary injunction has been granted pending the hearing and the hearing is resolved against the injunction, it lies in the discretion of the chancellor as to whether or not the injunction remains in force pending the appeal. Bilbrey v. Smith, 25 Tenn. App. 446, 158 S.W.2d 735, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941).

2. Causes for Injunctive Relief.

3. —Stay of Proceedings Prior to Judgment.

Injunctions may be issued to stay proceedings at law before judgment. Ragsdale v. Buford's Ex'rs, 4 Tenn. 191, 4 Tenn. 192, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1817); Wall & Co. v. Cloud, 22 Tenn. 181, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1842); Bell v. Gamble, 28 Tenn. 117, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1848); Hough v. Chaffin, 36 Tenn. 238, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1856); Huddleston v. Williams, 48 Tenn. 579, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1870); McLin v. Marshall, 48 Tenn. 678 (1870); Fort v. Orndoff, 54 Tenn. 167, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1872); E. D. Tarbox & Bro. v. Hartenstein, 63 Tenn. 78, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1874); Fields v. Carney, 63 Tenn. 137, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 220 (1874); Pass v. Staples, 2 Shan. 36 (1876); Chadwell v. Jordan, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 635 (1876); Turner v. Breeden, 70 Tenn. 713, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (1879).

4. —Stay of Proceedings After Judgment.

Injunctions may be issued to stay proceedings at law after judgment. Donelson v. Young, 19 Tenn. 155, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1838); Molloy v. Elam, 19 Tenn. 590, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1838); McKoin & Wilkinson v. Cooley, 22 Tenn. 559, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1842); Isler v. Outlaw, 23 Tenn. 118, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1843); Nicholson v. Patterson, 25 Tenn. 394, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1845); Rice v. R.R. Bank, 26 Tenn. 39, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1846); Gwinn v. Newton, 27 Tenn. 710, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1848); Ridgeway v. Bank of Tenn., 30 Tenn. 523, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1851); Lafferty v. Conn, 35 Tenn. 221, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1855); Seay v. Hughes, 37 Tenn. 155, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1857); Lindsley v. James, 43 Tenn. 477, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1866); Schwab v. Mount, 44 Tenn. 60, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1867); Powell v. Cyfers, 48 Tenn. 526, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1870); Levan v. Patton, 49 Tenn. 108, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1870); Burem v. Foster, 53 Tenn. 333, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Oct. 14, 1871); Greenfield v. Frierson, 54 Tenn. 633, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1872); Staunton v. Clark, 56 Tenn. 669, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1872); Prater v. Robinson, 58 Tenn. 391, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 274 (1872); Wagstaff v. Braden, 60 Tenn. 304, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 495 (1872); Lindsley v. Thompson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 272 (1873); Cornelius v. Thomas, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 283 (1873); Parkes v. Gilbert, 60 Tenn. 97, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 417 (1873); Hubbard v. Ewing, 63 Tenn. 404, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 278 (1874); Pulliam v. Wilkerson, 66 Tenn. 611, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1874); Cornelius v. Morrow, 59 Tenn. 630, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1874); Howe Sewing Mach. Co. v. Zachary, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 478 (1875); Moore v. Gaha, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 415 (1877); Pardue v. West, 69 Tenn. 729, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (1878); Glenn v. Maguire, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 695 (1878); Nance v. Gregory & Pettus, 74 Tenn. 343, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 258, 40 Am. Rep. 41 (1880).

5. —Stay of Executions in Law Courts.

Injunctions may be issued to restrain executions at law. Loftin v. Espy, 12 Tenn. 83, 12 Tenn. 84, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1833); Hammond v. St. John, 12 Tenn. 106, 12 Tenn. 107, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1833); Saunders v. Woods, 13 Tenn. 142, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1833); Ross v. McCarty, 22 Tenn. 169, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1842); Whitesides v. Rayle, 22 Tenn. 205, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1842); Wood v. Cruisman, 25 Tenn. 279, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1845); Williams v. Wright, 28 Tenn. 493, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1848); Ridgeway v. Bank of Tenn., 30 Tenn. 523, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1851); Lockwood & Co. v. Nye, 32 Tenn. 515, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1852); Dechard v. Edwards, 34 Tenn. 93, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1854); Lafferty v. Conn, 35 Tenn. 221, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1855); Thompson v. Meek, 35 Tenn. 271, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1855); Wiley v. Bridgman, 38 Tenn. 68, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Sep. 1858); Rucker v. Moore, 48 Tenn. 726, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 139 (1870); Hickerson v. Raiguel & Co., 49 Tenn. 329, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1871); W.B. Mann & Co. v. Bamberger, Bloom & Co., 51 Tenn. 486, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1871); Watson v. Sutherlin, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 208 (1873); Taylor v. Nashville & C.R.R., 86 Tenn. 228, 6 S.W. 393, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1887).

6. —Stay of Executions in Other Chancery Courts.

Injunctions may be issued to restrain executions from another chancery court. Deaderick v. Smith, 25 Tenn. 138, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1845); Anderson v. Bank of Tennessee, 37 Tenn. 661, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1858); Whiteside v. Latham, 42 Tenn. 91, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1865); In re Chadwell, 54 Tenn. 630, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1872); Douglass v. Joyner, 60 Tenn. 32, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (1872); Smith v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 502 (1877); Anderson v. Mullenix, 73 Tenn. 287, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1880).

7. —Restraining Judgments in Appellate Courts.

Injunctions may be issued to enjoin judgments of appellate courts. Nicholson v. Patterson, 25 Tenn. 394, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1845); Coles v. Anderson & Griswell, 27 Tenn. 489, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1847); Smith v. Van Bebber, 31 Tenn. 110, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1851); Kinzer v. Helm, 54 Tenn. 672, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1872).

8. —Restraining Foreign Judgments.

Injunctions may be issued to restrain enforcement of judgments from a sister state. Wilson v. Robertson, 1 Tenn. 266, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1808); Turley v. Taylor, 65 Tenn. 376, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 369 (1873).

9. —Restraining Judgments in Foreign Court.

Injunctions may be issued to restrain judgments in a foreign court. Lockwood & Co. v. Nye, 32 Tenn. 515, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1852).

10. —Restraining Appeal to Supreme Court.

Injunctions may be issued to restrain appeals to the supreme court. W. M. Perkins & Co. v. Woodfolk, 67 Tenn. 411, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 390 (1874).

11. Application for Injunction.

Upon the preliminary application for an injunction, all that the judge should, as a general rule, require is a case of probable right, and probable danger to that right without the interposition of the court, and his discretion should then be regulated by the balance of inconvenience or injury to the one party or the other. Flippin v. Knaffle, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 238 (1875); Owen v. Brien, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 295 (1875); Memphis & C.R.R. v. Gaines, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 478 (1877); Smith v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 502 (1877).

Taxpayers cannot maintain, on behalf of themselves and other taxpayers, a bill to enjoin the collection of a railroad tax by a county, although the tax is illegal as being in excess of the amount required for the particular purpose, where they have delayed to bring suit for a whole year, and until the greater part of the tax had been collected. Kennedy v. Montgomery County, 98 Tenn. 165, 38 S.W. 1075, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (1897).

12. Basis for Injunction.

The practice in this state has always been to grant injunctions upon the ex parte statement, under oath, of the applicant, showing probable cause and probable danger. Flippin v. Knaffle, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 238 (1875).

13. Effect of Injunction.

Operation as release of errors. Mathews v. Douglass, 3 Tenn. 136, 1 Cooke 136, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1812); Overton v. Perkins, 8 Tenn. 367, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1828); Henly v. Robertson, 12 Tenn. 172, 12 Tenn. 171, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1833); Patterson v. Gordon, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 18 (1875); Chadwell v. Jordan, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 635 (1876).

Effect of injunction to quiet possession. Rutherford v. Metcalf, 6 Tenn. 58, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1818).

Effect of injunction against execution. Overton v. Perkins, 8 Tenn. 367, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1828); Miller's Lessee v. Estill, 16 Tenn. 452, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1835); Stinson v. McMurray, 25 Tenn. 339, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1845); Farnsworth v. Fowler, 31 Tenn. 1, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1851).

Effect on action taken before service of injunction. Boils v. Boils, 41 Tenn. 284, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1860).

14. Bill for Ne Exeat.

A bill, praying for the issuance of a writ of ne exeat, must, by positive allegations or by facts, threats, or declarations evidencing such intention, set forth the defendant's intended departure from the state, and that the right or demand sought will be lost or recovery greatly endangered by the defendant's departure; but it is not essential to allege an intent to avoid jurisdiction. Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S.W. 152, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 58, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1916C403 (1915).

15. Issuance of Ne Exeat.

The writ of ne exeat will be issued out of chancery, upon good cause shown by affidavit, directing the arrest of the defendant and his detention until he give bond, in double the value of the property, conditioned not to remove himself or the property in controversy from this state, so as to defeat the decree which may be given in the cause. Smith v. Koontz, 5 Tenn. 189, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1817); Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S.W. 152, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 58, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1916C403 (1915).

The writ of ne exeat will not issue for demands uncertain or contingent, and either the demand or its enforcement must be of an equitable nature. Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S.W. 152, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 58, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1916C403 (1915).

16. —Vendor — Vendee.

Where the vendor of land holds the purchase money notes and might remove and negotiate them, and there is a deficiency in the land sold by the acre, the vendee is entitled to the writ of ne exeat against such vendor, so as to preserve his remedies, for the issuance of such writ in such case is not equivalent to imprisonment for debt prohibited by Tenn. Const., art. I, § 18. Caughron v. Stinespring, 132 Tenn. 636, 179 S.W. 152, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 58, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1916C403 (1915).

17. Divorce.

Writ ne exeat may issue in divorce proceeding solely upon affidavit of wife upon charges based on reasonable grounds that husband is going out of the state or has said he is going out of the state. Kirby v. Kirby, 185 Tenn. 408, 206 S.W.2d 404, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 345 (1947).

Ne exeat order in divorce proceeding binds sureties until proceeding is determined even though writ was originally granted for purpose of determining support of the children. Kirby v. Kirby, 185 Tenn. 408, 206 S.W.2d 404, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 345 (1947).

Suit to recover on ne exeat bond in divorce proceeding could be filed directly by wife though bond was payable to the state, since she was the real party in interest. Kirby v. Kirby, 185 Tenn. 408, 206 S.W.2d 404, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 345 (1947).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 13, 17, 21, 23, 24; 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions §§ 244, 245; 57 Am. Jur. 2d Ne Exeat §§ 8, 9.

48 C.J.S. Judges § 40.

Proceedings for injunction or restraining order as basis of malicious prosecution action. 70 A.L.R.3d 536.

Prohibition as appropriate remedy to prevent allegedly disqualified judge from proceeding with case. 92 A.L.R.2d 306.

Prohibition as appropriate remedy to restrain civil action for lack of jurisdiction of the person. 92 A.L.R.2d 247.

Attachment 70.

29-1-107. Statement as to first application.

No such extraordinary process shall be granted, unless the party applying therefor state in the party's bill or petition that it is the first application for such process.

Code 1858, § 4435 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 7, § 1); Shan., § 6247; Code 1932, § 10534; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-109.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 325, 329, 361.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, §§ 30, 46.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Waiver of “First Application.”

The failure of the pleading to state “first application” is waived unless the objection is taken at the proper time and in a proper way, by motion to dismiss. Boyd v. Hickey, 35 S.W. 1024, 1895 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 34 (1895).

Collateral References. 30A C.J.S. Equity § 217.

29-1-108. Application after refusal.

If any application is made for extraordinary process and refused, no other application shall be granted, except by the court in which the bill is filed.

Code 1858, § 4436; Shan., § 6253; Code 1932, § 10539; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-110.

Cross-References. Transmission of papers, § 17-1-204.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 32.

29-1-109. Endorsement of refusal.

When an application is refused, the officer to whom the same is made shall endorse the refusal on the bill and sign the officer's name thereto, and anyone erasing such endorsement is guilty of, and may be punished for defacing a record.

Code 1858, § 4437; Shan., § 6254; Code 1932, § 10540; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-111.

Cross-References. Destruction of and tampering with governmental records, § 39-16-504.

Penalty for Class A misdemeanor, § 40-35-11.

29-1-110. Transmission of bill and fiat to clerk.

It is the duty of the judge, upon granting the fiat, to envelope the bill and fiat under seal, and direct to the clerk of the court in which the bill is filed, who alone is authorized to open the package.

Code 1858, § 4438 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 71, § 3); Shan., § 6255; Code 1932, § 10541; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-112.

29-1-111. Scope of provisions.

Sections 29-1-104 — 29-1-110 and chapters 19 and 24 of this title will apply to all cases in any of the courts which may be resorted to for the extraordinary process provided for in this chapter.

Code 1858, § 4454; Shan., § 6270; Code 1932, § 10560; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-113.

Chapter 2
Statute of Frauds

29-2-101. Writing required for action.

  1. No action shall be brought:
    1. To charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer any debt or damages out of such person's own estate;
    2. To charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person;
    3. To charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage;
    4. Upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or the making of any lease thereof for a longer term than one (1) year; or
    5. Upon any agreement or contract which is not to be performed within the space of one (1) year from the making of the agreement or contract;

      unless the promise or agreement, upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person lawfully authorized by such party. In a contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, the party to be charged is the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought.

    1. No action shall be brought against a lender or creditor upon any promise or commitment to lend money or to extend credit, or upon any promise or commitment to alter, amend, renew, extend or otherwise modify or supplement any written promise, agreement or commitment to lend money or extend credit, unless the promise or agreement, upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the lender or creditor, or some other person lawfully authorized by such lender or creditor.
    2. A promise or commitment described in subdivision (b)(1) need not be signed by the lender or creditor, if such promise or commitment is in the form of a promissory note or other writing that describes the credit or loan and that by its terms:
      1. Is intended by the parties to be signed by the debtor but not by the lender or creditor;
      2. Has actually been signed by the debtor; and
      3. Delivery of which has been accepted by the lender or creditor.
  2. For purposes of this section, a writing, or some memorandum or note thereof, includes a record.

Code 1858, § 1758 (deriv. Acts 1801, ch. 25, § 1); Shan., § 3142; Code 1932, § 7831; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-201; Acts 1989, ch. 88, § 1; 1997, ch. 272, § 2; 2006, ch. 810, § 1.

Cross-References. Fraudulent conveyances and devises, title 66, ch. 3.

Leases required to be in writing, § 66-7-101.

Sales of goods of $500 or upwards to be in writing, § 47-2-201.

Waste under parol agreement to purchase, § 29-36-101.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 617, 618, 681.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8.03-19.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agency, § 3; 5 Tenn. Juris., Boundaries, § 16; 5 Tenn. Juris., Brokers, § 11; 6 Tenn. Juris., Constitutional Law, § 58; 7 Tenn. Juris., Contracts, § 14; 11 Tenn. Juris., Evidence, § 130; 12 Tenn. Juris., Executors and Administrators, § 47; 13 Tenn. Juris., Frauds, Statute of, §§ 2-5; 17 Tenn. Juris., Landlord and Tenant, § 6; 24 Tenn. Juris., Trusts and Trustees, §§ 22, 23.

Law Reviews.

Agency — 1957 Tennessee Survey (F. Hodge O'Neal), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 973.

Champerty as We Know It (R. D. Cox), 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (1983).

Choice-of-Law Statutes (Robert A. Leflar), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. 951.

Contracts — 1956 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 951.

Contracts — 1959 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1110.

Contracts — 1963 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 17 Vand. L. Rev. 962.

Contracts — 1964 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 18 Vand. L. Rev. 1115.

Contracts and Sales Law in Tennessee: A Survey and Commentary, II. Contracts (John A. Sebert, Jr.), 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 353.

Contracts — Statute of Frauds — Letterhead as a Signature, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 120.

Contracts — Statute of Frauds — Partial Performance and the Main Purpose Doctrine, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 963.

Distinctive Fixtures of the Tennessee Law of Trusts (Thomas H. Malone), 16 Tenn. L. Rev. 33.

Equity — 1961 Tennessee Survey (T. A. Smedley), 14 Vand L. Rev. 1281.

Parol Purchasers of Land — Equitable Remedies in Tennessee, 10 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 107.

Promissory Estoppel — Suggestions for Tennessee, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 423.

Promissory Fraud in Tennessee: A Wrong Without a Remedy, 10 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 308.

Quasi Contract — Benefit Received Under Contract Within Statute of Frauds, 14 Tenn. L. Rev. 124.

Real Property — Oral Leases — Statute of Frauds, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 576.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, III. Conveyances (Toxey H. Sewell), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 171.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law (Beverly A. Rowlett), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 72.

Tennessee Homeowners' Post Foreclosure Auction Right to Cure Under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b) and (c), 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 453 (1997).

Tennessee's Theories of Misrepresentation (Joe E. Manuel and Stuart F. James), 22 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 633 (1992).

The E-Sign Act: A Move in the Right Direction and a Boost for E-Commerce (Daniel W. Van Horn), 37 No. 2 Tenn. B.J. 14 (2001).

The Law of Fixtures in Tennessee — A Consideration of the Common Law and Fixture-Related Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (Jack E. Gervin, Jr.), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 354.

Attorney General Opinions. Distribution of local option sales tax revenues, OAG 97-038 (4/2/97).

Comparative Legislation. Statute of frauds:

Ala.  Code § 8-9-1, et seq.

Ark.  Code § 4-59-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 13-5-30 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 371.010.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 15-3-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 11-1 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. General Principles.

The general rule is that the statute of frauds does not apply where there has been a substitution of a new contract for the old. Hooper v. Neubert, 53 Tenn. App. 233, 381 S.W.2d 569, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

The memorandum may be executed at any time after the contract and before the action. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

When an agreement has been reduced to a certainty and the statute complied with in substance the forms have never been insisted upon. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

In equity cases, Tennessee has always recognized that frauds of a certain character will be relieved against even in face of the statute of frauds. Southern States Dev. Co. v. Robinson, 494 S.W.2d 777, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

This statute has no application to a case alleging fraudulent misrepresentation which induced the execution of a land contract, for such case is sounded in tort and the statute does not apply to tort cases. Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 228, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 212 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

The statute of frauds applies only to contract actions, and not to tort claims. Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1990).

Trial court should not have dismissed a civil rights case based on the one-year limitations period under state law because the complaint sufficiently alleged post-contract formation conduct, and the four year statute of limitations for federal law applied instead. Neither the parol evidence rule nor the statute of frauds was applicable in this case since an action for discrimination under federal law generally sounded in tort. Belton v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2016).

Given that appellee was prosecuting this action upon a written instrument, the lease, it could not rely upon the statute of frauds as though it were defending against an action, and appellant had not improperly relied upon an oral agreement to prosecute an action or for any of the conditions outlined in the statute. Tenn. Traders Landing, LLC v. Jenkins & Stiles, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2018).

2. —Purpose of Statute.

Subdivision (4) was designed to protect owners of realty from hasty or inconsiderate agreements in respect to the most valuable species of property, and to guard against misunderstandings as to the nature and extent of the agreement. Whitby v. Whitby, 36 Tenn. 473, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1857), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006); Ashley v. Preston, 162 Tenn. 540, 39 S.W.2d 279, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Dec. 1930), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006); Brandel v. Moore Mortg. & Inv. Co., 774 S.W.2d 600, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), appeal denied, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. June 5, 1989).

Purpose of statute is to prevent fraudulent contracts from being proved by perjured testimony. Yates v. Skaggs, 187 Tenn. 149, 213 S.W.2d 41, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (1948).

The purpose of the statute is to reduce contracts to a certainty in order to avoid perjury on the one hand and fraud on the other. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

The purpose of the statute of frauds is to reduce contracts to a certainty, in order to avoid perjury on the one hand and fraud on the other. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

The statute of frauds was enacted for the purpose of preventing fraud, and shall not be made the instrument of shielding, protecting, or aiding the party who relies upon it in the perpetration of a fraud, or in the consummation of a fraudulent scheme. Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1990).

3. —Construction.

The statute must be rigidly construed and strictly adhered to, and it must be executed as nearly within the letter as possible. Where there are no exceptions in a statute the courts can make none by mere force of construction. Townsend v. Sharp, 2 Tenn. 191, 2 Tenn. 192, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1812); Erwin v. Waggoman, 3 Tenn. 401, 1 Cooke 401, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1813); Patton v. M'Clure, 8 Tenn. 332, 8 Tenn. 333, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1828); Newnan v. Carroll, 11 Tenn. 17, 11 Tenn. 18, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1832).

The statute does not affect the mutuality of the contract and obligation between the parties, but simply requires that the evidence of the contract on the part of the owner of the land, or the obligor in the other cases, shall be in writing, while the evidence of the contract upon the part of the lessee or purchaser of the land, or the obligee in the other cases, may be in parol, as at common law before the statute of frauds. Whitby v. Whitby, 36 Tenn. 473, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1857), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

The statute does not in terms denounce as void ab initio a contract made in contravention of its terms with respect to alienation of lands. Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

The statute of frauds for the old Uniform Sales Act, the statute of frauds for the UCC — Sales, and this section have a common source, the Statute for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries, 29 Charles II, c. 3 (1676), and should be construed alike. Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 659, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. 1983), superseded by statute as stated in, Wakefield v. Crawley, 6 S.W.3d 442, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. 1999), overruled in part, Athlon Sports Communs., Inc. v. Duggan, 549 S.W.3d 107, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. June 8, 2018).

An agreement that falls within the statute of frauds is not void but is voidable at the instance of either party. Trew v. Ogle, 767 S.W.2d 662, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

While the statute of frauds should be strictly adhered to and construed to accomplish its purpose, it should not be used to avoid contracts or to grant a privilege to a person to refuse to perform what he has agreed to do. GRW Enterprises, Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 606, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 345 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 1990).

Although the statute of frauds may bar enforcement of an alleged oral agreement, it does not preclude a party from recovering damages for unjust enrichment or detrimental reliance. EnGenius Entertainment v. Herenton, 971 S.W.2d 12, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

4. —Conflicts of Law.

Where contract was made out of Tennessee, it was held to be governed by lex loci. Eaves v. Gillespie, 31 Tenn. 128, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1851).

5. —Declaration or Bill.

The statute has not changed the form or mode of pleading, and in an action upon a promise, agreement, or contract required by the statute to be in writing, it is not necessary that the declaration shall allege that the same is in writing, for that may be shown in the evidence. It is sufficient to allege that the promise, agreement, or contract was made. Townsend v. Sharp, 2 Tenn. 191, 2 Tenn. 192, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1812); Carroway v. Anderson, 20 Tenn. 61, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1839). The same rule applies to pleadings in chancery Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875).

Filing an ejectment bill against one claiming under a verbal contract was a sufficient disavowal of any title defendant was authorized to maintain under any verbal purchase, and allegation by complainant of a verbal contract void because of the statute of frauds was unnecessary. Witt v. Siler, 12 Tenn. App. 116, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 204 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

6. —Defensive Pleading.

7. — —Statute Specially Pleaded.

The statute must be specially pleaded as a defense to a suit upon a promise, agreement, or contract required by the statute to be in writing, where the same is in parol, in order to avoid the contract and defeat the suit. Patton v. M'Clure, 8 Tenn. 332, 8 Tenn. 333, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1828); Newnan v. Carroll, 11 Tenn. 17, 11 Tenn. 18, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1832); Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Citty v. Southern Queen Mfg. Co., 93 Tenn. 276, 24 S.W. 121, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 54, 42 Am. St. Rep. 919 (1893); Barnes v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354, 47 S.W. 498, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1898); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911); Huffine v. McCampbell, 149 Tenn. 47, 257 S.W. 80, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1923); Gibson County Bank v. Shatz, 12 Tenn. App. 281, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (1930); Stout v. Fuqua, 20 Tenn. App. 608, 103 S.W.2d 28, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

Where defendants object to the specific performance of a parol contract upon the ground that it would be hard or unreasonable, specific performance will be refused, though the defendants have not relied on the statute. Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871); Starnes v. Newsom, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 239 (1873).

Seven years' adverse possession of land does not take away the right to plead the statute of frauds in defense to a suit for specific performance of a parol gift or sale. Gaylor v. Gaylor, 1 Tenn. App. 645, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

If the statute is to be relied upon as a defense it must be specially pleaded. Love & Amos Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 53 Tenn. App. 37, 378 S.W.2d 430, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S. Ct. 1137, 12 L. Ed. 2d 85, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2314 (1964).

The statute must be specially pleaded as a defense to a suit upon a promise, agreement, or contract required by the statute to be in writing, where the same is in parol, in order to avoid the contract and defeat the suit. King v. John A. Denies Sons Co., 56 Tenn. App. 39, 404 S.W.2d 580, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

8. — —Special Pleading Not Required.

The statute of frauds is not required to be specially pleaded to a bill seeking specific performance, where the defendant denies that the terms of the contract are correctly stated, and files a cross bill insisting upon the invalidity of the contract, and seeking to recover the purchase money paid, and the value of improvements made. Graham v. Weaver, 97 Tenn. 485, 37 S.W. 221, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1896).

A special plea of the statute is not necessary, where the defendant repudiates the parol contract by filing a cross bill to recover the purchase money paid, and the value of improvements made. Graham v. Weaver, 97 Tenn. 485, 37 S.W. 221, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1896).

9. — —Time for Special Plea.

It is not an abuse of discretion for a chancellor to allow the defendants to file a plea of the statute of frauds after the plaintiff has testified. Boutwell v. Lewis Bros. Lumber Co., 27 Tenn. App. 460, 182 S.W.2d 1, 1944 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1944).

10. — —Demurrer.

Where the bill shows upon its face that the contract sued on is in parol, when it is required by the statute of frauds to be in writing, the objection may be made by demurrer. Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875).

Defense that parol agreement was unenforceable by reason of statute of frauds was properly made by demurrer where bill showed that the agreement rested only in parol. Frierson v. Gant, 23 Tenn. App. 428, 134 S.W.2d 193, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Question of statute of frauds can be raised by demurrer if bill sets out agreement along with paper writings relied upon by petitioner to prove a valid contract. Yates v. Skaggs, 187 Tenn. 149, 213 S.W.2d 41, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (1948).

11. — —Failure to Plead Statute.

Where there is no plea of the statute of frauds a parol sale of real property is valid. Bates v. Dennis, 30 Tenn. App. 94, 203 S.W.2d 928, 1946 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (1946).

12. — —Waiver.

The statute of frauds is waived if not raised as a defense in the pleadings. Mostoller v. Aspen Marine Group (In re Dorrough, Parks & Co.), 173 B.R. 135, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1646 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1994), aff'd, 185 B.R. 46, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8207 (E.D. Tenn. 1995).

13. — —Oral Release.

In suit on guaranty an oral release from guaranty could not be pleaded as a defense as it would violate the parol evidence rule. Brewing Corp. of Am. v. Pioneer Distrib. Co., 194 Tenn. 588, 253 S.W.2d 761, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 425 (1952), superseded by statute as stated in, TBC Corp. v. Wall, 955 S.W.2d 838, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

14. —Estoppel.

The want of a writing where the statute requires a writing is obviated by a statement of the contract or undertaking in an answer in chancery, in which the party, in effect, insisted that the same was valid and binding on him; and such party is thereby estopped from subsequently relying upon the statute to avoid the contract, even in another and subsequent suit. Mills v. Mills, 40 Tenn. 705, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 207 (1859).

A deed purporting to be inter partes, conveying land, and imposing an obligation upon the grantee, or making a reservation, if accepted by the grantee, is the deed of both parties, though executed by the grantor only. Caraway v. Caraway, 47 Tenn. 245, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1869); Swope v. Jordan, 107 Tenn. 166, 64 S.W. 52, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1901).

While in many jurisdictions an executed contract takes the case from under the statute of frauds, that does not seem to be the rule in Tennessee, where the statute is enforced according to its letter with reference to real estate. The courts have, however, upon numerous occasions avoided the letter of the statute by the enforcement in cases of this character of the equitable estoppel rule. Daugherty v. Toomey, 189 Tenn. 54, 222 S.W.2d 197, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 398, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1949).

A partly executed parol agreement for the erection and maintenance of a party wall may be enforced upon the theory of equitable estoppel. Daugherty v. Toomey, 189 Tenn. 54, 222 S.W.2d 197, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 398 (1949).

The doctrine of estoppel may only be urged to protect a right and never to create one. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

Where plaintiff did not seek to protect its rights to mine coal under coal mining lease or to recover damages in lieu thereof but sought to create the right to recover damages for loss of profits that plaintiff may have realized from such operation, plaintiff sought to create a right by the doctrine of estoppel and was not entitled to assert such doctrine to preclude defendant from pleading the statute of frauds. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

Where throughout a period spanning a number of years, plaintiff was led to believe that oral employment contract he made with defendant corporation would be honored, and in reliance thereon, plaintiff proceeded to perform his part of the bargain, and in doing so, he so altered his position as to suffer an unconscionable loss if the corporation was allowed to rely upon the statute of frauds, doctrine of partial performance of a verbal employment contract was applicable, and defendant would not be heard to invoke the statute of frauds to prevent enforcement of the oral employment contract. Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 659, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 639 (Tenn. 1983), superseded by statute as stated in, Wakefield v. Crawley, 6 S.W.3d 442, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. 1999), overruled in part, Athlon Sports Communs., Inc. v. Duggan, 549 S.W.3d 107, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. June 8, 2018).

Promissory estoppel is explained as follows: a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person, and which does induce such action or forbearance, is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Calabro v. Calabro, 15 S.W.3d 873, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

The limits of promissory estoppel are: (1) The detriment suffered in reliance must be substantial in an economic sense; (2) The substantial loss to the promisee in acting in reliance must have been foreseeable by the promisor; and (3) The promisee must have acted reasonable in justifiable reliance on the promise as made. Calabro v. Calabro, 15 S.W.3d 873, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Trial court properly ruled that a neighbor was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of frauds because the neighbor never denied that the parties had an oral agreement for construction of a private road across their properties and, at all times, acted as if he intended to fulfill his obligations; the neighbor even requested and obtained modifications to the original agreement, which impacted the scope of the owner's performance. Key v. Renner, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

15. —Parties.

Application of the statute is not prevented by the mere existence between the parties of relation of husband and wife, upon the theory of agency, in the absence of proof of agency. Henderson v. Henderson, 159 Tenn. 126, 17 S.W.2d 15, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1929).

A stranger, even a creditor, cannot plead the statute of frauds. McDonald v. Stone, 45 Tenn. App. 172, 321 S.W.2d 845, 1958 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958).

The statute of frauds is a defense personal to the party sought to be charged, and is not a defense available to a third party. In re Gatlinburg Motel Enterprises, Ltd., 119 B.R. 955, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1998 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990).

Buyer was sufficiently identified for purposes of satisfying the statute of frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101, especially in light of the owner's admission the corporation did business as the truck stop; the trial court's concluding the “buyer” was the corporate entity and that the owner personally guaranteed this corporate debt prevented the unconditional guaranty from being an exercise in futility. Kelso Oil Co. v. E. W. Truck Stop, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 655, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), appeal denied, Kelso Oil Co. v. E. W. Truck Stop, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Mar. 10, 2003).

16. Promise of Personal Representative.

If a person promise or contract in his own name by note, or other written instrument or obligation, he is personally bound though the promise, contract, or covenant be made in a representative capacity as administrator or executor, and though it be specifically stated in what representative capacity or for whom or what estate he is acting, because such superadded words of designation are simply descriptive of the person. Admin'rs v. Carroll, 9 Tenn. 144, 9 Tenn. 145, 1829 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1829); Jordan v. Trice, 14 Tenn. 479, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1834); Sypert v. Sawyer, 26 Tenn. 413, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1846); McWhirter v. Jackson, 29 Tenn. 209, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1849); Kain v. Humes, 37 Tenn. 610, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1858); Carter v. Wolfe, 48 Tenn. 694, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1870); Patterson v. Craig, 60 Tenn. 291, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 492 (1872); Conn v. Scruggs, 64 Tenn. 567, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1875); Wyatt v. Davidson, 1 Shan. 613 (1876); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879); Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S.W. 804, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1890); Tradesmen's Nat'l Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 42 S.W. 149, 38 L.R.A. 837, 63 Am. St. R. 830, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1897).

In order to prevent personal liability, one acting in a representative capacity must define and express on the face of the writing the extent and nature of the covenant or obligation, and must clearly limit the undertaking so as to show that there is no intention to be bound personally. Jordan v. Trice, 14 Tenn. 479, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1834); Patterson v. Craig, 60 Tenn. 291, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 492 (1872); Wyatt v. Davidson, 1 Shan. 613 (1876); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879).

Vendor was entitled to summary judgment as to the personal liability of a president on a company's account because the commercial credit application contained explicit language sufficient to bind the president as an individual guarantor of the contract; the language in the application was unambiguous, and the president both signed in a representative capacity and personally guaranteed the contract. 84 Lumber Co. v. Smith, 356 S.W.3d 380, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1142 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2011).

Executor-administrator clause of the Tennessee Statute of Frauds was not applicable to bar a claim by the decedent's parents that the parents wire-transferred funds to the decedent's account before the decedent's death as a loan to pay off the mortgage on the decedent's home to prevent a foreclosure of the home because there was no special promise on the part of the executor of the decedents'  estate to undertake the disputed debt and there was no proof that the estate was insolvent. In re Estate of Reed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2016).

17. —Sufficiency of Promise.

The endorsement on an account against the intestate in these words: “The within account is accepted, and will be paid when means sufficient come to my hands,” dated and signed by a personal representative, is a valid special promise sufficient to charge him personally with the payment of the debt, upon its being shown that assets sufficient for the discharge thereof subsequently came to his hands; and the sufficiency of such undertaking is not to be tested by the prerequisites and requirements to prevent the bar of the statutes of limitations in favor of the estates of decedents. McWhirter v. Jackson, 29 Tenn. 209, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1849); Wyatt v. Luton, 57 Tenn. 458, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 237 (1873).

18. —Consideration for Promise.

Some consideration, such as the reception of assets of the estate, the creditor's forbearance to sue, or some personal consideration, or the like, is necessary to support the promise of a personal representative to bind himself personally to pay the debt of the decedent. Bedford v. Ingram, 6 Tenn. 155, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1818); Wyatt v. Luton, 57 Tenn. 458, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 237 (1873); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879); Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S.W. 804, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1890).

The promise of an executor or administrator to pay his decedent's debt does not become an original undertaking not within the statute of frauds merely because the estate is discharged from the claim but where the creditor's release of his remedy constitutes and is given as a new consideration for the promise it will be deemed an original undertaking not within the statute. Hooper v. Neubert, 53 Tenn. App. 233, 381 S.W.2d 569, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

Creditor's loss of right to make claim for failure to file within period provided by § 30-513 (now § 30-2-310) because of reliance on promise of administratrix to pay claim out of her own estate or personal benefit gained by administratrix as widow of decedent and beneficiary of estate would constitute consideration to sustain agreement as novation and make it binding on both parties. Hooper v. Neubert, 53 Tenn. App. 233, 381 S.W.2d 569, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

19. — —Presumed Consideration.

Where administrator endorses on decedent's note his promise to pay, it will be presumed that some assets came to the hands of the administrator, as a sufficient consideration to support his promise. Wyatt v. Luton, 57 Tenn. 458, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 237 (1873); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879); Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S.W. 804, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1890).

20. — —Rebuttal of Presumption.

The presumption of the reception of some assets of the estate as a sufficient consideration to support the administrator's promise personally to pay the debt of the decedent may, as between the original parties, be rebutted by the representative, and he may show a total or partial deficiency which will exonerate him from liability entirely or pro tanto, as the case may be, unless there was some other consideration moving to him personally. Wyatt v. Luton, 57 Tenn. 458, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 237 (1873); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879); Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S.W. 804, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1890).

The rebuttal of the presumption of the reception of assets, as a sufficient consideration for the personal representative's promise and undertaking to bind himself personally to pay the debt of the decedent, shifts the burden to the payee to show other sufficient consideration for the promise and undertaking. Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S.W. 804, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1890).

21. —Acknowledgment of Debt.

The mere acknowledgment by the executor or administrator of a debt due from the decedent does not render him personally liable for the debt. Bedford v. Ingram, 6 Tenn. 155, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1818).

22. —Personal Judgment.

If, upon sufficient consideration, such as having assets, and forbearance and the like, a personal representative promises payment or admits the debt, from whence a promise is inferred, the action must be against him personally, if a judgment against him, to be satisfied out of his own property, is desired. Bedford v. Ingram, 6 Tenn. 155, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1818).

23. —Liability of Sureties.

The administrator's note given in renewal of the note of the decedent, which binds him personally, is in accord and satisfaction of the old note, and the sureties on his bond are to that extent released; and, if a distributee pays the debt, he can only be subrogated to the rights of the creditor, and cannot hold the sureties liable for the same. Admin'rs v. Carroll, 9 Tenn. 144, 9 Tenn. 145, 1829 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1829); Carter v. Wolfe, 48 Tenn. 694, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1870); Wyatt v. Davidson, 1 Shan. 613 (1876).

24. Promise to Answer for Debt of Another.

There can be no doubt that subdivision (2) of this section applies to an alleged contract of guaranty. In re Estate of Dickerson, 600 S.W.2d 714, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. 1980).

An oral agreement between the buyer of an interest in an auto dealership and the manufacturer's credit company fell within the statute of frauds but that did not preclude the buyer from filing an action to recover moneys paid pursuant to the agreement based upon an implied assumpsit. Steelman v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 911 S.W.2d 720, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

25. —Rule Stated.

Suit against defendant based on promise not in writing of defendant to pay account for merchandise sold and delivered to others was barred by statute of frauds. Erwin v. Waggoman, 3 Tenn. 401, 1 Cooke 401, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1813).

The parol promise by the maker of a trust assignment for the benefit of creditors to indemnify a person, who, at his request, becomes a surety for the trustee on his bond, given for the faithful performance of his duties, is, it seems, within the statute. Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875).

A bill clearly discloses that the promise was verbal, where it alleges that the promisor “said” so and so, and is demurrable. Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875).

26. —Promises Not Within Statute.

Promise of employer to pay any judgment obtained by employer against fellow employee if insurance company did not pay same based on employee's forbearance from suing employer was not a promise to answer for the debt or default of another but was a direct obligation of the employer and was not within the statute of frauds. Williams v. McElhaney, 203 Tenn. 602, 315 S.W.2d 106, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1958).

Where sellers promised that if stock purchasers took stock on behalf of a third party who was not present sellers would refund money paid if third party did not want stock, such promise was a primary direct obligation of the sellers and not a promise to answer for an obligation of the third party. Hull v. Evans, 59 Tenn. App. 193, 439 S.W.2d 110, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

An oral agreement among or between cosureties or coguarantors whereby the parties agree to an apportionment of liability as between or among themselves does not fall within the statute of frauds. Squibb v. Smith, 948 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. July 30, 1997).

27. — —New Consideration.

Where a chattel, jointly owned by two persons, is levied upon for the debt of one of them, and the other, in whose possession the chattel is, agrees verbally, in consideration of the release of the levy, to pay the plaintiffs in the execution a certain sum, at a given date, the promise is binding. Randle v. Harris, 14 Tenn. 508, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1834).

A verbal promise to pay the debt of another is binding when a benefit results to both, the promisor and debtor, or to him alone who makes it, or when it works an injury to him to whom it is made. Randle v. Harris, 14 Tenn. 508, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1834).

Where the payee of a note sells and assigns it for a valuable consideration, and, in addition to the written and indorsed assignment thereof, verbally guarantees the payment of the note to the indorsee, this guaranty is not a collateral undertaking, but is a direct promise supported by a valuable consideration, and, therefore, not within the statute, and may be proved by parol. Hall v. Rodgers, 26 Tenn. 536, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1847); McCallum v. Jobe, 68 Tenn. 168, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1877); Rivers v. Thomas, 69 Tenn. 649, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 150, 27 Am. Rep. 784 (1878); Taylor v. French, 70 Tenn. 257, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1879); Morrison Lumber Co. v. Lookout Mt. Hotel Co., 92 Tenn. 6, 20 S.W. 292, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1892); Bank of Jamaica v. Jefferson, 92 Tenn. 537, 22 S.W. 211, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 10, 36 Am. St. Rep. 100 (1893); Commercial Bank v. Layne, 101 Tenn. 45, 46 S.W. 762, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1898).

If the consideration gives to the promisor a benefit or advantage that he did not possess before, and would not have possessed but for the promise, then it will be regarded as an original promise, and will, therefore, be enforced, although not in writing. S. O. Nelson & Co. v. Richardson, 36 Tenn. 307, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1857).

Where the promise arises out of a new and original consideration of benefit or harm moving between the newly contracting parties, such promise is not within the statute of frauds, and need not be in writing. Mills v. Mills, 40 Tenn. 705, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 207 (1859); Murphy v. Renkert, 59 Tenn. 397, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1873); Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875); Lookout M. R. Co. v. Houston, 85 Tenn. 224, 2 S.W. 36, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1886); Christian v. John, 111 Tenn. 92, 76 S.W. 906, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1903).

A verbal promise to pay the debt of another, as a new and original undertaking, based upon a valid consideration passing at the time, does not fall within the statute. Lookout M. R. Co. v. Houston, 85 Tenn. 224, 2 S.W. 36, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1886).

Where the promise of a garnishee to pay the plaintiff in the garnishment a stated sum to be applied on the judgment, if the plaintiff would continue the case to an agreed date, was direct and clear as between the parties, the statute of frauds as to answering for the debt of another did not apply. Townsend v. Neuhardt, 139 Tenn. 695, 203 S.W. 255, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1918).

Promise by owner of 50 percent of stock in corporation to sell 300 shares of stock of corporation to plaintiff was not a promise to answer for debt of another to wit, the corporation, but was a promise directly by the owner to the plaintiff. Buice v. Scruggs Equip. Co., 194 Tenn. 129, 250 S.W.2d 44, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 359 (1952).

28. — —Promise to Pay Promisor's Debt.

The verbal promise of a debtor to pay to the assignee a debt which has been assigned to him is valid, for it is a promise of the debtor to pay his own debt. Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. v. Shubert, 39 Tenn. 116, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 260 (1858).

The acceptance of an order by the drawee who owes, or has funds belonging to, the drawer, is not within the statute. The promise of the drawee is to pay his own debt. Montague v. Myers, 58 Tenn. 539, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 297 (1872).

Where one person owing another, by agreement as between himself and his creditor, assumes to pay his such indebtedness to a third party in satisfaction of his creditor's debt to such third party, or assumes to pay such debt for his creditor, the promise is not to answer for the debt of another; and such third party as the beneficiary of such contract, though not a party to it, may maintain an action, in equity or at law, directly in his own name, against the promisor. Moore v. Stovall, 70 Tenn. 543, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1879); Dinsmore v. Boyd, 74 Tenn. 689, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (1881); O'Conner v. O'Conner, 88 Tenn. 76, 12 S.W. 447, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 35, 7 L.R.A. 33 (1889); Christian v. John, 111 Tenn. 92, 76 S.W. 906, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1903); Ruohs v. Traders Fire Ins. Co., 111 Tenn. 405, 78 S.W. 85, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 36, 102 Am. St. Rep. 790 (1903).

Agreement to release defendant from debt and accept brother is not required to be in writing, since novation is a contract substituting a new obligation for an old one, and is not a promise by new debtor to answer for another's debt, but a promise to pay his own debt. Blaylock v. Stephens, 36 Tenn. App. 464, 258 S.W.2d 779, 1953 Tenn. App. LEXIS 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1953).

29. — —Assumption of Debt by Grantee.

The grantee's acceptance of a deed of conveyance of land operates as an estoppel to refuse to perform the stipulations therein made. Moore v. Stovall, 70 Tenn. 543, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1879).

The grantee's acceptance of a deed reciting that he assumes to pay a lien or encumbrance on the land, or that he is to pay the purchase money, or a certain part thereof, to a third son, makes him liable as for his own debt, and is not within the statute. Such grantee may be sued upon his such undertaking by the third party as the beneficiary thereof. Sanders v. Martin, 70 Tenn. 213, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 158, 31 Am. Rep. 598 (1879); Moore v. Stovall, 70 Tenn. 543, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1879); Thompson v. Thompson, 71 Tenn. 126, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1879); Blackmore v. Parkes, 81 F. 899, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1912 (6th Cir. 1897); Rosenplanter v. Toof, 99 Tenn. 92, 41 S.W. 336, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1897); Christian v. John, 111 Tenn. 92, 76 S.W. 906, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1903); Ruohs v. Traders Fire Ins. Co., 111 Tenn. 405, 78 S.W. 85, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 36, 102 Am. St. Rep. 790 (1903).

Where a grantee of mortgaged premises assumes the mortgage debt, he renders himself personally liable for the debt, not only to his grantor, but also to the mortgagee, though the grantor was not personally liable for the debt which his grantee assumed. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Bushnell, 143 Tenn. 681, 228 S.W. 699, 1920 Tenn. LEXIS 52, 12 A.L.R. 1512 (1921).

30. — —Credit Transactions.

If the person to whom the goods were furnished is liable at all to the seller, as where the goods were charged to both the purchaser and a third party, the promise of the third party to pay for the same must be in writing to bind him. Matthews v. Milton, 12 Tenn. 575, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1833).

Where a son procured goods from a merchant, directing them to be charged to his father, which was done, and upon notice of the fact, the father stated that he would pay for them, the father will be held without a promise in writing. The credit was not given to the son, but to the father. The son assumed to act as agent for his father. Booker & Clarkson v. Tally, 21 Tenn. 308, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1841).

Where the credit is given in the first instance to the party receiving the goods, any promise by a third person to pay for those goods must, in order to bind him, be in writing; but where the credit was not given in the first instance to the receiver of the goods, but to the third person without authority, upon the false representations of the party receiving the goods, and no credit was given to the receiver of the goods, and such third person afterwards ratified the act, though only verbally, he will be liable. Booker & Clarkson v. Tally, 21 Tenn. 308, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1841); Scott v. Johnson, 52 Tenn. 614, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1871); Murphy v. Renkert, 59 Tenn. 397, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1873).

The fact that the goods were charged to the party who received them, and not to the promisor, as well as the fact that a sworn account therefor was made out and rendered to the party who received the goods, unexplained, would irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the credit was given primarily, if not solely, to him, and that it was only intended to look to the promisor in the event the other failed, if at all; but these facts are not conclusive, and may be satisfactorily explained, and made consistent with the assumption of the promisor's primary liability. Hazen v. Bearden, 36 Tenn. 48, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1856); Murphy v. Renkert, 59 Tenn. 397, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1873).

A verbal direction to sell and deliver goods to another, with a promise to pay for them, creates a valid primary liability, and such undertaking is not within the statute, when the credit was given entirely to such promisor. Hazen v. Bearden, 36 Tenn. 48, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1856); Murphy v. Renkert, 59 Tenn. 397, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1873).

Where a person, upon entering the service of a merchant as a clerk, agrees to be liable for all goods sold by him on a credit without his employer's consent, the agreement is not within the statute. Guggenheim v. Rosenfeld, 68 Tenn. 533, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1877).

The oral promise of one who held a mortgage on boring tools that had been lost in an oil well made to an expert to induce the latter to recover, to the effect that if the mortgagor did not pay for the work, he would do so, upon faith in which credit was extended to the mortgagee, the expert may recover the consideration incurred direct of such promisor. Johnson v. Lane, 164 Tenn. 234, 47 S.W.2d 554, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1932).

Where defendant brought third persons into plaintiff's store, asked plaintiff to give them credit and agreed to stand good for the purchases, such oral promise was within the statute of frauds and defendant could not be held liable. Yarbrough v. Viar, 39 Tenn. App. 240, 282 S.W.2d 367, 1954 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1954).

31. — —Miscellaneous.

Where a bill of exchange is drawn by a principal and surety, and is accepted and paid by the drawee out of his own funds, there is an implied promise on the part of the surety drawer as well as the principal drawer to reimburse the drawee for the amount of the bill so paid by him, and such implied promise of the surety is not affected by the statute of frauds, and it will be enforced, although not in writing. S. O. Nelson & Co. v. Richardson, 36 Tenn. 307, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1857).

The verbal promise of the heir to pay the debt of the ancestor, in consideration of lands descended and forbearance to sue, where there were no personal assets, is not within the statute, and binds him to the extent he was or might have been made liable as heir. Anderson v. Anderson, 2 Shan. 437 (1877).

Oral promise by a person having funds of benefited party in his hands is binding, and the promisor cannot resist payment upon the ground that he subsequently lost the property. Crews v. Gould, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 620 (1915).

An agreement by a bank official, bonded by defendant surety company, by which such official agreed, on behalf of plaintiff bank, to take up paper wrongfully sold to other banks, is not void under statute of frauds as against innocent purchaser banks. Globe Indem. Co. v. Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co., 27 F.2d 496, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3418 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1928).

A promise made by a surety, to induce another to become his cosurety, to indemnify and repay him for loss, is not a promise to answer for the debt or default of another. Calloway v. O'Neil, 158 Tenn. 7, 12 S.W.2d 364, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1928); Gibson County Bank v. Shatz, 12 Tenn. App. 281, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (1930).

Where all parties involved intended to convey all of enterprise located on two tracts of land but one of the defendants created false warranty deed causing false trust deed to be created conveying only one tract of land while inducing grantees and lender to believe that papers conveyed all of enterprise, statute of frauds was inapplicable. Southern States Dev. Co. v. Robinson, 494 S.W.2d 777, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

32. —Written Promise.

The written promise need not state the consideration, or that there was any consideration for the promise, but the consideration may be proved aliunde or by parol evidence. Taylor & Williams v. Ross, 11 Tenn. 330, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1832); Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844); State v. Humphreys, 29 Tenn. 442, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1850).

A guaranty upon its face addressed to one person cannot be given in evidence in an action brought by two persons jointly against the guarantor, and parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, vary, or explain it, and it cannot be proved by parol that two were meant. Allison v. Rutledge, 13 Tenn. 193, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 133 (1833).

Where a guaranty upon its face is addressed to a certain individual who, it otherwise and aliunde appeared, was a member of a firm of real estate agents, guaranteeing a certain payment, if the addressee would rent to a certain person the plantation of a certain other person on certain specified terms, the guarantor is liable on the guaranty, whether the renting was done by the individual member or by his firm as the agents of the owner, because this was an immaterial matter. Anderson v. May, 57 Tenn. 84, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1872).

A promise by a third party in a letter to “arrange” a judgment debt, if the creditor will give the debtor or promisor the requested time, which is done, satisfies the statute, and binds the promisor to pay the debt. Abel v. Wilder, 77 Tenn. 453, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1882).

In a commercial lease case, a corporate president was not a guarantor of a tenant's obligations because there was no clear intent to bind the president personally; the tenant was identified as the corporation, there was no place for the president to sign as the guarantor, and the president signed in an explicit representative capacity. The only express reference to the president as a “co-tenant” appeared two pages before the signature page. Creekside Partners v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2013).

33. — —Necessity of Consideration.

The written promise must be supported by a consideration to make it obligatory. Taylor & Williams v. Ross, 11 Tenn. 330, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1832); Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844).

The prior consideration for the original obligation will not support the new promise; but it is necessary that there should be a new consideration between the new parties. Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844).

The consideration may be either some benefit or advantage to the promisor, or some detriment or loss connected with or arising out of the agreement itself to the promisee, such as a forbearance with the original debtor, or the acquittance and release of the debt to him. Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844); S. O. Nelson & Co. v. Richardson, 36 Tenn. 307, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1857).

34. — —Sufficiency of Consideration.

A promise is binding when a benefit results to both, or is a benefit to him who makes it, or works an injury to him to whom it is made. The extent of the benefit is not to be considered in settling the question whether the promise is binding or not. Randle v. Harris, 14 Tenn. 508, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1834); Macon v. Sheppard, 21 Tenn. 335, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1841); Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844).

To constitute sufficient consideration, it is not necessary that the benefit conferred or the detriment suffered by the promisee shall be equal to the responsibility assumed, for any consideration, however small, will support a promise; and, in the absence of fraud, the courts will not undertake to regulate the amount of the consideration. Danheiser v. Germania Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 137 Tenn. 650, 194 S.W. 1094, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1917); Townsend v. Neuhardt, 139 Tenn. 695, 203 S.W. 255, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1918).

Landlord was entitled to recover damages from a guarantor who signed an agreement guaranteeing performance of a lease to the extent of the guarantor's interest in the lessee when the lessee defaulted because the lease was between the lessee, a limited liability company of which the guarantor was a member, and the landlord for the operation of a restaurant. The landlord relied on the guarantor's signed promise to guarantee a percentage of the payment of rent, and the lessee received the benefit of the leased premises for several months. 500 Block, LLC v. Bosch, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018), appeal denied, 500 Block, LLC v. Bosch, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Aug. 10, 2018).

35. — —Forbearance.

A creditor's forbearance to sue, or extension of time on the debt, under an agreement to that effect, is a sufficient consideration to support the promise in writing of a third person to pay the debt, although the debt was not due when the promise was made. Randle v. Harris, 14 Tenn. 508, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1834); Tappan v. Campbell, 17 Tenn. 436, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1836); Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844); Cathcart v. Thomas, 67 Tenn. 172, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 347 (1874); Rivers v. Thomas, 69 Tenn. 649, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 150, 27 Am. Rep. 784 (1878); Abel v. Wilder, 77 Tenn. 453, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1882); Morrison Lumber Co. v. Lookout Mt. Hotel Co., 92 Tenn. 6, 20 S.W. 292, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1892).

The release of a son from all damages for personal injuries, or a release of an action for a personal injury against his son, is a sufficient consideration to support the father's promise to pay a certain sum of money to the person injured. McCormick v. Oliver, 15 Tenn. 23, 15 Tenn. 24, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1834).

A creditor's agreement to forbear suit, for an indefinite time, which means a reasonable time, and his actual forbearance for a reasonable time in pursuance of the agreement, constitutes a sufficient consideration to support the promise. Tappan v. Campbell, 17 Tenn. 436, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1836); Cathcart v. Thomas, 67 Tenn. 172, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 347 (1874); Rivers v. Thomas, 69 Tenn. 649, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 150, 27 Am. Rep. 784 (1878); Abel v. Wilder, 77 Tenn. 453, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1882).

If any loss or detriment to the creditor in fact followed on account of his forbearance, without his having made any agreement to forbear, this would not be such a loss or detriment as would amount to a consideration. Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844).

In declaring on a promise made by a third person to pay the debt of another in consideration of the creditor's agreement to “wait awhile,” or to forbear suit for an indefinite time, the plaintiff must allege and prove the actual time of forbearance; and if this be adjudged by the court to be reasonable, the action will be sustained. Cathcart v. Thomas, 67 Tenn. 172, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 347 (1874).

Any forbearance of a right by the party to whom the promise is made, will, in general be sufficient to support any promise which may be voluntarily assumed in consideration thereof. Spitz v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 76 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1881).

36. Antenuptial Agreements.

A parol antenuptial agreement made in consideration of marriage is void. Therefore, where the intended husband verbally promised to settle the property of the intended wife upon her after the marriage, the agreement is within the statute, and cannot be enforced by court of chancery, although such promise is clearly proved to have been made with the fraudulent intention of not complying with it, and thus to acquire her property. Hackney v. Hackney, 27 Tenn. 452, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1847).

Where the antenuptial marriage settlement is made in consideration of marriage by and between parties then under age, and the marriage is consummated while under age, the settlement is voidable, but capable of affirmance or disaffirmance. Lancaster v. Lancaster, 81 Tenn. 126, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1884).

After the engagement to marry has been entered into, the woman has thereby acquired a valuable right, which, in case of a breach of contract, can be enforced and measured in reference to the intended husband's estate; and an agreement entered into then cannot be, upon her part, for the consideration of marriage alone, and must be supported by some other consideration. In such case, the relations of the parties are confidential, and the wife will be relieved of her contract if she has acted in ignorance of her pecuniary rights, superinduced by the husband, although there may have been no intentional fraud. Spurlock v. Brown, 91 Tenn. 241, 18 S.W. 868, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1891).

37. Land Contracts.

Trial court did not err in refusing to award specific performance on a contract for sale of land where the sellers owned the lot as tenants by entirety, the contract was not signed by the wife or the auctioneer as her agent, and the auctioneer announced at the auction that the property was offered with reserve, and that bids were subject to confirmation by the sellers. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a contingent beneficiary's siblings because neither the Statute of Frauds nor the Dead Man's Act barred consideration of an affidavit regarding the transfer of a farm to the beneficiary and his then-wife and the affidavit contained admissible evidence that created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the transfer was, or was not, an advancement of trust assets to the beneficiary. In re Estate of Taylor, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 691 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2013).

38. —Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments.

The terms “lands, tenements, and hereditaments” include land warrants, entries, preemption and occupancy rights, leaseholds, and all equitable estates, and all rights to and interests in land, as well as land and real estate as defined at common law and the legal title therein. Dunlap v. Gibbs, 12 Tenn. 93, 12 Tenn. 94, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1833); Neal v. President & Trustees of E. Tenn. College, 14 Tenn. 189, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Mar. 1834).

A mortgage or deed of trust in its legal aspect is a conveyance of an estate or interest in land and as such is within the meaning of the statute of frauds. Lambert v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 481 S.W.2d 770, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (Tenn. 1972).

39. — —Realty.

The sale of an equitable interest in land, as where the vendor holds the land under a title bond, must be in writing. Newnan v. Carroll, 11 Tenn. 17, 11 Tenn. 18, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1832); Dunlap v. Gibbs, 12 Tenn. 93, 12 Tenn. 94, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1833).

The conveyance of poles, wires, and the like, erected in a street are realty and governed by the statute. Holston River Electric Co. v. Hydro Electric Corp., 12 Tenn. App. 556, — S.W.2d —, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1930).

40. — —Hereditaments.

The right of permanently overflowing the land of another is an incorporeal hereditament, and must be in writing. Harris v. Miller, 19 Tenn. 158, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1838); Large v. Dennis, 37 Tenn. 595, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1858); Bloomstein v. Clees Bros., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 433 (1877).

A right-of-way over the land of another is an easement in the land, and is an incorporeal hereditament, and a contract creating such right, as well as a conveyance or transfer thereof, must be in writing. Ferrell v. Ferrell, 60 Tenn. 329, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 502 (1872); Bloomstein v. Clees Bros., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 433 (1877); Nunnelly v. Southern Iron Co., 94 Tenn. 397, 29 S.W. 361, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 54, 28 L.R.A. 421 (1894); Long v. Mayberry, 96 Tenn. 378, 36 S.W. 1040, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1896); Mattix v. Swepston, 127 Tenn. 693, 155 S.W. 928, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1913).

41. — —Standing Trees.

A contract for the sale of timber at so much per cord, to be paid for as fast as used, is a contract of sale of personalty, and so is a contract for the delivery of timber by the vendor at a certain mill, already cut, and need not be in writing; but the property in the timber does not pass until it shall be used or received by the purchaser. N. Y. & E. T. Iron Co. v. Greene County Iron Co., 58 Tenn. 434, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (1872); Dorris v. King, 54 S.W. 683, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 131 (1899).

A contract of sale of so many cords of wood now standing in the tree at so much per cord must be in writing, with a sufficient description of the land. Knox v. Haralson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 232 (1875); Childers v. Wm. H. Coleman Co., 122 Tenn. 109, 118 S.W. 1018, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1909).

Standing trees are a part of the land, and a contract to sell or convey them, or any interest in or concerning them, must be evidenced by a writing; and the assignment and the extension of the time limit for the removal thereof operate to transfer an interest in land. Childers v. Wm. H. Coleman Co., 122 Tenn. 109, 118 S.W. 1018, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1909).

A sale of standing timber is a sale of an interest in land, and hence a deed therefor is controlled by the rules governing deeds for realty, and the title thereto can be conveyed or transferred only by a written instrument complying with the statute of frauds. New River Lumber Co. v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co., 146 Tenn. 181, 240 S.W. 763, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1922).

42. — —Growing Crops.

Growing crops, if fructus industriales (products of annual planting obtained by labor and cultivation, as distinguished from the products of perennials and the products produced by the powers of nature alone), such as growing crop of wheat, are chattels, and an agreement for the sale of them, whether mature of not, whether the property in them is transferred before or after severance, is not an agreement for the sale of land under the statute. Carson v. Browder, 70 Tenn. 701, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1879); Edwards v. Thompson, 85 Tenn. 720, 4 S.W. 913, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 15, 4 Am. St. Rep. 807 (1887); Vaughn v. Vaughn, 88 Tenn. 742, 13 S.W. 1089, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1890); Dysart v. Hamilton, 11 Tenn. App. 43, — S.W.2d —, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1929).

43. — —Boundary Agreements.

Where the owner under an older valid grant verbally agreed with the owner under younger grant that he would not disturb the same, and they then verbally agreed upon and marked lines beyond which the claimant under the older grant was not to go, such agreement involved a promise to surrender so much of his grant as was covered by the special entry, and such parol promise could not be noticed in an action of ejectment. Proffit v. Williams, 9 Tenn. 89, 1825 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1825).

An agreement fixing a doubtful and disputed boundary line between adjoining landowners is not within the statute. Such a line is called a convention line. Houston v. Matthews, 9 Tenn. 115, 9 Tenn. 116, 1826 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1826); Nichol v. Lytle, 12 Tenn. 456, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1833); Wilson v. Hudson, 16 Tenn. 398, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1835); Yarborough v. Abernathy, 19 Tenn. 413, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1838); Lewallen v. Overton, 28 Tenn. 76, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1848); Rogers v. White, 33 Tenn. 68, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1853); Merriwether v. Larmon, 35 Tenn. 447, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1856); Snoddy v. Kreutch, 40 Tenn. 301, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1859); King v. Mabry, 71 Tenn. 237, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1879); McColgan v. Langford, 74 Tenn. 108, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (1880); Galbraith v. Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89, 9 S.W. 365, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 39, 1 L.R.A. 522 (1888); Windborn v. Guinn, 7 Tenn. App. 60, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (1928).

The parol agreement fixing and locating the uncertain and disputed dividing line needs not the confirmation of acquiescence. Houston v. Matthews, 9 Tenn. 115, 9 Tenn. 116, 1826 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1826); Tilghman v. Baird, 34 Tenn. 196, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1854).

An agreement changing a certain, known, and well established boundary line between adjoining landowners is within the statute. Nichol v. Lytle, 12 Tenn. 456, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1833); Gilchrist v. McGee, 17 Tenn. 455, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1836); Horn v. Childress, 19 Tenn. 102, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1838); Yarborough v. Abernathy, 19 Tenn. 413, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1838); Lewallen v. Overton, 28 Tenn. 76, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1848).

Ignorance of the true line is essential to the validity of a parol agreement fixing and locating a line. Yarborough v. Abernathy, 19 Tenn. 413, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1838); Galbraith v. Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89, 9 S.W. 365, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 39, 1 L.R.A. 522 (1888).

Disputed boundary lines may be established by oral agreement as such agreements do not fall within the statute of frauds, and the parties will thereafter be estopped to question the line thus established even though it may afterwards be demonstrated that such line was erroneous. Webb v. Harris, 44 Tenn. App. 492, 315 S.W.2d 274, 1958 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958).

44. — —Mortgages.

A parol agreement to receive mortgaged land absolutely in discharge of the debt, at a fair valuation, will not be taken out of the statute by parol agreement to submit the question to arbitration and the written report and finding of the arbitrators fixing the value, in the shape of an award. Rice v. Rawlings, 19 Tenn. 496, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1838).

There can be no parol equitable lien or mortgage on real property. A valid lien or mortgage can only be created by an instrument as prescribed by statute. Gilliam v. Esselman, 37 Tenn. 86, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1857); Langley v. Vaughn, 57 Tenn. 553, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 259 (1873).

A mortgage by parol and deposit of title deeds is not valid in this state. Meador v. Meador, 50 Tenn. 562, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1871).

A mortgage or deed of trust is a conveyance of an estate or an interest in land and within the meaning of the statute of frauds. Beazley v. Turgeon, 772 S.W.2d 53, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Statute of frauds applied to a note, deed of trust, and loan modification agreement entered into by borrowers and a lender, and the statute of frauds prevented these documents from being modified by the oral statements of the lender's representatives regarding the amount that the borrowers needed to pay each month. Asemota v. Suntrust Mortg., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83744 (W.D. Tenn. June 18, 2012).

In this foreclosure case, an agreement involved a modification as to when certain payment obligations under a note were due, and thus it was required to be in writing and signed by the lender or creditor, or some other person lawfully authorized by such lender or creditor, under T.C.A. § 29-2-101(b)(1). Jones v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 464 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

In this foreclosure case involving a modification as to when certain payment obligations under a note were due, the exception in T.C.A. § 29-2-101(b)(2) did not apply, as the undisputed facts established that no writing existed pertaining to the claimed agreement. Jones v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 464 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

45. — —Agreement to Execute Deed.

A promise to make another the owner of a lien or charge upon land is equivalent to selling him such an interest and is within the statute of frauds. Lambert v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 481 S.W.2d 770, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (Tenn. 1972).

Agreement to execute and deliver a deed at some time in the future that would convey an interest in the property in question was not an expression of the debtor's present and actual intent to convey an interest in the property. Limor v. Daniel (In re Gee), 166 B.R. 314, 1993 Bankr. LEXIS 2142 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1993).

46. — —Contracts to Devise or Donate.

Where, for the purpose of procuring his wife to join with him in a deed conveying her land to a third person, by whom it was to be, and was in fact, reconveyed to them jointly, the husband promised his wife that he, if he survived her, would so provide that, upon his death, her land should go to certain of her heirs, that promise must be in writing. Campbell v. Taul, 11 Tenn. 548, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1832).

Every gift, by deed, will, or otherwise, is generally supposed, prima facie, to be beneficial to the donee; and the law presumes, until there is proof to the contrary, that every estate, whether in trust or in one's own right, limited or unlimited, is accepted by the person to whom it is expressed to be given. Goss v. Singleton, 39 Tenn. 67, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

A contract, resting in parol, to execute a will devising land is within the statute. Goodloe v. Goodloe, 116 Tenn. 252, 92 S.W. 767, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 703 (1906); Harris v. Morgan, 157 Tenn. 140, 7 S.W.2d 53, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1927).

A contemporaneous parol agreement made at the time of the execution and delivery of a conveyance of real estate absolute upon its face, that the vendee will hold the property conveyed in trust for a certain person, is not within the statute of frauds, and vests in the beneficiary of the trust a valid equitable title to the property conveyed, which a court of equality will enforce. Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Waller, 116 Tenn. 1, 95 S.W. 811, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1905); Pugh v. Burton, 25 Tenn. App. 614, 166 S.W.2d 624, 1942 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (1942).

The word “sale” means alienation and covers a parol contract to donate land. Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

Where petitioners executed deeds to defendants with oral agreement that thereafter defendants were to grant a life estate to plaintiffs in same property by a written conveyance the oral agreement to grant a life estate was not enforceable since it violated statute of frauds. Webb v. Shultz, 184 Tenn. 235, 198 S.W.2d 333, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1946).

47. — —Parol Gifts of Land.

An oral contract to devise real estate is within the statute, and an indivisible obligation is entirely unenforceable, if the grant of real estate forms a part thereof. Quirk v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co., 244 F. 682, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2045 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1917).

Despite subdivision (4) which requires transfers of real estate to be in writing signed by the transferor, a parol gift of land coupled with an entry by the donee and adverse possession by him for more than seven years will vest him with a possessory or defensive right to the land, under § 28-2-103. Choate v. Sewell, 142 Tenn. 487, 221 S.W. 190, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1919); Mercy v. Miller, 25 Tenn. App. 621, 166 S.W.2d 628, 1942 Tenn. App. LEXIS 25 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1942).

A parol gift of real estate is not void but only voidable and if accompanied by adverse possession the statute of limitations begins to run against the parol donor. McDonald v. Stone, 45 Tenn. App. 172, 321 S.W.2d 845, 1958 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958).

48. — —Litigation Promises.

Where, in consideration of the dismissal of a pending ejectment suit, the defendant therein promised to pay the plaintiff therein a certain price per acre for all the land included within certain specified limits and in controversy in the suit, the promise must be in writing. Carroway v. Anderson, 20 Tenn. 61, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1839).

49. — —Trustee Sales.

A sale of land made by a trustee, in pursuance of a power of sale under a trust deed, either at public auction or privately, must be in writing. Adams v. Scales, 60 Tenn. 337, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 503, 25 Am. Rep. 772, 25 Am. Rep. 772 (1872).

The sale of land by a trustee under the authority of a trust deed is within the statute of frauds. Fortner v. Wilkinson, 210 Tenn. 201, 357 S.W.2d 63, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (1962).

A foreclosure sale of debtor's property before debtor filed a bankruptcy petition was not final because the statute of frauds was not satisfied and consideration had not been exchanged prepetition. In re Johnson, 213 B.R. 134, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1509 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1997).

A foreclosure sale is not final in Tennessee until the statute of frauds is satisfied pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-2-101(a)(4) and consideration has been exchanged. In re Bland, 252 B.R. 133, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 930 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2000).

Where a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of a Chapter 13 debtor's home was orally cried out pre-petition, the home became property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), and the debtor had the ability to cure the prepetition home mortgage default because the state statute of frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101, was not complied with until the substitute trustee's deed was executed after the bankruptcy filing. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Love (In re Love), 353 B.R. 216, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3604 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2006).

Foreclosure sale was completed prepetition under Tennessee law, as consideration was exchanged, and statute of frauds was satisfied by preparation and execution of trustee's deed prior to commencement of debtor's case. Chapter 13 debtor's interest in her property was not reinstated even though her confirmed plan provided for maintenance payments and curing of arrearage, as plan did not specifically address foreclosure sale or reinstatement; further, fact that property was never property of estate precluded reinstatement by curing default in plan. In re Comer, — B.R. —, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 907 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Mar. 7, 2014).

50. — —Option to Buy Real Property.

An option to buy real property comes within the proscription of the statute of frauds. Griese-Traylor Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank, 572 F.2d 1039, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11277 (5th Cir. 1978).

Options to sell real property fall within the statute of frauds; accordingly, the statute of frauds makes options to sell real property unenforceable through suit unless they are evidenced by a signed memorandum or other writing. Anderson v. Hacks Crossing Partners, 3 S.W.3d 482, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

51. —Contracts Not Covered.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant assigned plaintiff a $30,000 note as collateral for a $30,000 loan, and defendant claimed that plaintiff bought the $30,000 note at a 10 percent discount, and gave defendant only $27,000; contract did not fall within the ambit of the statute of frauds as there was no proof that the parties agreed that the loan would absolutely not be repaid within one year. Rather, the proof was that the parties agreed that the home buyer would send payments directly to plaintiff in repayment for the loan, but that was not to say that defendant could not have paid the loan back in full at any time. Birdwell v. Psimer, 151 S.W.3d 916, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1057 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2004).

52. — —Agency.

In respect to sales of land, a distinction is made between a contract to sell and a contract of sale. The agent may be authorized to make the contract to sell without his authority being in writing; but he cannot be authorized to make a contract of sale, which must be by a deed of conveyance of the land, unless he is authorized to do so by a power of attorney in writing. Farris v. Martin, 29 Tenn. 495, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1850).

The authority of an agent to sell land and to execute a written contract of sale or to execute a bond binding the principal and owner to convey the land need not be in writing. Farris v. Martin, 29 Tenn. 495, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1850); Matherson v. Davis, 42 Tenn. 443, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1865); Gheen v. Osborne, 58 Tenn. 61, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (1872); Cobble v. Langford, 190 Tenn. 385, 230 S.W.2d 194, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (1950).

Written memorandum of sale of land signed by agent of defendant which described land, recited consideration for sale, and acknowledged receipt of $100 as down payment was sufficient to take case out of this section. Cobble v. Langford, 190 Tenn. 385, 230 S.W.2d 194, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (1950).

Although subsection (4) requires a contract for sale of land or a memorandum of it to be in writing, such provision does not require the authority of an agent to contract to sell land in the name of his principal to be in writing. Lowe v. Wright, 40 Tenn. App. 525, 292 S.W.2d 413, 1956 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956).

53. — —Partners.

A parol contract by which it was agreed that the first party should contract for the purchase of mineral lands subject to the approval of the second party, who was to furnish the money to pay for the lands, and take the title to himself as purchaser, to be resold, the first party to receive one-fourth of the profits realized from the speculation, was valid. Harben v. Congdon, 41 Tenn. 221, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1860).

Where a partnership acquires land solely for the purpose of speculation and it is not contemplated that there shall be any conveyances between the parties, equity regards it as personal property among the partners and an agreement of one partner to release his interest is not a contract for such an interest in lands as comes within the statute of frauds. Smith v. Guy, 24 Tenn. App. 352, 144 S.W.2d 702, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

54. — —Partition.

Partition of land held or owned by tenants in common may be made by parol, because partition is not a sale within the meaning of this statute. Farris v. Caperton, 38 Tenn. 606, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Meacham v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 532, 19 S.W. 757, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1892); McBroom v. Whitefield, 108 Tenn. 422, 67 S.W. 794, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1902).

55. — —Sheriffs' Sales.

The sale of land by the sheriff is not within the statute. Nichol v. Ridley, 13 Tenn. 62, 13 Tenn. 63, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1833); Harvey v. Adams, 77 Tenn. 289, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1882).

56. — —Trusts in Real Estate.

The seventh section of the statute of frauds is not in force in Tennessee, and a trust in real estate may rest upon a parol agreement. Hoffner v. Hoffner, 32 Tenn. App. 98, 221 S.W.2d 907, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (1949).

Where father and daughter transferred large farm to deceased in consideration that she assume and pay an existing mortgage and reconvey small portion of tract back to daughter as it was the home place, and deceased prior to her death sold sufficient part of the entire tract to pay the mortgage but failed to reconvey home tract to daughter, parol evidence of agreement to reconvey was admissible in suit by daughter against heirs of deceased since trusts in real estate may be proven by parol evidence. Kelley v. Whitehurst, 37 Tenn. App. 360, 264 S.W.2d 1, 1953 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (1953).

A trust in real estate can be based upon an oral agreement. Brantley v. Brantley, 198 Tenn. 670, 281 S.W.2d 668, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1955).

The seventh section of the statute of frauds is not in force in Tennessee, and a trust in real estate may rest upon a parol agreement. Vick v. Vick, 60 Tenn. App. 600, 449 S.W.2d 717, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

57. — —Broker's Contract.

While a broker's contract to sell or find a buyer for real estate does not technically create a trust interest in the real estate, it is similar enough that the court held a broker's contract for the sale of real estate may be oral and, if the same quantum of proof necessary to establish a trust in real estate is proved, the broker may recover his commission. Alexander v. C.C. Powell Realty Co., 535 S.W.2d 154, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

58. — —Trusts in Personal Property.

A remainder in a chattel, to take effect after the determination of a life interest, cannot be created by parol, and can only be created by some proper written instrument. Payne v. Lassiter, 18 Tenn. 507, 1837 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1837); Deer v. Devin, 20 Tenn. 66, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1839); Hallum v. Yourie, 33 Tenn. 369, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1853); Hill v. McDonald, 38 Tenn. 383, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

A parol reservation of a remainder interest in a chattel by the donor, in his parol gift of a life interest therein accompanied by delivery of possession of the chattel to the life tenant, is void. Hallum v. Yourie, 33 Tenn. 369, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1853).

A parol sale of a remainder or reversion in a chattel is void, and a valid disposition of such interest can only be made by writing. Hill v. McDonald, 38 Tenn. 383, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

Section 7 of the Statute of Frauds, 29 Charles 2, ch. 3, applies only to “lands and tenements, and hereditaments.” The law, in regard to personal chattels, remains wholly unaffected by the statute, and a valid trust of personal property may not only be created, but may also be established and proved by mere parol declaration. Deakins v. Webb, 19 Tenn. App. 182, 84 S.W.2d 367, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

59. — —Transfer of Title Bonds.

A sale and transfer of a written contract or title bond for the conveyance of land may be made by the obligee to another purchaser by assignment or by a mere naked, simple, and parol delivery of it, and upon the payment of the original purchase money, such purchaser of the title bond is entitled to demand and receive a deed from the maker of the bond. Simmons v. Tillery, 1 Tenn. 274, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1808); Kennedy v. Woolfolk, 4 Tenn. 195,—S.W.3d—, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1817); Neal v. Cox, 7 Tenn. 443, 1824 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1824), questioned, Patton v. M'Clure, 8 Tenn. 332, 8 Tenn. 333, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1828), criticized, 8 Tenn. 385, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1828); Patton v. M'Clure, 8 Tenn. 332, 8 Tenn. 333, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1828); McCoy's Lessee v. Williford, 32 Tenn. 642, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1853); Howard v. Moore, 36 Tenn. 317, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1857); Wilburn v. Spofford, Tileston & Co., 36 Tenn. 698, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1857); Thompson v. Dawson, 40 Tenn. 384, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1859); Robinson v. Williams, 40 Tenn. 540, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (1859); Ocoee Bank v. Nelson, 41 Tenn. 186, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1860); Kelly v. Thompson, 49 Tenn. 278, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1871); Merriman v. Polk, 52 Tenn. 717, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 302 (1871); Smith v. Peace, 69 Tenn. 586, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1878); King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561, 40 S.W. 1082, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1897).

60. — —Assignments of Rights of Occupancy.

The assignment and transfer of the right of occupancy or preference in entering and obtaining a grant from the state, it seems, need not be in writing. Cook v. Shute, 3 Tenn. 67, 1 Cooke 67, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 21(1812); Danforth v. Lowry, 4 Tenn. 61, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1816), overruled, Dunlap v. Gibbs, 12 Tenn. 93, 12 Tenn. 94, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1833); Dunlap v. Gibbs, 12 Tenn. 93, 12 Tenn. 94, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1833).

61. — —Location of Lands.

A parol contract for locating land warrants, and procuring grants to be issued thereon, for a share of the land, is not within the statute. Smith v. Brooks, 4 Tenn. 248, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1817); Davis v. Walker, 5 Tenn. 295, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1818).

62. — —Miscellaneous.

Agreement to transfer tract of land by husband though not in writing was enforceable in equity where grantor executed deed but persuaded wife not to sign the deed, since deed was sufficient proof in equity of agreement to transfer property. Espie v. Urie, 4 Tenn. 125, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1816).

Agreement by defendants, who purchased land at execution sale, to let land remain in plaintiff if he would advance their expenses and pay book account was not an agreement within the statute of frauds. Danforth v. Lowry, 4 Tenn. 61, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1816), overruled, Dunlap v. Gibbs, 12 Tenn. 93, 12 Tenn. 94, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1833).

Contract for percentage of operating business is not a contract for sale of real estate. Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1990).

Appellate court was unable to find that trial court abused discretion or that overall property distribution was not equitable because trial court correctly valued the husband's 401k as of a date as near as reasonably possible to the final divorce hearing when the wife and the husband were not legally separated prior to trial, and the house was not subject to classification and distribution in the divorce, when the agreement constituted a rent-to-own contract on the house and neither party had any ownership interest in the house; also, the case was not an action seeking to enforce a contract for sale of land and neither party was attempting to enforce the landlord's agreement to deed the house to the husband and wife upon full payment of the note. Bunch v. Bunch, 281 S.W.3d 406, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Jan. 20, 2009).

63. —Writing.

The memorandum in order to satisfy the statute must contain the essential terms of the contract expressed with such certainty that they may be understood from the memorandum itself or some other writing to which it refers or with which it is connected without resorting to parol evidence. Lambert v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 481 S.W.2d 770, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (Tenn. 1972).

Judgment finding that the seller breached a contract with the buyers was reversed because an oral agreement changed the essential terms of the contract, such that it was required to be in writing pursuant to the statute of frauds, and the application of equitable estoppel was not warranted. Davidson v. Wilson, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2010), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 496 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2010).

Both the statute of frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101(b)(1), and the express terms of the plan itself required that any modification to the plan or to the plaintiff's loan documents must be in writing. Although the plaintiff argued that the defendant did not promise a loan modification but promised to make her an offer for a loan modification, which rendered the statute of frauds inapplicable, that alleged oral promise would have essentially extended the duration of the plan beyond its limited duration, and that duration provision could be extended only through a written document; to the extent the plaintiff was seeking to enforce an oral statement by an employee of the defendant regarding the duration or terms of the plan, the statute of frauds barred that claim. Grona v. CitiMortgage, Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45876 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2012).

Trial court properly granted a lender's motion for judgment on the pleadings because subsection 29-2-101(b)(1) warranted the dismissal of a borrower's claim for breach of an agreement for future loans; the lender never made an actionable promise or commitment in writing, which would satisfy the statute, to provide the lender with any loans beyond the loan secured by real property. Shaw v. FSG Bank, N.A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2016).

64. — —Form.

Where the authority to lease or sell land is in writing, the writing need not be formal document. An ordinary letter of general authority is sufficient, even though it does not specifically describe the land. Johnson v. Somers, 20 Tenn. 268, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1839); Farris v. Martin, 29 Tenn. 495, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1850); Matherson v. Davis, 42 Tenn. 443, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1865).

No particular form or artificial arrangement of words is required, but the fact of a sale and its terms, embracing a designation of the parties to it and a description of the land, must appear with reasonable certainty in the writing relied upon or to some other to which it refers. Sheid v. Stamps, 34 Tenn. 172, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1854); Case v. Brier Hill Collieries, 145 Tenn. 1, 235 S.W. 57, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1921).

Because seller was “the party to be charged” pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-2-101(a), the fact that the purchaser did not sign the contract was immaterial and the purchaser's assent to the terms of the contract was reflected in participation in the action as a plaintiff and participation in deposition testimony. Hillard v. Franklin, 41 S.W.3d 106, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Mar. 12, 2001).

The lack of a notary's acknowledgment is not material where no one questioned the validity of the signatures affixed to the contract for the sale of real property. Hillard v. Franklin, 41 S.W.3d 106, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Mar. 12, 2001).

64.5. — —Issue of Fact.

Seller submitted evidence in the form of affidavits from two witnesses, who stated that they were present and personally witnessed the purchaser's signing of a promissory note that memorialized the parties'  agreement; although the trial court found that the parties'  oral agreement was unenforceable based on the statute of frauds, the seller established that a dispute existed as to a genuine issue of material fact, whether there was ever a written promissory note, and thus summary judgment was not appropriate. McKinnis v. Hammons, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 700 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014).

65. — —Sufficiency.

A contract of landowner and his broker, authorizing the latter to sell land therein described and incorporating an agreement to execute a deed to any purchaser, is not a memorandum of a sale to a purchaser the broker may find, that answers the requirements of the statute of frauds and the same cannot be enforced against a prospective purchaser who accepts such contract. Lusky v. Keiser, 128 Tenn. 705, 164 S.W. 777, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 85, 1915C L.R.A. (n.s.) 400 (1913).

Check with notation on face “Deposit on Lot 58 by 135 located on east side of Highway 61 S. 216 feet north of Eastman Road, Shelby County, Tenn. Bal. $65.00 per front ft. due $35.00 per month after $500 is paid at closing. Title guaranteed” which was delivered to landowner who cashed the same and retained the proceeds, was sufficient memorandum of description of land and terms of contract to meet requirements of statute of frauds. Brister v. Estate of Brubaker, 47 Tenn. App. 150, 336 S.W.2d 326, 1960 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).

Will providing for disposition of real property but containing no language indicating that it was executed pursuant to oral agreement by testator to devise property to plaintiffs and which was later revoked by second will did not constitute a writing sufficient to satisfy statute of frauds. Knight v. Knight, 222 Tenn. 367, 436 S.W.2d 289, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 446 (1969).

Letter asserting that unsigned lease attached thereto correctly expressed previous oral agreement would satisfy the statute. Batey v. D.H. Overmyer Whse. Co., 60 Tenn. App. 310, 446 S.W.2d 686, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (1969).

Acceptance and endorsement by lessor of remittances computed at exact per square foot rate specified in unsigned lease and endorsement of a subsequent check in the exact amount of monthly rental provided by the lease were sufficient written memoranda to comply with statute of frauds and to complete the agreement. Batey v. D.H. Overmyer Whse. Co., 60 Tenn. App. 310, 446 S.W.2d 686, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (1969).

Where real property was sold at auction by the substitute trustee under a defaulted deed of trust to the small business administration, and no written contract of sale or memorandum of the auction sale prepared, a suit by the trustee for specific performance could not be sustained in view of this section, the court holding that the complaint for specific performance filed by the trustee, which incorporated the terms of the oral agreement of sale and was signed by the trustee's attorney, did not constitute a sufficient writing as required by the statute. Watson v. McCabe, 381 F. Supp. 1124, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6858 (M.D. Tenn. 1974), aff'd, 527 F.2d 286, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11386 (6th Cir. 1975).

Two checks totalling $20,000 signed by agent of commercial loan institution and payable to real estate company did not constitute sufficient memorandum of an oral agreement by the loan company to lend the real estate company $20,000 on a land purchase, where no written loan application was made and where the real estate company was the “party to be charged.” Southern Indus. Banking Corp. v. Delta Properties, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 815, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. 1976).

The writing required by the statute of frauds was not supplied by an attorney who, as one of the coadministrators of an estate, filed in the probate court documents containing statements that the decedent had signed the lease in question as guarantor of the tenant's obligations thereunder, since these statements were only legal conclusions, not statements of fact, and were not made by the decedent or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized; moreover, these statements by the attorney did not establish either a waiver or an estoppel against the estate. In re Estate of Dickerson, 600 S.W.2d 714, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. 1980).

Document that simply does not set out an agreement for the sale of a particular tract of land is unenforceable. Massey v. Hardcastle, 753 S.W.2d 127, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 189 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

The receipt and cashing of the check, which did not contain the terms of the agreement, did not satisfy the statute even though the land owner had agreed that she would permit her property to be used as collateral for the loan. Beazley v. Turgeon, 772 S.W.2d 53, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Statement in a holographic will was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds under T.C.A. § 29-2-101(a) because it did not state the terms of an alleged agreement; it merely stated that a widow was to have one-half of certain property. In re Estate of Jones, 183 S.W.3d 372, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1184 (Tenn.2005).

66. — —Prevention of Writing.

The fraud that will take a case from within the operation of the statute is a fraud by which the reduction of it to writing is prevented, where it was intended by the parties to be reduced to writing, and the injured or complaining party is induced to believe that it has been done; and this fraud may be perpetrated in two ways, namely, by signing a false paper, and at the same time inducing the belief that it is the true one; or by inducing the belief that the paper has been signed when in fact it has not. Hackney v. Hackney, 27 Tenn. 452, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1847); Interstate Co. v. Bry-Block Mercantile Co., 30 F.2d 172, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1676 (D. Tenn. 1928).

The statute has no application to a case where the agreement or declaration of trust was intended by the parties to be reduced to writing, which was prevented from being done by the fraud or breach of promise of one of the parties. Williams v. Conrad, 30 Tenn. 412, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 140 (1850); Henderson v. Tipton, 88 Tenn. 255, 14 S.W. 380, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Sep. 1889).

67. — —Several Writings.

It is not necessary that the contract be contained in a single document. It will be sufficient if it can be plainly made out, in all its terms, from any writings of the party, or even from his correspondence. Blair v. Snodgrass, 33 Tenn. 1, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1853); Wright v. Cobb, 37 Tenn. 143, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1857); Holms v. Johnston, 59 Tenn. 155, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1873); Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S.W. 835, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 13, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 (1887).

Where several papers are relied on for written evidence, they must afford intrinsic proof that they relate to the same contract of sale. Parol evidence is inadmissible to connect them, or to show that they relate to the same transaction. Blair v. Snodgrass, 33 Tenn. 1, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1853); Knox v. Haralson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 232 (1875).

The contract, memorandum, or note thereof may be made out from the correspondence between the owner and his agent, where the letters refer to and connect with each other, and taken as a whole, show clearly a sufficient description of the land, and the fact and terms of the sale authorized by the principal and effected by the agent. Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S.W. 835, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 13, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 (1887); Otis v. Payne, 86 Tenn. 663, 8 S.W. 848, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1888).

Letters which fail to set out details of alleged contract and fail to recognize the existence of an unsigned agreement are insufficient to take a case out of the statute of frauds. Interstate Co. v. Bry-Block Mercantile Co., 30 F.2d 172, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1676 (D. Tenn. 1928).

Circumstances under which four mutual wills were executed by tenants in common may be looked to; and, where the wills are found to have been contemporaneously executed, they may be found to be parts of one transaction, as if in one document, to be construed together. Each will, signed, disposing of property to survivors, constitutes written evidence of a contract so to dispose, that contract appearing from the four instruments. Harris v. Morgan, 157 Tenn. 140, 7 S.W.2d 53, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1927).

An instrument containing a sufficient description of property may be fortified by reference to other papers, so as to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. Young v. Tuck, 27 Tenn. App. 74, 178 S.W.2d 86, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 132 (1943).

If one of two or more papers are signed and the other or others are not signed there must be proof that the paper writings involved relate to same contract. Yates v. Skaggs, 187 Tenn. 149, 213 S.W.2d 41, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (1948).

Where bank as trustee listed property for sale with plaintiff real estate broker for $80,000 and plaintiff secured offer of $80,000 with earnest check of $5,000 which was accepted by the bank and minutes of bank showed that sale was authorized for $80,000 or more the requirement of a written memorandum was satisfied and plaintiff was entitled to recover commission for sale though property was thereafter sold to another for $82,000 cash. Loventhal v. Noel, 196 Tenn. 308, 265 S.W.2d 891, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 380 (1954).

The memorandum required by the statute may be two or more papers signed by the party to be charged. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

The statute of frauds is satisfied by a group of writings as well as a single writing and all of the writings need not be signed if there is sufficient reference therein to establish the necessary connection. Batey v. D.H. Overmyer Whse. Co., 60 Tenn. App. 310, 446 S.W.2d 686, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (1969).

Trustee's claimed agreement with commercial tenants failed to comply with the Tennessee Statute of Frauds because even when e-mails were read together and alongside other documents referenced by the trustee, they failed to establish the terms of the alleged loan guaranty agreement. Moreover, the partial performance doctrine was unavailable to remove the bar imposed by the Statute of Frauds. Smith v. Hi-Speed, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2016).

68. — —Memorandum of Auction Sale.

The rule which holds the memorandum of an auctioneer to be sufficient to take the case out of the statute contemplates an agent for both parties, with authority to act for the seller and buyer. Adams v. Scales, 60 Tenn. 337, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 503, 25 Am. Rep. 772, 25 Am. Rep. 772 (1872).

The agency of the auctioneer enabling him to sign the memorandum so as to bind the buyer ends with the sale, and a memorandum subsequently signed is inadequate. Wright v. Harrison, 137 Tenn. 157, 192 S.W. 716, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1916).

Memorandum of sale of lots at public auction by auctioneer which gave the number of each lot and the price paid, but which contained no description of the lots was an insufficient memorandum, and sale was void. Wright v. Harrison, 137 Tenn. 157, 192 S.W. 716, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1916).

The contract between the seller and the auctioneer, the posters advertising the sale and the bid sheet kept by the auctioneer, taken together, satisfy the statute and upon the fall of the hammer at the auction, there was a sale to the plaintiff as evidenced in writing signed by the party to be charged. Johnson v. Haynes, 532 S.W.2d 561, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

69. — — —Presence of Owner.

Where the owner is himself present managing and controlling the sale of land, except the crying of the bids which is done by a person employed by him for that purpose, such crier is not an auctioneer; and sales of real estate made by a trustee, in pursuance of the deed of trust, are within the statute the same as sales made by the absolute owner. Adams v. Scales, 60 Tenn. 337, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 503, 25 Am. Rep. 772, 25 Am. Rep. 772 (1872).

Where defendant accepted bid at auction sale for her real estate and drafted a deed which was objected to because it did not contain reference to her source of title and covenants of warranty were not satisfactory, and defendant agreed to execute a new deed with corrections made, and new deed duly executed was delivered by defendant in escrow for delivery to plaintiff, the latter was entitled to specific performance of contract for sale of real estate, even though prior to delivery the defendant obtained possession of deed. Radiophone Broadcasting Station v. Imboden, 183 Tenn. 215, 191 S.W.2d 535, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 205 (1946).

70. — —Bill in Equity.

A bill in equity to disaffirm a parol land contract cannot itself be treated as a memorandum satisfying the statute. Davis v. Ross, 50 S.W. 650, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

State law was applicable to suit for sale of Tennessee land and the complaint of trustee did not constitute a memorandum of sale sufficient to satisfy statute of frauds, absent proof that attorney who signed complaint was authorized to execute a memorandum of sale. Watson v. McCabe, 527 F.2d 286, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11386 (6th Cir. 1975).

71. —Signing.

Trial court erred in ruling that an easement from an original grantor to the county violated the statute of frauds as the grantor, as the party to be charged, signed the document conveying the easement and the county did not have to sign the document for it to have legal effect. Cellco P'ship v. Shelby County, 172 S.W.3d 574, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 747 (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005).

72. — —Party to Be Charged.

The phrase “the party to be charged therewith” means the vendor or lessor of the land, and not the vendee or lessee. The statute does not require both parties to sign the lease, but it will be sufficient if signed by the owner. Whitby v. Whitby, 36 Tenn. 473, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1857), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006); Frazer v. Ford, 39 Tenn. 464, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Apr. 1859); Gass v. Hawkins, 1 Shan. 167 (1860); Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S.W. 835, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 13, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 (1887); Lusky v. Keiser, 128 Tenn. 705, 164 S.W. 777, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 85, 1915C L.R.A. (n.s.) 400 (1913); Ashley v. Preston, 162 Tenn. 540, 39 S.W.2d 279, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Dec. 1930), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

Party charged is not required to sign each paper forming a link in chain of evidence. Williams v. Buntin, 4 Tenn. App. 340, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (1927); Yates v. Skaggs, 187 Tenn. 149, 213 S.W.2d 41, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (1948).

The phrase “signed by the party to be charged therewith” means the owner of the land, and evidence of the acceptance of the contract upon the part of the purchaser may be in parol as at common law before the statute of frauds. Patterson v. Davis, 28 Tenn. App. 571, 192 S.W.2d 227, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (1945); Massey v. Hardcastle, 753 S.W.2d 127, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 189 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Trial court erred by ordering the specific performance of a contract for the sale of foreclosure property following a successful bid; there was no writing signed by the buyers agreeing to purchase the property for seventy-seven thousand six hundred forty-two dollars and five cents, and without a writing signed by the parties to be charged, the trustee's deed was not sufficient to satisfy T.C.A. § 29-2-101. Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

73. — —Signature.

To make the contract valid, it must be signed by all the owners, by themselves, or someone lawfully authorized; and where it is signed by some of them only, the filing of a bill by all the owners, with an express ratification of the contract therein, and the tender of title, will not remedy the defect, and the purchaser cannot be compelled to take the land by a specific execution of the contract, for the contract must be mutual and binding on both parties to make it obligatory. Frazer v. Ford, 39 Tenn. 464, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Apr. 1859); Gheen v. Osborne, 58 Tenn. 61, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (1872).

Where a married woman held a separate estate in land under a deed empowering her to convey the same “by joint deed with her said husband,” and he does not join with her in the deed otherwise than in the testimonium clause, and by his signing, acknowledging, and delivering the deed, the deed is sufficient, and the husband is estopped to set up any claim to the land conveyed, for one reason, if no other, because he had no interest in it. Friedenwald & Co. v. Mullan, 57 Tenn. 226, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 418 (1872).

A mortgage of land to secure the husband's debt, purporting on its face to be by the husband alone, is not binding upon the wife who merely signs it, although properly acknowledged by her, nor is it binding upon her heirs. Berrigan v. Fleming, 70 Tenn. 271, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (1879).

Vendee accepting title bond and going into possession of the land is bound for the purchase money recited as due and to be paid, though such bond is signed by the vendor only. Holbert v. Edens, 73 Tenn. 204, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 111, 40 Am. Rep. 26 (1880); Hook v. Donaldson, 77 Tenn. 56, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1882).

If name of grantor or his agent is inserted in granting clause though not appearing at end of the deed there must be evidence of circumstances showing an intention that signature is final. Saunders v. Hackney, 78 Tenn. 194, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 163 (1882); Burton v. Jones, 147 Tenn. 624, 250 S.W. 548, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 69, 28 A.L.R. 1111 (1922).

A deed purporting to convey land, and signed by one whose name is not mentioned in the body of the deed, although it may not pass his title, may operate by way of estoppel. Anderson v. Akard, 83 Tenn. 182, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1885).

The name of the vendor's agent, printed in the body of a contract for a deed among the recitals, and not placed there with intent to bind the vendor, was not a “signature” to the memorandum, within the meaning of the statute. Burton v. Jones, 147 Tenn. 624, 250 S.W. 548, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 69, 28 A.L.R. 1111 (1922).

The signature of a person to a document does not have to be in any specific form, the only question is whether a person has adopted and used as his signature that form, thus a signature may be in writing, by a mark, or by typewriter. Gessler v. Winton, 24 Tenn. App. 411, 145 S.W.2d 789, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

Name of vendor and wife in body of instrument for sale of land was not a signature within the meaning of the statute. Cartwright v. Giacosa, 216 Tenn. 18, 390 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 555 (Tenn. May 7, 1965).

The signature at the end of a lease contract of one who, although a principal financial backer and officer of the tenant corporation, was not shown in the contract to have made any promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of the tenant, did not constitute a compliance with the statute of frauds. In re Estate of Dickerson, 600 S.W.2d 714, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. 1980).

Contract for the sale of real property was enforceable under the Statute of Frauds because the parties'  agreement was accurately memorialized in a writing that was signed by the seller, who was properly considered the party to be charged as enforcement of the contract was sought against him. Other terms which were proposed or purported to be imposed by the parties were not the subject of mutual assent. White v. Grimes, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 229 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2019).

74. — —Omissions.

A deed substantially in the form prescribed by statute, and sufficiently appearing from the whole instrument to be the deed of the signer, and clearly expressing his intention to convey the land described, is sufficient, although the name of the signer does not appear in the body or operative parts of the deed, and the pronoun “I” is, by clerical error, omitted in one place. Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Waller, 116 Tenn. 1, 95 S.W. 811, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1905).

Statute of frauds was not satisfied by written agreement in which name of party seeking to enforce same had been erased and substituted with name of third person, and writing was further deficient as evidence of parol agreement for reason that it was for term of three years while parol agreement was for term of five years. Frierson v. Gant, 23 Tenn. App. 428, 134 S.W.2d 193, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

75. — —Authorization.

The authority of some other person as agent to sign the writing is not required by the statute to be in writing. Johnson v. Somers, 20 Tenn. 268, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1839); Farris v. Martin, 29 Tenn. 495, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1850); Matherson v. Davis, 42 Tenn. 443, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1865).

Where there was nothing in contract for sale of land held by entireties to show that signature of husband was both for himself and as agent for his wife parol evidence was inadmissible to show such authorization. Cartwright v. Giacosa, 216 Tenn. 18, 390 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 555 (Tenn. May 7, 1965).

76. — —Time for Signing.

The memorandum required by the statute may be signed after the making of the contract. Huffine v. McCampbell, 149 Tenn. 47, 257 S.W. 80, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1923).

77. —Description of Property and Terms.

The memorandum of the sale of lands, to be effectual, must not only be signed by the party to be charged with its performance, but must contain the substantial terms of the contract in itself, or in some other writing to which it refers, with a sufficient description of the land, so it may be determined with reasonable certainty what estate of land is embraced and intended to be sold, and the terms of the sale, without resort to parol evidence to supply other portions of the contract, for parol evidence is inadmissible to supply defects and omissions in such a writing. Pipkin v. James, 20 Tenn. 325, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 55, 34 Am. Dec. 752 (1839); Blair v. Snodgrass, 33 Tenn. 1, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1853); Sheid v. Stamps, 34 Tenn. 172, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1854); Wright v. Cobb, 37 Tenn. 143, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1857); McCarty v. Kyle, 44 Tenn. 348, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1867); Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1868); Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871); Gudger v. Barnes, 51 Tenn. 570, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 207 (1871); Johnson v. Kellogg, 54 Tenn. 262, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1872); N. Y. & E. T. Iron Co. v. Greene County Iron Co., 58 Tenn. 434, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (1872); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874); Knox v. Haralson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 232 (1875); Cohen v. Woollard, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 686 (1876); Solomon v. Thatcher, 2 Shan. 37 (1876); Swiney v. Swiney, 82 Tenn. 316, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1884); Smith v. Greaves, 83 Tenn. 459, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1885); Harriman Land Co. v. Hilton, 121 Tenn. 308, 120 S.W. 162, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1908); Wilson v. Calhoun, 157 Tenn. 667, 11 S.W.2d 906, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 236 (1928).

As to requirement that the pleadings specifically described the land by some general description or appellation, so as to show to what particular tract such general designation is applicable, see Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1868); White v. Motley, 63 Tenn. 544, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 302 (1874); Sanders v. Everett, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 520 (1877).

A certificate of tax sale of land issued by the tax collector of a certain county showing a sale of “11 tracts of land, containing 23,640 acres, lying in the 13th district, sold as the property of Assure Assure,” does not sufficiently describe the land so as to identify it. James A. Quinby & Co. v. North American Coal & Transp. Co., 49 Tenn. 596, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1871).

Provisions in a contract for the sale of land whereby plaintiff agreed to convey “five certain lots in North Hills Addition, Knoxville, Tennessee” contained an insufficient description to satisfy the statute of frauds. Schultz v. Anderson, 177 Tenn. 533, 151 S.W.2d 1068, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1940).

The memorandum required by the statute of frauds must show an existing and binding contract, as distinguished from mere negotiations, and must disclose the particular contract sought to be enforced rather than some other contract or promise. Black v. Black, 185 Tenn. 23, 202 S.W.2d 659, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (1947), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

Although there was some difference between the parties about the total consideration as reflected on the bid sheet but which was settled at $27,925, there was really no argument on the issue of the sale and, as the terms of payment as announced at the auction were 10% down at the time of sale with either payments over two years plus interest or cash at the time of sale, the buyer could insist on paying cash as the sale, as handled, met all the requirements of the statute of frauds and the contract was enforceable. Johnson v. Haynes, 532 S.W.2d 561, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

To comply with the statute of frauds, a memorandum of an agreement to sell must show, with reasonable certainty, the estate intended to be sold. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

78. — —Identification.

To make a call in a grant to begin at a tree sufficient, the tree must possess some peculiar qualities distinguishing it from other trees. Rutledge's Lessee v. Buchanan, 21 F. Cas. 98, 3 Tenn. 363, 1 Cooke 363, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 35.

The conveyance of “a farm in the tenancy of A,” without any further description was held to be a sufficient memorandum by the English courts. Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871).

The object of the statute would be met if the memorandum was sufficiently specific to enable the officers of the court to go into the country and find the land, and enforce its decrees against it. Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871).

The rule of law requires such a description, either general or special, as will enable any one to take the deed, and, from its face, to designate the property described. Overton v. John H. Holinshade & Co., 52 Tenn. 683, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (1871); Woodward v. Goodman, 3 Shan. 483 (1875).

The description of land is sufficient, if those living in the immediate neighborhood can thereby identify and locate the land intended to be described. Easley v. McLaren, 60 Tenn. 1, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (1871); Christian v. Mynatt, 79 Tenn. 615, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1883).

Whether the description, of itself, is or is not sufficient is immaterial, where there is full proof that the land is well known in the neighborhood by such description; that it is the only land ever owned there by the owner, and can be easily proved and located by the description. Christian v. Mynatt, 79 Tenn. 615, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1883).

Conveyance by an heir of “all my undivided interest in the estate of my father,” naming him and giving the time and place of his decease is not void for insufficiency of description, the inference that the lands lay within the state being fairly deductible from the recitation as to the residences, not only of the parties to the conveyance, but of the ancestor through whom the title came. Brummitt v. Brown, 159 Tenn. 612, 21 S.W.2d 626, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1929).

Deed by children who inherited under will of father conveying to two disinherited children “undivided one-eighth interest each in all of the real and personal estate of which our deceased father was possessed at the time of his death” sufficiently described lands in Tennessee so as to take the deed out of the statute of frauds. Brantley v. Brantley, 198 Tenn. 670, 281 S.W.2d 668, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1955).

Where land was described in an option contract for sale of property as “120 acres located in 7th C.D. of Morgan County,” preceded by seller's covenant “that he is the owner thereof,” the description was not so uncertain as to render the contract unenforceable for failure to satisfy the statute of frauds since the vendors owned only one 120 acre tract of land in that county, and parol evidence was admissible to particularize the description and to require specific performance via conveyance by the metes and bounds description found in the complaint. Branstetter v. Barnett, 521 S.W.2d 818, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

Where the instrument is so drawn that upon its face it refers necessarily to some existing tract of land, and its terms can be applied to that one tract only, parol evidence may be employed to show where the tract so mentioned is located. But, where the description employed is one that must necessarily apply with equal exactness to any one of an indefinite number of tracts, parol evidence is not admissible to show that the parties intended to designate a particular tract by the description. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

79. — —Reference to Other Instruments.

A conveyance of the grantor's “undivided fourth part of a certain lot of ground and house, situated in the town of Nashville, in the state of Tennessee, late the property of” a person named, where the title papers of that person show that the lot owned by him was composed of the half of each of two town lots, one-half lying behind the other, the description is sufficient. Barker v. Butler, 4 Tenn. 243, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1817).

A conveyance of 30 by 180 feet, as part of a particular lot sufficiently described, but shown to be much larger than such part, where the grantor owned only 30 by 180 feet of that lot, is sufficient; especially if it be added that the same was conveyed to the grantor by a certain deed of record, for that is equivalent to saying that the part conveyed is the grantor's land in that lot which he holds under the deed sufficiently describing the part so conveyed or referring to another deed, though unregistered, which does do so. Cohen v. Woollard, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 686 (1876).

The deed conveying land may refer, for description, to another deed containing a sufficient description of the land. McDonald v. Lusk, 77 Tenn. 654, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1882).

A deed describing the land as “two tracts of land adjoining each other, in Marshall County, Tennessee, containing in all about 353½ acres, …(the land being the land on which I [the grantor] now live),” without giving the civil district or any adjoining lands, is sufficient, for there is an implied reference to the conveyor's title papers for the quantity and full description. Swiney v. Swiney, 82 Tenn. 316, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1884).

Where for further description of the land intended to be conveyed, reference is made in the conveying deed to deeds never in existence, the fact of the nonexistence of such deeds is immaterial, where the description is otherwise sufficient to identify the land. Smith v. Greaves, 83 Tenn. 459, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1885).

The metes and bounds control the estimated acreage in the description of lands in a devise. A devise of a tract of land as 1,407 acres, referring, for “metes and bounds,” to a registered deed from a designated person to the testator, does not cover and pass title to a distinct adjoining tract of 65 acres, although both tracts comprise precisely 1,407 acres, and testator would otherwise die intestate as to the latter tract. Oldham v. York, 99 Tenn. 68, 41 S.W. 333, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1897).

Where a deed describes the land as the “Shady tract” merely, but refers, for full or particular description, to other deeds of record containing an accurate description of this identical land, references by which the boundary may be ascertained, such deed is not void for insufficient description, though there is no evidence to prove that the land was ever known by such name. Sheafer v. Mitchell, 109 Tenn. 181, 71 S.W. 86, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1902).

Where a deed refers to a prior deed or grant for description, without more or without describing the land by metes and bounds, it incorporates into itself the description contained in that deed or grant; but, if the later deed also sets out the metes and bounds of the land conveyed by it, the reference to the prior deed or grant must be definite and specific, in order to control the specific description which in itself is plain and unequivocal. Byrd v. Phillips, 120 Tenn. 14, 111 S.W. 1109, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1907).

Unless the deed contains intrinsic evidence of a reference to a certain prior deed for description, such prior deed cannot be looked to for the purpose of supplying the description. Harriman Land Co. v. Hilton, 121 Tenn. 308, 120 S.W. 162, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1908).

A deed is sufficient in its reference to a prior deed in this language: “A 500 acre tract, deed from J. F. Scott to William Lewellyn in the year 1852, lying on the east side of Emory river, in district No. 4,” where it is otherwise described in the deed as situated in the county of Morgan and state of Tennessee. Harriman Land Co. v. Hilton, 121 Tenn. 308, 120 S.W. 162, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1908).

A deed conveying land may refer to a prior deed for the description; and, where the reference is sufficiently definite to refer to some particular tract of land, parol evidence is admissible to aid in its identification, and to show that the prior deed is duly recorded, though that fact is not indicated in the reference. Harriman Land Co. v. Hilton, 121 Tenn. 308, 120 S.W. 162, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1908).

Where it is sought to identify the land sold by reference to some other instrument, the instrument which contains the description must be clearly referred to and identified by the memorandum or contract. Wright v. Harrison, 137 Tenn. 157, 192 S.W. 716, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1916).

A letter which contains no reference by which proof might certainly apply it to particular land is insufficient to evidence a memorandum in writing of a contract of sale of land so as to remove the sale from the statute. Witt v. Siler, 12 Tenn. App. 116, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 204 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

Where recorded instrument contains description sufficient to cover an entire tract, but contains a reference to prior deeds which did not embrace the entire tract, subsequent judgment creditors are put on notice that entire tract was intended to be conveyed and could not properly levy on part of tract not covered by such prior deeds. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kingston Bank & Trust Co., 172 Tenn. 335, 112 S.W.2d 381, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1938).

80. — —Errors in Recitals.

A mistake in the recital of the number of a grant of the state is immaterial, where the land is otherwise sufficiently identified and described. Fancher v. De Montegre, 38 Tenn. 40, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Sep. 1858).

It seems that the conveyance of land by the number of the state's grant embracing the same is sufficient. Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Heck, 83 Tenn. 497, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1885); Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

A grant reciting that the land lies in a certain county, while in fact it lies in another county, is not thereby invalidated, where the land is otherwise thoroughly identified by the description. Stockard v. McGary, 120 Tenn. 180, 109 S.W. 507, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1907).

Where the word “north” in the description of land conveyed is clearly shown by the context, the record title, and the physical facts to be a clerical error for the word “south,” it will be so read. Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908). See also Augusta Mfg. Co. v. Vertrees, 72 Tenn. 75, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1879).

81. — —Excepted Lands.

In a conveyance excepting and reserving “a small lot reserved for a burying ground, two poles square, around the graves where the said William Hodge and his grandchildren are now buried,” the description of the reservation was held to be sufficient. Hodge v. Blanton, 38 Tenn. 560, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

A deed's recital of an exception, exclusion, or reservation of a part of the land conveyed from the operation of the deed must, to be effective or to work an estoppel, be as definite as the description in a deed of conveyance. McDonald v. Lusk, 77 Tenn. 654, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1882); Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Heck, 83 Tenn. 497, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1885).

82. — —Sufficient Description Examples.

A deed of trust which conveys the grantor's undivided interest in the real estate of his deceased father, late of Sullivan County, wherever situated, is sufficient in description. McGavock v. Deery, 41 Tenn. 265, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1860).

Where a tract of land is described by its general boundaries, and there is a small tract on one side between the tract described and the tract called for as bounding it on that side, the description is sufficient. Easley v. McLaren, 60 Tenn. 1, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (1871).

Description of land in title bond as “a steam mill and distillery … situate in the county of Smith and state (of Tennessee) aforesaid, near the village of Rome, in civil district No. 13, on the banks of the Cumberland river, supposed to contain one and a half acres of land,” is sufficient. White v. Motley, 63 Tenn. 544, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 302 (1874).

A conveyance of land described as that on which the grantor lives may be sufficient, especially where it is stated to be in a certain county of this state. Swiney v. Swiney, 82 Tenn. 316, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1884); Smith v. Greaves, 83 Tenn. 459, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1885).

A decree for investment of proceeds in another tract of land to be purchased by reference to a larger tract in which it was included in such manner that, by reference to the description in the larger tract, three boundary lines of the tract (quadrilateral in form) to be purchased were definitely located, was held to embrace a sufficiently definite description of the tract to be purchased, under the maxim, “Id certum est, quod certum reddi potest.” Johnson v. Covington, 148 Tenn. 47, 251 S.W. 893, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1923).

Each contract designated the properties as “Country Joy Apartments, 493 Barnett Dr., Kingsport, TN” and “Country Joy Mobile Home Park, 483 Barnett Dr., Kingsport, TN,” and each description clearly pertained to only one tract, and the description satisfied the Statute of Frauds. Hobbs v. Nottingham, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015).

83. — —Insufficient Description Examples.

Examples of insufficient descriptions: Pipkin v. James, 20 Tenn. 325, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 55, 34 Am. Dec. 752 (1839); Sheid v. Stamps, 34 Tenn. 172, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1854); Wright v. Cobb, 37 Tenn. 143, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1857); Hudson v. King, 49 Tenn. 560, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1871); Johnson v. Kellogg, 54 Tenn. 262, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1872); Adams v. Scales, 60 Tenn. 337, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 503, 25 Am. Rep. 772, 25 Am. Rep. 772 (1872); Langley v. Vaughn, 57 Tenn. 553, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 259 (1873); Wood v. Zeigler, 99 Tenn. 515, 42 S.W. 447, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1897).

A title bond is insufficient in description where it stipulates that, upon the payment of the purchase money, “the said Robert is to make him a deed to 250 acres, where the said Robert Hughes now lives, be the same more or less.” Gudger v. Barnes, 51 Tenn. 570, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 207 (1871).

A deed purporting to convey land, and calling for the course of a road thereafter to be laid out, and not made definite by other calls and descriptions, is void for uncertainty. Solomon v. Thatcher, 2 Shan. 37 (1876).

A certificate of sale of land for taxes sufficiently describing the whole town lot, and showing a sale of less than the whole of it, and describing the part sold as “84 feet of this lot,” does not sufficiently describe the part and quantity of land so sold, and is void. Wands v. Brien, 81 Tenn. 732, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1884).

A mere license to discharge water from ore washers into a stream given by a lower landowner, without words of grant, and without any description whatever of any land in the instrument, without metes, bounds, or limits, and not even giving the state or county of its location, creates no easement. Nunnelly v. Southern Iron Co., 94 Tenn. 397, 29 S.W. 361, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 54, 28 L.R.A. 421 (1894); Childers v. Wm. H. Coleman Co., 122 Tenn. 109, 118 S.W. 1018, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1909).

The description in a mortgage as one house and lot, bounded on the east by East alley, south by Third street, west by Broad street, north by Fourth street, containing the entire block between Third and Fourth streets, known in the plan of town as lots 53, 54, 55, and 56, is insufficient, though it is further provided that, in case of default, the real estate shall be sold at Eaton, in Gibson County, Tennessee, after first advertisement of the sale by posters in three or more public places in Gibson County, in which the land lies, or advertisement for three consecutive weeks in some newspaper published in Gibson County, Tennessee, especially where the mortgage does not mention the residence of the mortgagor or mortgagee, nor locate the real estate in any town, county, or state, nor show where it was executed, the place of acknowledgment, advertisement, and sale not being sufficient. Denison-Gholson Dry Goods Co. v. Hill, 135 Tenn. 60, 185 S.W. 723, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1916).

A description of land as the “Jim Smith tract,” which the evidence showed was applied sometimes to a large tract of land and sometimes to a smaller tract therein, where “Jim Smith” had his home, is invalid. Case v. Brier Hill Collieries, 145 Tenn. 1, 235 S.W. 57, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1921).

Memorandum describing “land beginning at culvert on Highway 63 running with the middle of the stream and then parallel with the driveway on Mrs. John Y. Moore's property to the Highway fronting on the Highway 63 to include One Acre of land,” was insufficient as not showing to whose land it referred and not locating any of the reference points. Campbell Farmers Coop. v. Moore, 202 Tenn. 215, 303 S.W.2d 735, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1957).

A memorandum of an agreement for the transfer of an interest in real property which fails to designate the county and state where the land is located is insufficient under the statute of frauds. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

84. — —Construction of Description.

Where a deed to a lot described it as bounded on its ends by two streets meeting at an acute angle, and as beginning at a point 50 feet east of an adjoining lot, and as running 50 feet along the side of the first street as the beginning point, and as running back to the second street, the description indicated that the side lines were intended to run parallel with the adjoining lot which was at right angles to the second street. Ferguson v. Prince, 136 Tenn. 543, 190 S.W. 548, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1916).

85. — —Lots.

The term “lot,” when numbered as in a certain town, means a certain portion originally laid out in the plan thereof by metes and bounds, and includes the compound idea of quantity and situation. Barker v. Butler, 4 Tenn. 243, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1817).

The word “lot,” when not so numbered as in any plan, signifies a piece or parcel, and has of itself no precise meaning nor anything determinate, either as to quantity or situation. Barker v. Butler, 4 Tenn. 243, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1817).

Written instrument which recited that defendants agreed to extend option to buy house and lot at “403 West Walnut Street, Johnson City, Tennessee” to plaintiff until February 1, 1950 for $10,000 was sufficient memorandum to avoid statute of frauds even though deed which defendants held described property as “Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and ten feet off easterly side of Lot No. 5 of Block 16 of the southwest addition of Johnson City, Tennessee … said lot containing thirty-seven hundredths of an acre more or less” where evidence showed that property was always considered as one lot. Pence v. Archer, 191 Tenn. 385, 234 S.W.2d 820, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 446 (1950).

86. — —Agreement on Sufficiency.

Where the description is clearly insufficient for its identification, the courts will not be bound by the agreement of counsel, though in writing, “that the land mentioned is sufficiently described, or capable of sufficient identification”; for the question is one of law. Holms v. Johnston, 59 Tenn. 155, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1873).

87. — —Parol Evidence.

A call in a grant to begin at a tree, without more, is not a sufficient description, and extraneous evidence is not admissible to show the location of the tree. To make such call sufficient, the tree must possess some peculiar qualities distinguishing it from other trees, which qualities must be described in the grant, and their absence cannot be supplied from the entry or location. Rutledge's Lessee v. Buchanan, 21 F. Cas. 98, 3 Tenn. 363, 1 Cooke 363, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 35.

Parol evidence is admissible to apply the description of land so that the court may see what land is embraced, but not to explain the writing itself so as to make it embrace certain lands. Snodgrass v. Ward, 4 Tenn. 40, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1816); Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 276 (1875); Dougherty v. Chesnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S.W. 444, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1887); Staub v. Hampton, 117 Tenn. 706, 101 S.W. 776, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Dec. 1906).

The descriptive words, “the tract of land … bought of Charles and James McCartney, Lying in Greene County,” are terms of description which naturally and necessarily refer themselves to extrinsic facts and circumstances for ascertainment; and parol evidence is admissible to identify what land was intended to be devised thereby, though the testator never received any deed for them, but purchased their preemptions preparatory to procuring a grant from the state, which was subsequently procured. McCorry v. King, 22 Tenn. 267, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1842).

Where several papers are relied on to establish the contract, they must afford intrinsic proof that they relate to the same contract of sale. Parol evidence is inadmissible to connect them or to show that they relate to the same transaction. Blair v. Snodgrass, 33 Tenn. 1, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1853); Knox v. Haralson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 232 (1875).

Parol evidence is inadmissible to aid a contract for the sale of land described as “a certain tract of land, containing nine acres and 66 poles, near the junction of Broad Street, Nashville, and the Hillsboro turnpike, Davidson County, Tennessee.” Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1868).

Where an instrument is so drawn that, upon its face, it shows some particular tract of land was intended, and refers necessarily to some existing tract, and its terms can be applied to that one tract only, parol evidence is admissible to show where the tract so mentioned is located. Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1868); White v. Motley, 63 Tenn. 544, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 302 (1874); Dougherty v. Chesnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S.W. 444, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1887); Railroad v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586, 61 S.W. 1018, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 1900); Staub v. Hampton, 117 Tenn. 706, 101 S.W. 776, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Dec. 1906); Harriman Land Co. v. Hilton, 121 Tenn. 308, 120 S.W. 162, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1908).

Where the description must necessarily apply with equal exactness to any one of an indefinite number of tracts, parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the parties intended to designate a particular tract. Dobson v. Litton, 45 Tenn. 616, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1868); Railroad v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586, 61 S.W. 1018, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 1900); Denison-Gholson Dry Goods Co. v. Hill, 135 Tenn. 60, 185 S.W. 723, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1916).

Parol evidence is admissible to show where the land is that fills the description or the name given in the writing, but not to supply a material part, terms, or stipulations of the contract. Johnson v. Kellogg, 54 Tenn. 262, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1872); Dougherty v. Chesnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S.W. 444, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1887); Railroad v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586, 61 S.W. 1018, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 1900). See also Denison-Gholson Dry Goods Co. v. Hill, 135 Tenn. 60, 185 S.W. 723, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1916).

Where a contract between a certain person, a resident of another state, and a railroad company, situs of which is not stated, recites that the party of the first part “is the owner of certain lands fronting 4,574 lineal feet, more or less, on said second party's line of railroad, on mile 295 of Henderson Division,” the description of the land is insufficient, and parol evidence is inadmissible to identify and locate the land. Railroad v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586, 61 S.W. 1018, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 1900).

Where a deed of conveyance, by its terms, confers on the grantee a discretion to dispose of the land as he may see fit which is totally inconsistent with a mandatory trust, imposed upon the grantee, to convey the land otherwise than at his discretion, parol evidence is inadmissible to establish the mandatory trust. Mee v. Mee, 113 Tenn. 453, 82 S.W. 830, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 36, 106 Am. St. Rep. 865 (1904).

Where a deed conveys an absolute title, without more, parol evidence is admissible to show a valid express trust in land, created by a parol agreement at the time of the execution of the conveyance, but not expressed in the deed, that the property should be held and impressed with a beneficial trust in favor of a third person not mentioned in the face of the deed, or held in trust for the grantor, to be conveyed as he might direct. Mee v. Mee, 113 Tenn. 453, 82 S.W. 830, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 36, 106 Am. St. Rep. 865 (1904); Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Waller, 116 Tenn. 1, 95 S.W. 811, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1905).

If the description on its face is so indefinite as to be applicable to any other tract of land, then parol evidence is not admissible at all, because its effect is to supply by parol a material part of the agreement. Case v. Brier Hill Collieries, 145 Tenn. 1, 235 S.W. 57, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1921).

Where the description of property set out in a memorandum fails to state the county and state where the land is located but is otherwise so definite and exclusive that it does not reasonably appear that the description would fit equally any other tract, then parol proof is admissible to locate and designate the tract intended. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

88. — —Boundaries.

The law considers that as certain which is capable of being made certain; and the boundaries, capable of being made certain, are, in contemplation of law, fixed and certain. Ramsey v. Monroe, 35 Tenn. 329, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1855).

A deed or writing for the conveyance of land, though not itself giving the boundaries, nor expressly referring to a deed or paper that does, but by descriptive words, whether by metes or bounds or otherwise, conveying an undivided interest in the grant or tract or any particular part of it, the locality and boundaries of which are established and defined, either in law or in fact, so that they may be rendered certain, is sufficient. Heirs of Marr v. Gilliam, 41 Tenn. 488, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1860); Sheafer v. Mitchell, 109 Tenn. 181, 71 S.W. 86, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1902).

An unascertained or disputed boundary line dividing the lands of adjoining property owners may be permanently and irrevocably established by a parol agreement between the landowners and the agreement does not fall within the prohibition of the statute of frauds. Thornburg v. Chase, 606 S.W.2d 672, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 384 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

89. —Written Contracts.

Parol evidence is admissible to establish that a party to an oral agreement exceeded the powers conferred upon him to complete a written contract. Kimbroe v. Lamb, 22 Tenn. 17, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1842); Kimbroe v. Lamb, 23 Tenn. 95, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 26, 40 Am. Dec. 628 (1843); Taylor v. French, 70 Tenn. 257, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1879).

All parol agreements are merged into a subsequent written contract covering the same matters. Bryan v. Hunt, 36 Tenn. 543, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1857); Cobb v. Wallace, 45 Tenn. 539, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1868).

Oral proof of representations inducing the making of a contract reduced to writing must be limited to matters not otherwise plainly expressed in the writing, for the ultimate test is that of contradiction, which is never permissible. Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210, 268 S.W. 624, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1925).

Where contract in writing is signed by party to be charged, is fair in all its parts, is for an adequate consideration, and is capable of being performed equity will decree specific performance. Radiophone Broadcasting Station v. Imboden, 183 Tenn. 215, 191 S.W.2d 535, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 205 (1946).

A valid enforceable contract may be created by the oral acceptance of a written offer to sell real property. Bates v. Dennis, 30 Tenn. App. 94, 203 S.W.2d 928, 1946 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (1946).

90. — —Instruments Not Required to Be in Writing.

Where a bill is filed for the reformation of a written contract not required by the statute to be in writing, or of some part of it not required to be in writing, or of that part of it which may be varied by parol proof, or as to the consideration, parol evidence is admissible to vary, change, or reform the writing in cases of mistake, accident, or fraud, in drafting the instrument. Davidson v. Greer, 35 Tenn. 384, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1855); Barnes v. Gregory, 38 Tenn. 230, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Talley v. Courtney, 48 Tenn. 715, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (1870); Witherspoon v. Porter, 1 Shan. 666 (1876); Deakins v. Alley, 77 Tenn. 494, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1882); Bigham v. Madison, 103 Tenn. 358, 52 S.W. 1074, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 116, 47 L.R.A. 267 (1899), criticized, Acuff v. Allen, 28 Tenn. App. 451, 191 S.W.2d 196, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945); Rich v. Scales, 116 Tenn. 57, 91 S.W. 50, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1905).

91. — —Collateral Parol Agreements.

A separate, independent, or collateral agreement or substantive contract made in parol, and not contradicting the written contract may be established by parol proof. Betts v. Demumbrune, 3 Tenn. 39, 1 Cooke 39, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 17; Perry v. Central S.R.R., 45 Tenn. 138, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1867); Hawkins, Butt, Smith & Co. v. Lee, 76 Tenn. 42, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1881); Hines v. Willcox, 96 Tenn. 148, 33 S.W. 914, 34 L.R.A. 824, 54 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1895), rehearing denied, Hines v. Wilcox, 96 Tenn. 328, 34 S.W. 420, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 34 L.R.A. 832 (1895); Quigley & Co. v. Shedd, 104 Tenn. 560, 58 S.W. 266, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1900), questioned, In re Clairfield Lumber Co., 194 F. 181, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42 (D. Ky. 1911).

A subsequent, additional, supplementary, or substitutional parol contract may alter, vary, change, or entirely destroy a written contract or instrument, not required by statute to be in writing. Bryan v. Hunt, 36 Tenn. 543, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1857); Lytle v. Bass, 47 Tenn. 303, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1869); Meacham v. Herndon, 86 Tenn. 366, 6 S.W. 741, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1887).

Where a contract required to be in writing is in writing, an independent collateral agreement with reference to the same subject matter may be in parol where the statute does not require it to be in writing. Brumley v. Miller, 2 Shan. 454 (1877); Lewis v. Turnley, 97 Tenn. 197, 36 S.W. 872, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1896); McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631, 214 S.W. 432, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1919).

This section does not bar evidence of a subsequent oral agreement changing the form of consideration to be paid to the person who is asserting the statute. Badger v. Boyd, 16 Tenn. App. 629, 65 S.W.2d 601, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

92. — —Covenants.

Covenant in mortgage did not violate statute of frauds and was not void as uncertain and indefinite in providing that mortgagors may subdivide and sell small tracts of the land from time to time and that mortgagee will release lien of mortgage as to such tracts as may be sold upon receiving equivalent of $200 per acre, such payment to be applied upon indebtedness so secured. Galbraith v. Roddy, 19 Tenn. App. 572, 92 S.W.2d 419, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (1934).

93. — —Conditions.

Parol evidence is admissible to prove that a written contract or instrument was conditional, or that it was to take effect upon contingencies, or to show fraud in its procurement. Littlejohn v. Fowler, 45 Tenn. 284, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1868); Waterbury v. Russell, 67 Tenn. 159, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 343 (1874); Myers v. Lindsay, 73 Tenn. 331, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1880); Barnard v. Roane Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 139, 2 S.W. 21, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1886); Hines v. Willcox, 96 Tenn. 148, 33 S.W. 914, 34 L.R.A. 824, 54 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1895), rehearing denied, Hines v. Wilcox, 96 Tenn. 328, 34 S.W. 420, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 34 L.R.A. 832 (1895).

94. — —Contracts Partly in Writing.

A contract made partly in writing and partly in parol is an oral contract and the writing and parol testimony are competent to show the entire contract. Leinau v. Smart, 30 Tenn. 308, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1850); Cobb v. Wallace, 45 Tenn. 539, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1868); Mowry v. Davenport, 74 Tenn. 80, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1880); Smith v. O'Donnell, 76 Tenn. 468, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1881); Myers v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 364, 64 S.W. 719, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1901).

95. — —Delivery of Instrument.

Notes executed prior to payee's death, but not delivered until after his death, were not sufficient memorandum of a sale. Thompson v. Ford, 145 Tenn. 335, 236 S.W. 2, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1921).

A deed, to be operative or effective as such, or as a mere memorandum, must be delivered to the party for whose benefit it purports to be made, but a mere memorandum of a sale is not required to be delivered in order to make it valid; and a deposition voluntarily given, together with the cross-examination, may be connected with and aid a memorandum of a contract to sell and convey land. Huffine v. McCampbell, 149 Tenn. 47, 257 S.W. 80, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1923).

96. — —Written Modification.

A written contract, after it is made, may be modified by express words of the parties in writing, as well as by parol, notwithstanding the contract itself provides that it cannot be subsequently modified. Co-operative Stores Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 137 Tenn. 609, 195 S.W. 177, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1917).

A mortgage cannot be modified or extended by an oral agreement to secure further indebtedness. Lambert v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 481 S.W.2d 770, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (Tenn. 1972).

97. —Parol Contracts.

A contract partly in writing and partly in parol is treated as a parol contract, as where the writing is imperfect or incomplete, or where a complete written contract is afterwards changed orally; and in such cases, the writing and the parol evidence are competent to show the entire contract. Turley v. Cooley, 3 Shan. 68 (1879); Myers v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 364, 64 S.W. 719, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1901).

A separate estate in personalty or realty may be charged by parol contract when the whole contract is in parol. Eckerly v. McGhee, 85 Tenn. 661, 4 S.W. 386, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1887); Webster v. Helm, 93 Tenn. 322, 24 S.W. 488, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1893); National Exch. Bank v. Cumberland Lumber Co., 100 Tenn. 479, 47 S.W. 85, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 138 (1897).

The application of the statute of frauds prevents the proving of an oral contract to sell land but once the objection of the statute has been met, either by a written memorandum or an exception to the statute, the entire contract may be explained and proved by parol evidence. Southern States Dev. Co. v. Robinson, 494 S.W.2d 777, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

An oral agreement whereby agent of commercial loan institution promised to lend real estate company $20,000 on the security of a deed of trust on real estate was within the statute of frauds. Southern Indus. Banking Corp. v. Delta Properties, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 815, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. 1976).

Agreement that the individuals sought to enforce in another case was an oral agreement for the sale of real property and not the original written agreement, which was unenforceable; the individuals could not have prevailed in that case, such that the outcome of that case would have been no different had the attorney taken the actions the individuals alleged should have been taken, and thus the attorney was entitled to summary judgment. Lyons v. Atchley, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. May 14, 2015).

Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a decedent's grandson and his wife because an oral contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds; none of the quitclaim deeds that transferred ownership of the property contained any reference to a promise, understanding, or agreement that transfer of title was in consideration for future rental income, and the decedent's estate provided no writing regarding the payment of rental income to the decedent. Estate of Elrod v. Petty, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Oral agreement fell squarely within the classic definition of a “sale” of lands because the payment of rental income to the decedent for remainder of her life was the price the grandson agreed to pay in exchange for the property; because the purported contract involved the sale of real property, it was subject to the statute of frauds. Estate of Elrod v. Petty, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016).

Trial court properly ruled that property owners'  cause of action for fraud, fraud in the inducement, and promissory fraud failed as a matter of law because the fraud claims were based on a church's alleged oral promise to purchase owners'  real property and, as such, were barred by the statute of frauds. Harlan v. Cornerstone Church of Nashville, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2018).

98. — —Deeds.

An undelivered deed standing alone in itself is not sufficient to take an oral contract out of the statute of frauds, but if the deed incorporates the terms of a prior oral contract of sale it is a sufficient memorandum, and satisfies the statute. Black v. Black, 185 Tenn. 23, 202 S.W.2d 659, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (1947), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

A duly executed deed and a prepared deed of trust which contained terms of prior oral contract of sale took the oral contract out of the statute though deed and trust agreement was never delivered but subsequently destroyed by grantor. Black v. Black, 185 Tenn. 23, 202 S.W.2d 659, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (1947), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

An undelivered deed can constitute a sufficient memorandum of a parol contract for sale of land. Southern States Dev. Co. v. Robinson, 494 S.W.2d 777, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

99. — — —Acceptance of Deed.

Where warranty deed issued by grantor of real estate was a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds on the theory that it contains substantially the terms of the oral contract for conveyance of the property it was not necessary that the deed be delivered to take the contract out of the statute. Black v. Black, 185 Tenn. 23, 202 S.W.2d 659, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (1947), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006).

100. — —Collateral Agreements.

A written contract for the purchase of a lot and improvements to be made thereon, describing the house to be built only as “a five room brick bungalow,” did not purport to cover the entire agreement as to the improvements, and parol agreements as to the plans and specifications, the kind and quality of materials other than brick, the garage, driveway, landscaping, etc., were collateral to the written contract and were the inducement for it, and were enforceable notwithstanding the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule. Haynes v. Morton, 32 Tenn. App. 251, 222 S.W.2d 389, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (1949).

Where plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with third party to purchase a foundry and necessary papers to complete transaction were prepared on April 30 to be executed on following day May 1, and fire occurred at foundry on evening of April 30, the plaintiff could not enforce a fire insurance contract secured by plaintiff on April 30, since it had no insurable interest at time of fire, as oral contract of purchase was unenforceable by either party since it violated statute of frauds. Cherokee Foundries, Inc. v. Imperial Assurance Co., 188 Tenn. 349, 219 S.W.2d 203, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 346, 9 A.L.R.2d 177 (1949).

Where written contract for purchase of lot specified that certain type of home would be constructed thereon, but specifications as to plans and quality of materials were not included, oral agreements as to such specifications were collateral, going to the inducement for the purchase of the lot, and were not unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Haynes v. Morton, 32 Tenn. App. 251, 222 S.W.2d 389, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (1949).

It is consistent with the commercial paper statute and with the parol evidence rule that a prior or collateral oral agreement which varies or contradicts the express terms of an instrument is inadmissible in evidence. Continental Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Alamo, 578 S.W.2d 625, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 417 (Tenn. 1979).

101. — —Part Performance.

Part performance of a parol contract required by the statute to be in writing will not take the contract out of the statute so as to make it binding and effective. Townsend v. Sharp, 2 Tenn. 191, 2 Tenn. 192, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1812); Patton v. M'Clure, 8 Tenn. 332, 8 Tenn. 333, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1828); Washington's Lessee v. Trousdale, 8 Tenn. 385, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1828); Crippen v. Bearden & Odell, 24 Tenn. 129, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1844); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Goodloe v. Goodloe, 116 Tenn. 252, 92 S.W. 767, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 703 (1906); Harris v. Morgan, 157 Tenn. 140, 7 S.W.2d 53, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1927); Buice v. Scruggs Equip. Co., 194 Tenn. 129, 250 S.W.2d 44, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 359 (1952).

Part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land will not take the case out of the statute of frauds, as the taking of possession of the land by the parol vendee and his permanently improving it, and paying the purchase money. Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Harris v. Morgan, 157 Tenn. 140, 7 S.W.2d 53, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1927).

A part performance of a verbal contract for the sale of realty, as delivery of possession on the one side and the payment of a part or the entire purchase money on the other side, will not render the contract binding. Brakefield v. Anderson, 87 Tenn. 206, 10 S.W. 360, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1888) and cases cited.

The rule that the partial performance of a parol contract will not relieve from application of the statute has become a rule of property. Goodloe v. Goodloe, 116 Tenn. 252, 92 S.W. 767, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 6 L.R.A. (n.s.) 703 (1906).

Part performance of a parol contract does not take the contract out of the statute and such rule has been so long applied that it has become a rule of property. Knight v. Knight, 222 Tenn. 367, 436 S.W.2d 289, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 446 (1969).

Part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land will not take the agreement out of the statute of frauds; the harshness of this rule has been mitigated by the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in exceptional cases where to enforce the statute of frauds would make it an instrument of hardship and oppression, verging on actual fraud. Baliles v. Cities Serv. Co., 578 S.W.2d 621, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. 1979).

102. — —Voidable Nature and Election.

A parol contract of sale and purchase of land is not void, but is voidable only at the election of either party, and it may be rescinded by either party at his option, and the vendor cannot enforce it as against a resisting vendee pleading the statute; but such contract may be specifically executed as against either party, if he fails or refuses to rely upon the statute. Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Roberts v. Francis, 49 Tenn. 127, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 202 (1870); Hamilton v. Gilbert, 49 Tenn. 680, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1871); Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871); McClure v. Harris, 54 Tenn. 379, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1872); Biggs v. Johnson, 1 Shan. 138 (1872); Winters v. Elliott, 69 Tenn. 676, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1878); Hays v. Worsham, 77 Tenn. 591, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1882); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Brakefield v. Anderson, 87 Tenn. 206, 10 S.W. 360, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1888); Citty v. Southern Queen Mfg. Co., 93 Tenn. 276, 24 S.W. 121, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 54, 42 Am. St. Rep. 919 (1893); Phillips v. Kimmons, 94 Tenn. 562, 29 S.W. 965, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1894); King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561, 40 S.W. 1082, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1897); Barnes v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354, 47 S.W. 498, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1898); Slatton v. Tennessee C., I. & R. Co., 109 Tenn. 415, 75 S.W. 926, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1902); Simmons v. Edens, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 56 (1910); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

Upon the repudiation or abandonment of a parol contract for the sale of land, the purchaser may recover the contract price of personal property delivered to the vendor in part payment of the purchase price of the land, where such personalty is not tendered back. Miller v. Jones, 40 Tenn. 525, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1859).

Where the parol vendee elects to avoid after the death of the parol vendor, at which time his equitable claim for compensation for improvements comes into existence, it is clear that the liability attaches to the property itself out of which it sprang; and it is not a debt of the estate to be paid by the personal representative. Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871).

Where there is a verbal sale and exchange of lands, with delivery of possession on both sides, the parties will be given a reasonable time in which they may reciprocally elect whether to execute or rescind the contract, with a decree for a proper adjustment in case of rescission. McClure v. Harris, 54 Tenn. 379, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1872).

A parol sale of land is voidable after the death of the vendor at the election of his heirs, and their institution of a suit to recover the land is an effective exercise of their right to disaffirm and rescind the contract. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn. 282, 45 S.W. 677, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1897); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

Right of election is not that of personal representative. Simmons v. Edens, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 56 (1910).

Where, under the statute of frauds, an oral contract for the sale of property was unenforceable against the seller or purchaser, a bankruptcy trustee, as successor to the purchaser's interests, could not establish an ownership interest in the property by virtue of the doctrine of equitable conversion. Walker v. Elman (In re Fowler), 201 B.R. 771, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1293 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996).

The statute of frauds does not render oral contracts for the sale of land void ab initio, instead such contracts are merely voidable at the election of either party. Anderson v. Hacks Crossing Partners, 3 S.W.3d 482, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

103. — —Right to Assert Statute.

104. — — —Creditors.

The purchase money paid on a parol contract for the sale of land not repudiated by the vendor is not subject to attachment at the suit of judgment creditors of the vendee. Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856).

Where a judgment creditor of the parol vendor purchases the land at execution sale after the assignee of the purchase money notes, executed under the parol sale, has filed his bill to enforce the vendor's lien, such purchasing creditor cannot interpose the statute as against the completion of the parol sale. Roberts v. Francis, 49 Tenn. 127, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 202 (1870).

After the payment of the purchase money, but before the execution of the deed made in pursuance of a previous parol contract for sale of land to be conveyed to the parol purchaser as trustee for the use and benefit of his wife and their children, a person becoming a creditor of both the vendor and such purchasing trustee cannot subject the land to the payment of his debt. Mathews v. Massey, 63 Tenn. 450, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 290 (1874).

105. — — —Subsequent Purchasers.

A subsequent purchaser of land, without notice, actual or constructive, of the making of an extension of a timber contract by his vendor, may question the making thereof, and its validity. Childers v. Wm. H. Coleman Co., 122 Tenn. 109, 118 S.W. 1018, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1909).

106. — — —Parties to Contract.

If the parties themselves choose to execute the contract, third persons cannot object. Brakefield v. Anderson, 87 Tenn. 206, 10 S.W. 360, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1888); King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561, 40 S.W. 1082, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1897); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911); Aiken v. Galyon-Crumley Lumber Co., 1 Tenn. App. 702, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 10 (1926).

A parol contract for the sale of land is not voidable by the vendee's administrator, where the vendor and the vendee's heirs are willing to complete the contract, and tender performance, especially where the vendor is willing to look to the land alone for the unpaid purchase money, and waives any right to recover against the personal estate of the vendee. Phillips v. Kimmons, 94 Tenn. 562, 29 S.W. 965, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1894); Simmons v. Edens, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 56 (1910); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

A deposition of the defendant taken by the complainant, in which the defendant is forced to give evidence, in writing sworn to and signed by him, will not defeat his right to rely on the statute. Huffine v. McCampbell, 149 Tenn. 47, 257 S.W. 80, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1923).

An answer to a bankruptcy trustee's complaint by the seller of property, admitting the existence and validity of an oral contract, constituted a written memorialization of the contract sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Walker v. Elman (In re Fowler), 201 B.R. 771, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1293 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996).

107. — —Rescission.

Parol rescission of an executory written contract for the sale of land, clearly established, can be set up in chancery to defeat an application for specific performance. Walker v. Wheatly, 21 Tenn. 119, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1840); England v. Jackson, 22 Tenn. 584, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 153 (1842); Page v. Meath, 3 Shan. 717 (1876); Chadwell v. Winston, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 110 (1876).

Where a deed of conveyance of land has been duly executed and accepted with the purpose of passing the title, a rescission of such a contract cannot be made by parol. A redelivery of the deed cannot effect a rescission, however intended by the parties. In an action at law by the vendor for the purchase money, the vendee cannot rely on the defense of a rescission by parol or redelivery of the deed to the vendor. However, in equity, relief might be afforded the vendee, if the facts of the case brought him within the rules of the subject on equitable estoppel, or the enforcement of agreements to rescind. Howard v. Huffman, 40 Tenn. 562, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (1859); Page v. Meath, 3 Shan. 717 (1876); Poindexter v. Rawlings, 106 Tenn. 97, 59 S.W. 766, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 137, 82 Am. St. Rep. 869 (1900).

There is no requirement of the statute of frauds, parol evidence rule or other rule of law that prohibits the oral rescission, cancelation, destruction, or abandonment of a written contract for the sale of land. Walker v. Wood, 31 Tenn. App. 196, 213 S.W.2d 523, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (1948).

The statute of frauds does not cover an oral contract to rescind a written contract. McIntosh v. Goodwin, 40 Tenn. App. 505, 292 S.W.2d 242, 1954 Tenn. App. LEXIS 169 (1954).

Oral contract for rescission of transaction involving exchange and conveyance of real property would have been within statute of frauds if it had embraced real property other than that described in the deeds to the property so exchanged. McIntosh v. Goodwin, 40 Tenn. App. 505, 292 S.W.2d 242, 1954 Tenn. App. LEXIS 169 (1954).

108. — — —Mode of Rescission.

The better practice in all cases of rescission, either by suit or vendor to recover the land or by suit of the vendee to recover the purchase money paid, is to file a bill in chancery, disaffirming the contract, and bringing all interested parties before the court, where all the matters can be adjusted in one proceeding. Biggs v. Johnson, 1 Shan. 622 (Tenn. 1876).

The bringing of a suit by the heirs of the deceased parol vendor is an effective exercise of their right to rescind, with all the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn. 282, 45 S.W. 677, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1897).

109. — —Right to Redeem.

Where the right to redeem or repurchase property absolutely conveyed is reserved by parol, the right may be waived by parol. Scott v. Britton, 10 Tenn. 215, —S.W.3d— ,1828 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1828).

110. — —Recognition of Contract.

Though the parol contract of the sale of land be confessed by the answer, if the statute be insisted on by way of defense, the court will not enforce the contract. Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Hays v. Worsham, 77 Tenn. 591, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1882).

The agreement of counsel to allow the lien, claimed under writings insufficient under the statute, to be set up without the necessity of a cross bill, does not have the effect of an answer admitting the contract and not relying upon the statute. Langley v. Vaughn, 57 Tenn. 553, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 259 (1873).

Transactions between the parties, which recognize the validity of a prior parol contract required to be in writing, but fall short of the requirements of the statute, will not estop either party from avoiding the contract. Therefore, transactions by one of the parties with third persons, although in recognition of the prior parol contract, cannot have a greater effect than the transactions between the original parties to such contract. Estoppels must be mutual, and one party cannot be estopped by an act which leaves the other party at liberty. Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883).

111. —Parol Evidence.

Parol evidence is not admissible at law to vary the terms of a written contract. Betts v. Demumbrune, 3 Tenn. 39, 1 Cooke 39, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 17; Philips v. Keener, 2 Tenn. 329, 1814 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1814); Richardson v. Thompson, 20 Tenn. 151, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1839); Cobb v. O'Neal, 34 Tenn. 438, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1854); Ellis v. Hamilton, 36 Tenn. 512, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1857); Bryan v. Hunt, 36 Tenn. 543, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1857); Perry v. Central S.R.R., 45 Tenn. 138, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1867); Littlejohn v. Fowler, 45 Tenn. 284, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1868); Cobb v. Wallace, 45 Tenn. 539, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1868); Nashville Life Ins. Co. v. Mathews, 76 Tenn. 499, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1881); Lewis v. Turnley, 97 Tenn. 197, 36 S.W. 872, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1896); American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Hawkinson, 21 Tenn. App. 127, 106 S.W.2d 564, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

A deed conveying an absolute, unrestricted, and unconditional title cannot be varied by oral evidence that the grantee agreed to erect only certain kinds of buildings upon the land. McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631, 214 S.W. 432, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1919).

Parol evidence is inadmissible to show a trust in contradiction of express term of the instrument. Caprum v. Bransford Realty Co., 4 Tenn. App. 237, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (1927).

Where a certificate of deposit for bonds left with a bank was intended to be a mere receipt or a special deposit, parol evidence is admissible, certificate being partly a receipt and partly a contract. Robertson v. Ramsey, 17 Tenn. App. 248, 66 S.W.2d 1022, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Parol evidence is admissible that grantee under a deed absolute on its face took the real estate subject to an oral trust. Brantley v. Brantley, 198 Tenn. 670, 281 S.W.2d 668, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1955).

Where written contract shows on its face that there is no ambiguity nor an undisclosed principal, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms. Cartwright v. Giacosa, 216 Tenn. 18, 390 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 555 (Tenn. May 7, 1965).

Evidence of the acceptance of a land contract upon the part of the purchaser may be in parol as at common law before the statute of frauds. Bush v. Cathey, 598 S.W.2d 777, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 385, 11 A.L.R.4th 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

Plaintiff's parol evidence explaining the terms of the agreement was properly admitted as to the acknowledgment, signed by defendant, contained on the note, and while the acknowledgment did not set forth the exact terms of the loan agreement, it did serve as corroboration of plaintiff's testimony regarding the oral terms of the loan agreement between the parties and also sufficed as proof that the agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds. Birdwell v. Psimer, 151 S.W.3d 916, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1057 (Tenn. Nov. 29, 2004).

112. — —Ambiguities.

While the ambiguity raised by a state of facts dehors the instrument is called a latent ambiguity, and that produced merely by the words of the instrument is denominated a patent ambiguity; and it is generally said with truth that latent ambiguity admits, and patent ambiguity excludes, parol and extrinsic evidence, yet, the line is very difficult to be drawn in many instances, and there is an ambiguity answering to the terms of the description of a latent ambiguity which nevertheless partakes of the character and consequences of a patent ambiguity, as where, by reference to external circumstances, the intention expressed in the instrument is not only thrown in doubt, but the language used becomes irreconcilable and contradictory, so as to become incapable of expressing any intention with certainty. This sort of ambiguity, whether denominated patent or latent, is such as will not yield to any evidence of extraneous and collateral declarations. Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. 272, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1848).

Where the contract or memorandum for the sale of land describes the purchaser by the designation of “Mr. Lee,” the contract is not thereby rendered void for uncertainty, for the description of the vendee is at most but a latent ambiguity. Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S.W. 835, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 13, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 (1887).

A latent ambiguity exists where the equivocality of expression or obscurity of intention does not arise from the words themselves, but from the ambiguous state of extrinsic circumstances to which the words of the instrument refer, and which is susceptible of explanation by the mere development of extraneous facts, without altering or adding to the written language, or requiring more to be understood thereby than will fairly comport with the ordinary or legal sense of the words and phrases used. Staub v. Hampton, 117 Tenn. 706, 101 S.W. 776, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Dec. 1906); Teague v. Sowder, 121 Tenn. 132, 114 S.W. 484, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1908).

Parol evidence is admissible to explain ambiguities; but a distinction runs through the cases between latent and patent ambiguities. The statute of frauds, which, in this particular, is declarative and corroborative of the rule of the common law, virtually forbids, in the cases within its provisions, the resort to extrinsic evidence, in those instances wherein the ambiguity is patent, and only admits it in those cases in which the ambiguity is latent; and, in such cases, the object of the collateral evidence is only by comparison of the words of the instrument with external circumstances, whether consisting of facts or declarations, to attach a meaning and applicability to expressions within the limits of their grammatical or legal acceptation. Staub v. Hampton, 117 Tenn. 706, 101 S.W. 776, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Dec. 1906).

A patent ambiguity is one produced by the uncertainty, contradictoriness, or deficiency of the language of an instrument, so that no discovery of facts, or proof of declarations, can restore the doubtful or smothered sense without adding ideas which the actual words will not themselves sustain. Teague v. Sowder, 121 Tenn. 132, 114 S.W. 484, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1908).

113. — —Consideration.

Parol evidence is admissible under proper pleading to show a consideration when none is expressed in the contract, and when it is expressed it may be varied by parol evidence. Taul v. Campbell, 15 Tenn. 318, 15 Tenn. 319, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1835); Gilman v. Kibler, 24 Tenn. 19, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1844); Whitby v. Whitby, 36 Tenn. 473, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1857), overruled in part, Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 2006); Gass v. Hawkins, 1 Shan. 167 (1860); Perry v. Central S.R.R., 45 Tenn. 138, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1867); Mowry v. Davenport, 74 Tenn. 80, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1880); White v. Blakemore, 76 Tenn. 49, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1881); Harris v. Morgan, 157 Tenn. 140, 7 S.W.2d 53, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1927); Hughes v. Herbert, 159 Tenn. 187, 17 S.W.2d 16, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1929).

114. — —Prior or Contemporaneous Agreements.

A written instrument, importing a legal obligation, containing the terms of the contract between the parties, intelligible in itself, complete in its terms, and without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of the agreement, is presumed to contain the whole agreement, and all parol testimony of previous conversations between the parties, or of declarations at the time when the instrument was executed, tending to substitute a different contract, are inadmissible as evidence. Wood v. Goodrich, 17 Tenn. 266, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1836).

Parol evidence is admissible to change the mode or time of payment of a note, or to vary or alter its terms, in accordance with an alleged contemporaneous agreement, under no circumstances, except where the note, either by fraud, accident, or mistake, does not contain the true stipulations of the contract, and then only upon a bill in chancery for the correction and reformation of the instrument. Campbell v. Upshaw, 26 Tenn. 185, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 98, 46 Am. Dec. 75 (1846); Hancock v. Edwards, 26 Tenn. 349, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1846); Bridges v. Robinson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 720 (1877); Myers v. Lindsay, 73 Tenn. 331, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1880).

In an action upon a note, contemporaneous parol evidence is inadmissible to prolong or extend the date or time of payment thereof beyond the time specified in the note, or to change the mode of payment therein specified, or to otherwise vary the terms or legal import of the note. Campbell v. Upshaw, 26 Tenn. 185, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 98, 46 Am. Dec. 75 (1846); Blakemore v. Wood, 35 Tenn. 470, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1856); Ellis v. Hamilton, 36 Tenn. 512, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1857); Self v. Harmon, 1 Shan. 74 (1858); Doherty v. Stevenson, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 25 (1875); Gregory v. Bohannon, 3 Shan. 479 (1875); Bridges v. Robinson, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 720 (1877); Fields v. Stunston, 41 Tenn. 40, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1860); Ragsdale v. Gossett, 70 Tenn. 729, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 233 (1879); Myers v. Lindsay, 73 Tenn. 331, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1880); East Tenn. Iron Mfg. Co. v. Gaskell, 70 Tenn. 742, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1879); Bender v. Montgomery, 76 Tenn. 586, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1881); Blizzard v. Craigmiles, 75 Tenn. 693, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1881); White v. Blakemore, 76 Tenn. 49, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1881); Leech v. Hillsman, 76 Tenn. 747, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1882); Sweeney v. Thomason, 77 Tenn. 359, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 42 Am. Rep. 676 (1882); Jordan v. Keeble, 85 Tenn. 412, 3 S.W. 511, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1886), questioned, Sam Levy & Co. v. Davis, 125 Tenn. 342, 142 S.W. 1118, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1911); Klein v. Kern, 94 Tenn. 34, 28 S.W. 295, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1894); Hines v. Willcox, 96 Tenn. 148, 33 S.W. 914, 34 L.R.A. 824, 54 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1895), rehearing denied, Hines v. Wilcox, 96 Tenn. 328, 34 S.W. 420, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 34 L.R.A. 832 (1895); Jones v. Cullen, 100 Tenn. 1, 42 S.W. 873, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1897); McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631, 214 S.W. 432, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1919).

Contemporaneous parol evidence is inadmissible to charge the separate estate of a married woman by showing that such was the understanding and intention, where the promissory note or other agreement or contract in writing does not expressly bind the separate estate for the debt. Ragsdale v. Gossett, 70 Tenn. 729, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 233 (1879); Jackson v. Rutledge, 71 Tenn. 626, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1879); Jordan v. Keeble, 85 Tenn. 412, 3 S.W. 511, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1886), questioned, Sam Levy & Co. v. Davis, 125 Tenn. 342, 142 S.W. 1118, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1911); Warren v. Freeman, 85 Tenn. 513, 3 S.W. 513, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1886); Eckerly v. McGhee, 85 Tenn. 661, 4 S.W. 386, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1887); Wallace v. Goodlet, 93 Tenn. 598, 30 S.W. 27, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1894).

Trial court did not err by finding that a claim by the purported owner to title of a disputed interest in real property was barred by the Statute of Frauds because there was no deed or other written document evidencing any agreement or conveyance to the purported owner. Furthermore, an exception for complete performance, therefore, could not apply to the situation. Logan v. Estate of Cannon, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2016).

115. — —Omissions or Defects.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to show a mistake in the bond or record sued on at law. Dibrell v. Miller, 16 Tenn. 476, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 111, 29 Am. Dec. 126 (1835).

The written evidence of the contract must be reasonably certain in itself, as to the estate intended to be sold, and the terms of sale, as parol evidence to supply a writing defective in this respect is inadmissible. Blair v. Snodgrass, 33 Tenn. 1, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1853).

Where a proposition made during the preliminary negotiations is not embraced in the written contract subsequently formulated between the parties, it is presumed to have been intentionally omitted therefrom. McCrary Bros. v. Bristol Bank & Trust Co., 97 Tenn. 469, 37 S.W. 543, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (1896).

116. — —Custom or Usage.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove a custom or usage in conflict with, inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the manifest intention of the parties as expressed by the terms of their written contract. Bedford v. Flowers, 30 Tenn. 242, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (1850); Sweeney v. Thomason, 77 Tenn. 359, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 42 Am. Rep. 676 (1882); Pennsylvania R.R. v. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S.W. 124, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 101, 64 L.R.A. 443 (1903).

Parol evidence is admissible to show a custom or usage which does not vary the terms of the contract, nor violate any statute or rule of law. Pennsylvania R.R. v. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S.W. 124, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 101, 64 L.R.A. 443 (1903); American Lead Pencil Co. v. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 124 Tenn. 57, 134 S.W. 613, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 41, 32 L.R.A. (n.s.) 323 (1911).

117. — —Alteration of Writing.

While the burden of proof is upon the party seeking to impeach the writing, a preponderance is all that is required. McBee v. Bowman, 89 Tenn. 132, 14 S.W. 481, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1890); Stone v. Manning, 103 Tenn. 232, 52 S.W. 990, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1899).

118. — —Delivery.

That delivery of a note, deed, or release was conditional may be shown by parol evidence. Breeden v. Grigg, 67 Tenn. 163, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1874).

119. — —Fraudulent Misrepresentation.

The parol evidence rule does not apply to a case involving a fraudulent misrepresentation which induces the contract. Crain v. Brown, 823 S.W.2d 187, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), overruled, Matlock v. Simpson, 902 S.W.2d 384, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. 1995).

120. —Rights of Vendee.

The rule that independent third parties cannot intervene to prevent the completion and enforcement of a parol sale of land does not entitle a parol vendee to recover possession from independent third parties in possession, and claiming in their own right from an entirely different source. King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561, 40 S.W. 1082, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1897); Bailey ex rel. State v. Henry, 125 Tenn. 390, 143 S.W. 1124, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Dec. 1911).

121. — —Effect of Lapse of Time.

Neither the statutes of limitations nor the lapse of time will affect the right of a vendee, or of a donee under a parol gift, to recover the purchase money paid and compensation for improvements made, until there is a disaffirmance or rescission of the contract, or a refusal to complete and make effective the parol gift. Hilton v. Duncan, 41 Tenn. 313, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1860); Caldwell v. Palmer, 74 Tenn. 652, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 192 (1881).

122. — —Surrender of Possession.

The surrender of possession and the actual removal from the premises by a vendee under parol contract is not prerequisite to his maintenance of a suit to recover the purchase money paid by him, if he is able to restore the possession at the end of the litigation. Hurst v. Means, 32 Tenn. 594, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1853); Hilton v. Duncan, 41 Tenn. 313, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1860); Biggs v. Johnson, 1 Shan. 622 (Tenn. 1876); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Brakefield v. Anderson, 87 Tenn. 206, 10 S.W. 360, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1888); Sartain v. Dixie Coal & Iron Co., 150 Tenn. 633, 266 S.W. 313, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1924).

123. — —Rescission.

Parol rescission of an executory written contract for the sale of land, clearly established, can be set up in chancery to defeat an application for specific performance. Walker v. Wheatly, 21 Tenn. 119, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1840); Fleming v. Martin, 39 Tenn. 43, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

The vendee's right to reimbursement for purchase money paid and improvements made under an invalid or parol contract constitutes an equity attaching to the land, which is superior to that of a subsequent purchaser in satisfaction of a preexisting debt. Rhea v. Allison, 40 Tenn. 176, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1859); Cook v. Cook, 40 Tenn. 719, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1859), questioned, Anderson v. Ammonett, 77 Tenn. 1, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1882), overruled, J. & A. Simpkinson & Co. v. McGee, 72 Tenn. 432, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1880); Finnegan v. Finnegan, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 510 (1877); Anderson v. Ammonett, 77 Tenn. 1, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1882); Grotenkemper v. Carver, 77 Tenn. 280, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1882).

Where a bill is filed for the rescission of a written contract, even where required to be in writing, upon the ground of fraud, parol evidence of the fraud or the fraudulent representations of the other party in negotiating and procuring the contract is admissible. Barnard v. Roane Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 139, 2 S.W. 21, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1886); Hines v. Willcox, 96 Tenn. 148, 33 S.W. 914, 34 L.R.A. 824, 54 Am. St. Rep. 823, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1895), rehearing denied, Hines v. Wilcox, 96 Tenn. 328, 34 S.W. 420, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 34 L.R.A. 832 (1895); Samuel v. King, 158 Tenn. 546, 14 S.W.2d 963, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 185 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 1929).

124. — — —Permanent Improvements.

Where a parol gift of land is rescinded, the donee is entitled in chancery to a lien on the land for improvements erected by him thereon, with the knowledge of the owner and parol donor, and without any objection by him, less the rents and profits, for, while the owner cannot recover the rents and profits of land in the possession of another under his parol gift, still such rents and profits may be set off against the compensation allowed for permanent improvements erected by the donee. Ridley v. McNairy, 21 Tenn. 174, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1840); Humphreys v. Holtsinger, 35 Tenn. 228, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1855); Smithson v. Inman, 61 Tenn. 88, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1872); Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880); Caldwell v. Palmer, 74 Tenn. 652, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 192 (1881).

The vendee cannot recover at law compensation for improvements made by him under a rescinded parol contract. Mathews v. Davis, 25 Tenn. 324, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1845).

A vendee rescinding a parol contract for the sale and purchase of land is entitled to compensation for improvements erected by him to the extent of their permanent enhancement of the value of the land, and to have the same declared a lien on the land. Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871); Neal v. Cole, 1 Shan. 653 (1876); Winters v. Elliott, 69 Tenn. 676, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1878); Caldwell v. Palmer, 74 Tenn. 652, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 192 (1881); Smoot v. Smoot, 80 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (1883).

A vendee who comes into chancery seeking compensation for improvements made by him will be repelled, unless at the time of making the improvements he intended honestly to consummate his contract of purchase, and fails to do so without fault on his part, but on account of the default or wrong of the vendor in his failure or refusal to execute the contract. Rainer v. Huddleston, 51 Tenn. 223, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1871), superseded by statute as stated in, Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Guthrie v. Holt, 68 Tenn. 527, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1876); Mann v. Russey, 101 Tenn. 596, 49 S.W. 835, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1898) (dicta).

Purchaser who entered upon land under an oral contract may recover for improvements placed upon the land, where he is subsequently ejected by bill in chancery because the contract is oral. Witt v. Siler, 12 Tenn. App. 116, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 204 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

125. — — —Purchase Money and Taxes.

The vendee will be entitled to a lien on the land for the purchase money and taxes paid, and for the permanent enhancement of the value of the land resulting from the erection of improvements thereon by him, made in good faith and with the expectation of consummating the contract, and made with the vendor's knowledge, and without any objection by him, less the rents and profits, with interest calculated upon the principle of partial payments, so as not to compound the interest. Herring v. Pollard, 23 Tenn. 362, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 113, 40 Am. Dec. 653 (1843); Mathews v. Davis, 25 Tenn. 324, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1845); Humphreys v. Holtsinger, 35 Tenn. 228, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1855); Rhea v. Allison, 40 Tenn. 176, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1859); Hilton v. Duncan, 41 Tenn. 313, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1860); Rainer v. Huddleston, 51 Tenn. 223, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1871), superseded by statute as stated in, Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871); Smithson v. Inman, 61 Tenn. 88, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1872); Wright v. Dufield, 61 Tenn. 218, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 362 (1872), overruled, Hays v. Dalton, 73 Tenn. 555, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1880); Guthrie v. Holt, 68 Tenn. 527, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1876); Neal v. Cole, 1 Shan. 653 (1876); Winters v. Elliott, 69 Tenn. 676, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1878); Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880); Caldwell v. Palmer, 74 Tenn. 652, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 192 (1881); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Fisher v. Edington, 80 Tenn. 189, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 157 (1883); Smoot v. Smoot, 80 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (1883); Howard v. Massengale, 81 Tenn. 577, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1884); Fisher v. Edington, 85 Tenn. 23, 1 S.W. 499, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1886); Phillips v. Kimmons, 94 Tenn. 562, 29 S.W. 965, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1894); Graham v. Weaver, 97 Tenn. 485, 37 S.W. 221, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1896); Mann v. Russey, 101 Tenn. 596, 49 S.W. 835, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1898).

The purchase money paid will be declared a lien, as against the parol vendor, on the land agreed to be conveyed. Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Hilton v. Duncan, 41 Tenn. 313, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1860); Wright v. Dufield, 61 Tenn. 218, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 362 (1872), overruled, Hays v. Dalton, 73 Tenn. 555, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1880); Winters v. Elliott, 69 Tenn. 676, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1878); Aiken v. Suttle, 72 Tenn. 103, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1879); Sautelle v. Carlisle, 81 Tenn. 391, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1884); Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn. 282, 45 S.W. 677, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1897); McKinney v. Street, 107 Tenn. 526, 64 S.W. 482, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1901).

126. — — — —Effect of Innocent Purchaser.

In order to avoid the equity of the vendee for purchase money paid and improvements made, a subsequent purchaser must file a special plea of innocent purchaser, or make the same in his answer containing all the certainty of a plea, which must aver that his vendor and conveyor was seized, in fee, or pretended to be so seized, and was in possession of the land at the time when he executed the deed of conveyance. Rhea v. Allison, 40 Tenn. 176, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1859); Sautelle v. Carlisle, 81 Tenn. 391, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1884); Grier v. Canada, 119 Tenn. 17, 107 S.W. 970, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1907).

Informal plea of innocent purchaser in the answer is available where not excepted to, and issue has been taken upon it, and the cause has gone to proof without objection. Harris v. Smith, 98 Tenn. 286, 39 S.W. 343, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 223 (1897).

The sufficiency of a plea of innocent purchaser incorporated in an unsworn answer cannot be questioned for the first time in the Supreme Court. Stainback v. Junk Bros. Lumber & Mfg. Co., 98 Tenn. 306, 39 S.W. 530, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1897).

The defense of innocent purchaser to avoid equity of parol vendee for purchase money cannot be made by demurrer, but must be interposed by plea or answer, in which great certainty and particularity of averment is required. Dunham v. Harvey, 111 Tenn. 620, 69 S.W. 772, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1902).

127. — — —Interest.

The vendee under a parol contract of sale and purchase of land afterward rescinded is entitled to interest on the purchase money paid by him. Crippen v. Bearden & Odell, 24 Tenn. 129, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1844); Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Hilton v. Duncan, 41 Tenn. 313, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1860); Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871); Holms v. Johnston, 59 Tenn. 155, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1873); Winters v. Elliott, 69 Tenn. 676, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1878); Greenlaw v. Williams, 70 Tenn. 533, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (1879); Smoot v. Smoot, 80 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (1883); Jennings v. Bishop, 3 Shan. 138 (1883); Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn. 282, 45 S.W. 677, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1897).

128. — — —Valuation of Improvements.

A resale of the property after the erection of the improvements is not the test on the question of their permanent enhancement of the value of the land, but is only a circumstance to be weighed with the other evidence. Humphreys v. Holtsinger, 35 Tenn. 228, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1855).

From the value of the improvements there should be deducted the value of the reasonable rents and profits less the taxes, if any, paid by the vendee. Humphreys v. Holtsinger, 35 Tenn. 228, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1855); Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871); Smithson v. Inman, 61 Tenn. 88, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1872); Neal v. Cole, 1 Shan. 653 (1876); Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880); Fisher v. Edington, 80 Tenn. 189, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 157 (1883); Smoot v. Smoot, 80 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (1883); Howard v. Massengale, 81 Tenn. 577, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1884); Fisher v. Edington, 85 Tenn. 23, 1 S.W. 499, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1886).

The improvements by the vendee are to be valued as at the date of the surrender of the possession of the land by the purchaser or as at the date of the election to avoid the contract. Smithson v. Inman, 61 Tenn. 88, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1872); Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880); Fisher v. Edington, 80 Tenn. 189, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 157 (1883); Howard v. Massengale, 81 Tenn. 577, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1884).

Where a parol sale of land is repudiated, in estimating the value of rents of a tract of farming land, the buildings should be included as part of the premises, and taken into the account in fixing the rents; and the rents should not be ascertained by fixing a separate valuation on the rents of the land and the rents of the buildings, where the buildings are of an ordinary character, suitable for a farmer to occupy, and not of unusual style or value. Neal v. Cole, 1 Shan. 653 (1876).

Compensation will not be allowed for improvements destroyed by fire while in the possession of the improver, because such improvements do not enhance the value of the land when it comes back into the possession of the owner. Greenlaw v. Williams, 70 Tenn. 533, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (1879).

If the improvements have deteriorated in value by use, the loss must fall upon the improver. Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880).

The improvements may be valued as at the date of making the report by the master, under an order of reference to ascertain their value. Howard v. Massengale, 81 Tenn. 577, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1884).

129. — —Insurance.

A vendee, under a parol contract of sale and purchase of land afterwards rescinded, is not entitled to reimbursement or credit for insurance on the property voluntarily paid by him for his own protection, while he was holding and treating the property as his own. Masson v. Swan, 53 Tenn. 450, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 382 (1871).

130. — —Actions.

Where a bill is filed for the correction and reformation of a deed upon the ground of mistake or fraud, parol evidence is admissible to establish the omission or error, whether it occurred by mistake or fraud. Perry v. Pearson, 20 Tenn. 431, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1839); Bailey v. Bailey, 27 Tenn. 230, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1847); Barnes v. Gregory, 38 Tenn. 230, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Harding v. Egin, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 39 (1874).

131. — — —Recovery from Vendor.

The money paid by the purchaser upon a void or rescinded contract for the sale of land, voidable because the contract was in parol, may be recovered by such purchaser in an action of assumpsit against the vendor for money had and received to the plaintiff's use. Pipkin v. James, 20 Tenn. 325, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 55, 34 Am. Dec. 752 (1839); Hurst v. Means, 32 Tenn. 594, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1853); Sheid v. Stamps, 34 Tenn. 172, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1854); Sneed v. Bradley, 36 Tenn. 301, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1856); Burton v. Driggs, 87 U.S. 125, 22 L. Ed. 299, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1494 (1874).

One who has given a consideration, but who cannot enforce this promise solely because of the statute of frauds, and not because of some inherent illegality in the contract itself, may sue for the quantum meruit. Quirk v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co., 244 F. 682, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2045 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1917).

132. —Rights of Vendor.

A vendor receiving goods in part payment of the price agreed to be paid for land under a parol contract, never perfected but afterwards abandoned by the parties, is a mere depositary of the goods until a conversion by him. Orand v. Mason, 31 Tenn. 196, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1851).

A parol agreement between the vendor and purchaser of a tract of land already conveyed, and supposed to contain a certain number of acres, whether sold by the acre or by the tract and in gross, that it shall be accurately surveyed, and that the one shall account to the other for the excess or deficiency, as the result may be, is valid and binding, and is not within the statute. Seward v. Mitchell, 41 Tenn. 87, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1860).

A purchaser failing to comply with the parol contract and abandoning the possession, without fault of the vendor, is not entitled to any compensation for improvements made by him against the protest of the vendor. Rainer v. Huddleston, 51 Tenn. 223, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1871), superseded by statute as stated in, Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Guthrie v. Holt, 68 Tenn. 527, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1876).

The vendor's equity, or implied lien, may be enforced against the vendee and mere volunteers, at any time before the vendee's conveyance to a purchaser for value passing at the time, or before his mortgage, or deed of trust for creditors, evidenced by registration, or before the suggestion of the insolvency of the estate of the deceased vendee. Watson v. Watson, 60 Tenn. 387, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 518 (1873); Lookout Bank v. Susong, 90 Tenn. 590, 18 S.W. 389, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1891); Robinson v. Owens, 103 Tenn. 91, 52 S.W. 870, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1899); Poindexter v. Rawlings, 106 Tenn. 97, 59 S.W. 766, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 137, 82 Am. St. Rep. 869 (1900); Leiberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Bowden, 121 Tenn. 496, 119 S.W. 64, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1908).

The parol acceptance by the purchaser of the vendor's written proposition or contract is sufficient, and may be proved by parol evidence. Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 S.W. 835, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 13, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 (1887).

133. —Leases.

Agreement giving second party right to mine and sell coal, permitting removal of timber necessary to such operations with the same to be sold and market value to be paid the first party and permitting construction of necessary roads on the land was a lease and not a contract to mine coal and such was subject to the statute of frauds. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

Lessee could not avail itself of the doctrine of promissory estoppel to avoid statute of frauds defense to lease. D & S Coal Co. v. USX Corp., 678 F. Supp. 1318, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 926 (E.D. Tenn. 1988), aff'd, D & S Coal Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 872 F.2d 1024, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1989).

Court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order dismissing the landlord's claim against the guarantor because the guarantor's second signature served to bind him personally for the tenant's obligations under the lease; the lease contemplated signatures by both the tenant and the guarantor, and the guarantor signed the lease twice, first in his representative capacity on behalf of the tenant and then in his individual capacity as the guarantor of the tenant's obligations. MLG Enters., LLC v. Johnson, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 629 (Tenn. Sept. 2, 2016).

In a lessor's action breach of contract action against a limited liability company (LLC) and its co-owners, the trial court properly granted the co-owners'  motion to dismiss because there was no language in the lease making them personally liable for any obligation of the LLC; the lease clearly identified the LLC as the lessee. Teal Props. v. Dog House Invs., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018).

Formal inclusion of the single word “Individually” could not, by itself, convey personal liability upon a signatory when the body of the lease was otherwise devoid of any assumption of personal obligation or guarantor status. Teal Props. v. Dog House Invs., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018).

Because a lessee who signed a lease was lawfully authorized to sign the lease on behalf of the lessee and the other lessee, as each of the joint venturers had the power to bind the other and to subject the other to liability to third persons in matters which were strictly within the scope of the joint enterprise, the Tennessee Statute of Frauds was inapplicable. Perdue v. Kneedler, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 461 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2019), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 2020).

134. — —General Rule.

The power of an agent to make a lease for more than one year need not be in writing. Johnson v. Somers, 20 Tenn. 268, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1839).

A parol lease for a longer term than one year is void, but may be good for one year only, where the tenant goes into possession under the contract, though it is not a binding contract for the remainder of the term; but where the tenant holds over after the first year, he becomes a tenant from year to year, upon the terms of the parol agreement, that is, upon the same terms as existed for the first year. Shepherd v. Cummings, 41 Tenn. 354, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1860); Hammond v. Dean, 67 Tenn. 193, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 353 (1874); Hammons v. McClure, 85 Tenn. 65, 2 S.W. 37, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1886); Rogers v. Wheaton, 88 Tenn. 665, 13 S.W. 689, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1890); Wilson v. Alexander, 115 Tenn. 125, 88 S.W. 935, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1905).

A parol lease for all year is good though it did not expire according to its terms for more than one year after the date of the contract to lease. Hayes v. Arrington, 108 Tenn. 494, 68 S.W. 44, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1902); Hight v. McCulloch, 150 Tenn. 117, 263 S.W. 794, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1924).

Where oral contract of lease was made in September 1921 for the full term of one year beginning October 1, 1921 the lease contract was not within the statute of frauds, and where property was sold and purchaser refused to carry out original owner's agreement with lessee for repairs, the rental value may have been reduced by a partial failure of consideration. Hight v. McCulloch, 150 Tenn. 117, 263 S.W. 794, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1924).

A surviving widow who had held title to certain realty with her deceased husband in title by the entireties was not bound by a lease her husband had executed on the property without her joining although she had knowledge of the transaction prior to his death. Irwin v. Dawson, 197 Tenn. 314, 273 S.W.2d 6, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 488 (1954).

135. — —Part Performance.

Part performance of a parol lease for a longer time than one year will not take the case out of the statute, and will not make the contract binding beyond one year. Townsend v. Sharp, 2 Tenn. 191, 2 Tenn. 192, 1812 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1812); Citty v. Southern Queen Mfg. Co., 93 Tenn. 276, 24 S.W. 121, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 54, 42 Am. St. Rep. 919 (1893).

Where lessee has partly performed an unsigned lease designed to run for a longer period than one year, and has, at the request, and with the assistance, of the lessor, materially changed his position by investing money in the business conducted on the premises, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may prevent the lessor from relying on the statute of frauds. Interstate Co. v. Bry-Block Mercantile Co., 30 F.2d 172, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1676 (D. Tenn. 1928).

Tennessee statute of frauds did not bar a gas station operator's claim that a petroleum company made assurances that constituted an oral modification of a lease and contract where the operator altered his position to his detriment in reliance on the company's assurances that it would not invoke termination clauses unless the operator failed to perform under the agreement; because part performance occurred on the part of the operator, the statute of frauds did not apply. Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 2003 FED App. 244P, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14749 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2003), rehearing denied, — F.3d —, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20072 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2003).

Trustee's claimed agreement with commercial tenants failed to comply with the Tennessee Statute of Frauds because even when emails were read together and alongside other documents referenced by the trustee, they failed to establish the terms of the alleged loan guaranty agreement. Moreover, the partial performance doctrine was unavailable to remove the bar imposed by the Statute of Frauds. Smith v. Hi-Speed, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2016).

136. — —Party to Be Charged.

A writing signed by the party to be charged, though not the original lease, takes case out of the statute. Houk v. Memphis Constr. Co., 159 Tenn. 103, 15 S.W.2d 742, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1928).

137. — —Descriptions.

Parol evidence is admissible to apply, but not to supply, a description of land in a lease. Dougherty v. Chesnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S.W. 444, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1887).

The description in a lease as “the farm of Henderson Fudge, known as Rose Hill,” without stating the state, county, or civil district in which the farm is situated, where the instrument shows that both parties live in the same county in this state where the land is situated, and where the land is identified by parol evidence showing a certain farm owned by the lessor lying in that county to be generally, though not universally, known as “Rose Hill” farm, is sufficient and valid, not only as between the parties, but as against subsequent purchasers from the lessor, after the registration of the lease. Dougherty v. Chesnutt, 86 Tenn. 1, 5 S.W. 444, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1887).

Where the description of property in contract to lease was insufficient in that it gave only the street and number, omitting city and state, reference to an existing recorded lease containing sufficient description, for purpose merely of fixing the beginning of the term of proposed lease, does not complete the description under rule that reference must be for purpose of completing description. Watts v. Warner, 151 Tenn. 421, 269 S.W. 913, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1925).

Under the statute of frauds the mention of the state or county is essential to the validity of property leased only when necessary for the purposes of identification, and if the writing clearly appears to refer to a particular tract of land and it does not reasonably appear that the description would fit equally any other tract, parol proof is admissible to locate and designate the tract intended. Kirshner v. Feigenbaum, 180 Tenn. 476, 176 S.W.2d 806, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 309 (1944).

Where lease which fell within the statute of frauds described the leased property as “Office space in the Exchange Building located at 311 Church Street and being Office No. 209, and storage space in the basement ….” and further recited that the property was owned by a particular individual such description referred necessarily to some existing tract of land and by its terms could be applied to that tract only and parol evidence could be employed to show where the tract was located and to supply the omission of the state, county and city. Kirshner v. Feigenbaum, 180 Tenn. 476, 176 S.W.2d 806, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 309 (1944).

The fact that printed lease which did not recite the city, county or state in which the leased property was located bore an imprint showing the name, city and state of the supplier of the stationery was suggestive circumstance in fixing the location of the property but was not determinative since it is a matter of common knowledge that stationery is used in one locality which is printed in another. Kirshner v. Feigenbaum, 180 Tenn. 476, 176 S.W.2d 806, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 309 (1944).

Where a lease described property as “The following described property, located in the city of Nashville, or suburbs, and fronting 30 feet on HIllsboro Road at 2211 Hillsboro Street, and being the property of said A. J. and Claire Brown; a brick store, newly erected,” this description was particular and definite enough to satisfy the statute of frauds. Brown v. Mays, 34 Tenn. App. 632, 241 S.W.2d 871, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (1949).

Where coal mining lease and instruments referred to therein did not sufficiently identify lands to be mined the instrument did not satisfy the statute of frauds. Price v. Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp., 53 Tenn. App. 624, 385 S.W.2d 301, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

138. — —Holding Over.

A parol lease for more than one year is not valid, but such a lease may be good for one year only; and the tenant holding over becomes a tenant from year to year. Nashville v. Mason, 11 Tenn. App. 344, — S.W.2d —, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1930).

139. — —Renewal.

Written acceptance of lessor's oral offer to renew or extend lease did not constitute a writing evidencing the contract and bearing the signature of lessor or someone authorized to bind him, but constituted only a parol agreement unenforceable as against lessor's defense under statute of frauds. Frierson v. Gant, 23 Tenn. App. 428, 134 S.W.2d 193, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Where written lease entered into between mother and son contained provision for renewal of lease including option to purchase at the same consideration and for the same period of time contained in original lease, and parties thereafter orally agreed to renewal of lease prior to the end of each period, the option to purchase was enforceable and was not void on the ground that it violated statute of frauds, since parties to contract construed lease as giving the right of renewal with same provisions as that contained in original lease. Womble v. Walker, 181 Tenn. 246, 181 S.W.2d 5, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 367 (1944).

140. — —Approval.

In an action to recover rents on an assigned lease, letters and telegrams acknowledging the lease were sufficient to remove it from the statute of frauds. Sander v. Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc., 20 Tenn. App. 107, 95 S.W.2d 1266, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (1936).

141. — —Term.

Oral contract to lease realty for as long as lessee wanted it was in effect an oral conveyance of life estate in land and, unlike oral contract for one year lease to begin at future time, was unenforceable under statute of frauds. Stallings v. Jones, 193 Tenn. 200, 245 S.W.2d 199, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1951).

142. — —Assignment.

Where a person other than the lessee is shown to be in possession of leasehold premises the law presumes that the lease has been assigned to him, it further presumes that the assignment was sufficient to transfer the term and to satisfy the statute of frauds. Sander v. Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc., 20 Tenn. App. 107, 95 S.W.2d 1266, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 8 (1936).

Owner of property was bound by lease executed by third party to plaintiff where he subsequently deeded property to defendant subject to lease held by plaintiff, since by act of approving lease he made the third party his agent at the time of execution of the lease. Texas Co. v. Aycock, 190 Tenn. 16, 227 S.W.2d 41, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 413, 17 A.L.R.2d 322 (1950).

143. — — —Subleases.

Sublessee was not entitled to rely on the statute of frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101, to object to the enforcement of an oral modification regarding payment of property taxes on the subject premises because the sublessee was a third party to the agreement between the original lessor and the sublessor; even if the statute of frauds was applicable, the sublessee was estopped from denying that it was liable for the taxes because the sublessee acquired its interest in the leasehold interest with knowledge the sublease required it to pay property taxes, agreed to and assumed the obligation to pay the taxes, and did pay the taxes for three years without objection. 2850 Parkway Gen. P'ship v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2012).

144. Contracts To Be Performed Within One Year.

If contract when made was in reality capable of full and bona fide performance within the year it is to be considered as not within the statute. Anderson-Gregory Co. v. Lea, 51 Tenn. App. 612, 370 S.W.2d 934, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963).

If a contract is at all capable of performance within a year, this provision will not apply. Talkington v. Anchor Gasoline Corp., 821 F. Supp. 505, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6886 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).

Because courts generally try to uphold contracts rather than defeat them, T.C.A. § 29-2-101(a)(5) is narrowly construed. Davidson v. Holtzman, 47 S.W.3d 445, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. May 14, 2001).

Unless the court, looking at the contract in view of the surroundings, can say that in no reasonable probability can such agreement be performed within the year, it is the duty of the court to uphold the contract. Davidson v. Holtzman, 47 S.W.3d 445, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. May 14, 2001).

Letter, coupled with evidence of the surrounding circumstances, rendered the statute of frauds inapplicable because the letter agreement provided a three-year term, and a referenced seven-page agreement was terminable on death of a party. Gurley v. King, 183 S.W.3d 30, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Tennessee Statute of Frauds was not applicable to bar a claim by the decedent's parents that the parents wire-transferred funds to the decedent's account as a loan to pay off the mortgage on the decedent's home to prevent a foreclosure of the home because the administratrix's argument that the decedent could not have paid the loan back due to the decedent's limited income was not sufficient to show that it was not reasonably possible to perform the contract for the loan between the parents and the decedent within a year. In re Estate of Reed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2016).

145. —Affirmative Contracts.

The statute applies only to contracts which are not to be carried into full and complete execution within a year from the making thereof, or in which, by the express appointment or understanding of the parties, the thing is not to be performed within a year. The statute applies only to affirmative contracts, and not to a negative contract or stipulation that a thing is not only not to be performed within a year, but not to be performed at all, at any time. Leinau v. Smart, 30 Tenn. 308, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1850); E. T., V. & G. R.R. Co. v. Staub, 75 Tenn. 397, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1881); Mobile, J. & K.C.R.R. v. Hayden, 116 Tenn. 672, 94 S.W. 940, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1906); Disney Bros. v. Campbell County, 6 Tenn. App. 569, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (1926).

If a contract, when made, was in reality capable of a full and bona fide performance within the year, without the intervention of extraordinary circumstances, it is to be considered as not within the statute; but, where the manifest intent of the parties was that the contract should not be so executed, the mere fact that it is possible that the thing agreed to be done may be done within the year, will not prevent the statute from applying. Deaton v. Tennessee Coal & R.R., 59 Tenn. 650, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1874); Gregory v. Underhill, Newson & Co., 74 Tenn. 207, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1880); E. T., V. & G. R.R. Co. v. Staub, 75 Tenn. 397, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1881); Mobile, J. & K.C.R.R. v. Hayden, 116 Tenn. 672, 94 S.W. 940, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1906).

In an action on an oral modification of the contract for the grading of a railroad, the evidence was held not to show that the parties agreed that the modified contract was not to be performed within a year, though there was testimony that it was not reasonably possible to do it. The contract was not invalid. Johnston v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 146 Tenn. 135, 240 S.W. 429, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1921).

The provision extends only to contracts in which, by express understanding of the parties, the thing is not to be performed within the year. Johnston v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 146 Tenn. 135, 240 S.W. 429, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1921).

Where plaintiff contracted with foreman of general contractor to erect fence around construction site in consideration for specified price and defendant contractor refused payment after completion of fence on ground that contract was within statute of frauds as one not to be performed within year, plaintiff was entitled to recover upon an implied promise on the part of the other party to pay for what had been done in accordance with the contract. A.W. Kutsche & Co. v. Hot Blast Coal Co., 19 Tenn. App. 190, 84 S.W.2d 371, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (1935).

146. —Contingencies.

A promise to support widow of employee killed during employment and her three minor children during her life, and, in case of her death before the youngest child should become of age, to support the children until that time, is within the statute, because the happening of the death of all four of these parties within a year is a contingency too extraordinary to be supposed to be within the contemplation of the parties. Deaton v. Tennessee Coal & R.R., 59 Tenn. 650, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1874).

A contract is not within the statute merely because it may continue longer than one year from its date, where it may be fully performed within a year; and, therefore, a railroad company's promise to pay its injured and disabled employee a certain sum per day, so long as he should remain disabled, is not within the statute, and a parol contract to that effect may be enforced. E. T., V. & G. R.R. Co. v. Staub, 75 Tenn. 397, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1881).

A contract that, on a contingency contemplated by the parties, may be completed within one year, is not subject to the statute because the contingency may not happen within that time. Quirk v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co., 244 F. 682, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2045 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1917).

An agreement to support children until their majority is regarded as made in contemplation of contingency of person's death within a year, and of being capable of performance within a year, and not within the statute. Walker v. Walker, 12 Tenn. App. 130, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (1930).

The mere fact that a contract might continue for more than a year does not bring it within the statute of frauds, nor is improbability of performance sufficient if the contract is susceptible of being performed within a year. Boutwell v. Lewis Bros. Lumber Co., 27 Tenn. App. 460, 182 S.W.2d 1, 1944 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1944).

The mere fact that a contract might continue for more than a year does not bring it within the statute, nor is improbability of performance sufficient if the contract is susceptible of being performed within a year. Hull v. Evans, 59 Tenn. App. 193, 439 S.W.2d 110, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

147. —Warranty.

A warranty that young fruit trees which, in the course of nature cannot bear fruit for several years, will bear or produce a certain kind of fruit in due season, is within the statute. Gregory v. Underhill, Newson & Co., 74 Tenn. 207, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 234 (1880).

148. —One Year from Acceptance.

A contract of employment is not within the statute where it is made by the master's proposition to employ the servant on the tenth day of August for a period of 12 months, beginning on the thirteenth day of August, which proposition the servant took under advisement and thereafter, on the thirteenth day of August, accepted the proposition and immediately on that day entered upon the discharge of his duties. Mobile, J. & K.C.R.R. v. Hayden, 116 Tenn. 672, 94 S.W. 940, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1906).

In an action in which plaintiff, a Tennessee resident, filed suit against defendants, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York and its president (a New York resident), alleging claims of breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement and/or promissory fraud, the contract did not fail because of the Tennessee statute of frauds where there was no evidence that the parties specifically agreed that the oral agreement would not be performed within one year, and there was nothing in the inherent nature of the contract or in the words or actions of the parties that suggested that the contract should or could not be performed within the year. Kelly v. Int'l Capital Res., Inc., 231 F.R.D. 502, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28547 (M.D. Tenn. 2005).

149. —Installment Contracts.

An oral contract of sale of an interest in business calling for installment payments of $50.00 each over a period of 21 months is not enforceable. Thompson v. Ford, 145 Tenn. 335, 236 S.W. 2, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1921).

150. —Exclusive Rights.

A contract for the exclusive right to sell a given product in a specified territory is required to be in writing in order to establish a continuing obligation extending beyond one year. Curtiss Candy Co. v. Silberman, 45 F.2d 451, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3655 (6th Cir. 1930).

Where parties entered into written agreement under which defendant agreed to grant plaintiff an exclusive franchise for certain described territory and further provided that conditions of agreement were to be embodied in a written franchise contract now in course of preparation, and plaintiff subsequently signed franchise dated the same month prepared by defendant but not signed by defendant the franchise related to the same subject matter as the prior written agreement and both were to be considered in determining whether they were sufficient to take case out of this subsection of the statute of frauds. Yates v. Skaggs, 187 Tenn. 149, 213 S.W.2d 41, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (1948).

151. —Employment Contracts.

Where the original employment contract is for more than a year and the employment continues without a new contract there is no presumption that the employment is to continue for a like term as such a presumption would run counter to the statute of frauds. Srygley v. City of Nashville, 175 Tenn. 417, 135 S.W.2d 451, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1939).

The fact that an oral contract of employment might have been terminated within one year by the death of the employee did not remove such contract from the provisions of the statute of frauds. Dickens v. Tennessee Elec. Power Co., 175 Tenn. 654, 137 S.W.2d 273, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1939).

In view of this section a superintendent of schools employed under a five year contract who continued to serve after the expiration of the contract was not presumed to be serving under an implied contract for an additional five years. Srygley v. City of Nashville, 175 Tenn. 417, 135 S.W.2d 451, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1939).

Verbal employment contracts for a year from some future date are invalid under this statute, but a contract of hiring for one year without stating when the employee is to begin work gives the employee the right to commence at once and is not invalidated because no services are performed for several days after the making of the contract. Boutwell v. Lewis Bros. Lumber Co., 27 Tenn. App. 460, 182 S.W.2d 1, 1944 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1944).

An alleged partial performance by working for a lower salary than customary, where the key executives received periodical raises and bonuses, does not remove an alleged verbal contract of the owner of a business to will all the shares of the business to these executives upon the owner's death from the statute of frauds, since the acts are not clearly done in pursuance of the averred contract or referable thereto. Appolonio v. Baxter, 217 F.2d 267, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3110 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1954).

An oral employment contract for an indefinite term that can be terminated at any time at the will of the parties is not within the statute of frauds because it is capable of being fully performed within one year either through the employee's death or by either party's decision to terminate the contract. Price v. Mercury Supply Co., 682 S.W.2d 924, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Jarrett v. Epperly, 896 F.2d 1013, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2467 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1990).

One-year provision applied to contract because, by its terms, the employer would under no circumstances commence deferred compensation payments before five years after employment began. Talkington v. Anchor Gasoline Corp., 821 F. Supp. 505, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6886 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).

Even though the parties may not have contemplated a sale of the franchise within one year of the making of the employment contract, because the franchise could have been sold within the year, the subject oral employment agreement did not run afoul of T.C.A. § 29-2-101. Davidson v. Holtzman, 47 S.W.3d 445, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. May 14, 2001).

Verbal offers of multi-year employment contracts made by the developer of a new country music record label to five music industry executives could not be enforced in the absence of a signed writing; since the five alleged agreements were for terms of two and three years each they fell within the statute of frauds. Shedd v. Gaylord Entm't Co., 118 S.W.3d 695, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 899 (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2003).

152. —Contract to Devise.

The provision of the statute of frauds relating to contracts not to be performed within a year does not affect agreements to leave property by will, for such an agreement may be performed within the year, hence oral contract between husband and wife that husband would leave sum to wife's niece in consideration of transfer of property by wife to husband was capable of being performed within the year, and was not barred by the statute. Clark v. Hefley, 34 Tenn. App. 389, 238 S.W.2d 513, 1950 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950).

An oral contract to make a will must be definite, proven as pleaded, not established by casual conversation, fair and the proof leave no reasonable doubt that the contract as pleaded was in fact made and has been performed by the parties relying on the contract. Appolonio v. Baxter, 217 F.2d 267, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3110 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1954).

153. —Signing.

Where the defendant, by letter, offered complainant certain employment for two years at a fixed compensation, and complainant wrote letters of acceptance, there was a sufficient compliance whether it be deemed that the written memorandum should be signed by both parties, for both defendant and complainant signed their respective letters. Brewer v. De Camp Glass Casket Co., 139 Tenn. 97, 201 S.W. 145, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1918).

154. —Estoppel.

Where an agreement to employ plaintiff at same wages for three years was made in connection with action for personal injuries, it was held that defendant was not estopped from pleading the statute of frauds, since more than four months remained after his discharge in which plaintiff might have sued for any damage suffered by him as a result of the accident. Dickens v. Tennessee Elec. Power Co., 175 Tenn. 654, 137 S.W.2d 273, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1939).

Equitable estoppel was not appropriate where plaintiff had an opportunity to determine, prior to bidding for the purchase of the real property, from public records, the exact extent of the property being offered for sale at auction, and where, after discovering that the disputed parcel was not included in the land which it had agreed to purchase, plaintiff chose to go forward with the transaction, and accepted delivery of a deed that excluded the parcel from the land conveyed. BML Inv. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 732 F. Supp. 828, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16939 (E.D. Tenn. 1989), aff'd without opinion, 894 F.2d 1336 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1990).

155. Sufficiency of Memorandum.

Prior to the enactment of § 32-308 (now § 32-3-107), in attempting to prove a contract to make mutual wills, a will, once in existence and afterwards destroyed, is a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, and the execution of a will by the wife furnished sufficient consideration to support the agreement of the husband in respect to his will. Petty v. Estate of Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 840, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

156. —Part Performance of Personal Property Sale.

The courts will enforce a verbal contract as to personal property where there has been partial performance. Trew v. Ogle, 767 S.W.2d 662, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

The subject matter of the contract, i.e., the sale of the wood shavings business, its goodwill and the chattels used in its operation, constituted personal property, and since there was sufficient part performance of the sale agreement, the part performance exception operated to take the agreement out of the statute of frauds. Trew v. Ogle, 767 S.W.2d 662, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Where an insurer and a Chapter 7 debtor entered into a pre-petition oral contract, in which the parties would share in an recovery obtained in connection with funds allegedly embezzled by a former employee of the debtor, and the debtor twice received amounts from the employee and his wife and sent the insurer its share, although the agreement could not be performed within one year, the debtor's partial performance of the agreement precluded application of the statute of frauds. Fid. & Deposit Co. v. Hendon (In re Lay Packing Co.), 350 B.R. 420, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1901 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2006).

157. Joint Accounts.

158. —Survivorship Rights.

The contract necessary to create a joint account with the right of survivorship may be proved by oral testimony and that the right of survivorship may vest in a third party beneficiary who was not a party to the agreement between the bank and the depositor. Simmons v. Foster, 622 S.W.2d 838, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

159. Settlements.

Settlements may be enforced notwithstanding the absence of a writing even where the agreement was not arrived at in the presence of the court. Astroglass Boat Co. v. Eldridge, 32 B.R. 538, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 5610 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1983).

As the parties intended to finalize their settlement agreement by electronic means, under T.C.A. § 47-10-107(c) of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, T.C.A. §§ 47-10-101 to 47-10-123, emails their counsel exchanged constituted a writing for purposes of the Statute of Frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101, the typed name of appellant's counsel on the emails constituted an “electronic signature” under § 47-10-107(d), and the settlement agreement set forth in the emails was thus enforceable. Waddle v. Elrod, 367 S.W.3d 217, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2012).

Statute of Frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101, applies to a settlement agreement if its terms require the transfer of an interest in real property, Waddle v. Elrod, 367 S.W.3d 217, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2012).

Where appellee alleged she quitclaimed a one-half interest in her property to appellant because of the latter's undue influence, the parties'  settlement agreement, under which appellant agreed to transfer her interest back to appellee, was subject to the Statute of Frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101. Waddle v. Elrod, 367 S.W.3d 217, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2012).

160. Easements.

Mother's claim that it was error under the statute of frauds, T.C.A. § 29-2-101(a)(4), for the trial court to grant her son's widow an easement without a writing signed by her granting such an easement was rejected as an easement could be granted by lack of objection to a licensee's improvements; the claim that such an interest in land violated the statute of frauds had been rejected by the state's highest court. Gates v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011).

161. Dismissals.

Dismissal of the investor's claim that the agent of a used car business in which the investor allegedly invested committed misrepresentation, fraud, and conversion was proper because the dismissal was not based on the statute of frauds and consequently, the order did not exceed the scope of the pleadings in that regard. Saweres v. Royal Net Auto Sale, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 423 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2011).

Collateral References. 7 Am. Jur. 2d Auctions §§ 30-33; 12 Am. Jur. 2d Boundaries §§ 78, 83; 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts §§ 25, 28, 29, 43, 53, 67, 68, 74, 260, 284; 28 Am. Jur. 2d Escrow, § 3; 60 Am. Jur. 2d Party Walls §§ 6, 7; 72, 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statute of Frauds; 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 110.

37 C.J.S. Frauds, Statute of §§ 4, 8, 12, 40, 68.

Acceptance which will satisfy statute of frauds where purchaser of goods is in possession at time of sale. 36 A.L.R. 649, 111 A.L.R. 1312.

Action at law based on contract within statute of frauds, doctrine of part performance as sustaining. 59 A.L.R. 1305.

Admissibility of evidence to establish oral antenuptial agreement. 81 A.L.R.3d 453.

Admissibility of oral agreement as to specific time for performance where written contract is silent.

Admissibility of oral agreement respecting duration of employment or agency where written contract is silent. 85 A.L.R.2d 1331.

Admissibility of parol evidence to connect signed and unsigned documents relied upon as memorandum to satisfy statute of frauds. 81 A.L.R.2d 991.

Admission by pleading of parol contract as preventing pleader from taking advantage of statute of frauds. 22 A.L.R. 723.

Admission of contract by defendant as affecting sufficiency of acts relied on to constitute part performance under statute of frauds. 90 A.L.R. 231.

Adverse possession as against vendor by one entering under executory contract void under statute of frauds. 1 A.L.R. 1336.

Agency contract to obtain tenants as one concerning real property within statute of frauds. 151 A.L.R. 672.

Agency to purchase personal property for another as within statute of frauds. 20 A.L.R.2d 1140.

Agent of undisclosed principal signing contract, as satisfying statute of frauds. 23 A.L.R. 932.

Agent's authority to sign contract within statute of frauds, necessity of writing. 27 A.L.R. 606.

Agreement between brokers as within statute requiring agreements for sale of real estate to be in writing. 44 A.L.R.2d 741.

Agreement to be bound jointly with another for obligation covered by existing contract on which latter is liable as promissor to answer for debt, default or miscarriage of another. 101 A.L.R. 1252.

Agreement to drop or compromise will contest or withdraw objections to probate as within statute of frauds. 42 A.L.R.2d 1319.

Agreement to extend time of payment of mortgage as within statute of frauds. 97 A.L.R. 793.

Agreement to forego or delay exercise of right to foreclose or take possession under mortgage as within statute of frauds. 97 A.L.R. 793.

Agreement to release, discharge, or assign real estate mortgage as within statute of frauds. 32 A.L.R. 874.

Alterations or improvements by lessor as part performance. 101 A.L.R. 185.

Alternative oral agreement, one of the alternatives being within the statute of frauds. 13 A.L.R. 271.

Applicability of statute of frauds to agreement to rescind contract for sale of land. 42 A.L.R.3d 242.

Applicability of statute of frauds to contracts to surrender, rescind, or abandon trust. 106 A.L.R. 1313, 173 A.L.R. 281.

Applicability of statute of frauds to joint adventure or partnership to deal in real estate. 18 A.L.R. 484, 95 A.L.R. 1242.

Applicability of statute of frauds to promise to pay for medical, dental, or hospital services furnished to another. 64 A.L.R.2d 1071.

Application of statute of frauds to promise not to make a will. 32 A.L.R.2d 370.

Attorneys, agreement that attorney shall receive part of land involved in litigation as within statute of frauds. 21 A.L.R. 352.

Bank deposit, oral promise of officer, director, or stockholder in relation to, as within statute of frauds. 95 A.L.R. 1137.

Bankrupt's oral promise to pay discharged debt, effect of. 75 A.L.R. 601.

Brokerage or agency contract concerning real property as within statute of frauds. 151 A.L.R. 648.

Broker's right to recover in quantum meruit for services although contract is not in writing as required by statute. 41 A.L.R.2d 905.

Brokers, sufficiency of description of property in agreement for payment of commission or authorizing or employing broker for sale or purchase of real estate, or a memorandum thereof. 80 A.L.R. 1466.

Building or construction contract, language used by owner or another person interested in, importing a promise to pay a subcontractor, materialman, or employee of contractor or subcontractor, or one making advances to him, as a promise to answer for the debt or default of another. 99 A.L.R. 79.

Buildings or material therein, agreement for sale of, as one for sale of interest in real property within statute of frauds. 91 A.L.R. 1280.

Cancelation of order or repudiation of contract before goods were shipped or delivered to buyer as affecting acceptance. 113 A.L.R. 810.

Cancelation of the debt, promise to pay another's antecedent debt in consideration of. 74 A.L.R. 1025.

Character and extent of improvements necessary to constitute part performance. 33 A.L.R. 1489.

Check as payment. 8 A.L.R.2d 251.

Check given in land transaction as sufficient writing to satisfy statute of frauds. 9 A.L.R.4th 1009.

Check or note as memorandum satisfying statute of frauds. 20 A.L.R. 363, 153 A.L.R. 1112.

Compensation for services, contract to devise property as. 69 A.L.R. 14,   .

Construction and application of statute which enables real estate broker to recover commissions on oral contract with owner who has been served with written notice of the terms thereof. 148 A.L.R. 676.

Construction and effect of exception making the statute of frauds provision inapplicable where goods are manufactured by seller for buyer. 25 A.L.R.2d 672.

Construction of statute requiring representations as to credit, etc., of another to be in writing. 32 A.L.R.2d 743.

Contracts relating to corporate stock as within provisions of statute of frauds dealing with sales of goods, etc. 14 A.L.R. 394.

Contract to fill in land as one for sale of goods within statute of frauds. 161 A.L.R. 1158.

Contract to sell land not signed by all of coowners as operative to cover interests of the signers. 154 A.L.R. 767.

Contract to support, maintain, or educate a child as within provision of statute of frauds relating to contracts not to be performed within a year. 49 A.L.R.2d 1293.

Contractual provisions as affecting right to judicial partition. 37 A.L.R.3d 962.

Corporate officers and employees, applicability to, of statute requiring agents authority to be in writing. 1 A.L.R. 1132.

Corporate stock or dividends thereon, validity of guaranty of, by one other than corporation. 107 A.L.R. 1174.

Corporation's promise to pay debts of predecessor as within statute of frauds. 15 A.L.R. 1112, 149 A.L.R. 787.

Decedent, oral promise to pay debt of, in consideration of creditor's foregoing claim against estate, as within provision of statute of frauds relating to contract to answer for debt of another, where foregoing claim is beneficial to promisor. 144 A.L.R. 1111.

Delivery of memorandum as necessary to its effectiveness to satisfy statute of frauds. 145 A.L.R. 1024, 12 A.L.R.2d 508.

Description in memorandum defective or silent as to boundary line of land retained by seller as sufficient to satisfy statute of frauds. 139 A.L.R. 965.

Devise or bequest as compensation for services, agreement to make. 69 A.L.R. 14,   .

Discharge of existing debt (or crediting indebtedness) as part payment which will take contract out of statute of frauds. 23 A.L.R. 473.

Doctrine of part performance as applied to contract embracing more than one subject matter. 38 A.L.R. 693.

Doctrine of part performance as sustaining action at law based on contract within statute of frauds. 59 A.L.R. 1305.

Doctrine of part performance with respect to renewal option in lease not complying with statute of frauds. 80 A.L.R.2d 425.

Effect of attempted cancelation or erasure in memorandum otherwise sufficient to satisfy statute of frauds. 31 A.L.R.2d 1112.

Effect of oral agreement to enlarge time for redemption from sale under mortgage or other lien on real property. 54 A.L.R. 1207.

Employment, statute of frauds as applicable to agreement by which a corporation or individual is substituted as employer in place of party to original contract of. 107 A.L.R. 1330.

Enforceability, under statute of frauds provision as to contracts not to be performed within a year, of oral employment contract for more than one year but specifically made terminable upon death of either party. 88 A.L.R.2d 701.

Enforcement of antenuptial contract or settlement conditioned upon marriage, where marriage was subsequently declared void. 46 A.L.R.3d 1403.

Establishment of boundary line by oral agreement. 69 A.L.R. 1433.

Estoppel of one not party to transaction involving real property by failure to disclose his interest in the property, as affected by statute of frauds. 50 A.L.R. 685.

Estoppel, relation between doctrines of, and part performance as basis of enforcement of contract not conforming to statute of frauds. 75 A.L.R. 650, 117 A.L.R. 939.

Exceptions to rule that oral gifts of land are unenforceable under statute of frauds. 83 A.L.R.3d 1294.

Exchange or remittance, agreements in relation to, as within statute of frauds. 19 A.L.R. 1140.

Extension of existing mortgage or deed of trust by subsequent oral agreement to cover additional indebtedness. 76 A.L.R. 579.

Extinguishment or modification of easement by parol agreement. 71 A.L.R. 1370.

Extrinsic writing referred to in written agreement as part thereof for purposes of statute of frauds. 73 A.L.R. 1383.

Failure to object to parol evidence or voluntary introduction thereof, as waiver of defense of statute of frauds. 15 A.L.R.2d 1330.

Fixtures, installation of, as part performance which will take parol lease out of statute of frauds. 10 A.L.R. 1495.

Formal or written instrument as essential to completed contract, where the making of such instrument is contemplated by parties to verbal or informal agreement. 122 A.L.R. 1217.

Fraud and deceit, independent action for, predicated upon oral contract within statute of frauds or transaction of which oral contract was a part. 104 A.L.R. 1420.

Funeral expenses of another, statute of frauds as applicable to contract to be responsible for. 134 A.L.R. 633.

Husband's or wife's possession or improvement of real property of other spouse, may part performance of oral contract to convey be predicated upon. 74 A.L.R. 218.

Illegitimate child, validity of promise to provide for, as affected by statute of frauds. 20 A.L.R.3d 500.

Improvements, right of vendee who enters under parol contract, to recover for, where vendor refuses to convey. 17 A.L.R. 949.

Increased rent, liability for, of tenant holding over after notice of increase, as affected by statute of frauds. 109 A.L.R. 209.

Inducing breach of contract in violation of statute of frauds, liability for. 84 A.L.R. 49, 26 A.L.R.2d 1227, 96 A.L.R.3d 1294, 44 A.L.R.4th 1078.

Initials as sufficient signature under statute of frauds. 159 A.L.R. 253.

Insurance, oral contracts of. 15 A.L.R. 995, 69 A.L.R. 559, 92 A.L.R. 232.

Interest of or benefit to person making representation as affecting applicability of statute requiring representations as to credit, etc., of another to be in writing. 32 A.L.R.2d 743.

Irreparable injury as necessary condition of part performance which will take oral contract out of statute of frauds. 166 A.L.R. 443.

Joint, mutual, and reciprocal wills, contract to make as within statute of frauds. 169 A.L.R. 39.

Joint obligors, oral agreement between as to extent of liability inter se. 65 A.L.R. 826.

Labor union's agreement to continue wages or to pay benefits if other party loses employment because of joining union. 114 A.L.R. 1300, 125 A.L.R. 1260.

Landlord's or tenant's promise to pay for supplies furnished to tenant or subtenant. 59 A.L.R. 179.

Lead pencil signature. 8 A.L.R. 1339.

Lease defectively executed, right to maintain action upon, for damages as for breach of contract. 82 A.L.R. 1318.

Leasehold for corporation or its subsidiary implied authority of manager of private corporation to take or negotiate. 107 A.L.R. 996.

Lease, interest created by, as real estate within provisions of statute of frauds requiring writing as condition of agent's or broker's right to compensation or his authority to contract. 103 A.L.R. 833.

Letters between one of the parties to a contract and his agent or a third person as satisfying statute of frauds. 112 A.L.R. 490.

Lien of vendee for purchase money paid under invalid parol contract. 45 A.L.R. 361, 33 A.L.R.2d 1384, 82 A.L.R.3d 1040.

May part performance or part payment which will take oral contract out of statute of frauds be predicated upon giving up present position, employment, business or profession, or opportunities in that field. 125 A.L.R. 399.

Meaning of “duplicate.” 24 A.L.R. 1209.

Money or other property in possession of seller, before contract was made, as satisfying condition of part payment which will take oral contract for sale of goods out of statute of frauds. 131 A.L.R. 1252, 170 A.L.R. 245.

Moral obligation connected with contract within statute of frauds as consideration for executory promise. 17 A.L.R. 1353, 79 A.L.R. 1346, 8 A.L.R.2d 787.

Mortgage on real estate, doctrine of part performance as applied to advance of money on oral agreement for. 30 A.L.R. 1403.

Mortgage, rights and remedies of one who advances money to purchase real estate under an oral agreement by the vendee to give a mortgage thereon as security. 18 A.L.R. 1098.

Mortgagor or judgment debtor, part performance predicated upon continuance in possession by, as taking out of the statute of frauds oral contracts between mortgagor and mortgagee subsequent to foreclosure or expiration of period of redemption, or between judgment debtor and execution purchaser subsequent to execution sale. 136 A.L.R. 262.

Name of principal, or of authorized agent, in body of instrument, as satisfying statute of frauds where transaction was not conducted by him. 28 A.L.R. 1114.

Necessity and sufficiency of statement of consideration in contract or memorandum of sale of land, under statute of frauds. 23 A.L.R.2d 164.

Necessity of written authority to enable agent to make contract within statute of frauds. 27 A.L.R. 606.

Negotiable Instruments Laws, provision of, requiring renunciation of rights to be in writing. 65 A.L.R.2d 593.

Note, check, or other executory obligation representing consideration for a contract which the plaintiff is willing and able to perform, but which because of the statute of frauds would not have been enforceable against him, right to recover upon. 132 A.L.R. 1486.

Oil and gas lease, sufficiency, as regards statute of frauds, of description of in written contract or memorandum for sale or assignment of. 141 A.L.R. 814.

Oil and gas royalty as realty for purpose of statute of frauds. 56 A.L.R.4th 539.

One party, or his agent, as agent of other party for purpose of signing contract or memorandum required by statute of frauds. 47 A.L.R. 201.

Option for renewal or extension of contract for a year or less as affecting applicability of statute of frauds. 111 A.L.R. 1105.

Option in lease for extension of term or for a new lease as affecting applicability of provision of statute of frauds. 161 A.L.R. 1094.

Option or election in respect of subject matter as affecting validity under statute of frauds of written instrument as a contract for sale of goods. 105 A.L.R. 1106.

Option to purchase at price offered to optionor by third person, validity as against objection of noncompliance with statute of frauds. 136 A.L.R. 143.

Option to purchase property as within statute of frauds in relation to real property. 61 A.L.R. 1454.

Oral acceptance of written offer by party sought to be charged as satisfying statute of frauds. 30 A.L.R.2d 972.

Oral agreement to enter into written contract not to be performed within a year. 58 A.L.R. 1019.

Oral contract for personal services as long as employee is able to continue in work, to do satisfactory work, or the like, as within statute of frauds relating to contracts not to be performed within year. 28 A.L.R.2d 878.

Oral contract for year's service as within statute of frauds. 27 A.L.R. 663   .

Oral contract of employment terminable by either party at will as within statute of frauds. 104 A.L.R. 1006.

Oral contract of employment terminable by one, but not both, of the parties within provision of statute of frauds relating to contracts not to be performed within one year. 161 A.L.R. 290.

Oral contract to enter into written contract as within statute of frauds. 58 A.L.R. 1015.

Oral contract to make joint will, estoppel to assert defense of statute of frauds. 169 A.L.R. 43.

“Owner,” scope and import of term, in statutes requiring real estate broker to have written authority. 2 A.L.R. 801, 95 A.L.R. 1085.

Paid employment, accepting or remaining in, as part performance which will take oral contract to devise real property out of statute of frauds. 40 A.L.R. 223.

Parol exception of fixtures from conveyance or lease. 29 A.L.R.3d 1441.

Parol lease for term of a year to commence in future as within the statute of frauds. 111 A.L.R. 1465.

Partnership debts, incoming partner's oral assumption of. 45 A.L.R. 1273.

Partnership, who must sign and form of signature in case of, in order to comply with statute of frauds. 114 A.L.R. 1005.

Part of contract within statute of frauds, failure to comply with statute as to, as affecting enforceability of another part not within statute. 71 A.L.R. 492.

Part performance to take oral contract of lease out of statute of frauds predicated upon acts or conduct of one in possession of the property under another contract or right. 125 A.L.R. 1468.

Performance as taking contract, not to be performed within a year, out of the statute of frauds. 6 A.L.R.2d 1053.

Permanent employment, statute of frauds as affecting contract for. 60 A.L.R.3d 226.

Place of signature on memorandum to satisfy statute of frauds. 112 A.L.R. 937.

Pleadings, depositions, testimony, or statements in court as constituting a sufficient writing within the statute of frauds. 22 A.L.R. 735.

Price fixed in contract violating statute of frauds as evidence of value in action on quantum meruit. 21 A.L.R.3d 9.

Price or consideration for sale of goods or choses in action, necessity and sufficiency of statement of, in writing. 30 A.L.R. 1163, 59 A.L.R. 1422.

Printed, stamped or typewritten name as satisfying requirement of statute of frauds as regards signature. 171 A.L.R. 334.

Promise by one other than principal to indemnify one agreeing to become surety or guarantor as within statute of frauds. 13 A.L.R.4th 1153.

Promise by stockholder, officer, or director, to pay debt of corporation. 35 A.L.R.2d 906.

Promissory estoppel as basis for avoidance of statute of frauds. 56 A.L.R.3d 1037.

Promissory estoppel of lending institution based on promise to lend money. 18 A.L.R.5th 307.

Public record as satisfying requirement of statute of frauds as to written contract or memorandum. 127 A.L.R. 236.

Quantity or weight, term “bags,” “bales,” “cars,” or other terms indefinite as to, as satisfying requirement of statute of frauds as regards quantity or weight. 129 A.L.R. 1230.

Question for court or jury as to whether informal writing constituted contract where parties intended agreement to be expressed in formal writing. 100 A.L.R. 989.

Real property, permitting record title to, to stand in another's name as estopping owner to avail himself of statute requiring authority to contract regarding real estate to be in writing. 78 A.L.R. 588.

Reformation of memorandum relied upon to take oral contract out of statute of frauds. 73 A.L.R. 99.

Release to ancestor by heir of expected interest in real estate. 28 A.L.R. 451.

Repurchase of corporate stock, contract or option for, on sale of stock to employee as within statute of frauds. 48 A.L.R. 627, 66 A.L.R. 1182.

Repurchase or repayment, agreement for, on sale of corporate stock or other personal property. 121 A.L.R. 314.

Restrictions on use of real property. 5 A.L.R.2d 1316.

Rights of parties under oral agreement to buy or bid it in at judicial sale, for another. 27 A.L.R.2d 1285.

Sale, or contract for sale, of standing timber as within provision of statute of frauds respecting sale or contract of sale of real property. 7 A.L.R.2d 517.

Several papers constituting contract, necessity that each of, be signed by party to be charged. 85 A.L.R. 1184.

Signature to contract by agent of undisclosed principal as satisfying statute of frauds. 23 A.L.R. 932.

Specific performance of oral contract to convey real property as affected by performance of services. 101 A.L.R. 1091.

Specific performance of parol contract to convey real property as affected by payment or part payment of purchase price. 101 A.L.R. 1079.

Statute of frauds against oral contracts not to be performed within year as applicable to contract susceptible by its terms, or by construction, of performance within that time is improbable or almost impossible. 129 A.L.R. 543.

Statute of frauds as affecting agreement with subpurchaser of realty. 38 A.L.R. 1348.

Statute of frauds as affecting enforceability as between the parties of agreement to purchase property at judicial or tax sale for their joint benefit. 14 A.L.R.2d 1267.

Statute of frauds as affecting question when real estate owned by partner before formation of partnership will be deemed to become asset of firm. 45 A.L.R.2d 1009.

Statute of frauds as applicable to sale of other transaction between partners in respect of partnership real property. 171 A.L.R. 198.

Statute of frauds: Validity of lease or sublease subscribed by one of the parties only. 46 A.L.R.3d 619.

Statute of frauds: Will or instrument in form of will as sufficient memorandum of contract to devise or bequeath. 94 A.L.R.2d 921.

Statutory necessity and sufficiency of written statement as to amount of compensation in broker's contract to promote purchase, sale or exchange of real estate. 9 A.L.R. 747.

Subpurchaser of realty, statute of frauds as affecting agreement with. 38 A.L.R. 1348.

Sufficiency of description of terms and conditions of lease, or lease provision, so as to comply with statute of frauds. 12 A.L.R.6th 123.

Sufficiency of description or designation of land in contract or memorandum of sale, under statute of frauds. 23 A.L.R.2d 6.

Sufficiency of memorandum of lease agreement to satisfy the statute of frauds, as regards terms and conditions of lease. 16 A.L.R.2d 621.

Sufficiency, under statute of frauds, of description or designation of land in contract or memorandum of sale which gives right to select the tract to be conveyed. 46 A.L.R.2d 894.

Surrender of written lease by parol. 78 A.L.R.2d 933.

Telegram between one of the parties to a contract and his agent or a third person as satisfying statute of frauds. 112 A.L.R. 490.

Trustee under deed of trust securing bonds, necessity that appointment of substitute for, be in writing. 98 A.L.R. 1159.

Trust, part performance or change of position as affecting applicability of statute to contract to surrender, rescind or abandon. 106 A.L.R. 1318, 173 A.L.R. 281.

Undelivered deed or escrow, pursuant to oral contract, as satisfying statute of frauds. 100 A.L.R. 196.

Undelivered lease or contract (other than for sale of land), or undelivered memorandum thereof, as satisfying statute of frauds. 12 A.L.R.2d 508.

Validity of oral promise or agreement not to revoke will. 29 A.L.R.2d 1229.

Vendor or purchaser, sufficiency of identification of, in memorandum. 70 A.L.R. 196.

Vendor's willingness and ability to perform contract which does not satisfy statute of frauds as precluding purchaser's recovery back of payments made thereon. 169 A.L.R. 187.

Warranty or guaranty in respect of the subject matter of a contract between third persons, which in terms does not embrace such an obligation. 19 A.L.R. 1033.

What constitutes part performance sufficient to take agreement in consideration of marriage out of statute of frauds. 30 A.L.R.2d 1419.

What constitutes promise made in or upon consideration of marriage within statute of frauds. 75 A.L.R.2d 633.

When goods remaining in custody of seller or some third person deemed to have been received by buyer, within exception to statute of frauds. 4 A.L.R. 902.

Who is real estate agent, salesman, or broker within meaning of statute. 56 A.L.R. 480, 167 A.L.R. 774.

Will as sufficient memorandum of contract to devise or bequeath property as compensation for services. 69 A.L.R. 14,   .

Writing between one of the parties to a contract and his agent or a third person as satisfying statute of frauds. 112 A.L.R. 490.

Writings prior to the oral agreement, memorandum which will satisfy statute of frauds as predicable in whole or in part upon. 1 A.L.R.2d 841, 30 A.L.R.2d 972.

Written authority to agent to sign contract within statute of frauds, necessity of. 27 A.L.R. 606.

Satisfaction of statute of frauds by e-mail. 110 A.L.R.5th 277.

Frauds, Statute of 97-118.

Chapter 3
Abatement of Nuisances

29-3-101. Definitions — Maintenance and abatement of nuisance — Forfeiture of property — Payment of moneys from forfeiture into general funds.

  1. As used herein:
    1. “Lewdness” includes all matter of lewd sexual conduct or live exhibition, and includes, but is not limited to, possession, sale or exhibition of any:
      1. Obscene films or plate positives;
      2. Films designed to be projected upon a screen for exhibition; or
      3. Films or slides, either in negative or positive form, designed for projection on a screen for exhibition;
    2. “Nuisance” means that which is declared to be a nuisance by other statutes, and, in addition, means:
      1. Any place in or upon which lewdness, prostitution, promotion of prostitution, patronizing prostitution, unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, unlawful sale of any regulated legend drug, narcotic, other controlled substance or controlled substance analogue, any sale or possession with intent to sell of drug paraphernalia, as defined by § 39-17-402, unlawful gambling, any sale, exhibition or possession of any material determined to be obscene or pornographic with intent to exhibit, sell, deliver or distribute matter or materials in violation of §§ 39-17-901—39-17-908, § 39-17-911, § 39-17-914, § 39-17-918, or §§ 39-17-1003—39-17-1005, quarreling, drunkenness, fighting, breaches of the peace are carried on or permitted, and personal property, contents, furniture, fixtures, equipment and stock used in or in connection with the conducting and maintaining any such place for any such purposes;
      2. A criminal gang, as defined by § 40-35-121(a), that regularly engages in gang related conduct. “Gang related conduct” occurs when one (1) or more criminal gang member or members, as defined by § 40-35-121(a), regularly engages in the following:
        1. Intimidating, harassing, threatening, stalking, provoking or assaulting any person;
        2. Possessing weapons prohibited under §§ 39-17-1302 and 39-17-1307, knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone who is in possession of such weapons, or knowingly remaining in the presence of such weapons;
        3. Unlawfully damaging, defacing or marking any public or private property of another or possessing tools for the purpose of unlawfully damaging, defacing or marking any public or private property of another;
        4. Selling, possessing, manufacturing or using any controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, as defined in § 39-17-402, or controlled substance analogue, as defined in § 39-17-454, knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone selling, possessing, manufacturing or using any controlled substance, controlled substance analogue or drug paraphernalia, knowingly remaining in the presence of any controlled substance, controlled substance analogue or drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence of any controlled substance or controlled substance analogue in violation of § 55-10-401, or being under the influence of any controlled substance or controlled substance analogue in public in violation of § 39-17-310;
        5. Using, consuming, possessing or purchasing alcoholic beverages unlawfully, including, but not limited to, public intoxication in violation of § 39-17-310 or driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 55-10-401;
        6. Criminal trespassing in violation of § 39-14-405;
        7. Taking any action to recruit gang members or making any threats or promises to shoot, stab, strike, hit, assault, injure, disturb the peace or destroy the personal property of anyone as an incentive to join a gang;
        8. Taking any action to stop a gang member from leaving a gang or making any threats or promises to shoot, stab, strike, hit, assault, injure, disturb the peace or destroy the personal property of anyone as an incentive not to leave a gang;
        9. Engaging in a criminal gang offense as defined by § 40-35-121(a);
        10. Disorderly conduct in violation of § 39-17-305; or
        11. Contributing to or encouraging the delinquency or unruly behavior of a minor in violation of § 37-1-156; or
      3. Any place in or upon which a person knowingly takes, by defrauding, or conspiring or colluding with, the recipient of public assistance benefits funded in whole or in part by the federal government or state of Tennessee, any part of such benefits knowing the person is not authorized or entitled by law to receive the portion of benefits taken;
    3. “Person” means and includes any individual, corporation, association, partnership, trustee, lessee, agent or assignee; and
    4. “Place” means and includes any building, room enclosure or vehicle, or separate part or portion thereof or the ground itself and all the property on which the nuisance is located that is under the ownership, management or control of the violator.
  2. Any person who uses, occupies, establishes or conducts a nuisance, or aids or abets therein, and the owner, agent or lessee of any interest in any such nuisance, together with the persons employed in or in control of any such nuisance by any such owner, agent or lessee, is guilty of maintaining a nuisance and such nuisance shall be abated as provided hereinafter.
  3. All motor vehicles, furnishings, fixtures, equipment, moneys and stock, used in or in connection with the maintaining or conducting of a nuisance, are subject to seizure, immediately upon detection by any law enforcement officer and are subject to forfeiture to the state by order of a court having jurisdiction upon application by any of the officers or persons authorized by § 29-3-102, to bring action for the abatement of such nuisance; provided, that seizure for the possession of obscene matter shall be in accordance with §§ 39-17-901—39-17-908 and seizure for violations of §§ 39-17-1003—39-17-1005 shall be in accordance with §§ 39-17-1006 and 39-17-1007. Any property so forfeited shall be disposed of by public auction or as otherwise provided by law.
  4. All moneys from such forfeiture and all proceeds realized from the enforcement of this section shall be paid equally into the general funds of the state and the general funds of the political subdivision or other public agency, if any, whose officers made the seizure, except as otherwise provided by law.
    1. Upon a person's second or subsequent conviction for promoting prostitution or patronizing prostitution, any vehicle in which such offense was committed is subject to seizure and forfeiture in accordance with the procedure established in title 39, chapter 11, part 7; provided, however, that nothing contained within this subsection (e) shall be construed to authorize seizure of such vehicle at any time prior to such conviction.
    2. Subdivision (e)(1) applies only if the violations making the vehicle subject to seizure and forfeiture occur in Tennessee and at least one (1) of the previous violations occurs on or after July 1, 2002, and the second or subsequent offense after July 1, 2002, occurs within five (5) years of the most recent prior offense occurring after July 1, 2002.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex.Sess.), ch. 2, § 1; Shan., § 5164a1; Code 1932, § 9324; Acts 1943, ch. 118, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 9324; Acts 1973, ch. 277, §§ 1-4; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-301; Acts 1990, ch. 1092, § 8; 2002, ch. 847, §§ 1-3; 2006, ch. 763, §§ 1, 2; 2009, ch. 571, § 1; 2012, ch. 848, § 7; 2013, ch. 247, § 1; 2014, ch. 631, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. This section was declared unconstitutional on grounds that it would permit seizures solely on officer's conclusion of obscenity and that “place” as defined could include a home. See Airway Theater, Inc. v. Canale, 366 F. Supp. 343 (W.D. Tenn. 1973), annotated below. See also § 1-3-110 relating to severability.

Acts 2006, ch. 556, §§ 1 and 2 purported to amend this section by amending subdivisions (a)(2) and (4) effective July 1, 2006. Although the act was signed by the governor, the act did not go into effect because the secretary of state was informed that the act was defective.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment, in the definition of “nuisance”, substituted “narcotic, other controlled substance or controlled substance analogue” for “narcotic or other controlled substance” in (A), and rewrote (B)(iv) which read: “Selling, possessing, manufacturing or using any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia as defined in § 39-17-402, knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone selling, possessing, manufacturing or using any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, knowingly remaining in the presence of any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence of any controlled substance in violation of § 55-10-401 or being under the influence of any controlled substance in public in violation of § 39-17-310;”.

The 2013 amendment, in (a), inserted “any sale or possession with intent to sell of drug paraphernalia, as defined by § 39-17-402,” in (A) of the definition of “nuisance”.

The 2014 amendment added (a)(2)(C).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 848, § 99. May 15, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 247, § 2. July 1, 2013.

Acts 2014, ch. 631, § 2. July 1, 2014.

Cross-References. Abatement of exercise of unlicensed privilege, §§ 67-4-202, 67-4-216.

Circuit court jurisdiction, § 16-10-110.

Gambling devices, § 39-17-505.

Sexual exploitation of children, title 39, ch. 17, part 10.

Unauthorized signal light on highway declared nuisance, § 54-5-602.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Constitutional Law, §§ 30, 58, 61; 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 19-27; 20 Tenn. Juris., Nuisances, §§ 1, 4, 10, 20.

Law Reviews.

Business Associations — 1961 Tennessee Survey (II) (Kenneth L. Roberts), 15 Vand. L. Rev. 840.

The Rights of Nonsmokers in Tennessee, 54 Tenn L. Rev. 671 (1987).

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

The Tennessee Court System — Criminal Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 319.

The Tennessee Court System — Prosecution, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 477.

Torts — Crematorium as a Nuisance — Anticipatory Injunction — Psychic and Aesthetic Injury, 34 Tenn. L. Rev. 329.

Attorney General Opinions. Lotteries, reverse raffles and gaming laws, OAG 84-221 (7/18/84); OAG 84-272 (9/27/84).

A proposed bill, which would provide for the forfeiture of motor vehicles used in the commission of a person's second or subsequent violation for promoting prostitution or patronizing prostitution, would not violate the excessive fines provisions of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions. OAG 02-055 (4/30/02).

A proposed bill, which would provide for the forfeiture of motor vehicles used in the commission of a person's second or subsequent violation for promoting prostitution or patronizing prostitution, would not be facially unconstitutional under the excessive fines clauses of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, although it could be held unconstitutional as applied in certain circumstances. OAG 02-055 (4/30/02).

Comparative Legislation. Abatement of nuisances:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-120 et seq.

Ark.  Stat. Ann. §§ 14-268-105, 16-90-409.

Ga.  Code Ann. § 3-10-8.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 381.770.

Miss.  Code Ann. §§ 95-3-195-3-29.

N.C.  Gen. Stat. §§ 19-1 — 19-1.5, 19-2.1 — 19-20.

Va. Code §§ 48-1 — 48-6.

Cited: Henderson v. Grundy County Beer Committee, 176 Tenn. 397, 141 S.W.2d 901, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1940); State ex rel. Blackburn v. Fox, 200 Tenn. 227, 292 S.W.2d 21, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1956); Boles v. City of Chattanooga, 892 S.W.2d 416, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Cooper v. Parrish, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14223 (W.D. Tenn. 1998); King of Clubs v. Gibbons, 9 S.W.3d 796, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 2000 FED App. 47P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000); Town of Nolensville v. King, 151 S.W.3d 427, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1109 (Tenn. 2004).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The statute does not violate Tenn. Const., art. II, § 2, relating to separate branches of the state government. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

The public nuisance statutes are not violative of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 8 or art. XI, § 8. Barrowman v. State ex rel. Evans, 214 Tenn. 408, 381 S.W.2d 251, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. July 15, 1964).

Judgment ordering padlocking of residence as public nuisance for alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors did not constitute an unconstitutional confiscation or forfeiture of property. State ex rel. Evans v. Caldwell, 53 Tenn. App. 195, 381 S.W.2d 553, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

This section was declared unconstitutional in that it would permit seizures solely on officer's conclusion of obscenity and place as defined could include a home. Airways Theater, Inc. v. Canale, 366 F. Supp. 343, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11012 (W.D. Tenn. 1973).

The issuance of a permanent injunction against the owner of premises which had been used for the purposes of prostitution prohibiting such use of his property, in absence of any proof that he had knowledge of such use, was not violative of his constitutional rights, since it did not deprive him of property or punish him in any way. State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

The definition of the word “nuisance” as it relates to prostitution and assignation is not unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and indefinite. State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

This section applies equally to all landowners in the same position and does not violate Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 8 or U.S. Const., amend. 14. State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

The padlocking of property on the order of the court in a proceeding instituted under the nuisance statute did not deprive the owner of his federal right to due process of law or any other right he had under the federal constitution. Wilson v. Winstead, 470 F. Supp. 263, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16659 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

Section was found to be not unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions as a prior restraint or as a violation of the free speech rights of adults. Davis-Kidd Booksellers v. McWherter, 866 S.W.2d 520, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. 1993).

2. Construction.

The fact that defendants may reside in the building in which they conduct illicit enterprise does not make the public nuisance statute inapplicable since the statute embraces any building, structure, or place. Barrowman v. State ex rel. Evans, 214 Tenn. 408, 381 S.W.2d 251, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. July 15, 1964).

Section 39-2901 (repealed; see § 39-17-307) specifying certain things which constitute public nuisance is merely cumulative to title 29, ch. 3. State ex rel. Evans v. Caldwell, 53 Tenn. App. 195, 381 S.W.2d 553, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

3. Nuisances.

The test in cases arising under the provisions of these sections is not the number of unlawful acts that occurred but whether the evidence as a whole indicates recurrent acts which amount to a nuisance, and time is not a material factor in the offense of maintaining such a nuisance. State v. James, 177 Tenn. 21, 145 S.W.2d 783, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1940).

For an injunction suit to be maintained prior to the alleged nuisance coming into being it must be sufficiently shown in the original bill or petition that the proposed establishment is a nuisance per se. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

The difference between a nuisance per se and a nuisance per accidens is that in the former, injury in some form is certain to be inflicted while in the latter the injury is uncertain or contingent until it actually occurs. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

4. —Gambling Houses.

A house where betting on horse races is conducted is within the section. State ex rel. Armstrong v. Bernstein, 145 Tenn. 74, 238 S.W. 91, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1921).

5. —Intoxicating Liquor.

A person who has paid all taxes and who sells intoxicating liquors only to persons outside of the state is not maintaining a nuisance within the meaning of this statute, for such sales are legal. State ex rel. Vines v. Chadwell, 130 Tenn. 253, 169 S.W. 1170, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1914).

Right to abate public nuisance extends to padlocking of private residence where intoxicating liquors are unlawfully sold. State ex rel. Evans v. Caldwell, 53 Tenn. App. 195, 381 S.W.2d 553, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

6. — —Sale.

Possession of federal license which gave rise to presumption that holder was engaged in illegal sale of liquor was rebutted where defendant who operated soft drink stand testified that he did not sell intoxicating beverages and introduced evidence that drink sold was not intoxicating. Baker v. State, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (Higgins) 292 (1915).

The engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors declared by this statute to be a public nuisance belongs to that class of nuisances always treated by the Supreme Court as tending to disturb the peace and good order of the community. State ex rel. Thompson v. Reichman, 135 Tenn. 685, 188 S.W. 597, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1916).

An incorporated social club which had been in existence for 25 years, with a limited membership, dispensing intoxicating beverages to its members at cost of materials and service, as a mere incident to the main purpose of the club, no person not a member of the club being permitted to obtain anything from the club at his own expense, was not guilty of conducting a nuisance under this statute. State ex rel. Whittaker v. Mountain City Club, 136 Tenn. 102, 188 S.W. 579, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1916).

Where evidence was to the effect that one of the operators of a hotel was aware that a roomer in the hotel was engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors within a week after such roomer took up residence in the hotel but did nothing about it until after proceedings were instituted under these sections more than a month later, the operators could be properly enjoined from maintaining a public nuisance at the hotel by engaging in the unlawful storage and sale of intoxicating liquors. State v. James, 177 Tenn. 21, 145 S.W.2d 783, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1940).

7. — —Presence of Minors.

Evidence sustained finding that defendant maintained public nuisance where intoxicating liquors were kept and minors allowed to congregate. State ex rel. Henderson v. Cuniff, 30 Tenn. App. 347, 206 S.W.2d 32, 1947 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (1947).

8. — —Effect of Local Option.

Operation of liquor store could not be enjoined as a nuisance where local option election had never been completed. O'Neil v. State ex rel. Baker, 185 Tenn. 534, 206 S.W.2d 780, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (1947).

9. —Houses of Ill Fame.

Where the evidence established that a hotel was used for assignation purposes on one particular night by seven couples, it could be reasonably inferred that like offenses had been committed on previous nights so as to sustain an injunction against maintaining a public nuisance. State v. James, 177 Tenn. 21, 145 S.W.2d 783, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1940).

Because activities taking place at nude dancing establishment satisfied the standard of sexual activity as a business, there was no error in ruling that “lap dancing,” as conducted at defendant's place of business, constituted “prostitution” as that term is used in T.C.A. § 29-3-101. State ex rel. Gibbons v. Jackson, 16 S.W.3d 797, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), aff'd, Haney v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Dec. 20, 1999).

10. —Lotteries.

A scheme designated as “bank night” or “opportunity night” under which cash prizes are awarded to a patron of the theater in case the number under which his name is registered is drawn and such patron is in the theater at the time of such drawing, cannot be abated as a nuisance on the theory that it comes under the provisions of the gaming and lottery statutes. State ex rel. Dist. Att'y Gen. v. Crescent Amusement Co., 170 Tenn. 351, 95 S.W.2d 310, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1935).

11. —Crematories.

Allegations in petition seeking to abate proposed operation of crematory in rural or rural residential area were not sufficient to support abatement of operation prior to its establishment where grounds of abatement were that operation would cause mental anguish, depressed feelings, physical discomfort and lower property value since such allegations did not indicate certain injury. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

12. Criminal Offenses.

Maintaining a public nuisance is a misdemeanor at common law and is punishable as provided in § 39-106 (now § 39-11-111) even though § 29-3-101 defining public nuisances does not make maintenance of the same a crime. Laws v. State, 218 Tenn. 536, 404 S.W.2d 510, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 586 (1966).

13. Imminence of Injury.

Anticipatory nuisance may be enjoined under proper circumstances where injury anticipated is imminent and certain to occur. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

A nuisance cannot exist without surrounding circumstances that determine whether an injury is occasioned since some injury must be occasioned or at least be imminent because of the alleged nuisance. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

Where injury from an alleged nuisance is not real and immediate and certain to occur, the nuisance will not be enjoined anticipatory to its going into operation. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

14. Mental Disturbances.

Mental disturbances or “psychic” injuries caused by a nuisance, public or private, may be actionable at law or in equity if the allegations of the petition are sufficient to persuade the court that if they are proved injury is imminent and certain. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966).

15. Review.

The appellate courts, in reviewing cases under this chapter, will be governed by the rules applicable to appeals from the chancery court. Upon appeal from the circuit court, where the case was tried before the circuit judge without the intervention of a jury, to the court of appeals, that court was not precluded from finding the facts of the cases from the preponderance of the evidence, without reference to the findings of the circuit judge, and that court was in error in applying the rule in law cases that, where there is any material evidence to support the findings of the circuit judge upon material questions of fact, his findings of fact will not be disturbed. Black v. State ex rel. Dist. Attorney-General, 130 Tenn. 529, 172 S.W. 281, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1914); Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

The supreme court, on certiorari, will not go behind a concurrent finding of fact by the trial judge and the court of appeals, if there is any evidence to support it. Black v. State ex rel. Dist. Attorney-General, 130 Tenn. 529, 172 S.W. 281, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1914).

On appeal from a conviction for violating an injunction enjoining one from engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors at a named place the appellate court has to consider whether or not the evidence preponderates against the verdict of the jury; and the adverse finding below raises a presumption of guilt, which accused must overcome, in order to obtain a reversal on the facts, by showing that the preponderance of proof is against the finding. O'Brien v. State ex rel. Bibb, 26 Tenn. App. 270, 170 S.W.2d 931, 1942 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (1942).

Collateral References. 24 Am. Jur. 2d Disorderly Houses §§ 3, 10; 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling §§ 172-185; 45 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors §§ 499-555; 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 14-18, 142-184.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 2.

Automobile racetrack or drag strip as nuisance. 41 A.L.R.3d 1273.

Betting on races as nuisance. 166 A.L.R. 1264.

Carwash as nuisance. 4 A.L.R.4th 1308.

Drive-in theater or other outdoor dramatic or musical entertainment as nuisance. 93 A.L.R.3d 1156.

Exhibition of obscene motion pictures as nuisance. 50 A.L.R.3d 969.

Existence of, and relief from, nuisance created by operation of air conditioning or ventilating equipment. 79 A.L.R.3d 320.

Fence as nuisance. 80 A.L.R.3d 962.

Funeral home as private nuisance. 8 A.L.R.4th 324.

Gasoline or other fuel storage tanks as nuisance. 50 A.L.R.3d 209.

Gun club, or shooting gallery or range, as nuisance. 26 A.L.R.3d 661.

Keeping bees as nuisance. 88 A.L.R.3d 992.

Keeping of dogs as enjoinable nuisance. 11 A.L.R.3d 1399.

Laundry or drycleaning establishment as nuisance. 41 A.L.R.3d 1236.

Massage parlor as nuisance. 80 A.L.R.3d 1020.

Operation of cement plant as nuisance. 82 A.L.R.3d 1004.

Operation of incinerator as nuisance. 41 A.L.R.3d 1009.

Operation of nude-model photographic studio as offense. 48 A.L.R.3d 1313.

Permitting guests to bring and consume their own liquor, charge of maintaining a liquor nuisance predicated on. 49 A.L.R. 1451.

Pornoshops or similar places disseminating obscene materials as nuisance. 58 A.L.R.3d 1134.

Public dump as nuisance. 52 A.L.R.2d 1134.

Remedies for sewage treatment plant alleged or deemed to be nuisance. 101 A.L.R.5th 287.

Saloons or taverns as nuisance. 5 A.L.R.3d 989.

Telephone or telegraph service facilitating betting on horse racing or other sport, as nuisance. 30 A.L.R.3d 1143.

Topless or bottomless dancing or similar conduct as offense. 49 A.L.R.3d 1084.

Vibrations not accompanied by blasting or explosion as constituting nuisance. 103 A.L.R.5th 157.

Zoos as nuisance. 58 A.L.R.3d 1085.

Nuisance 65.

29-3-102. Jurisdiction to abate.

The jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the chancery, circuit, and criminal courts and any court designated as an environmental court pursuant to Chapter 426 of the Public Acts of 1991, Chapter 212 of the Public Acts of 1993 or Chapter 667 of the Public Acts of 2002 to abate the public nuisances defined in § 29-3-101, upon petition in the name of the state, upon relation of the attorney general and reporter, or any district attorney general, or any city or county attorney, or without the concurrence of any such officers, upon the relation of ten (10) or more citizens and freeholders of the county wherein such nuisances may exist, in the manner herein provided.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 2; Shan., § 5164a2; Code 1932, § 9325; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-302; modified; 2000, ch. 720, § 1; Acts 2014, ch. 789, § 1.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment inserted “, Chapter 212 of the Public Acts of 1993 or Chapter 667 of the Public Acts of 2002”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 789, § 2. April 24, 2014.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 34; 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, § 27; 20 Tenn. Juris., Nuisances, §§ 21, 28.

Law Reviews.

Criminal Law and Procedure — 1960 Tennessee Survey (Robert E. Kendrick), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1059.

Equity — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Thomas F. Green, Jr.), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1095.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

The Tennessee Court System — Criminal Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 319.

The Tennessee Court System — Prosecution, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 477.

Attorney General Opinions. A county attorney may bring an action under T.C.A. § 29-3-102 to abate a nuisance. OAG 01-166 (11/15/01).

Even though no state statute expressly declares parking an unregistered car on private property to be a nuisance subject to abatement or any other penalty, depending on the facts and circumstances, such practice could constitute a nuisance, and, in addition, it could violate local land use, environmental, or zoning ordinances. OAG 04-172 (12/17/04).

Cited: State v. Champion Int'l Corp., 709 S.W.2d 569, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. 1986); T & W Enterprises, Inc. v. Casey, 715 S.W.2d 356, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3092 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Cooper v. Parrish, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14223 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section is not class legislation, and is not in violation of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 8 or art. XI, § 8, nor U.S. Const., amend. 14. The ten citizens authorized to bring the suit are made the agents of the state. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

Judgment ordering padlocking of residence as public nuisance for alleged unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors did not constitute an unconstitutional confiscation or forfeiture of property. State ex rel. Evans v. Caldwell, 53 Tenn. App. 195, 381 S.W.2d 553, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

2. Construction.

This statute furnishes a cumulative remedy, and does not abrogate any other remedy, and does not affect the sheriff's duties. State ex rel. Thompson v. Reichman, 135 Tenn. 685, 188 S.W. 597, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1916).

T.C.A. § 29-3-102 does not require that a district attorney general swear to the truth of allegations contained in a complaint. Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 2000 FED App. 47P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 877, 121 S. Ct. 185, 148 L. Ed. 2d 128, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 5925 (2000).

3. Jurisdiction.

The city attorney cannot institute such proceeding in any other city. He is confined to the local jurisdiction of his own city. Error in refusing to abate such action brought in one city by the city attorney of another city is not cured by the fact that the city in which the suit was brought was subsequently, by legislative act, included in the city whose city attorney instituted the suit. State ex rel. Powers v. Shelton, 138 Tenn. 345, 197 S.W. 1096, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1917).

In suit to abate public nuisance and to revoke corporate charter, fact that criminal court had narrow statutory concurrent jurisdiction with chancery court with reference to abatement of public nuisances did not permit criminal court to retain jurisdiction of suit for purpose of revocation of corporate charter under maxim that equity having taken jurisdiction for one purpose will retain jurisdiction for all purposes. Pan-O-Ram Club, Inc. v. State, 217 Tenn. 137, 395 S.W.2d 803, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 526 (1965).

A proceeding to abate a public nuisance is an action of an equitable nature and must be tried in accordance with the rules of chancery, although it may properly be filed in criminal or circuit, as well as chancery, courts. State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

The statute giving jurisdiction over equitable matters to “circuit courts” refers to courts of law as distinguished from courts of equity and includes criminal courts; therefore, action for a permanent injunction restraining use of property for prostitution was properly brought in criminal court. State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

Principles of concurrent jurisdiction precluded the circuit court from entering an order which purported to enjoin the district attorney from proceeding against the plaintiff in an abatement action filed in the criminal court. King of Clubs v. Gibbons, 9 S.W.3d 796, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 1999).

4. Venue.

It appears that location is an essential ingredient of the action and is associated with the offense accordingly. The proper venue is in the county where the nuisance is situated. State ex rel. Boyd v. Scott, 176 Tenn. 662, 145 S.W.2d 765, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Dec. 1940).

5. Review.

Case brought under title 29, ch. 3 comes to court of appeals as if it were an equity case under § 27-3-103 (repealed) with a presumption of the correctness of the decree of the judgment of the lower court unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary. State ex rel. Evans v. Caldwell, 53 Tenn. App. 195, 381 S.W.2d 553, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

6. Jury Trial.

In a suit in Chancery there is a statutory right under § 21-1-103 to a jury, except in accounting cases or cases barred by law or other provisions of the code. Smith County Education Asso. v. Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 936 (Tenn. 1984).

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 164-166.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 121.

Proceedings for injunction or restraining order as basis of malicious prosecution action. 70 A.L.R.3d 536.

Right to maintain action to enjoin public nuisance as affected by existence of pollution control agency. 60 A.L.R.3d 665.

Street or highway, right, as between state and county or municipality, to maintain action to abate public nuisance in. 65 A.L.R. 699.

Nuisance 28.

29-3-103. Filing of bill — Parties.

When a public nuisance, as defined in § 29-3-101, is kept, maintained, carried on, or exists in any county, a bill or petition may be filed in any chancery, circuit, or criminal court of such county, in the name of the state, by and upon the relation of the respective officers or persons named in § 29-3-102, against the person keeping, maintaining, or carrying on such nuisance, and all aiders and abettors therein, and the owners, proprietors, or agents or persons or corporations in charge or control of the building or place wherein such nuisance exists, for the purpose of having such nuisance abated and permanently discontinued. In addition, petitions under this chapter for the abatement of gang related conduct may be brought against the gang itself to which the gang members belong.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 3; Shan., § 5164a3; mod. Code 1932, § 9326; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-303; Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 1 provided that this act, which amended this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Community Safety Act”.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment added the last sentence.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 9. July 1, 2014.

Cited: Etheridge v. First Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn. App. 46, 387 S.W.2d 835, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 1964); State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975); Cooper v. Parrish, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14223 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Institution of Proceeding.

An injunction against the attorney general will not lie to enjoin the institution and prosecution of suits to enjoin and abate nuisances. Such injunction is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and a mere nullity and may be disregarded without incurring the penalty of contempt of court. Howell v. Thompson, 130 Tenn. 311, 170 S.W. 253, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1914).

The statute does not impose any duty on the sheriff, does not mention him, and he is not authorized, in his official capacity, to institute any proceeding under it; but this does not excuse him for the nonenforcement of the law against the unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors. State ex rel. Thompson v. Reichman, 135 Tenn. 653, 188 S.W. 225, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1916), rehearing denied, 135 Tenn. 685, 188 S.W. 597, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1916).

2. Notice.

An injunction issued under this section without notice is merely an error in procedure and is not void, as the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the defendant. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914); Black v. State ex rel. Dist. Attorney-General, 130 Tenn. 529, 172 S.W. 281, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1914).

This section does not contemplate a hearing of the application, nor require the giving of any notice when the bill or petition is filed by ten or more citizens and freeholders, but it does require such notice on the relation of the attorney-general or any other officer named in the section. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

3. Evidence.

Identification of place in bill and in certified internal revenue license cannot be raised in the appellate court, where no question was made on the trial below, and such places were treated as identical. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

Certified list of holders of internal revenue licenses for the sales of intoxicating liquors is not inadmissible because it failed to state the number of pages contained in the list, nor is there any objection to the submission of such documentary evidence by an attorney without being sworn to testify in the case. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 169-172.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 124, 126.

Joinder, in injunction action to restrain or abate nuisance, of persons contributing thereto through separate and independent acts. 45 A.L.R.2d 1284.

Necessity of knowledge by owner of real estate of a nuisance maintained thereon by another to subject him to the operation of a statute providing for the abatement of nuisances or prescribing pecuniary penalty therefor. 12 A.L.R. 431, 121 A.L.R. 642.

Proceedings for injunction or restraining order as basis of malicious prosecution action, 70 A.L.R.3d 536.

Right to maintain action to enjoin public nuisance as affected by existence of pollution control agency. 60 A.L.R.3d 665.

Nuisance 27.

29-3-104. Bond of relators.

Where such bill or petition is filed by citizens and freeholders, they shall make bond, in such sum as the judge or chancellor shall prescribe, conditioned to pay all costs and damages in the event the court trying the case shall adjudge that the proceeding was instituted without probable cause; but no bond for costs or damages shall be required where the proceeding is instituted by and upon the relation of the attorney general and reporter or a district attorney general or a county or a city attorney.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 3, Shan., § 516414; Code 1932 § 9327; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), 23-304; modified.

Law Reviews.

Attorneys' Fees — Tennessee Recognizes the “Third Party Exception” to the American Rule, 16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 399 (1986).

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

Collateral References. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 125.

Nuisance 40, 88.

29-3-105. Temporary injunction.

  1. In such proceeding, the court, or a judge or chancellor in vacation, shall, upon the presentation of a bill or petition therefor, alleging that the nuisance complained of exists, award a temporary writ of injunction, enjoining and restraining the further continuance of such nuisance, and the closing of the building or place wherein the same is conducted until the further order of the court, judge, or chancellor.
  2. The award of a temporary writ of injunction shall be accompanied by such bond as is required by law in such cases, in case the bill is filed by citizens and freeholders; but no bond shall be required when such is filed by the officers provided for, if it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, judge or chancellor, by evidence in the form of a due and proper verification of the bill or petition under oath, or of affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or otherwise, as the complaints or petitioners may elect, that the allegations of such bill or petition are true.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 4; Shan., § 5164a5; mod. Code 1932, § 9328; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-305; modified.

Cross-References. Temporary injunction, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.04.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Nuisances, § 20.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975); Logan v. Ledford, 699 F. Supp. 141, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12469 (M.D. Tenn. 1988); Cooper v. Parrish, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14223 (W.D. Tenn. 1998); King of Clubs v. Gibbons, 9 S.W.3d 796, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 2000 FED App. 47P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Provision for injunction at instance of citizens and freeholders, without injunction bond, is not unconstitutional. Such parties act as agents of the state, and this does not violate Tenn. Const., art. I, § 8, and art. XI, § 8, nor the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

Provision for closing the place before a hearing is not unconstitutional, as a deprivation of property without due process, though the owner be not a party, in violation of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 8 and the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

Provision requiring award of temporary writ of injunction is not unconstitutional as depriving the judges of the exercise of judicial power, in violation of Tenn. Const., art. II, §§ 1, 2, for the statute contemplates the exercise of judicial functions by the judge or chancellor to whom a petition for abatement and injunction is brought, and merely prescribes a rule of practice upon the filing of a proper petition for abatement, the sufficiency of which is to be determined by the court. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914).

In light of the fact that defendant's nude dancing establishment was entitled to some measure of first amendment protection, it was error to grant a temporary writ of injunction in regards to “lewd and obscene exhibition of the genitals,” because the injunction attempted to prohibit a future undescribed activity. State ex rel. Gibbons v. Jackson, 16 S.W.3d 797, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), aff'd, Haney v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Dec. 20, 1999).

2. Special Injury.

The nuisance may be enjoined, without showing any special injury. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Collateral References. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 125.

Right to maintain action to enjoin public nuisance as affected by existence of pollution control agency. 60 A.L.R.3d 665.

What corporate communications are entitled to attorney-client privilege—modern cases. 27 A.L.R.5th 76.

Nuisance 31.

29-3-106. Notice of hearing — Effect of injunction — Ex parte writ.

    1. Five (5) days' notice in writing shall be given the defendant of the hearing of the application; and if then continued at defendant's instance, the writ as prayed for shall be granted as a matter of course.
    2. Notwithstanding subsection (c), if a defendant, who is the owner of the property and not the person keeping, maintaining, or carrying on the nuisance, demonstrates that the defendant was unaware of the nuisance prior to receiving the notice required by this subsection (a), and that the defendant has voluntarily taken steps after receiving notice to abate the nuisance without the involvement of the court, the court may dismiss the petition or continue the action pending further action by the defendant.
  1. When the injunction shall have been granted, it shall be binding upon the defendant throughout the county until modified or set aside by the court, judge, or chancellor having cognizance of the case; and any violation of the injunction by the defendant, or upon defendant's procurement, shall be a contempt of court and punished as hereinafter provided.
  2. When a bill or petition is made by any of the respective officers named in § 29-3-102 and supported by affidavit that there is probable cause to believe that a public nuisance exists, neither notice of the application nor of the hearing shall be required before the court may grant the writ, ex parte. A hearing shall be conducted within five (5) days following the execution of the writ closing and padlocking the premises, or the writ shall expire. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the defendant. If the defendant seeks to continue the hearing on the temporary injunction beyond the five-day period, the temporary injunction shall remain in effect.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 4; Shan., § 5164a6; Code 1932, § 9329; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-306; Acts 2007, ch. 331, § 1; 2016, ch. 1067, § 1.

Amendments. The 2016 amendment added (a)(2).

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 1067, § 2. July 1, 2016.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 60; 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, § 27; 20 Tenn. Juris., Nuisances, § 20.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Subject Matter.

An injunction made in respect to a subject matter beyond the jurisdiction of the court, as where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the person of the defendant, is a nullity. It may be disregarded without incurring the penalty of contempt. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914); Howell v. Thompson, 130 Tenn. 311, 170 S.W. 253, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1914).

2. Notice.

The requirement of the five days' written notice of the hearing of the application for a temporary injunction does not contemplate a hearing of the application, nor require the giving of the five days' notice of the issuance of a temporary injunction where the bill is filed by citizens and freeholders. State ex rel. Estes v. Persica, 130 Tenn. 48, 168 S.W. 1056, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1914); State ex rel. Mynatt v. King, 137 Tenn. 17, 191 S.W. 352, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1916).

3. Contempt.

Where a temporary injunction was issued enjoining the defendant from further engaging in the sale of liquors, a petition for an attachment for contempt, charging that he had continued the sale of intoxicating liquors, in willful disobedience of the injunction, showed a violation of the injunction. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Where the defendant answered a petition for an attachment for contempt, by alleging various matters of excuse and avoidance, he could not attack the petition on appeal on account of its general averments and lack of specific allegations. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Contempt proceedings brought by petition and because of violation of injunction issued are criminal in nature, and guilt, in lower court, must be established beyond reasonable doubt. But on appeal from judgment of conviction, appellant must show that the evidence preponderates against the verdict. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

The punishment for violating the injunction issued is that prescribed by § 29-3-111 for contempt of court. State ex rel. Trelkeld v. Casotti, 137 Tenn. 633, 195 S.W. 182, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 173 (1917).

Where defendant violated an injunction enjoining him from engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors he was guilty of criminal contempt. O'Brien v. State ex rel. Bibb, 26 Tenn. App. 270, 170 S.W.2d 931, 1942 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (1942).

Collateral References. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 86, 125, 128.

Injunction 143.

29-3-107. Voluntary dismissal — Substitution of relators.

  1. No such proceeding shall be voluntarily dismissed except upon a written, sworn statement of the relator or relators of the reasons for dismissal.
  2. If such reasons are not satisfactory to the court, or the court shall be of opinion that the proceeding ought not to be dismissed, it may order the same to proceed, and may substitute another relator or relators willing to act as such, either with or without bond, in the court's discretion.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 5; Shan., § 5164a10; Code 1932, § 9333; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-307.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

Collateral References. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 126, 133.

Pretrial procedure 501-520.

29-3-108. Time of trial.

Proceedings under §§ 29-3-10129-3-111 shall be triable at the first term after due notice or service of process, and shall, in the chancery and circuit courts, be given precedence over all other causes.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 5; Shan., § 5164a8; Code 1932, § 9331; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-309.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Jury Trial.

The defendant, in a proceeding under this chapter for the abatement of a place where intoxicating liquor is sold as a public nuisance, is entitled to a jury trial of the facts in issue, if properly demanded, notwithstanding the fact the statute contemplates that cases shall be tried with expedition and that a suit cannot be dismissed without the consent of the court. State ex rel. Mynatt v. King, 137 Tenn. 17, 191 S.W. 352, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1916).

Where it is asserted that a jury is dispensed with as the distinguishing feature of a new form of action provided by the legislature for an infraction of law, that purpose should clearly appear from the face of the statute, and not by an inference from a mere general construction. State ex rel. Mynatt v. King, 137 Tenn. 17, 191 S.W. 352, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1916).

Collateral References. Nuisance 34.

29-3-109. Discovery.

Discovery may be permitted under the rules of civil procedure consistent with a scheduling order entered by the court upon motion of any party or upon the court's own initiative. Discovery shall not disrupt the effect of the temporary injunction issued under § 29-3-105 or § 29-3-106, and neither the identity nor the location of a confidential informant used to establish gang membership under § 29-3-101(a)(2) shall be discoverable.

Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 3.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 1 provided that this act, which enacted this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Community Safety Act”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 9. July 1, 2014.

29-3-110. Order of abatement.

  1. If, upon the trial, the existence of the nuisance is established under § 29-3-101(a)(2)(A), an order of abatement shall be entered as part of the judgment or decree of the court, which order shall direct the removal from the building or place where the nuisance exists or is maintained of all means, appliances, fixtures, appurtenances, materials, supplies and instrumentalities used for the purpose of conducting, maintaining or carrying on the unlawful business, occupation, game, practice or device constituting the nuisance; and shall direct the sale thereof, or such portion thereof as may be lawfully sold, upon such terms as the court may order, and the payment of the proceeds into court to be applied to costs or paid over to the owner, and the destruction of such portion thereof, if any, as cannot be lawfully sold within this state; and the judgment or decree shall perpetually enjoin the defendant from engaging in, conducting, continuing, or maintaining the nuisance, directly or indirectly, by the defendant or defendant's agents or representatives, and perpetually forbidding the owner of the building from permitting or suffering the nuisance to be done in the building.
    1. Upon any hearing or trial, the establishment of a criminal gang as a nuisance under § 29-3-101(a)(2)(B) need only be proven by clear and convincing evidence, notwithstanding any references under this chapter to the criminal code. Neither a criminal conviction nor a finding of juvenile delinquency is required in order to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that particular conduct is gang related conduct to be abated as a nuisance under this chapter. Gang related conduct to be abated as a nuisance may be proven through the testimony of a fact witness, an expert witness, or a combined fact-expert witness pursuant to the rules of evidence.
    2. If, upon any hearing or trial, the existence of a gang related nuisance is established under § 29-3-101, an order of abatement shall be entered as part of the judgment or decree of the court. That order shall enjoin perpetually the defendant or defendants from engaging in, conducting, continuing, aiding or abetting the nuisance, directly or indirectly.
    3. In addition to the relief permitted in subdivision (b)(2), the court may designate a certain geographically defined area or areas in any temporary or permanent gang injunction, which are narrowly tailored in compliance with prevailing constitutional case law for one (1) or more of the following purposes:
      1. Preventing the gang from gathering in public in groups of two (2) or more members; and
      2. Preventing any gang member from entering any specific public park or parcel of property where the gang has been found to have carried out its operations.
    4. All gang injunctions shall also include an “opt out” provision permitting an individual to seek an order of dismissal from the injunction upon proper application to the court, with thirty (30) days' notice to the petitioner, truthfully stating that the individual renounces involvement with that particular gang, which is the subject of the gang injunction, and for the last two (2) years:
      1. Has not committed any crimes or engaged in any form of criminal conduct, not including any time spent incarcerated;
      2. Has not been in the company, or association, of any person found under this chapter to be a gang member, other than an immediate family member; and
      3. Has not obtained any new gang related tattoos.
  2. In the order of abatement, the court may also assess costs of public services required to abate or manage the nuisance, including, but not limited to, law enforcement costs, if any, caused by the public nuisance. The governmental entity shall submit evidence of such costs to the court.
    1. Any person who is not specifically named in a gang injunction issued pursuant to subsection (b) may be subject to the injunction by service upon the person of:
      1. A petition by the original petitioner to amend the injunction to specifically include the person; or
      2. A summons and a copy of the injunction.
    2. Service of the petition or summons shall include a date, time, and place of a hearing, where the original petitioner shall be required to show why the person should be subject to the injunction.
    3. A person who is added to the injunction under subdivision (d)(1) shall be subject to § 29-3-111 for any conduct occurring after the date the person is added to the injunction.
    4. A person who is added to the injunction under subdivision (d)(1) shall be afforded the same opt-out provisions under subdivision (b)(4).
  3. No later than April 1 of each year, the commissioner of safety, after consulting with the petitioners where gang injunctions permitted by this act are in effect, shall submit a detailed, written report to the judiciary committee of the senate and the judiciary committee of the house of representatives regarding the implementation of chapter 865 of the Public Acts of 2014 and containing relevant data for the previous calendar year that shall include, but not be limited to:
    1. The number of injunctions against criminal gangs in effect;
    2. The number of persons charged with violating a gang injunction under Section 29-3-111(a);
    3. The number of persons convicted for violating a gang injunction under Section 29-3-111(a); and
    4. All criminal charges filed during the previous calendar year against persons specifically named in a gang injunction.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 6; Shan., § 5164a11; Code 1932, § 9334; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-311; Acts 2009, ch. 571, § 2; 2013, ch. 463, § 1; 2014, ch. 865, §§ 4, 5, 8; 2019, ch. 345, § 146.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 1 provided that this act, which amended this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Community Safety Act”.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment added (c).

The 2014 amendment rewrote (b) which read: “If, upon the trial, the existence of the nuisance is established under § 29-3-101(a)(2)(B), an order of abatement shall be entered as part of the judgment or decree of the court, which order shall perpetually enjoin the defendant or defendants from engaging in, conducting or continuing the nuisance, directly or indirectly.” and added (d) and (e).

The 2019 amendment substituted “judiciary” for “civil justice” preceding “committee of the house of representatives” in (e).

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 463, § 2. May 20, 2013.

Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 9. July 1, 2014.

Acts 2019, ch. 345, § 148. May 10, 2019.

Law Reviews.

Criminal Law and Procedure — 1960 Tennessee Survey (Robert E. Kendrick), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1059.

Attorney General Opinions. Constitutionality of amendments by Senate Bill 1634 (Acts 2014, ch. 865) regarding abatement of gang-related conduct.  OAG 14-35, 2014 Tenn. AG LEXIS 36 (3/21/14).

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975); King of Clubs v. Gibbons, 9 S.W.3d 796, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Removal of Fixtures.

There is no necessity for an order of abatement by directing the removal, from the building in question, of fixtures, supplies, and instrumentalities used for the purpose of conducting the unlawful business, when it is seen that they had been previously removed before the filing of the petition for abatement. Black v. State ex rel. Dist. Attorney-General, 130 Tenn. 529, 172 S.W. 281, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1914).

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 176-180.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 129.

Remedies for sewage treatment plant alleged or deemed to be nuisance. 101 A.L.R.5th 287.

Nuisance 57, 96.

29-3-111. Penalty for violation.

  1. If any person breaks into, enters, or uses any building or place while closed under a preliminary injunction granted under §§ 29-3-101 — 29-3-111, violates any permanent injunction granted under such sections, or knowingly violates any temporary or permanent gang injunction, such person commits a Class C misdemeanor.
  2. As used in this section, “knowingly” refers to the mental state as described in § 39-11-302.

Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, § 7; Shan., § 5164a12; Code 1932, § 9335; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-312; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113; 2014, ch. 865, § 6.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 1 provided that this act, which amended this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Community Safety Act”.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment rewrote the section which read: “If any person breaks into or enters, or uses any building or place while closed under a preliminary injunction granted under §§ 29-3-10129-3-111, or violates any permanent injunction granted under such sections, such person commits a Class C misdemeanor.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 865, § 9. July 1, 2014.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 24.15.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 60; 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 18, 27.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Venue and Jurisdiction.

Venue to enjoin a nuisance as provided in these sections is local, and a defendant against whom an injunction has been issued in one county cannot be adjudged guilty of contempt for engaging in similar conduct in another county beyond the jurisdiction of the court. State ex rel. Boyd v. Scott, 176 Tenn. 662, 145 S.W.2d 765, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Dec. 1940).

2. Trial.

The contempt proceeding is not summary where the offenses with which the contemnor was charged were set out in a petition duly sworn to and filed in the case, and where he was given an opportunity to make defense by answer. It is unnecessary to recite in the judgment of contempt all the facts and steps in the proceeding constituting the contempt. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

The violation of an injunction issued in a nuisance case is a criminal contempt which is punitive in character to vindicate the authority of the law, and the court as an organ of society; and the proceeding is one quasi criminal in character. State ex rel. Anderson v. Daugherty, 137 Tenn. 125, 191 S.W. 974, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1916).

Defendant was not entitled to trial by jury in contempt proceeding in circuit court for violating injunction against illegal sale of intoxicating liquor as statute provided that abatement of public nuisance should be conducted in accordance with procedure of court of chancery, and chancellor had authority to punish for contempt summarily. Pass v. State, 181 Tenn. 613, 184 S.W.2d 1, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 283 (1944).

Constitutional guarantee of trial by jury does not apply to contempt proceedings. Barrowman v. State ex rel. Evans, 214 Tenn. 408, 381 S.W.2d 251, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. July 15, 1964).

3. Punishment for Violation.

Where the party is found guilty of contempt, he may be committed to the county workhouse to work out the fine and costs in addition to the workhouse sentence as a part of the punishment. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

The punishment here prescribed is to be imposed for violation of the contempt declared by the Nuisance Act, Acts 1913 (2d Ex. Sess.), ch. 2. State ex rel. Trelkeld v. Casotti, 137 Tenn. 633, 195 S.W. 182, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 173 (1917).

The fact that defendant may be punished criminally for violation of the law does not impair the right of the court to punish for contempt for violation of injunction issued under public nuisance statutes. Barrowman v. State ex rel. Evans, 214 Tenn. 408, 381 S.W.2d 251, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. July 15, 1964).

4. Review.

Judgment of contempt in lower court removes the presumption of innocence, and raises a presumption of guilt which the contemnor must overcome, in order to obtain a reversal on the facts, especially where the hearing was on oral evidence. Wortham v. State, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 362 (1915).

Supreme court upon appeal has jurisdiction to revise and reduce sentences imposed for contempt if the punishment is excessive. Barrowman v. State ex rel. Evans, 214 Tenn. 408, 381 S.W.2d 251, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. July 15, 1964).

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances § 184.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 135.

Nuisance 38, 86.

29-3-112. Unlawfully engaging in business or profession.

The carrying on, conducting, or practice of any profession, business, or occupation which is prohibited by law, unless the person so engaging in such profession, business, or occupation is in the possession of or holds a license issued by some board or other authority organized under the laws of the state, by any person not possessed of or holding the required license, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and the same may be abated under any procedure now provided by law for the abatement of any public nuisance, and such abatement may be accomplished by injunction.

Acts 1919, ch. 158, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 5158a1; Code 1932, § 9316; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-313.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 16.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Bar Proceedings — Report of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 24 Tenn. L. Rev. 91.

Tennessee Civil Disabilities: A Systemic Approach (Neil P. Cohen), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 253.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Definitions.

“License” under this section, refers to a license issued by a board or other authority, in its discretion, after examination, to engage in a business, profession, or occupation. State ex rel. Thompson v. Dixie Finance Co., 152 Tenn. 306, 278 S.W. 59, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1925).

“Other authority” refers to a body vested with authority, in discretion, to issue license after examination. State ex rel. Thompson v. Dixie Finance Co., 152 Tenn. 306, 278 S.W. 59, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1925).

2. Application.

3. —Practice of Law.

This law is applicable to a corporation acting as a collection agency which is practicing law without a license. State v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n, 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (1931).

On facts found, a collecting agency was held to be unlawfully practicing law, though it claimed to have taken assignment of claims to be collected. State v. James Sanford Agency, 167 Tenn. 339, 69 S.W.2d 895, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1934).

Collection agency could employ an attorney by the authority of its principal and when directed by such principal could demand execution on judgments and aid in finding property from which payment could be enforced without being engaged in the practice of law. State ex rel. District Attorney v. Lytton, 172 Tenn. 91, 110 S.W.2d 313, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1937).

4. —Practice of Medicine.

This section is not applicable to enjoin one holding unrevoked license to practice medicine from practicing. State ex rel. State Bd. of Medical Exmrs. v. Hartley, 165 Tenn. 278, 54 S.W.2d 960, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1932).

Where it was shown that a corporation in the business of making lenses and fitting and selling eyeglasses employed doctors, who occupied small offices in each store of the corporation, to examine the eyes of customers directed to them by employees of the corporation, with the guarantee of a fixed minimum weekly income, it was held that the contract employment of the doctors was illegal and against public policy or public welfare, and the corporation was guilty of illegally practicing optometry. State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co., 189 Tenn. 433, 225 S.W.2d 263, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 439 (1949).

5. —Failure to Pay Tax.

This section does not apply to one who has simply failed to pay a required privilege tax. State ex rel. Thompson v. Dixie Finance Co., 152 Tenn. 306, 278 S.W. 59, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1925).

6. Contempt.

Contempt proceedings against defendant who violated injunction against unlawful practice of dentistry were proper even though judgment finding defendant guilty of unlawful practice was reversed since such judgment was voidable only rather than void. Hooper v. State ex rel. Nichol, 205 Tenn. 134, 325 S.W.2d 565, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1959).

Criminal court had jurisdiction in proceeding for contempt of injunction prohibiting unlawful practice of dentistry. Hooper v. State ex rel. Nichol, 205 Tenn. 134, 325 S.W.2d 565, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1959).

Injunction restraining person from unlawfully engaging in profession, business or occupation was in furtherance of the enforcement of criminal laws and the contempt of such an injunction is criminal rather than civil. Hooper v. State ex rel. Nichol, 205 Tenn. 134, 325 S.W.2d 565, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1959).

7. Accrual of Action.

Provision of this section permitting enjoining of operation of an unlawful business could not serve as basis of enjoining operation of crematory prior to time such operation commenced. State ex rel. Cunningham v. Feezell, 218 Tenn. 17, 400 S.W.2d 716, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (1966). See also § 29-3-101 and notes thereto.

Collateral References. 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 66; 66 C. J. S. Nuisances § 9.

Right to maintain action to enjoin public nuisance as affected by existence of pollution control agency. 60 A.L.R.3d 665.

Nuisance 21-24, 79, 80.

29-3-113. Relators in abatement of business or occupation.

The writ of injunction provided for in § 29-3-112 may be sued out by the board, or commissioner, charged with the supervision of the particular business or profession; or by any person affected by such nuisance.

Acts 1919, ch. 158, § 2; Shan. Supp., § 5158a2; mod. Code 1932, § 9317; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-314.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Civil Disabilities: A Systemic Approach (Neil P. Cohen), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 253.

Cited: State ex rel. Webster v. Daugherty, 530 S.W.2d 81, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Delay by Board.

Delay on the part of the state board of architects in suing to enjoin one from practicing architecture is immaterial respecting the right to maintain such suit, since no estoppel can justify one in continuing to practice unlawfully, where such is denounced by a valid police statute. State Board of Examiners for A. & E. v. Rodgers, 167 Tenn. 374, 69 S.W.2d 1093, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1934).

2. License of Defendant.

The statute does not authorize a suit to enjoin one holding an unrevoked license to practice medicine from practicing. State ex rel. State Bd. of Medical Exmrs. v. Hartley, 165 Tenn. 278, 54 S.W.2d 960, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1932).

3. Criminal Prosecution.

Injunction suit is maintainable notwithstanding the pendency of a criminal prosecution of a defendant for unlawfully practicing architecture. State Board of Examiners for A. & E. v. Rodgers, 167 Tenn. 374, 69 S.W.2d 1093, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1934).

The fact that Acts 1935, ch. 30 provides that the practice of law without a license is a misdemeanor does not deprive a court of chancery of the right to enjoin such unlawful practice since § 29-3-113 expressly provides for injunctive relief where a person engages in a profession, business or occupation requiring a license without holding such a license. Lamb v. Whitaker, 171 Tenn. 485, 105 S.W.2d 105, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (1937).

Collateral References. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 77, 124.

Right to maintain action to enjoin public nuisance as affected by existence of pollution control agency. 60 A.L.R.3d 665.

Injunction 114(2).

29-3-114. Abatement incident to action for damages.

In all suits brought for the recovery of damages resulting from any nuisance, and the finding that the matter complained of is a nuisance, the court exercising a sound discretion may immediately, upon petition of plaintiff, order or decline to order the nuisance to be abated.

Code 1858, § 3403 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 146, § 2); Acts 1901, ch. 139, § 1; Shan., § 5158; Code 1932, § 9314; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-315.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Maintenance of Suit.

Injunctive relief against the maintenance of a nuisance must be promptly applied for, or it will be refused upon the ground of laches. Weidner v. Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S.W. 56, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1041 (1912).

The owner of a leasehold may maintain a suit to enjoin the maintenance of a private nuisance detrimental to the enjoyment or usable value of the premises during his holding. Fox v. Corbitt, 137 Tenn. 466, 194 S.W. 88, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1916).

The fact that the tenant renews his lease of the property after the creation of the private nuisance does not prevent his being granted such relief. Fox v. Corbitt, 137 Tenn. 466, 194 S.W. 88, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1916).

Where the nuisance and damages alleged were caused by the growth of branches and foliage of a hedge over the land of complainant for a time so long that the branches and foliage reached the house of complainant and there remained so long unmolested as to rot parts of the house and fence and leave the ground soggy even in extremely dry periods, and no complaint or notice through this necessarily long period of time was given the defendants, the case was one of the application of the rule that equity requires a party to assert his rights in a reasonable time after he discovers that he was been wronged, and the complainant was not entitled to relief under this section and § 29-3-115. Granberry v. Jones, 188 Tenn. 51, 216 S.W.2d 721, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 314 (1949).

2. Right to Damages.

A public nuisance, causing peculiar and special damages to an individual, will be restrained and abated at his suit, as where the unauthorized construction and operation by a private corporation, for its own use, of a private railroad along a public street, which not only obstructed the public travel along the street, but destroyed the ingress and egress of the owner of the abutting lot. Richi v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 105 Tenn. 651, 58 S.W. 646, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1900).

Under an injunction suit, by an individual who has suffered peculiar and special damages therefrom, the chancery court may ascertain and award the damages sustained as an incident to the injunctive relief granted. Richi v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 105 Tenn. 651, 58 S.W. 646, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1900); Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1904); Union Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Memphis Hotel Co., 124 Tenn. 649, 139 S.W. 715, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 69, 39 L.R.A. (n.s.) 580 (1911).

In a suit by several complainants against two distinct defendants for injunction to abate a nuisance to their respective property, caused by defendants, and to recover damages therefor, upon the court's refusal to allow the injunction, damages may be awarded, and for this purpose an order may be entered separating the demand of each complainant, and making it a distinct case against each defendant complained of in the bill, to the end that the damages may be assessed against the two defendants separately. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1904).

Although a private nuisance is temporary and abatable in character, the chancery court will, to avoid a multiplicity of suits, award damages accruing after the commencement of the suit up to the time of trial. Fox v. Corbitt, 137 Tenn. 466, 194 S.W. 88, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1916).

3. Abatement.

4. —Self Help.

One having a right of action for private nuisance on his land, created by another, may help himself personally by abating it, if he can do so without a breach of the peace. Walker v. Davis, 139 Tenn. 475, 202 S.W. 78, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1918).

5. —Court Action.

The jurisdiction of the chancery court is not taken away by this section. Lassater v. Garrett & Brown, 63 Tenn. 368, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 265 (1874).

In the exercise of its discretion to refuse an injunction the chancery court has power to impose upon the defendants as a condition annexed, that they shall pay the accrued damages, and may be required to execute a bond to secure the same, in default of which the injunction will be issued to continue during such default. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1904).

This statute giving the circuit court a sound discretion for the abatement of the nuisance applies to the chancery court. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 113 Tenn. 331, 83 S.W. 658, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1904).

Where, after the institution of a suit to restrain a private nuisance, and chancery jurisdiction has attached, the defendant voluntarily ceased to commit the nuisance, the court may establish and declare the right to an injunction, and to maintain the suit in chancery that subsidiary rights may be enforced. Fox v. Corbitt, 137 Tenn. 466, 194 S.W. 88, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1916).

6. —Houses of Ill Fame.

The chancery court has jurisdiction to enjoin the owner of property from keeping or permitting a house of ill fame to be kept therein, at the suit of owners of adjacent or contiguous property, adapted and used for business and residence purposes, where, by reason of boisterous and vulgar conversation, and the public, immoral, and indecent conduct and exposure of person of the inmates of the house and their visitors, it has seriously affected and impaired the value and rental productiveness of the complainant's property. Weakley v. Page, 102 Tenn. 178, 53 S.W. 551, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 17, 46 L.R.A. 552 (1898); Weidner v. Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S.W. 56, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1041 (1912).

A bill to enjoin the maintenance of a congeries of disorderly houses which have existed and have been in operation there for more than 25 years, will be dismissed for laches. Weidner v. Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S.W. 56, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1041 (1912).

Disorderly houses cannot be prevented by injunction, at the suit of a private person, except when he shows special and peculiar injury to himself, different in kind from that suffered by the general public. Weidner v. Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S.W. 56, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1041 (1912); State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

The chancery court has no jurisdiction of bills by private property owners to prevent the operation of a congeries of disorderly houses in a “red light district,” by an injunction against the several owners, proprietors, and inmates, where it is practically impossible to apportion the blame, or to ascertain from the evidence the jurisdictional facts as to how much of each house is responsible for the special injury alleged. Weidner v. Friedman, 126 Tenn. 677, 151 S.W. 56, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1041 (1912); State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

7. —Livery Stables.

A livery stable, though erected and maintained adjacent to city residence property, is not per se a nuisance; but it becomes a nuisance if kept and used in such manner as to impair the value of such adjacent property, and destroy the comfort of those residing therein, by reason of the undue accumulation of filth, the emanation therefrom of foul and offensive odors, and the disturbance of boisterous conduct and unnecessary noise at unusual hours. Harvey v. Consumers Ice Co., 104 Tenn. 583, 58 S.W. 316, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1900).

8. —Sale of Intoxicating Liquors.

The sale of intoxicating liquors may be enjoined, without showing special injury, because the statute so provides. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Although a saloon is operated in violation of a criminal statute and is a public nuisance suppressible by the state, it will, for the protection of property, be restrained as a private nuisance, if complainant can show that he suffers in consequence some substantial and special damage different in kind from that suffered by the public at large. Fox v. Corbitt, 137 Tenn. 466, 194 S.W. 88, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1916).

9. —Smoke.

Injunction against smoke nuisances will not be granted where it would be against public policy, and the precedent would be intolerable. Union Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Memphis Hotel Co., 124 Tenn. 649, 139 S.W. 715, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 69, 39 L.R.A. (n.s.) 580 (1911).

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 176-181.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 139.

Nuisance 57.

29-3-115. Proof in action for damages.

On the trial of such action for the recovery of damages, either party may show by proof the extent, if any, of the injury or injuries complained of, and how the alleged nuisance is caused or originated.

Acts 1901, ch. 139, § 2; Shan., § 5158a1; Code 1932, § 9315; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-316.

Collateral References. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 136-139.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 149, 151.

Nuisance 49.

Chapter 4
Agreed Cases

29-4-101. Agreement to submit — Court to which submitted.

The same parties who are entitled to enter into an agreement of submission to arbitration, and including contestants' titles to real property, may, in like manner, with or without action brought, agree upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy depends, and submit the same to the circuit or chancery court of the county in which either of the parties resides, or in which a suit might have been brought to determine such controversy.

Code 1858, § 3450 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 5); Shan., § 5206; mod. Code 1932, § 9383; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-401.

Cross-References. Jurisdiction of courts, §§ 16-10-105, 16-11-112.

Parties entitled to arbitrate, § 29-5-103.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agreed Case, § 1.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Comparative Legislation. Agreed cases:

Ark.  Code § 16-118-101.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 418.020 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 512.120.

Cited: Galloway v. Memphis, 116 Tenn. 736, 94 S.W. 75, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1906); Knoxville v. Gass, 119 Tenn. 438, 104 S.W. 1084, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 16, 14 L.R.A. (n.s.) 519 (1907); Moyers v. Memphis, 135 Tenn. 263, 186 S.W. 105, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1916); Industrial Credit Co. v. Beckham, 206 Tenn. 331, 333 S.W.2d 563, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 369 (1960).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judicial Attitude Toward Stipulation.

The practice of submitting agreed cases for decision, within proper limits, is to be commended and encouraged; but an agreed case prepared without real litigation is a fraud upon the court, and a contempt on the part of those implicated. Ward v. Alsup, 100 Tenn. 619, 46 S.W. 573, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1898).

2. Construction of Stipulation.

A stipulation of facts should receive a fair and liberal construction so as to carry out the apparent intention. In cases of doubt, appellate courts strongly incline to the construction adopted by the trial court. A stipulation may be taken with all the admitted facts and the inferences legitimately to be drawn from them. Still v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 165 Tenn. 224, 54 S.W.2d 947, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 86 A.L.R. 382 (1932).

3. Enforcement of Stipulation.

Stipulations entered into between counsel with reference to matters properly subject to agreement will be rigidly enforced by the courts. State ex rel. Weldon v. Thomason, 142 Tenn. 527, 221 S.W. 491, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1919).

4. Subject of Stipulation.

The meaning of the language used in a statute, from which the validity or invalidity of the act is to be determined, is not the subject of an agreement by parties or counsel, but is to be found by the courts. The parties cannot agree upon the unconstitutionality of a statute, nor by their stipulations determine for the courts the judicial question as to what the action or intent of the lawmaking body is. State ex rel. Weldon v. Thomason, 142 Tenn. 527, 221 S.W. 491, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1919).

5. Decree.

Estoppel by virtue of a decree is as effective when pronounced upon an agreed statement of facts as the formal verdict of a jury or a judgment of a court upon proof heard at a trial. Kelly v. Milan, 21 F. 842, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2460 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1884), aff'd, Kelley v. Milan, 127 U.S. 139, 8 S. Ct. 1101, 32 L. Ed. 77, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1974 (1888).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Jurisdiction.

The circumstance that the parties make an agreed case will not give the court jurisdiction which it otherwise would not have. Anderson v. Cannon, 3 Tenn. 27, 1 Cooke 27, 1811 Tenn. LEXIS 10.

Collateral References. 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agreed Case.

Insufficiency of agreed statement of facts to warrant judgment for party having the affirmative, effect of, upon disposition of the cause. 97 A.L.R. 301.

Submission of controversies 5-9.

29-4-102. Real controversy.

It must appear by the affidavit of the parties, or their attorneys, that the controversy is real, and the proceeding in good faith, to determine the rights of the parties.

Code 1858, § 3451 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 5); Shan., § 5207; Code 1932, § 9384; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-402.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agreed Case, § 1.

Law Reviews.

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. 225.

Collateral References. Submission of controversies 3.

29-4-103. Costs.

The parties shall give bond and security for the costs of an agreed case, unless they pay the clerk's fees and state tax in advance; and all costs incurred shall be borne equally by the parties, unless they agree that the costs shall abide the event of the cause.

Code 1858, § 3453 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 6); Shan., § 5209; Code 1932, § 9386; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-403.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agreed Case, § 1.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Costs on Appeal.

Where, under this section, the costs below should have been divided, the entire costs of the cause will be equally divided between the parties, in the appellate court, though the record does not show any objection to the judgment rendered in the court below. Story v. Walker, 79 Tenn. 515, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 97, 47 Am. Rep. 305 (1883).

Collateral References. 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agreed Case § 36.

29-4-104. Judgment — Jurisdiction.

The judgment or decree shall be entered as in other cases, and no objection shall lie to the jurisdiction of the circuit or chancery court, whether the matter be of legal or equitable cognizance.

Code 1858, § 3452 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, §§ 6, 7); Shan., § 5208; Code 1932, § 9385; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-404.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agreed Case, § 1.

Collateral References. 3 Am. Jur. 2d Agreed Case §§ 26, 29, 31-36.

Judgment 86.

29-4-105. Appeal.

The parties to submission and agreed cases are entitled to all the benefits of the proceedings for the correction of errors.

Code 1858, § 3454 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 8); Shan., § 5210; Code 1932, § 9387; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-405.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Agreed Case, § 1; 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 30.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right of Appeal.

Appeal in agreed case may be taken from the decision of the circuit or chancery court to the proper appellate court. Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 43 Tenn. 249, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1866); Aldrich v. Pickard, 80 Tenn. 657, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 223 (1883).

2. —Motion For New Trial Necessary.

A motion for a new trial is necessary for the review of a case tried in a law court upon stipulation of facts. Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 174 Tenn. 405, 126 S.W.2d 311, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1938).

3. Issues on Appeal.

Where it was stipulated by the parties, that the only questions to be submitted for determination were those presented by the answer of defendant, he is estopped to raise other questions on appeal. Obion County use of Houser Creek Drainage Dist. v. Coulter, 153 Tenn. 469, 284 S.W. 372, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1926).

4. Record.

This section does not provide that the stipulation of facts shall constitute a part of the record of the case. Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 174 Tenn. 405, 126 S.W.2d 311, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1938).

Where the record of a case tried in law court on written stipulation of facts consisted largely of exhibits which were only brought into the stipulation of facts by reference a bill of exceptions was absolutely necessary to bring the documents up to the supreme court. Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 174 Tenn. 405, 126 S.W.2d 311, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1938).

Where there is an exhibit attached to the agreed statement of facts a bill of exceptions is required. Industrial Credit Co. v. Beckham, 206 Tenn. 331, 333 S.W.2d 563, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 369 (1960).

Collateral References. Submission of controversies 20.

Chapter 5
Arbitration

Part 1
General Provisions

29-5-101. Subjects of arbitration.

All causes of action, whether there be a suit pending therefor or not, may be submitted to the decision of one (1) or more arbitrators, except in one (1) of the following cases:

  1. Where one (1) of the parties to the controversy is an infant or a person adjudicated incompetent;
  2. One (1) respecting a claim to an estate in real property, in fee or for life. Not included in the exception are:
    1. A controversy in regard to an estate or term for one (1) year or less or of years not exceeding five (5); or
    2. Respecting the partition of real property, or the boundaries of lands.

Code 1858, § 3432 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 1); Shan.,§ 5188; mod. Code 1932, § 9359; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-501; Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 19.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 24, provided that all laws or parts of laws which are inconsistent with the Uniform Arbitration Act, compiled in part 3 of this chapter, are repealed.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 107 provided that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the eligibility for services or the rights or responsibilities of individuals covered by the provision on the day before the date of enactment of this legislation, which was July 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 108 provided that the provisions of the act are declared to be remedial in nature and all provisions of the act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

Cross-References. Arbitration in bank customer disputes, title 45, ch. 1, part 2.

Clerk's reference fee, § 8-21-401.

Inapplicability to metropolitan public service district arbitration, § 7-3-302.

Jurisdiction of courts, §§ 16-10-105, 16-11-112.

Questions submitted on agreed case, § 29-4-101.

Submission by partner or partnership, § 61-1-108.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, §§ 2, 5; 15 Tenn. Juris., Insurance, § 76.

Law Reviews.

A General Practitioner's Guide to Commercial Arbitration and The 1983 Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (Lewis L. Laska), 20 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 23 (1984).

Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Personal Injury Forum (William P. Zdancewicz), 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1169 (1996).

Commercial Arbitration in Federal Courts (James F. Nooney), 20 Vand. L. Rev. 607.

Employment Dispute Resolution: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (Robert L. Arrington), 37 No. 10 Tenn. B.J. 32 (2001).

High court upholds pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements (Timothy S. Bland and Licia M. Williams), 37 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 31 (2001).

Insurance — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Robert W. Sturdivant), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1100.

Pledging to Stay Viable: Why Fraternities and Sororities Should Adopt Arbitration as a Response to the Litigation Dilemma, 43 U. Mem. L. Rev. 511 (2012).

Public Sector Labor Relations Laws in Tennessee — The Current Inadequacies and the Available Alternatives (Robert B. Moberly), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 235.

“Sticky” Arbitration Clauses? The Use of Arbitration Clauses after Concepcion and Amex, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 955 (2014).

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

The Court in Action: A summary of key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court 2000-2001 (Perry A. Craft and Arshad (Paku) Khan), 37 No. 10 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2001).

The Enforcement of Grievance Arbitration Provisions (William P. Murphy), 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 959.

The Tennessee Corporation Act and Close Corporations for Profit (James S. Covington, Jr.), 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 183.

The Unclear “Clear and Mistakable” Standard: Why Arbitrators, Not Courts, Should Determine Whether a Securities Investor's Claim is Arbitrable, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 591 (2001).

Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Tennessee (Phillip A. Fleissner), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 391.

Vertical Conflicts: The Role of State Law in Suits Under Section 301, 21 Vand. L. Rev. 788.

Comparative Legislation. Arbitration:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-108-201 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-9-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 417.045 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-15-1 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-577 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Scope.

The arbitration statutes have added to and not abrogated the common law on the subject. Meirowsky v. Phipps, 222 Tenn. 112, 432 S.W.2d 885, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1968); Jackson v. Chambers, 510 S.W.2d 74, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. 1974).

The statutes dealing with arbitration provide only for enforcement of submission agreements pertaining to existing disputes and on contracts to arbitrate future disputes the common law governs. Meirowsky v. Phipps, 222 Tenn. 112, 432 S.W.2d 885, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1968); Jackson v. Chambers, 510 S.W.2d 74, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. 1974).

2. Requirements.

The Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. § 29-5-301 et seq., requires only that an agreement to arbitrate be written; it does not further require it to be signed. T. R. Mills Contrs., Inc. v. WRH Enters., LLC, 93 S.W.3d 861, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

3. Contract Provision.

Where there is a provision that there should be no appeal after award, the same is contrary to public policy, tending to oust courts of their jurisdiction. Harmon v. Komisar, 15 Tenn. App. 405, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 107 (1932).

Proceeding under arbitration clause of fire insurance policy which provided that if arbitrators appointed by parties could not agree to appointment of umpire such umpire was to be selected by court of record was not a court proceeding as contemplated by his chapter but was a proceeding under a contract between the parties of the nature recognized by this section and it was not necessary that order of judge appointing umpire recite jurisdictional facts. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Holter, 201 Tenn. 345, 299 S.W.2d 15, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 432, 69 A.L.R.2d 1292 (1957).

In a building contract, a provision for arbitration was not void as denuding court of jurisdiction, where it especially provided that the award should be a condition precedent to a proceeding, and limited the arbitration provisions to conform to statute. R. Lee Tolley Co. v. Marr, 12 Tenn. App. 505, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (1931).

Ordinarily, provisions in private contracts for the arbitration of future disputes are not enforceable, but an exception is made as to uninsured motorist features of liability insurance policies which may be enforced at the insured's option. Cavalier Ins. Corp. v. Osment, 538 S.W.2d 399, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. 1976).

4. Mere Agreement.

A mere agreement entered into in partition proceeding providing that claimant should release of record lien of a trust deed, was not an agreement to submit to arbitration. Reynolds v. Hamilton, 18 Tenn. App. 380, 77 S.W.2d 986, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

5. Federal Preemption.

T.C.A. § 29-5-101 did not render an arbitration provision in a client agreement between a trust and the investment broker unenforceable against the minor trust beneficiary because the state statute was preempted by 9 U.S.C. § 2. Harvey ex rel. Gladden v. Cumberland Trust & Inv. Co., 532 S.W.3d 243, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2017).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 1-14, 24, 26, 32, 54-60, 69.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 11-13.

Agreement to arbitrate future controversies as binding on infant. 78 A.L.R.2d 1292.

Alternative dispute resolution: sanctions for failure to participate in good faith in, or comply with agreement made in, mediation. 43 A.L.R.5th 545.

Appealability of state court's order or decree compelling or refusing to compel arbitration. 6 A.L.R.4th 652.

Arbitration of disputes within close corporation. 64 A.L.R.2d 643.

Arbitration of medical malpractice claims. 24 A.L.R.5th 1.

Arbitration provisions of employment contract, providing for severance or dismissal pay. 40 A.L.R.2d 1044.

Arbitrator's power to award punitive damages. 83 A.L.R.3d 1037.

Consolidation by state court of arbitration proceedings brought under state law. 31 A.L.R.6th 433.

Consolidation of arbitration proceedings by state court. 64 A.L.R.3d 528.

Constitutionality of arbitration statutes. 55 A.L.R.2d 432.

Construction and application of provisions of general arbitration statutes excluding from their operation contracts for labor or personal services. 64 A.L.R.2d 1336.

Defendant's participation in action as waiver of right to arbitration of dispute involved therein. 98 A.L.R.3d 767.

Discovery in aid of arbitration proceedings. 98 A.L.R.2d 1247.

Injunction in labor dispute as affected by refusal to arbitrate. 66 A.L.R. 1091.

Jurisdiction of federal court or court of sister state of proceedings pursuant to state or foreign statute to compel arbitration. 85 A.L.R. 1124.

Participation in arbitration proceedings as waiver of objections to arbitrability under state law. 56 A.L.R.5th 757.

Power of arbitrators to award injunction or specific performance. 70 A.L.R.2d 1055.

Power of president of corporation to commence or to carry on arbitration proceedings. 65 A.L.R.2d 1321.

Probate matters, arbitration of issues or question pertaining to. 104 A.L.R. 359.

Propriety of filing of lis pendens in action affecting leasehold interest. 67 A.L.R.3d 747.

Sales contracts, construction of arbitration provisions of, as regards questions to be submitted to arbitrators. 136 A.L.R. 364.

State court's power to consolidate arbitration proceedings, 64 A.L.R.3d 528.

Statute of limitations and laches as bar to arbitration under agreement. 25 A.L.R.3d 1171, 94 A.L.R.3d 533.

Statutes relating specifically to rights, duties, and obligations between employer and employee, claims based on provisions of, as subject to arbitration provisions of contracts or statutes. 149 A.L.R. 276.

Time for impeaching arbitration award. 85 A.L.R.2d 779.

Validity and construction of agreement between attorney and client to arbitrate disputes arising between them. 26 A.L.R.5th 107.

Validity and construction of provision for arbitration of disputes as to alimony or support payments, child visitation, or custody matters. 18 A.L.R.3d 1264.

Validity and construction of statutes or ordinances providing for arbitration of labor disputes involving public employees. 68 A.L.R.3d 885.

Validity and effect under state law of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement. 75 A.L.R.5th 595.

What issues are arbitrable under arbitration provisions of uninsured motorist insurance. 29 A.L.R.3d 328.

Arbitration and award 3-3.4, 7.4-7.7, 20.

29-5-102. Scope of submission.

The submission may be of some particular matters or demands, or of all demands which one (1) party has against the other, or of all mutual demands.

Code 1858, § 3435; Shan., § 5191; Code 1932, § 9362; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-502.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 5.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Matters Submitted.

Under a submission to arbitration of a particular question or matter, “and all other matters in dispute between the parties,” a matter not in dispute at the time, and not acted upon or regarded by the arbitrators, is not concluded by their award. Newnan v. Wood, 8 Tenn. 190, 1827 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1827).

The submission of the question of the value of certain lots to arbitration does not involve the arbitrament of conflicting rights between contending parties, by which debts can be paid or discharged and the property passed. An agreement to receive certain lots at a fair valuation is incomplete (in fieri) and not executed. Then there is the place for repentance, the right to withdraw the verbal proposition to take the lots at any price; and upon no principle can a specific performance be decreed. Rice v. Rawlings, 19 Tenn. 496, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1838). See as to agreement to arbitrate one feature of a contract Webb-Sumner Oil Mill v. Lovitt, 7 Tenn. App. 568, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (1928).

By the terms of the submission to arbitration, the parties agreed “to abide by any award made by their mutual friends …. in the arbitration of an unsettled account between them,” and it was held that the agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all matters of difference between them growing out of the account. Henniken v. Brown, 63 Tenn. 397, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (1874).

2. Award.

An award cannot be incomplete or partial unless a well-founded matter of litigation, within the purview of the submission, was omitted. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

An award need not itemize account stated therein unless submission so requires. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration and Award §§ 1, 2, 5.

Arbitration and award 11.5-21.

29-5-103. Parties entitled to submit.

The submission may be made by any party in interest, or by an executor, administrator, trustee, or assignee for creditors.

Code 1858, § 3433; Shan., § 5189; mod. Code 1932, § 9360; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-503.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 675.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 6.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Agent.

One appointed to manage a suit has no authority to submit the suit to arbitration for his principal. Haynes v. Wright, 5 Tenn. 63, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1817).

2. Guardian.

Guardian ad litem cannot submit the cause to arbitration for his ward. Hannum's Heirs v. Wallace, 28 Tenn. 129, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1848); Tucker v. Dabbs, 59 Tenn. 18, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1873).

3. Next Friend.

The majority of the court expressed the opinion that a next friend has no power to submit an infant's case to arbitration, but the question was not decided because a decision was not required. Tucker v. Dabbs, 59 Tenn. 18, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1873).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 56, 61-69.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 10.

Dissolved corporation's power to participate in arbitration proceedings. 71 A.L.R.2d 1121.

Filing of mechanics' lien or proceeding for its enforcement as affecting right to arbitration. 73 A.L.R.3d 1066.

Municipality's or county's power to submit to arbitration. 40 A.L.R. 1370.

Validity and construction of statutes or ordinances providing for arbitration of labor disputes involving public employees. 68 A.L.R.3d 885.

Arbitration and award 4.

29-5-104. Contents of agreement — Court of entry.

  1. The submission shall be by written agreement, general or special, specifying what demands are to be submitted, the names of the arbitrators or the manner of their selection, but not necessarily that of the umpire, and the court by which the judgment on their award is to be rendered, and if such written agreement requires one (1) of the parties to name an arbitrator and such party fails to do so, the court by which the judgment on the award is to be rendered shall on such failure so to name an arbitrator, upon the petition of the opposite party, appoint such arbitrator.
  2. The agreement may specify that the submission be entered of record in any court of law or equity, or, in cases within its jurisdiction, before a judge of the court of general sessions.

Code 1858, §§ 3434, 3436 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 1); Shan., §§ 5190, 5192; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9361, 9364; Acts 1943, ch. 86, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 9361; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-504.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 5.

Law Reviews.

Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure — Diversity Jurisdiction — Abstention by Federal Court from the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Diversity Case, 13 Vand. L. Rev. 801.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

The Enforcement of Grievance Arbitration Provisions (William P. Murphy), 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 959.

The Tennessee Corporation Act and Close Corporations for Profit (James S. Covington, Jr.), 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 183.

Cited: D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Submission to Arbitrators.

2. —Oral Submission.

After the submission to arbitrators by bond and decree of court, there may be a substitution of arbitrators by oral agreement, and oral evidence is admissible to show that such arbitration was made by agreement of the parties. Cooley v. Dill, 31 Tenn. 313, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1851); Halliburton v. Flowers, 59 Tenn. 25, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1873); Douglass v. Brandon, 65 Tenn. 58, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1873).

Where a case is pending in court, an oral submission to arbitration of the matters involved is binding, where it was not contemplated to make the award the judgment of the court. Halliburton v. Flowers, 59 Tenn. 25, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1873). See Douglass v. Brandon, 65 Tenn. 58, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1873).

3. —Naming of Arbitrators.

A submission is sufficient without naming arbitrators where the parties appear before arbitrators selected. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

4. —Objections to Arbitrators.

Objections to an arbitrator as disqualified are waived by participating in proceeding without objection. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

5. Award of Arbitrators.

6. —Necessity of Written Award.

The award must be in writing in order to be made the judgment or decree. Swan v. Harrison, 42 Tenn. 534, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1865).

7. —Validity of Award.

Where the submission, agreed to be made a rule of the chancery court, provided that any differences between the arbitrators should be referred to a specified umpire whose decisions “shall be final and conclusive, and the award made, and the decree, based thereon, shall be in accordance with said decisions,” and it was referred to the umpire to determine whether the complainant was interested, and, if so, to what extent in certain lands, his award was good. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

Arbitration agreement made and filed by two members of arbitration board after third member had resigned would not be valid where agreement provided for award by board consisting of three members. Craddock v. Herndon, 201 Tenn. 505, 300 S.W.2d 895, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1957).

8. —Designation of Names.

In an award a firm was designated as “M. & G.”; in stating the account as “M. & Co.,” while submission was signed “G. & M.” The designation by name was sufficient. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

9. —Jurisdiction of Attack on Award.

A justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) has no jurisdiction to set aside an award or grant a retrial. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

Equity courts have no jurisdiction to attack an award except for fraud or mistake. They cannot attack the same on the ground that no judgment has been entered thereon. They are without power to enter judgment under bill to attack. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

10. —Objections to Award.

Objection that the award is void on its face and under the submission and for other reasons to be assigned on hearing is too general for consideration. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

Objection that the award was not sustained by the evidence cannot be considered where the record does not contain the evidence. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 11-53.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 14-23.

Arbitration agreement made pending action. 42 A.L.R. 727.

Availability and scope of declaratory judgment actions in determining rights of parties, or powers and exercise thereof by arbitrators, under arbitration agreements. 12 A.L.R.3d 854.

Compensation of employee upon dismissal or discharge, arbitration provisions in contract for. 147 A.L.R. 161, 40 A.L.R.2d 1044.

Condition precedent to the bringing of action, validity of agreements to arbitrate disputes generally as. 26 A.L.R. 1077.

Contract providing that it is governed by or subject to rules or regulations of a particular trade, business, or association as incorporating agreement to arbitrate. 41 A.L.R.2d 872.

Contractual provision for determination by arbitrators of the price to be paid for property, or amount of damages for breach, as contemplating formal arbitration or the individual judgment of the arbitrators. 157 A.L.R. 1286.

Effect of vacancy through resignation, withdrawal, or death of one of multiple arbitrators on authority of remaining arbitrators to render award. 49 A.L.R.2d 900.

Estoppel to rely on statute of limitations by agreement to arbitrate. 130 A.L.R. 42, 24 A.L.R.2d 1413.

Foreign jurisdiction, effect and remedy in respect of contractual stipulation to submit disputes to arbitration in. 12 A.L.R.3d 892.

Future questions, validity of agreement for submission of, to arbitration. 135 A.L.R. 79.

Labor or personal service, construction and application of provisions of general arbitration statutes excluding from their operation contracts for. 64 A.L.R.2d 1336.

Modern status of rules respecting concurrence of all arbitrators as condition of binding award under private agreement not specifying unanimity. 83 A.L.R.3d 996.

Partner's personal liability who, in firm name, without authority, agrees to arbitrate. 4 A.L.R. 260.

Pending action, validity of agreement to arbitrate. 42 A.L.R. 727.

Probate matters, validity of agreement to arbitrate issues or questions pertaining to. 104 A.L.R. 359.

Refusal of arbitrators to receive evidence, or to permit briefs or arguments, on particular issues as grounds for relief from award. 75 A.L.R.3d 132.

Renewal of lease at rent to be fixed by arbitration, validity of provision for. 30 A.L.R. 572, 68 A.L.R. 157, 166 A.L.R. 1237.

Right of arbitrator to consider or to base his decision upon matters other than those involved in the legal principles applicable to the questions at issue between the parties. 112 A.L.R. 873.

Specific performance of provision for renewal of lease at rent to be fixed by arbitration. 30 A.L.R. 580, 68 A.L.R. 157, 166 A.L.R. 1237.

Statutes relating specifically to rights, duties, and obligations between employer and employee, claims based on provisions of, as subject to arbitration provisions of contracts or statutes. 149 A.L.R. 276.

Testamentary appointment of arbitrator. 104 A.L.R. 362.

Validity and effect under state law of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement. 75 A.L.R.5th 595.

Voluntary dismissal or nonsuit, right of plaintiff to take, after case has been submitted to arbitrator by agreement. 89 A.L.R. 99, 126 A.L.R. 284.

Waiver, or estoppel to assert, substantive right or right to arbitrate as question for court or arbitrator. 26 A.L.R.3d 604.

Arbitration and award 11.5-21.

29-5-105. Entry of agreement — Order of submission.

On proof of such agreement, or by consent of parties in person or by counsel, it shall be entered in the proceedings of the court or on the docket of the judge, and an order made that the parties submit to the award, which shall be made in pursuance of such agreement. Upon such proof or consent, the judge may, in vacation, make upon the agreement the order mentioned in this section, and such order shall have the same force and effect as if made in term.

Code 1858, §§ 3437, 3438 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 1); Shan., §§ 5193, 5194; Code 1932, §§ 9365, 9366; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-505.

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 23, 145-148.

Arbitration and award 11.5-21.

29-5-106. Irrevocability of submission.

No such submission shall be revocable after the submission agreement is signed by the parties or entered of record, without leave of the court, except by mutual consent entered of record.

Code 1858, § 3439 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 2); Shan., § 5195; Code 1932, § 9367; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-506.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 9.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

The Enforcement of Grievance Arbitration Provisions (William P. Murphy), 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 959.

The Tennessee Corporation Act and Close Corporations for Profit (James S. Covington, Jr.), 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 183.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Agreement to Arbitrate.

Our statutes confer upon the courts authority to make the agreement to arbitrate a rule of court, whether there is a suit pending with reference to the controversy or not. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

In order that a submission may become a rule of court, and irrevocable, it is certainly necessary that the parties agree that it may be entered of record; and upon proof thereof, the rule shall thereupon be made. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

The statute clearly makes irrevocable only such submissions as are entered of record, and the mere agreement to enter the award as a judgment of a particular court does not make the submission irrevocable, because the submission is not thereby made a rule of court; and the question whether the mere agreement to enter a submission of record, without actual entry, renders the submission irrevocable, is reserved. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

2. Revocation.

A submission to arbitration cannot be revoked after the decision. Elliott v. Green, 2 Shan. 232 (1877).

Agreement that award was to be entered in court of record was not the same as an agreement to enter submission agreement in a court of record and did not satisfy the statutory provisions as to irrevocability. Meirowsky v. Phipps, 222 Tenn. 112, 432 S.W.2d 885, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1968).

Arbitration statutes require the submission agreement be entered in a court of record having jurisdiction before it is irrevocable. Meirowsky v. Phipps, 222 Tenn. 112, 432 S.W.2d 885, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1968).

3. —Authority to Revoke.

A submission is only revocable by an instrument or authority of equal grade with that by which the submission was made. Mullins v. Arnold, 36 Tenn. 262, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1856).

4. —Time to Revoke.

The agreement to arbitrate, unless made a rule of court, was, under the common law, revocable at any time before the award was made. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

The common law right of revocation, when not made a rule of court, and when exercised before the award is made, has not been abrogated or altered by statute. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

5. —Effect of Bankruptcy.

Where parties have agreed to a submission and one of them is adjudicated a bankrupt before the hearing, the other party or the trustee in bankruptcy may revoke the submission and proceed under the bankruptcy act. But where the parties proceed with the arbitration, they are bound by the award. Harmon v. Komisar, 15 Tenn. App. 405, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 107 (1932).

6. —Effect of Death.

The entry of the submission of record is in the nature of an order or judgment of the court, and stands as part of the proceedings of record, unless revoked in accordance with the provision of this section. It will not be revoked by the death of one of the parties. Moore v. Webb, 53 Tenn. 301, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 360 (1871).

Upon the death of a party the cause may be revived against the personal representative. Moore v. Webb, 53 Tenn. 301, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 360 (1871).

7. —Award After Revocation.

An award rendered after the revocation of the agreement to arbitrate, made effective by notice thereof to the arbitrators, is void. Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1910).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Time for Revocation.

Submission is revocable before the award is made; and a party may thus save himself from his conceived partiality of the arbitrators before the injury is done. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 35-39.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 48-57, 79-81.

Constitutionality of statutes as to revocation of submission. 55 A.L.R.2d 432.

Death of party to arbitration agreement before award as revocation or termination of submission. 63 A.L.R.2d 754.

Disqualification of arbitrator by court or stay of arbitration proceedings prior to award, on ground of interest, bias, prejudice, collusion, or fraud of arbitrators. 65 A.L.R.2d 755.

What constitutes corruption, fraud, or undue means in obtaining arbitration award justifying avoidance of award under state law. 22 A.L.R.4th 366.

Arbitration and award 11.5-21.

29-5-107. Notice of hearing — Continuances.

  1. The arbitrators shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing, which notice shall be served or accepted at least five (5) days before the day set for trial.
  2. They, or a majority of them, may grant continuances upon their own motion or upon application of either party for good cause shown, but not to a day beyond the time set for the rendering of the final award unless an extension is granted by court or expressly agreed to in writing by the parties or their attorneys.

Code 1858, § 3442; Shan., § 5198; mod. Code 1932, § 9370; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-507.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessity of Notice.

Where the arbitration falls under the common law, notice must be given to the parties, where there is any controverted question of fact, though the arbitration agreement does not require notice, but where the arbitrators are selected to act as experts, and to adjudge the matter from their own knowledge, it is not essential that notice shall be given or evidence heard unless the submission so provides. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 F. 589, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4193 (6th Cir. 1903). See Ryan v. Reed Air Filter Co., 11 Tenn. App. 472, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (1930), as to an award made without notice and without an opportunity to take proof.

2. Form of Notice.

Notice by arbitrators apprising the parties of the time and place of final hearing may be by a simple notice, and regular process need not issue. Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277, 6 S.W. 869, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1888).

3. Waiver of Notice.

The mere fact that one of the parties saw the arbitrators on the street and did not ask to be heard or object to their proceeding without notice is not a waiver of the notice. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 F. 589, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4193 (6th Cir. 1903).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award § 114.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 83, 88.

Arbitration and award 32.

29-5-108. Failure of parties to appear.

If either party neglects to appear for trial after due notice, except on account of sickness or unavoidable absence, the arbitrators may proceed to a hearing and determination.

Code 1932, § 9371; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-508.

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 84, 92, 93.

Arbitration and award 24.

29-5-109. Evidence and witnesses.

  1. In all submission cases, depositions may be taken to be used before the arbitrators, and witnesses may be summoned by subpoena, to be issued by the clerk of the court as in other cases.
  2. These witnesses may be sworn by any arbitrator, or umpire, and, if guilty of false swearing, they are liable to all the penalties of perjury, as if sworn in court.
  3. Witnesses are also subject to all the penalties prescribed by law, for failing to attend and give testimony, in pursuance of the subpoena, as well as in damages to the party injured by their default; and, on the other hand, they are entitled to like privileges and like compensation as other witnesses. The forfeiture shall be enforced as provided in § 24-2-103.

Code 1858, §§ 3443-3445 (deriv. Acts 1806, ch. 46, §§ 1, 2; 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 4); Shan., §§ 5199-5201; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9372-9374; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-509.

Cross-References. Perjury, title 39, ch. 16, part 7.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 17 Tenn. Juris., Libel and Slander, § 6.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Plea of Limitations.

Arbitrators must accept the plea of the statute of limitations, under a submission of arbitration authorizing them to settle the disputes on principles of equity and justice, and for their failure to accept such plea, the award will be set aside. Pearce v. Roller, 73 Tenn. 485, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (1880).

2. False Swearing.

An action of slander may be maintained upon a charge of false swearing in a proceeding of arbitration. Moore v. Horner, 36 Tenn. 491, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1857).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 114, 119-122.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 85-87.

Arbitrator's consultation with outsider as misconduct. 47 A.L.R.2d 1362.

Arbitration and award 34.2.

29-5-110. Umpire.

  1. Where, and only where, the submission expressly so provides may an umpire be appointed by the arbitrators; the same to be done by them in writing.
  2. The umpire shall sit with the original arbitrators upon the hearing; if testimony has been taken before the umpire's appointment, the matter must be reheard unless a rehearing is waived in the original submission or by subsequent written consent of the parties.
  3. One (1) or more points in dispute may be referred to an umpire.

Code 1932, § 9363; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-510.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 10; 15 Tenn. Juris., Insurance, § 76.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Signing of Award.

It is not necessary that the arbitrators and the umpire sign one award. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 84, 85.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 59-61.

Arbitration and award 36-40.

29-5-111. Time of filing award.

  1. If the time within which the award is to be made is fixed in the submission, no award made after that time shall have any legal effect, unless made upon a recommitment by the court; the court or parties by consent in writing may, however, enlarge the time within which an award is to be made.
  2. If the time of filing the award is not fixed in the submission, it shall be filed within eight (8) months from the time such submission is signed, unless by mutual consent the time is prolonged.

Code 1858, §§ 3440, 3441 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 2); Shan., §§ 5196, 5197; Code 1932, §§ 9368, 9369; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-511.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Waiver of Time for Award.

Where the submission provides that “no time is limited within which the arbitrators shall make and file their award, but we request and desire them to do so at the very earliest practicable moment,” and where there is nothing to show that the award was not made at the earliest practicable moment consistent with the rights of the parties, the report filed nearly nine months after the submission is within time. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 120, 128, 129.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 103.

Construction and effect of contractual or statutory provisions fixing time within which arbitration award must be made. 56 A.L.R.3d 815.

Arbitration and award 50.

29-5-112. Transmission of award to court.

The award shall be in writing, and should be delivered by the umpire or one (1) of the arbitrators to the court designated in the agreement, or it may be enclosed and sealed by them, and transmitted to the court, and not opened until the court orders.

Code 1858, § 3446; Shan., § 5202; mod. Code 1932, § 9375; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-512.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 12.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954, 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessity of Written Award.

Award must be in writing, where it is to be made the judgment of a court. Swan v. Harrison, 42 Tenn. 534, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1865).

2. Itemizing of Account.

It is not necessary that arbitrators should itemize the account, no such requirement being made in the submission. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

3. Separate Awards.

Where the submission contemplates an award by the arbitrators as to all matters on which they agree, and a separate award by the umpire as to all matters on which the arbitrators differ, it is not necessary that the arbitrators and umpire sign one award, nor is it required that the umpire shall report to the arbitrators and that they shall embrace his decision or award in their award to be signed by all; but the arbitrators may make and sign an award as to all matters on which they agree, and the umpire may make and sign a separate award as to the other matters. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 103, 104.

Arbitration and award 48-89.

29-5-113. Time of action on award.

The cause will be entered on the docket and called up and acted upon in its order; but the court may require actual notice to be given either party, when it appears necessary and proper, before proceeding to act on the award.

Code 1858, § 3447; Shan., § 5203; Code 1932, § 9376; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-513.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 120-122.

Arbitration and award 85-85.70.

29-5-114. Rejection or recommittal.

The award may be rejected by the court for any legal and sufficient reasons, or it may be recommitted for a rehearing to the same or any other arbitrators agreed upon by the parties in writing.

Code 1858, § 3448; Shan., § 5204; mod. Code 1932, § 9377; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-514.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 17.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Submission to Arbitrators.

Award against two, on submission by one, is not, for that reason, void as to the one submitting to arbitration. Mathews v. Mathews, 48 Tenn. 669, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1870).

Where the reference is in general terms, to “examine and determine all questions between the parties,” and there is no enumeration of the matters in dispute made in the submission agreement, a failure to decide a disputed claim, not presented to the arbitrators, will not invalidate the award. State v. Ward, 56 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 431 (1871).

Where the arbitration agreement submits “all questions between the parties” to arbitrators “learned in the law,” they are presumed to intend to decide according to law. When it is clear that the arbitrators intended to follow, but misapprehended the law, the award may be impeached for mistake or error of law. State v. Ward, 56 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 431 (1871).

The award is a nullity unless it strictly conforms to the terms of the submission; and the judgment is a nullity unless it conforms to the award. Toomey v. Nichols, 53 Tenn. 159, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Sep. 27, 1871); Palmer v. Van Wyck, 92 Tenn. 397, 21 S.W. 761, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1892); Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 F. 589, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4193 (6th Cir. 1903).

Arbitrators have no authority to go in their inquiries beyond the powers delegated by the terms of the submission. Mays v. Myatt, 62 Tenn. 309, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1874).

2. Making of Award.

Award signed by the umpire alone, when his selection is in accordance with the record, is good. Shields v. Renno, 1 Tenn. 313, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1808); Mullins v. Arnold, 36 Tenn. 262, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1856); Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

Award must be final, disposing of the matter in dispute, and leaving nothing to be done but to incorporate the award in the judgment of the court and to enforce the judgment. If good only in part, it must be final as to that part. Toomey v. Nichols, 53 Tenn. 159, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Sep. 27, 1871); State v. Ward, 56 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 431 (1871).

Umpire need not sign the award made by the arbitrators, but is required to sign only his own award. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

The arbitrators are not required to file with their award the evidence on which they acted, nor to reduce the evidence to writing, nor can the parties bring the evidence before the court. The arbitrators are the exclusive judges of the fact which the evidence establishes. Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885).

3. Scope of Award.

Award must embrace the matters submitted, so as not to be one-sided, partial, or incomplete. Gooch v. McKnight, 29 Tenn. 229, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1849); Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852); Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

4. Action by Court on Award.

The court, to which the award is formally submitted, may reject it, for any legal or sufficient reason, or recommit it for rehearing to the same or other arbitrators, agreed upon by the parties. Swan v. Harrison, 42 Tenn. 534, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1865).

Where the arbitrators state the facts in the award, and their deduction of law, showing that they intended to be governed by the law, it is for the court to determine whether they have drawn the proper conclusions. Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885); Galbraith v. Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89, 9 S.W. 365, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 39, 1 L.R.A. 522 (1888).

5. Setting Award Aside.

Where a pending litigation is referred to arbitrators, a motion to set aside their award should be made before the award is made the judgment of the court, but a motion in arrest of judgment, though not the proper practice, will be regarded as a motion to set aside the award. Nance's Lessee v. Thompson, 33 Tenn. 321, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1853); Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

6. —Objections to Award.

Objections to the award that it is not a complete settlement and determination of all matters submitted, and that it is not in conformity with the submission, are too general. Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880); Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885).

7. —Evidence.

Evidence is admissible to set aside the award, upon specific objections for matters dehors the award of the arbitrators. Elliott v. Bass, 63 Tenn. 354, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 261 (1874); Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885).

8. —Grounds for Setting Aside.

9. — —Award Bad in Part.

The award may be enforced to the extent that it is good, and treated as a nullity to the extent that it is bad. Kincaid v. Smith, 23 Tenn. 151, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1843); Mathews v. Mathews, 48 Tenn. 669, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1870).

10. — —Fraud.

An award obtained by fraud will be set aside in a court of equity. Mathews v. Mathews, 48 Tenn. 669, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1870).

11. — —Illegality.

The courts will not lend their aid to enforce an award based upon a consideration illegal, and contrary to public policy or good morals; but a mistake in law, if the award is agreeable to equity and good conscience, will not, in general, be sufficient to set it aside, unless the arbitrators assumed to decide strictly according to law, and made a plain mistake in law. Haley v. Long, 7 Tenn. 93, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1823); Jocelyn v. Donnel, 7 Tenn. 274, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 52, 14 Am. Dec. 753 (Tenn. Jan. 1823); Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852); Nance's Lessee v. Thompson, 33 Tenn. 321, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1853); Hale v. Sharp, 44 Tenn. 275, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1867), overruled, Sherfy v. Argenbright, 48 Tenn. 128, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 25, 2 Am. Rep. 690 (1870), criticized, Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869); Fain v. Headerick, 44 Tenn. 327, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1867), overruled, Sherfy v. Argenbright, 48 Tenn. 128, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 25, 2 Am. Rep. 690 (1870); State v. Ward, 56 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 431 (1871); Bright v. Ford, 58 Tenn. 252, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (1872); East Tenn., V. & G.R.R. v. Parker, 2 Shan. 80 (1876); Ewing v. Anderson, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 364 (1877); Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885); Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 125 F. 589, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4193 (6th Cir. 1903).

Where a pending suit it submitted to an arbitrator to be determined by him according to the law and evidence, to be made the judgment of the court, and it appears from the face of the award that it was made in conflict with the law, or under a mistaken idea of the law, it will be set aside upon a bill filed in the chancery court before its confirmation. East Tenn., V. & G.R.R. v. Parker, 2 Shan. 80 (1876).

12. — —Mistake of Fact.

An award will be set aside for a clear mistake of fact. Jocelyn v. Donnel, 7 Tenn. 274, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 52, 14 Am. Dec. 753 (Tenn. Jan. 1823); Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852); Bright v. Ford, 58 Tenn. 252, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (1872).

13. — —Relationship to Parties.

If the relationship of the arbitrators to one of the parties be known to the other party, and not objected to, it cannot afterwards be made available against the award. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

The relationship of the arbitrators to one of the parties is good ground of objection, and so is the known relationship of the arbitrators to a mortgagee whose interest was unknown. Stephenson v. Oatman, 71 Tenn. 462, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1879).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Binding Effect of Award.

Where the plaintiff and defendant expressly agreed before the arbitrators, pending the arbitration under a rule of court, that if the award when given should not be satisfactory to both parties it should be binding on neither, and they should proceed in the trial of the cause, and where the award was not satisfactory to the defendant, who, in the meantime, had found a receipt of the plaintiff's intestate for the debt sued on, it was held to be fraudulent, and in bad faith, on the part of the plaintiff, to insist on the award. Baird v. Crutchfield, 25 Tenn. 171, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1845).

Where part of the award is vitiated by fraud, it may be set aside as to that part. Brown v. Harklerode, 26 Tenn. 19, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1846).

2. Making of Award.

A majority of the arbitrators may make the award when it is apparent that such was the intention of the parties. Cooley v. Dill, 31 Tenn. 313, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1851); Mullins v. Arnold, 36 Tenn. 262, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1856).

The award may be good in part, where the matter omitted is clearly separate from that awarded, having no dependence upon or connection with it. Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852).

Umpirage is in law the award of the umpire alone. Mullins v. Arnold, 36 Tenn. 262, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1856). See Powell v. Ford, 72 Tenn. 278, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1880).

3. Mutuality of Award.

Award must be mutual, for an award that is not mutual is void. Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852).

An award void for want of mutuality, as for failure to give credits, cannot be corrected by the court and judgment rendered upon it as corrected. Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852). See Gooch v. McKnight, 29 Tenn. 229, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1849).

4. Finality of Award.

Award is prima facie presumed to be final; and the burden is upon him who asserts that it is inconclusive, contrary to the terms on its face. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

5. Termination of Arbitrators' Power.

After the award has been made and delivered, and is complete and irrevocable, the power of the arbitrators is at an end. No new action can be taken by them; and a majority of them cannot afterwards grant a rehearing. Butler v. Boyles, 29 Tenn. 155, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 32, 51 Am. Dec. 697 (1849).

6. Jurisdiction to Set Aside.

Award may be set aside in chancery for fraud, accident, or mistake, if clearly shown by proof. Hardeman v. Burge, 18 Tenn. 202, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1836).

7. Laches Barring Right to Set Aside.

Award will not be set aside after long delay. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

8. Grounds for Setting Aside.

9. —Injustice.

The court cannot inquire by extrinsic testimony into the justice of the award, for that would be to try the matters in dispute de novo. Jocelyn v. Donnel, 7 Tenn. 274, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 52, 14 Am. Dec. 753 (Tenn. Jan. 1823).

10. —Misconduct.

To set aside an award for the misbehavior, partiality, or corruption of the arbitrators, the proof ought to be clear and conclusive. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

11. Jurisdiction of Suit on Bond.

Justice had no jurisdiction on an award and arbitration bond for an amount exceeding his jurisdictional amount. Collins v. Oliver, 23 Tenn. 439, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1844).

12. Variance in Suit on Award.

In a suit upon an award, it is fatal variance where the declaration avers that the defendant undertook to observe and perform the award, and the submission proved was by order of court and stipulated that the award should be made the judgment of court. Smith v. Crosswhite, 24 Tenn. 59, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1844).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration § 123.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 55, 81, 106, 169.

Admissibility of affidavit or testimony of arbitrator to impeach or explain award. 80 A.L.R.3d 155.

Award or decision by arbitrators as precluding return of case to, or its reconsideration by them. 104 A.L.R. 710.

Refusal of arbitrators to receive evidence, or to permit briefs or arguments, on particular issues as grounds for relief from award. 75 A.L.R.3d 132.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrator — Labor disputes. 66 A.L.R.5th 611.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Commercial, business, or real estate transactions. 67 A.L.R.5th 179.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Insurance appraisals or arbitrations. 63 A.L.R.5th 675.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Torts. 64 A.L.R.5th 475.

Arbitration and award 71.

29-5-115. Modification of award.

The court is empowered, on motion of either party, to correct or modify the award:

  1. Where there is manifest a miscalculation of figures, or a mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;
  2. Where there has been covered in the award a matter not submitted, if not merely incident, not affecting the merits of matters submitted;
  3. Where the award is defective or imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits; and
  4. To effect the true and just intent thereof.

Code 1932, § 9378; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-515.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 17.

Law Reviews.

Contracts and Sales Law in Tennessee: A Survey and Commentary, II. Contracts (John A. Sebert, Jr.), 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 353.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Variance Between Submission and Award.

Where fire insurance loss was submitted to arbitration under terms that the appraisers should state separately the “actual cash value and loss to each item” and arbitrators made lump sum estimates, there was a variance between the submission and the award which would materially affect the merits. Carr v. American Ins. Co., 152 F. Supp. 700, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3456 (E.D. Tenn. 1957).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Part of Award Unauthorized.

Where the award is erroneous in part because beyond authority, the erroneous portion, being distinct and severable, may be disregarded. The award as a whole is not invalidated. Graham v. Bates, 45 S.W. 465, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 35, 167-189.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 168.

Abandonment by mutual consent of award under arbitration. 32 A.L.R. 1365.

Admissibility of affidavit or testimony of arbitrator to impeach or explain award. 80 A.L.R.3d 155.

Concurrence of all arbitrators as condition of binding award under submission to arbitration. 77 A.L.R. 838.

Extraterritorial enforcement of award. 73 A.L.R. 1460.

Modern status of rules respecting concurrence of all arbitrators as condition of binding award under private agreement not specifying unanimity. 83 A.L.R.3d 996.

Necessity that arbitrators, in making awards, make specific or detailed findings of fact or conclusions of law. 82 A.L.R.2d 969.

Pending action, enforcement of award upon submission of subject matter of, to arbitration, by judgment in same action. 42 A.L.R. 736.

Perjury as ground of attack on judgment entered upon award in arbitration. 99 A.L.R. 1202.

Quotient arbitration award or appraisal. 20 A.L.R.2d 958.

Right of arbitrator to consider or to base his decision upon matters other than those involved in the legal principles applicable to the questions at issue between the parties. 112 A.L.R. 873.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators. 56 A.L.R.3d 697.

Time limit, invalidity of award not made within. 56 A.L.R.3d 815.

What constitutes corruption, fraud, or undue means in obtaining arbitration award justifying avoidance of award under state law. 22 A.L.R.4th 366.

Arbitration and award 73.9, 77(7).

29-5-116. Compensation of arbitrators and umpire.

Arbitrators and the umpire, if one, shall be entitled to five dollars ($5.00) for each day they were actually engaged in their duties, or to such greater sum as the parties may have in the submission agreed, or as they may in subsequent writing stipulate.

Code 1932, § 9381; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-516.

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award §§ 103-106.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 75, 180.

Arbitration and award 41.

29-5-117. Costs.

If there is no provision in the submission respecting costs, the arbitrators, or the court, may apportion and tax same. The court is empowered to revise any apportionment or taxation made by the arbitrators.

Code 1932, § 9380; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-517.

Collateral References. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 179-183.

Awarding attorneys' fees in connection with arbitration. 60 A.L.R.5th 669.

Arbitration and award 42.

29-5-118. Judgment on award.

When the award is adopted, it is filed and entered on the records, and judgment shall be rendered including costs and fees to the arbitrators and any umpire, and execution or other necessary process awarded accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3449 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 173, § 3); Shan., § 5205; mod. Code 1932, § 9379; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-518.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 30.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Finality of Award.

The award is conclusive upon the parties. Dougherty v. Representatives of McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1834).

The award is res judicata and conclusive as to all matters embraced in the submission. Hildebran v. Rowan, 30 Tenn. 92, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1850); Conger v. James, 32 Tenn. 213, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1852).

2. Suit on Award.

The award has to be sued on, where not made the judgment of the court, only because an arbitrator is not vested with power to enforce his decrees by execution. Collins v. Oliver, 23 Tenn. 439, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1844).

Where award was not made in accordance with the terms of the submission in a matter materially affecting the merits the arbitration was incomplete and suit was premature. Carr v. American Ins. Co., 152 F. Supp. 700, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3456 (E.D. Tenn. 1957).

3. Appeal from Award.

An appeal does not lie from the award, though the right of appeal be expressly reserved; nor from an order entering the award as the judgment of the court, but an appeal would lie from a judgment on exceptions to the award. Bone v. Rice, 38 Tenn. 149, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Sep. 1858); Ezell v. Shannon, 3 Shan. 609 (1875).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration and Award § 166.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 145-148.

Appealability of judgment confirming or setting aside arbitration award. 7 A.L.R.3d 608.

Removability to federal court of arbitration proceedings. 63 A.L.R.2d 1356.

Arbitration and award 84.

29-5-119. Common law awards.

Awards of arbitrators under agreements not reached in pursuance of this chapter may nevertheless be valid, as contracts, impeachable for fraud or mistake; but such awards may only be enforced by independent actions.

Code 1932, § 9382; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-519.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee Labor Decisions: 1901-1954 (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 73.

The Enforcement of Grievance Arbitration Provisions (William P. Murphy), 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 959.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Arbitration Under Contract Provision.

Proceeding under arbitration clause of fire insurance policy which provided that if arbitrators appointed by parties could not agree to appointment of umpire such umpire was to be selected by court of record was not a court proceeding as contemplated by this chapter but was a proceeding under a contract between the parties of the nature recognized by this section and it was not necessary that order of judge appointing umpire recite jurisdictional facts. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Holter, 201 Tenn. 345, 299 S.W.2d 15, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 432, 69 A.L.R.2d 1292 (1957).

2. Effect of Statutes.

The arbitration statutes have added to and not abrogated the common law on the subject. Meirowsky v. Phipps, 222 Tenn. 112, 432 S.W.2d 885, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1968).

Collateral References. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arbitration §§ 151-157, 163.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 111, 112, 135.

Consolidation by state court of arbitration proceedings brought under state law. 31 A.L.R.6th 433.

Arbitration and award 2.1.

Part 2
Cotton Arbitration

29-5-201. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Cotton Arbitration Act.”

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-525.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 24, provided that all laws or parts of laws which are inconsistent with the Uniform Arbitration Act, compiled in part 3 of this chapter, are repealed.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Arbitration and Award, § 2.

Law Reviews.

A General Practitioner's Guide to Commercial Arbitration and The 1983 Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (Lewis L. Laska), 20 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 23 (1984).

29-5-202. Enforceability of agreement to submit to arbitration.

  1. A written agreement to submit any existing controversy within or related to the cotton industry to arbitration or a provision in a written contract, except a forward crop contract, to submit to arbitration any controversy within or related to the cotton industry thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
  2. As used in this part:
    1. “Any controversy within or related to the cotton industry” includes, but is not limited to, any controversy arising from, connected with, or in any way relating to the sale, purchase, pledge, hypothecation, or exchange of, or other transaction in cotton;
    2. “Court” means any court of competent jurisdiction of this state. Any agreement made in conformity with subsection (a) in this state confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce an agreement under this part and to enter judgment or an award thereunder; and
    3. “Forward crop contract” means a contract for the sale of a cotton crop or crops which have not been harvested at the time of execution of the contract if the cotton is to be produced by the seller or seller's agents, and if the obligation to deliver is excused upon seller's failure, after good faith effort, to produce the crop or crops sold.
  3. This part shall not apply to any controversy within or related to the cotton industry if any party involved in such controversy is a cotton farmer or cotton ginner.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-526.

Cited: Brooks Cotton Co. v. Williams, 381 S.W.3d 414, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012).

Collateral References.

Filing of mechanics' lien or proceeding for its enforcement as affecting right to arbitration. 73 A.L.R.3d 1066.

29-5-203. Court order for arbitration.

  1. On application of a party showing an agreement described in § 29-5-202, and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised and shall order arbitration if found for the moving party; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
  2. On application, the court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate. Such an issue, when in substantial and bona fide dispute, shall be forthwith and summarily tried and the stay ordered if found for the moving party. If found for the opposing party, the court shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration.
  3. If an issue referable to arbitration under the alleged agreement is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a court having jurisdiction to hear applications under subsection (a), the application shall be made therein. Otherwise and subject to § 29-5-218, the application may be made in any court of competent jurisdiction.
  4. Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under this section or, if the issue is severable, the stay may be with respect thereto only. When the application is made in such action or proceeding, the order for arbitration shall include such stay.
  5. An order for arbitration shall not be refused on the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides or because any fault or grounds for the claim sought to be arbitrated have not been shown.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-527.

29-5-204. Appointment of arbitrators.

If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointment of arbitrators, this method shall be followed. In the absence thereof, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails or is unable to act and the arbitrator's successor has not been duly appointed, the court on application of a party shall appoint one (1) or more arbitrators. An arbitrator so appointed has all the powers of one specially named in the agreement.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-528.

29-5-205. Majority of arbitrators exercise powers.

The powers of the arbitrators may be exercised by a majority unless otherwise provided by the agreement or by this part.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-529.

Collateral References.

Modern status of rules respecting concurrence of all arbitrators as condition of binding award under private agreement not specifying unanimity. 83 A.L.R.3d 996.

29-5-206. Hearings.

Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:

  1. The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than five (5) days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and, on request of a party and for good cause, or, upon their own motion, may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced, notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy;
  2. The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing;
  3. The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators but a majority may determine any question and render a final award, unless the agreement provides otherwise. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-530.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

29-5-207. Representation by attorney.

A party has the right to be represented by an attorney at any proceeding or hearing under this part. A waiver thereof prior to the proceeding or hearing is ineffective.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-531.

29-5-208. Attendance of witnesses — Production of records and documents — Oaths — Depositions.

  1. The arbitrators may cause to be issued, by the clerk of the court, subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence, and shall have the power to administer oaths. Subpoenas so issued shall be served, and upon application to the court by a party or the arbitrators, enforced, in the manner provided by law for the service and enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action.
  2. On application of a party and for use as evidence, the arbitrators may permit a deposition to be taken, in the manner and upon the terms designated by the arbitrators, of a witness who cannot be subpoenaed or is unable to attend the hearing.
  3. All laws compelling a person under subpoena to testify are applicable.
  4. Fees for attendance as a witness shall be the same as for a witness in circuit courts.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-532.

Cross-References. Attendance of witnesses, title 24, ch. 2.

Subpoenas for attendance of witnesses and production of evidence, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 45.

Witness fees, title 24, ch. 4.

29-5-209. Award made by arbitrators.

  1. The award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrators joining in the award. The arbitrators shall deliver a copy to each party personally or by registered mail, or as provided in the agreement.
  2. An award shall be made within the time fixed therefor by the agreement or, if not so fixed, within such time as the court orders on application of a party. The parties may extend the time in writing either before or after the expiration thereof. A party waives the objection that an award was not made within the time required unless the party notifies the arbitrators of that party's objection prior to the delivery of the award to the other party.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-533.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

29-5-210. Review of award.

  1. On application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under § 29-5-212, § 29-5-213 or § 29-5-214, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in § 29-5-214(a)(1) and (3), or for the purpose of clarifying the award.
  2. The application shall be made within twenty (20) days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing party, stating that the opposing party must serve objections thereto, if any, within ten (10) days from the notice.
  3. The award so modified or corrected is subject to § 29-5-212, § 29-5-213 or § 29-5-214.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-534.

29-5-211. Expenses, costs and fees.

Unless otherwise provided in the agreement to arbitrate, the arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with other expenses, not including attorney fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be paid as provided in the award.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-535.

29-5-212. Confirmation of award.

Upon application of a party the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-213 and 29-5-214.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-536.

29-5-213. Vacation of award.

  1. Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:
    1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
    2. There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;
    3. The arbitrators exceeded their powers;
    4. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to § 29-5-206, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or
    5. There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under § 29-5-203 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; but the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.
  2. An application under this section shall be made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud or other undue means, it shall be made within ninety (90) days after such grounds are known or should have been known.
  3. In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subdivision (a)(5) the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with § 29-5-204, or, if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions (a)(3) and (4), the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with § 29-5-204. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from the date of the order.
  4. If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-537.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Fraud.

In a proceeding for enforcement of an international arbitration award, where the defendant simply contended that the arbitrator's decision was faulty, such an objection did not constitute fraud under this section. Indocomex Fibres PTE v. Cotton Co., 916 F. Supp. 721, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5648, 144 A.L.R. Fed. 731 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).

Collateral References.

Admissibility of affidavit or testimony of arbitrator to impeach or explain award. 80 A.L.R.3d 155.

Refusal of arbitrators to receive evidence, or to permit briefs or arguments, on particular issues as grounds for relief from award. 75 A.L.R.3d 132.

29-5-214. Modification or correction of award.

  1. Upon application made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:
    1. There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;
    2. The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or
    3. The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.
  2. If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as made.
  3. An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-538.

29-5-215. Judgment or decree — Costs — Enforcement.

  1. Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree.
  2. Costs of the application and of the proceedings subsequent thereto, and disbursements may be awarded by the court.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-539.

29-5-216. Judgment roll — Docketing judgment.

  1. On entry of the judgment or decree, the clerk shall prepare the judgment roll consisting, to the extent filed, of the following:
    1. The agreement and each written extension of the time within which to make the award;
    2. The award;
    3. A copy of the order confirming, modifying or correcting the award; and
    4. A copy of the judgment or decree.
  2. The judgment or decree may be docketed as if rendered in an action.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-540.

29-5-217. Application for court order — Procedure — Notice.

Except as otherwise provided, an application to the court under this part shall be by motion and shall be heard in the manner and upon the notice provided by law or rule of court for the making and hearing of motions. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, notice of an initial application for an order shall be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in an action.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-541.

Cross-References. Service of summons, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.

29-5-218. Venue.

  1. An initial application shall be made to the court of the county in which the agreement provides the arbitration hearing shall be held or, if the hearing has been held, in the county in which it was held. Otherwise the application shall be made in the county where the adverse party resides or has a place of business or, if the adverse party has no residence or place of business in this state, to the court of any county.
  2. All subsequent applications shall be made to the court hearing the initial application unless the court otherwise directs.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-542.

29-5-219. Appeals.

  1. An appeal may be taken from:
    1. An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under § 29-5-203;
    2. An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under § 29-5-203(b);
    3. An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;
    4. An order modifying or correcting an award;
    5. An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or
    6. A judgment or decree entered pursuant to this part.
  2. The appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders of judgments in a civil action.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-543.

29-5-220. Foreign arbitration hearings or awards.

  1. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the court shall not confirm an award under § 29-5-212 or enter judgment or decree in conformity therewith under § 29-5-215 where the arbitration hearing or award was made outside of the United States and its territories and the foreign state wherein the award was made does not grant reciprocity in recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards made in the United States or its territories.
  2. The prohibition set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply where the party seeking confirmation under § 29-5-212, or entry of judgment or decree under § 29-5-215, and the real party in interest benefited by the award is a citizen of the United States.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-544.

Cited: Indocomex Fibres PTE v. Cotton Co., 916 F. Supp. 721, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5648, 144 A.L.R. Fed. 731 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).

29-5-221. Application of law.

This part shall apply only to agreements made subsequent to July 1, 1977.

Acts 1977, ch. 159, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-545.

Cross-References. Law inapplicable to cotton farmers or cotton ginners, § 29-5-202.

Part 3
Uniform Arbitration Act

29-5-301. Short title — “Court” defined.

  1. This part may be cited as the “Uniform Arbitration Act.”
  2. As used in this part, “court” means any court of competent jurisdiction of the state.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, §§ 17, 23.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 20, provided that this part apply only to agreements made after May 26, 1983.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8.03-2.

Law Reviews.

A General Practitioner's Guide to Commercial Arbitration and The 1983 Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (Lewis L. Laska), 20 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 23 (1984).

Alternative Dispute Resolution of Fees — A Win-Win Resolution (Paul D. Georgiadis and Paul A. Sinclair), 32 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 20 (1996).

Avoiding Unnecessary Punches: Skillful Crafting of Alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Clauses (David K. Taylor), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 20 (2000).

Contracting for an Expanded Scope of Judicial Review in Arbitration Agreements, 51 Vand. L. Rev. 395 (1998).

Does Your Agent Have the Power? Extending the Power of Agents to Bind Principals to Arbitration (Sandra S. BensonI), 44 Tenn. B.J. 19 (2008).

Employment Dispute Resolution: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (Robert L. Arrington), 37 No. 10 Tenn. B.J. 32 (2001).

High court upholds pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements (Timothy S. Bland and Licia M. Williams), 37 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 31 (2001).

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1983 (N. L. Resener, J. A. Whitson, K. J. Miller), 50 Tenn. L. Rev. 785 (1983).

The Unclear “Clear and Mistakable” Standard: Why Arbitrators, Not Courts, Should Determine Whether a Securities Investor's Claim is Arbitrable, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 591 (2001).

Vacatur of Awards Under the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act: Substance, Procedure, and Strategies for Practitioners, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 271 (2015).

Cited: International Talent Group, Inc. v. Copyright Management, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 914 S.W.2d 445, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. 1996); Millsaps v. Robertson-Vaughn Constr. Co., 970 S.W.2d 477, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001); Warbington Constr., Inc. v. Landmark, LLC, 66 S.W.3d 853, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); River Links at Deer Creek, LLC v. Melz, 108 S.W.3d 855, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. 2004); Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005); Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Local 1212 Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 S.W.3d 448, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010); McGregor v. Christian Care Ctr. of Springfield, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010); Elliott v. Icon in the Gulch, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2010); Wilson County Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson County Educ. Ass'n, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2010); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011); Herbal Integrity, LLC v. Huntley, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

This act does not indicate whether claims brought under the Tennessee Human Rights Act are subject to arbitration; accordingly, this act does not apply to claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment brought under the Human Rights Act. Jacobsen v. ITT Financial Services Corp., 762 F. Supp. 752, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5998 (E.D. Tenn. 1991).

In 1983, when the Tennessee general assembly passed the Uniform Arbitration Act, it had full knowledge of the long established right of a person to seek rescission of a contract procured by fraud. With this knowledge, we find it logical for the general assembly to intend to except actions for rescission from a decision by arbitrators; therefore, appellant was entitled to a judicial determination on the issue of rescission. Blaine v. John Coleman Hayes & Assoc., Inc., 818 S.W.2d 33, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), appeal denied, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 365 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 1991).

2. Federal Arbitration Act.

The Tennessee Human Rights Act is exempt from the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. When employees sign an employment contract containing an agreement to submit any dispute with an employer to binding arbitration, they do not thereby prospectively waive the right to have their claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act adjudicated in federal district court. Jacobsen v. ITT Financial Services Corp., 762 F. Supp. 752, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5998 (E.D. Tenn. 1991).

3. Recission of Agreement.

Rescission of an arbitration agreement between two corporations was the appropriate remedy for their mutual mistake concerning the availability of the provision for expanded judicial review because the mistake was innocent and mutual in that both parties anticipated that expanded judicial review would be available; one of the corporations showed an injury in that its right to appeal would be substantially limited were the arbitration agreement enforced despite the failure of the provision authorizing expanded judicial review. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

4. Interpretation.

In a nursing home abuse case, the trial court properly denied the nursing home's motion to compel arbitration based upon an alternative dispute resolution agreement that was executed by the patient's niece because the power of attorney was unambiguous and that the use of “and” created a joint agency requiring the signatures of both the niece and her husband on the ADR Agreement in order to have bound the patient. Davis v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011).

29-5-302. Agreements to submit to arbitration — Jurisdiction.

  1. A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract; provided, that for contracts relating to farm property, structures or goods, or to property and structures utilized as a residence of a party, the clause providing for arbitration shall be additionally signed or initialed by the parties.
  2. The making of an agreement described in this section providing for arbitration in this state confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce the agreement under this part and to enter judgment on an award thereunder.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, §§ 1, 17.

Cross-References. Real property improvement contracts, arbitration provisions, § 66-11-208.

Law Reviews.

Avoiding Unnecessary Punches: Skillful Crafting of Alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Clauses (David K. Taylor), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 20 (2000).

Cited: Mitchell v. Owens, 185 S.W.3d 837, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010); Poole v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 337 S.W.3d 771, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010); McGregor v. Christian Care Ctr. of Springfield, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010); Elliott v. Icon in the Gulch, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2010); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

T.C.A. § 29-5-302(a) requires that in situations involving farm or residential property as described in the statute, arbitration clauses must be separately signed or initialed in addition to being written, thereby ensuring notice of the clause in these particularized cases. T. R. Mills Contrs., Inc. v. WRH Enters., LLC, 93 S.W.3d 861, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

T.C.A. § 29-5-302 is substantially the same as the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2; the principle that courts are required to give an arbitration agreement as broad a construction as the words and intentions of the parties will allow applies to the scope of the agreement, and not whether grounds exist to deny enforceability of the agreement. Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 731, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), review or rehearing denied, Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. June 30, 2003).

Arbitration provision in a contract between a hospital and health insurance company was enforceable against a patient, as a third-party beneficiary of that contract, who had filed a cause of action against the hospital seeking to enforce the contract after the hospital had filed a statutory notice of hospital lien against any monetary recovery the patient might have received from a personal injury suit. Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 617 (Tenn. 2004).

2. Applicability.

In 1983, when the Tennessee general assembly passed the Uniform Arbitration Act, it had full knowledge of the long established right of a person to seek rescission of a contract procured by fraud. With this knowledge, we find it logical for the general assembly to intend to except actions for rescission from a decision by arbitrators; therefore, appellant was entitled to a judicial determination on the issue of rescission. Blaine v. John Coleman Hayes & Assoc., Inc., 818 S.W.2d 33, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), appeal denied, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 365 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 1991).

Agreement to use an alternative dispute resolution in a divorce action did not amount to an agreement for binding arbitration and prevent the alternative dispute resolution decision from being modified or vacated because there was no written agreement to arbitrate. Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

The arbitration clause, incorporated into the standard contract form, did not need not be signed to be enforceable as the written agreement was otherwise enforceable. T. R. Mills Contrs., Inc. v. WRH Enters., LLC, 93 S.W.3d 861, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

A nursing home could not compel mediation and arbitration where the deceased which required mediation and arbitration of disputes was presented to the deceased's illiterate husband on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 731, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), review or rehearing denied, Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. June 30, 2003).

Doctor and trust argued that the trial court erred in failing to require the healthcare associates and medical center to demonstrate that the arbitration clauses were bargained for or were reasonable; the authority relied upon by defendants for this requirement, however, dealt with contracts of adhesion, and determining whether an arbitration clause contained within such a contract was enforceable, and there was no such contention in this case; defendants advanced no sufficient reason why the contract should be revoked. Diagnostic Ctr. v. Stubblefield, 215 S.W.3d 843, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. 2007).

Medical association's action against insurers for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, T.C.A. § 47-18-101 et seq., could not escape the mandatory arbitration provisions contained in the contracts between its member providers and the insurers where the association had no contractual relationship with the insurer; thus, arbitration was the proper forum for its claim pursuant to the Tennessee Arbitration Act, T.C.A. § 29-5-302, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2, and U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Tenn. Med. Ass'n v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tenn., Inc., 229 S.W.3d 304, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. June 25, 2007).

Trial court erred in relying on the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. § 29-5-301 et seq., and its requirement that arbitration clauses were to be additionally signed or initialed because the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., applied as the transaction at issue involved commerce under 9 U.S.C. § 2. Clayton v. Davidson Contrs., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

3. Physician-Patient Agreements.

Arbitration agreements between physicians and patients are not per se void as against public policy and are not unenforceable because of the breadth of application of the agreement or because medical treatment was rendered prior to the time the patient signed the agreement. Buraczynski v. Eyring, 919 S.W.2d 314, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. 1996).

4. Scope of Authority.

The scope of authority of arbitrators is determined by the terms of the agreement between the parties, which includes the agreement of the parties to arbitrate the dispute. D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001).

5. —Award of Attorney's Fees.

Because the arbitration provision, read within the context of the parties' entire written agreement, precluded arbitrators from deciding the issue of an award of attorney's fees, the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to do so. D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001).

6. Jurisdiction.

Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter ex parte arbitration award against defendant, individually, because defendant was not a party to the written arbitration agreement between an LLC and plaintiffs. Brown v. Styles, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2011).

Pursuant to controlling authority from both the United States Supreme Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court, the interpretation of a customer agreement, including the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained therein, was governed by state law. Further, under Tennessee law, claims of fraudulent inducement were not arbitrable but were for judicial determination; thus, the trial court correctly retained jurisdiction of the dispute. Webb v. First Tenn. Brokerage, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2013).

7. Enforceability.

Arbitration clause in a funeral services contract was unenforceable where the contract was one of adhesion, the arbitration clause lacked specific terms, the daughter was required to sign the contract in an expedient manner, the contract was offered on a take it or leave it basis, and there was comparatively unequal bargaining power. Wofford v. M. J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home Inc., 490 S.W.3d 800, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 926 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2015), appeal denied, Wofford v. M J Edwards & Sons Funeral Home Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. May 6, 2016).

Chancery court properly confirmed an arbitration award because, to the extent that an LLC appealed, it was not represented by counsel and, therefore, failed to validly participate and properly raise any issues for review on appeal, and the individual member of the LLC was a named party to the lawsuit, his attorney of record approved the “Agreed Order,” and, regardless of whether he was a party to an arbitration agreement before the onset of litigation, he clearly agreed to arbitrate the claims affecting him during the pendency of the case in the chancery court. Faubion v. Sigerseth, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2019).

8. Signature Requirements.

Trial court properly granted an insurer summary judgment, enforced the appraisal provision of the homeowners'  insurance policy, and found that the parties were bound by the decision of the appraisers because the appraisal clauses were clearly not arbitration clauses, the signature requirements of the Uniform Arbitration Act did not apply to appraisals, the homeowners granted an insurer summary judgment, the umpire was given express and exclusive rights in the policy to set the amount of loss, and the terms relating to the appraisal clause were not so unconscionable, oppressive, or outside the parties'  reasonable expectation so as to be unenforceable. Thomas v. Std. Fire Ins. Co., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2016).

9. Standing.

Bank's ability to file a petition seeking confirmation of the arbitration award was created by statute, and therefore, standing was a jurisdictional prerequisite. Khan v. Regions Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019).

Collateral References.

Alternative dispute resolution: sanctions for failure to participate in good faith in, or comply with agreement made in, mediation. 43 A.L.R.5th 545.

Enforcement of arbitration agreement contained in construction contract by or against nonsignatory. 100 A.L.R.5th 481.

29-5-303. Order for arbitration — Stay of arbitration proceeding — Effect of other proceedings involving issues subject to arbitration.

  1. On application of a party showing an agreement described in § 29-5-302, and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised and shall order arbitration if found for the moving party; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
  2. On application, the court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate. Such an issue, when in substantial and bona fide dispute, shall be forthwith and summarily tried and the stay ordered if found for the moving party. If found for the opposing party, the court shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration.
  3. If an issue referable to arbitration under the alleged agreement is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a court having jurisdiction to hear applications under subsection (a), the application shall be made therein. Otherwise and subject to § 29-5-318, the application may be made in any court of competent jurisdiction.
  4. Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under this section or, if the issue is severable, the stay may be with respect thereto only. When the application is made in such action or proceeding, the order for arbitration shall include such stay.
  5. An order for arbitration shall not be refused on the ground that the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides or because any fault or grounds for the claim sought to be arbitrated have not been shown.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 2.

Cited: Aloisi v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., 321 F.3d 551, 2003 FED App. 62P, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3366 (6th Cir. 2003); Mitchell v. Owens, 185 S.W.3d 837, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Davis v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011); Brown v. Styles, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2011); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

Under T.C.A. § 29-5-303(a), if the court finds a valid written agreement to arbitrate, whether to order the parties into arbitration is not a matter of discretion for the court, but is statutorily required. T. R. Mills Contrs., Inc. v. WRH Enters., LLC, 93 S.W.3d 861, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

A nursing home's motion to compel mediation and arbitration where the deceased which required mediation and arbitration of disputes was presented to the deceased's illiterate husband on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 731, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), review or rehearing denied, Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. June 30, 2003).

In an action alleging fraud in the inducement of a contract, the trial court's denial of a second motion to compel arbitration was in error because the motion should have been held in abeyance for the trial court to determine if the arbitration agreement was enforceable. Elite Emergency Servs., LLC v. Stat Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2010).

2. Appeals.

Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over defendants'  appeal, pursuant to T.R.A.P. 3(a), because a trial court's action in granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss and compelling arbitration of defendants'  affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment, but not staying the matter after compelling arbitration, was contrary to the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-303(d) and 29-5-319; because the trial court compelled arbitration of the defenses, it did not resolve all the rights and liabilities of the parties, and the matter was not final and appealable. White v. Empire Express, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2011).

Appellate court had no jurisdiction in an appeal of the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss in an arbitration case because the order appealed fell within no T.C.A. § 29-5-319 exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals from orders denying a T.C.A. § 29-5-303 application to compel arbitration or granting an application to stay arbitration, as the motion to dismiss did not seek to compel arbitration or stay litigation but sought only outright dismissal, and no award implicating the exceptions in T.C.A. § 29-5-319(a)(3), (4), or (5) was issued. SJR Ltd. P’ship v. Christie's Inc.,  — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014).

Collateral References.

Application of equitable estoppel against nonsignatory to compel arbitration under federal law. 43 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 275.

Application of equitable estoppel by nonsignatory to compel arbitration — Federal cases. 39 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 17.

29-5-304. Appointment of arbitrators.

If the arbitration agreement provided a method of appointment of arbitrators, this method shall be followed. In the absence thereof, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails or is unable to act and a successor has not been duly appointed, the court on application of a party shall appoint one (1) or more arbitrators. An arbitrator so appointed has all the powers of one specifically named in the agreement.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 3.

29-5-305. Exercise of arbitrators' powers.

The powers of the arbitrators may be exercised by a majority unless otherwise provided by the agreement or by this part.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 4.

29-5-306. Conduct of hearings.

Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:

  1. The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than five (5) days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and on request of a party and for good cause, or upon their own motion may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced, notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy;
  2. The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing;
  3. The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators but a majority may determine any question and render a final award. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 5.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

Law Reviews.

Avoiding Unnecessary Punches: Skillful Crafting of Alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Clauses (David K. Taylor), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 20 (2000).

Disciplinary Board Opinions.

Fee arbitration committee members of the various bar associations are excused from their ethical obligation to report ethical misconduct discovered during the course of their service as a fee arbitration committee member. Formal Ethics Opinion 89-F-119 (8/11/89).

Cited: MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010).

29-5-307. Right to representation by attorney.

A party has the right to be represented by an attorney at any proceeding or hearing under this part. A waiver thereof prior to the proceeding or hearing is ineffective.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 6.

Cited: Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

29-5-308. Subpoenas — Depositions — Fees.

  1. The arbitrators may cause to be issued subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence, and the arbitrators have the power to administer oaths. Subpoenas so issued shall be served, and upon application to the court by a party or the arbitrators, enforced in the manner provided by law for the service and enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action.
  2. On application of a party and for use as evidence, the arbitrators may permit a deposition to be taken, in the manner and upon the terms designated by the arbitrators, of a witness who cannot be subpoenaed or is unable to attend the hearing.
  3. All laws compelling a person under subpoena to testify are applicable.
  4. Fees for attendance as a witness shall be the same as for a witness in the circuit court.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 7.

29-5-309. Award.

  1. The award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrators joining in the award. The arbitrators shall deliver a copy to each party personally or by registered mail, or as provided in the agreement.
  2. An award shall be made within the time fixed therefor by the agreement or, if not so fixed, within such time as the court orders on application of a party. The parties may extend the time in writing either before or after the expiration thereof. A party waives the objection that an award was not made within the time required unless that party notifies the arbitrators of such objection prior to the delivery of the award to the other party.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 8.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

29-5-310. Modification of award.

On application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under § 29-5-312, § 29-5-313, or § 29-5-314, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in § 29-5-314(a)(1) and (3), or for the purpose of clarifying the award. The application shall be made within twenty (20) days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing party, stating such party must serve objections thereto, if any, within ten (10) days from the notice. The award so modified or corrected is subject to §§ 29-5-312, 29-5-313, and 29-5-314.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 9.

Cited: Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

29-5-311. Expenses and fees.

Unless otherwise provided in the agreement to arbitrate, the arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be paid as provided in the award.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 10.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attorney's Fees.

Because the parties did not specifically provide for the arbitration of attorney's fees relating to the enforcement of the contract, the arbitration clause did not indicate the parties' intent to override T.C.A. § 29-5-311 excluding attorney's fees from the payment of costs and expenses incurred in arbitration. D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001).

Trial court erred in vacating an arbitration award of attorney's fees in favor of a general contractor because both the general contractor and the subcontractor requested that attorney's fees be awarded to them in the arbitration proceeding, and the Construction Industry Arbitration allowed the arbitrator to make the award; the parties' contract contemplated that the Arbitration Rules would govern, and it provided that attorney's fees could be awarded when all the parties requested an award. Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2015).

29-5-312. Confirmation of award.

Upon application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 11.

Cited: D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001); Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005); MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Scope of Judicial Review.

Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. § 29-5-312, employs mandatory language, stating that the court shall confirm an award, unless grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in the TUAA, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, but the Federal Arbitration Act employs permissive language in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, stating that the reviewing court “may” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances; the TUAA, on the other hand, continues to employ mandatory language in T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, stating that the reviewing court “shall” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

Court of appeals erred in upholding an order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of one corporation and against a second corporation because the parties'  consent order impermissibly expanded the scope of judicial review beyond the scope of review provided in the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. §§ 29-5-312, 29-5-313, and 29-5-314; judicial review of arbitration awards is governed by the TUAA, and parties may not modify by agreement the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's award. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

2. Recission of Agreement.

Rescission of an arbitration agreement between two corporations was the appropriate remedy for their mutual mistake concerning the availability of the provision for expanded judicial review because the mistake was innocent and mutual in that both parties anticipated that expanded judicial review would be available; one of the corporations showed an injury in that its right to appeal would be substantially limited were the arbitration agreement enforced despite the failure of the provision authorizing expanded judicial review. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

3. Compliance.

While T.C.A. § 29-5-312 authorizes a party to apply for an order confirming an arbitration award, it does not necessarily require such an application. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

In an action arising from an arbitration award made after the employee was terminated for cause, the employee's amended pleading seeking to vacate an arbitration award that was delivered to the parties more than 90 days earlier did not relate back to the date of the original pleading pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 when the original pleading only sought to modify the arbitration award and the motion to vacate was required to have been filed within 90 days. Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Culpepper, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2020).

4. Standing.

Bank's ability to file a petition seeking confirmation of the arbitration award was created by statute, and therefore, standing was a jurisdictional prerequisite. Khan v. Regions Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019).

29-5-313. Vacation of award.

    1. Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:
      1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
      2. There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;
      3. The arbitrators exceeded their powers;
      4. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to § 29-5-306, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or
      5. There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under § 29-5-303 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.
    2. The fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.
  1. An application under this section shall be made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud or other undue means, it shall be made within ninety (90) days after such grounds are known or should have been known.
  2. In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subdivision (a)(1)(E), the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with § 29-5-304, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (D), the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with § 29-5-304. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from the date of the order.
  3. If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 12.

Law Reviews.

Alternative Dispute Resolution- Tuetken v. Tuetken: Reinforcing the Duty of the Court to Protect the Best Interests of the Child (Joshua Baker), 42 U. Mem. L. Rev. 831 (2012).

Avoiding Unnecessary Punches: Skillful Crafting of Alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Clauses (David K. Taylor), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 20 (2000).

Vacatur of Awards Under the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act: Substance, Procedure, and Strategies for Practitioners, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 271 (2015).

Cited: Champion Int'l Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 779 F.2d 328, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25602 (6th Cir. 1985); International Talent Group, Inc. v. Copyright Management, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Adams TV v. IBEW, Local 474, 932 S.W.2d 932, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Team Design v. Gottlieb, 104 S.W.3d 512, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 508 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); River Links at Deer Creek, LLC v. Melz, 108 S.W.3d 855, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Aloisi v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., 321 F.3d 551, 2003 FED App. 62P, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3366 (6th Cir. 2003); Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 617 (Tenn. 2004); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011); Brown v. Styles, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

In an action for wrongful denial of pension benefits under federal acts which did not have statutes of limitation, the federal court looked to the most appropriate state statute of limitations, which was the six-year limitation under § 28-3-109, and not the 90-day limitation under this section. Haynes v. O'Connell, 599 F. Supp. 59, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23578 (E.D. Tenn. 1984).

Where two children caused a fire at an apartment complex, and a mother and her child and an unrelated child were defendants, no authority in Tennessee supported the unrelated child's argument that a non-settling defendant who was found 100 percent at fault (the unrelated child), was entitled to a credit or set-off for the amounts paid to a plaintiff by other settling defendants; to the contrary, under principles of comparative fault, a non-settling defendant was not entitled to a credit for amounts paid by a settling defendant because the non-settling defendant was required to pay damages based on his or her percentage of fault. Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005).

Where two children caused a fire at an apartment complex, and a mother and her child, the parties had agreed to arbitrate and the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of authority where the mother and her child settled before arbitration, but the other unrelated child did not; the issue of awarding the full amount of the company's damages was before the arbitrator as was the issue of determining the percentage of the unrelated child's fault. Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005).

An error of law is not a sufficient reason to vacate an arbitration award. Diagnostic Ctr. v. Stubblefield, 215 S.W.3d 843, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. 2007).

2. Exceeding Terms of Agreement.

Arbitrators may not award relief in excess of the limit agreed upon by the parties in the agreement between the parties to arbitrate the dispute. International Talent Group, Inc. v. Copyright Management, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Director of schools has the power to name the coaches in Tennessee schools, and an arbitrator interpreting a locally negotiated agreement may not intercede in that regard; to the extent that an arbitrator's award interferes with the authority of a director of schools to appoint coaches, the award is unenforceable. Lawrence County Educ. Ass'n v. Lawrence County Bd. of Educ., 244 S.W.3d 302, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. Dec. 20, 2007), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Jan. 30, 2008).

3. Fraud.

In a proceeding for enforcement of an international arbitration award, where the defendant simply contended that the arbitrator's decision was faulty, such an objection did not constitute fraud under this section. Indocomex Fibres PTE v. Cotton Co., 916 F. Supp. 721, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5648, 144 A.L.R. Fed. 731 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).

When the court of appeals reviews a trial court's decision in an arbitration case, it should review findings of fact under a “clearly erroneous” standard, and an award cannot be vacated on grounds it is “irrational.” Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 914 S.W.2d 445, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. 1996).

4. Failure to Apply for Vacation.

Only in limited circumstances may a court vacate an arbitration award, and, where no application is made for vacation within the time specified, the court may not refuse to enforce the award on the grounds that it was erroneous or went too far. Millsaps v. Robertson-Vaughn Constr. Co., 970 S.W.2d 477, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

5. Award of Attorney's Fees.

The award of attorney's fees was vacated because the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in awarding these fees; the contract as a whole reflected the parties' intent for the arbitrators to decide all disputes in accordance with Tennessee law; absent the parties' clear agreement to the contrary, Tennessee prohibits the award of attorney's fees for arbitration proceedings. D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001).

Trial court erred in vacating an arbitration award of attorney's fees in favor of a general contractor because both the general contractor and the subcontractor requested that attorney's fees be awarded to them in the arbitration proceeding, and the Construction Industry Arbitration allowed the arbitrator to make the award; the parties' contract contemplated that the Arbitration Rules would govern, and it provided that attorney's fees could be awarded when all the parties requested an award. Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2015).

6. Award Upheld.

Chancery court did not err in affirming an arbitrator's decision reinstating a dismissed transit authority employee because, the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority under T.C.A. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(C); the matter was arbitrable under T.C.A. § 29-5-314(a)(2) because the code of conduct, which the arbitrator enforced, was not part of the collective bargaining agreement and was not a contract between the parties. Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Local 1212 Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 S.W.3d 448, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 945 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2006).

Denial of the defendant member's motion to vacate the arbitrator's award after the parties had agreed to submit the valuation of defendants'  membership in the limited liability company to arbitration was proper under T.C.A. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(C) because the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and did not deny the members the opportunity to provide evidence or to respond. Herbal Integrity, LLC v. Huntley, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012).

Arbitrator did not exceed his powers or fail to render a complete decision on the issues involved in a case arising under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; the arbitrator's detailed and thorough decision and award adequately resolved the dispute between the parties to the arbitration. Having successfully kept a trustee from being a party to the arbitration, a debtor was unable to later argue that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in failing to make determinations regarding the trustee. Khan v. Regions Bank, 461 S.W.3d 505, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015), cert. denied, 193 L. Ed. 2d 40, 136 S. Ct. 129, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 5655 (U.S. 2015).

Arbitrator did not exceed his powers in a case arising under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by awarding attorney's fees to a bank because recourse to the TCPA was not needed where the fees were awarded based on a contractual provision. Khan v. Regions Bank, 461 S.W.3d 505, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015), cert. denied, 193 L. Ed. 2d 40, 136 S. Ct. 129, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 5655 (U.S. 2015).

Trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award because it lacked authority to vacate the award where the questions of the validity of the arbitration agreement or whether the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their authority were waived when they never raised in the trial court. Malone v. Lasater, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015).

Trial court properly affirmed an arbitration award entered under the Federal Crop Insurance Act because a farmer failed to establish that the arbitrator exceeded its authority; the arbitrator's decision was in accordance with the regulations applicable to the crop insurance program and the insurance contract. Stewart v. Armtech Ins. Serv., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

7. Motion to Vacate Untimely.

Circuit court was correct to confirm an arbitration award because a debtor failed to file a timely motion to vacate the arbitration award as mandated by T.C.A. § 29-5-313 and she failed to show that the award was predicated on corruption, fraud or other undue means. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010), appeal denied, MBNA Am. Bank v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 774 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

8. Scope of Judicial Review.

Court of appeals erred in upholding an order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of one corporation and against a second corporation because the parties'  consent order impermissibly expanded the scope of judicial review beyond the scope of review provided in the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. §§ 29-5-312, 29-5-313, and 29-5-314; judicial review of arbitration awards is governed by the TUAA, and parties may not modify by agreement the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's award. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. § 29-5-312, employs mandatory language, stating that the court shall confirm an award, unless grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in the TUAA, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, but the Federal Arbitration Act employs permissive language in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, stating that the reviewing court “may” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances; the TUAA, on the other hand, continues to employ mandatory language in T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, stating that the reviewing court “shall” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

9. Partiality.

Circuit court order vacating an arbitration award based on the partiality of the arbitrators and directing a rehearing was not appealable under T.C.A. § 29-5-319. This section was procedural and was not preempted by the conflicting Federal Arbitration Act provision, 9 U.S.C. § 16. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011), rev'd, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(B) authorizes a court to vacate an arbitration award upon proof of the evident partiality of the arbitrator. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

Trial court erred in vacating an arbitration award in favor of a company because an investor failed to introduce evidence to support allegations of evident partiality; the investor failed to introduce evidence establishing specific facts indicating improper motives and evident partiality that was direct, definite, and capable of demonstration because he only introduced allegations asserted in pleadings and statements of counsel while the matter was pending before the trial court. Bronstein v. Morgan Keegan & Co., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2014).

Trial court erred in vacating an arbitration award in favor of investment accounts owners on the ground of partiality on the part of an arbitrator because there was nothing in the record to suggest that the arbitrator had a financial interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 316 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 854 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2014).

Trial court erred in vacating an arbitration award in favor of investment accounts owners on the ground of partiality on the part of arbitrators because the fact that the arbitrators served on previous panels involving an investment company and its family of funds was not direct, definite proof of improper motivation on their part; in light of the substantial amount of arbitration involving the funds, it was not unusual that individual arbitrators would participate in more than one proceeding. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 316 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 854 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2014).

Trial court erred by vacating an arbitration award in favor of an investment company because investors failed to carry their heavy burden of demonstrating evident partiality on the part of an arbitrator; there was no evidence that the arbitrator had a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, either direct or indirect, and nothing in the record demonstrated that his relationship with the company's expert witness was anything other than a brief, casual, professional acquaintanceship. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Starnes, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2014).

10. Compliance

When a party dissatisfied with an arbitration award acts first by petitioning to vacate the award in accordance with T.C.A. § 29-5-313, the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-30129-5-320, is not construed to require the party who prevailed in the arbitration to file a separate petition to confirm. In this scenario, it is entirely appropriate for the prevailing party to include its request to confirm the award in its response to the dissatisfied party's petition to vacate. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

Collateral References.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrator — Labor disputes. 66 A.L.R.5th 611.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Commercial, business, or real estate transactions. 67 A.L.R.5th 179.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Insurance appraisals or arbitrations. 63 A.L.R.5th 675.

Setting aside arbitration award on ground of interest or bias of arbitrators — Torts. 64 A.L.R.5th 475.

29-5-314. Grounds and procedure for modification of award.

  1. Upon application made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:
    1. There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;
    2. The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or
    3. The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.
  2. If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as made.
  3. An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 13.

Cited: Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 914 S.W.2d 445, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. 1996); Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); D&E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. 2001); Team Design v. Gottlieb, 104 S.W.3d 512, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 508 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005); MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Federal Claims.

The Tennessee 90-day limitation period for actions to vacate arbitration awards was correctly applied in a federal claim, rather than its borrowing statute. Champion Int'l Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 779 F.2d 328, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25602 (6th Cir. 1985).

2. Failure to Apply for Modification or Correction.

Only in limited circumstances may a court modify or correct an arbitration award, and, where no application is made for modification or correction within the time specified, the court may not refuse to enforce the award on the grounds that it was erroneous or went too far. Millsaps v. Robertson-Vaughn Constr. Co., 970 S.W.2d 477, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

3. Authority of Arbiter.

Chancery court did not err in affirming an arbitrator's decision reinstating a dismissed transit authority employee because, the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority under T.C.A. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(C); the matter was arbitrable under T.C.A. § 29-5-314(a)(2) because the code of conduct, which the arbitrator enforced, was not part of the collective bargaining agreement and was not a contract between the parties. Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Local 1212 Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 S.W.3d 448, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 945 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2006).

4. Scope of Judicial Review.

Court of appeals erred in upholding an order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of one corporation and against a second corporation because the parties'  consent order impermissibly expanded the scope of judicial review beyond the scope of review provided in the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. §§ 29-5-312, 29-5-313, and 29-5-314; judicial review of arbitration awards is governed by the TUAA, and parties may not modify by agreement the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's award. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), T.C.A. § 29-5-312, employs mandatory language, stating that the court shall confirm an award, unless grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in the TUAA, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, but the Federal Arbitration Act employs permissive language in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, stating that the reviewing court “may” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances; the TUAA, on the other hand, continues to employ mandatory language in T.C.A. §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314, stating that the reviewing court “shall” vacate, modify, or correct an award pursuant to the enumerated circumstances. Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010).

29-5-315. Entry and enforcement of judgment — Costs.

Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree. Costs of the application, and of the proceedings subsequent thereto, and disbursements may be awarded by the court.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 14.

Cited: Wachtel v. Shoney's, Inc., 830 S.W.2d 905, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 854 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Standard of Review.

Argument that trial court erred when it denied company's request for an award of attorney fees incurred in enforcing an arbitration award was without merit where there was nothing to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion. Alison Group, Inc. v. Ericson, 181 S.W.3d 670, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Alison Group v. Ericson, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 927 (Tenn. Oct. 24, 2005).

2. Appealability.

Circuit court order vacating an arbitration award based on the partiality of the arbitrators and directing a rehearing was not appealable under T.C.A. § 29-5-319. This section was procedural and was not preempted by the conflicting Federal Arbitration Act provision, 9 U.S.C. § 16. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011), rev'd, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

3. Attorney's Fees.

Because the record did not support the trial court's determination to vacate an arbitration award of attorney's fees in favor of a general contractor, the court of appeals exercised its discretion to award the general contractor its reasonable attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the arbitration award in the trial court and on appeal. Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2015).

Trial court lacked statutory authority to grant attorney's fees incurred during federal bankruptcy court proceedings; if a party does attempt to resist enforcement of an arbitration award by filing a non-meritorious adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, the opposing party can request attorney's fees from the bankruptcy court. Khan v. Regions Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019).

4. Construction.

Word “proceedings” refers to the motions and hearings specifically identified in the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act that follow a party's initial application for confirmation of an arbitration award; in context, the word “proceedings” does not refer to any proceeding filed in any court at any time after the application for confirmation of an arbitration award. Khan v. Regions Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019).

Court does not think the plain language of the statute inexorably leads to the conclusion that “proceedings subsequent” to the application for confirmation of an award include collateral bankruptcy court proceedings; if the legislature thinks that this policy would be further served by authorizing attorney's fees incurred in collateral bankruptcy proceedings, it may pass such a statute, but the court does not think the legislature intended the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act to be such a statute. Khan v. Regions Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019).

29-5-316. Contents of judgment roll.

  1. On entry of judgment or decree, the clerk shall prepare the judgment roll consisting, to the extent filed, of the following:
    1. The agreement and each written extension of the time within which to make the award;
    2. The award;
    3. A copy of the order confirming, modifying, or correcting the award; and
    4. A copy of the judgment or decree.
  2. The judgment or decree may be docketed as if rendered in an action.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 15.

29-5-317. Application to be by motion — Notice — Service.

Except as otherwise provided, an application to the court under this part shall be by motion and shall be heard in the manner and upon the notice provided by law or rule of court for the making and hearing of motions. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, notice of an initial application for an order shall be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in an action.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 16.

Cited: Mitchell v. Owens, 185 S.W.3d 837, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Akers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010).

29-5-318. Venue of initial application.

An initial application shall be made to the court of the county in which the agreement provides the arbitration hearing shall be held or, if the hearing has been held, in the county in which it was held. Otherwise the application shall be made in the county where the adverse party resides or has a place of business or, if the adverse party has no residence or place of business in this state, to the court of any county. All subsequent applications shall be made to the court hearing the initial application unless the court otherwise directs.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 18.

29-5-319. Appeal.

  1. An appeal may be taken from:
    1. An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under § 29-5-303;
    2. An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under § 29-5-303(b);
    3. An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;
    4. An order modifying or correcting an award;
    5. An order vacating an award without directing a re-hearing; and
    6. A judgment or decree entered pursuant to this part.
  2. The appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 19.

Law Reviews.

Alternative Dispute Resolution- Tuetken v. Tuetken: Reinforcing the Duty of the Court to Protect the Best Interests of the Child (Joshua Baker), 42 U. Mem. L. Rev. 831 (2012).

Cited: Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 617 (Tenn. 2004); Elite Emergency Servs., LLC v. Stat Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2010); McGregor v. Christian Care Ctr. of Springfield, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011); Davis v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Illustrative Cases.

Contractor had the right to immediately appeal the issue of arbitration, but failed to file such an appeal in a timely manner, and had waived the issue of whether arbitration was appropriate; the contractor had until January 6, 2003, to file his notice of appeal, pursuant to T.R.A.P. 4(a), but he did not make any such filing by that date. Mitchell v. Owens, 185 S.W.3d 837, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (Tenn. Mar. 20, 2006).

Trial court's decision finding that an arbitration agreement between a nursing home and the decedent's son was unenforceable, because it was one of adhesion, was oppressive, and was unconscionable, was reversed; the arbitration agreement was enforceable, because: (1) The nursing home at issue was not the only nursing home in the area; (2) The son's educational background or abilities did not prohibit him from comprehending the agreement and he did not argue that it was unclear; (3) The arbitration provision and jury waiver were prominently disclosed in several places; (4) The agreement clearly provided that the general sessions exception applied to defendants as well as to the son; and (5) The evidence was insufficient to show that arbitration would be cost prohibitive. Philpot v. Tenn. Health Mgmt., 279 S.W.3d 573, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 765 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2007).

Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over defendants'  appeal, pursuant to T.R.A.P. 3(a), because a trial court's action in granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss and compelling arbitration of defendants'  affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment, but not staying the matter after compelling arbitration, was contrary to the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-303(d) and 29-5-319; because the trial court compelled arbitration of the defenses, it did not resolve all the rights and liabilities of the parties, and the matter was not final and appealable. White v. Empire Express, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 664 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2011).

Tennessee's appellate courts possess subject matter jurisdiction to review a trial court's order that vacates an arbitration award and remands the dispute to a new arbitration panel, without expressly declining to confirm the award, because the order is an appealable order denying confirmation of an award under T.C.A. § 29-5-319(a)(3). Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

Appellate court had no jurisdiction in an appeal of the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss in an arbitration case because the order appealed fell within no T.C.A. § 29-5-319 exceptions allowing interlocutory appeals from orders denying a T.C.A. § 29-5-303 application to compel arbitration or granting an application to stay arbitration, as the motion to dismiss did not seek to compel arbitration or stay litigation but sought only outright dismissal, and no award implicating the exceptions in T.C.A. § 29-5-319(a)(3), (4), or (5) was issued. SJR Ltd. P’ship v. Christie's Inc.,  — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014).

Court of appeals could exercise jurisdiction over the appeal of an order vacating an arbitration award even though some claims had not been adjudicated; in light of the tortured history of the case, the prolonged pendency of the matter in the court of appeals, and the trial court's previous orders refusing to stay enforcement of its order to re-arbitrate pending appellate review; justice and judicial economy were best served by considering the merits of the issue presented for review. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Starnes, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2014).

Court of appeals could exercise jurisdiction over the appeal of an order vacating an arbitration award because the order denying an investment company's motion to confirm the award could properly be construed as a denial of the company's motion for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Starnes, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2014).

Court of appeals had subject matter jurisdiction over a guardian's interlocutory appeal by permission because the fact that the guardian did not have the right to appeal did not preclude him from filing an application seeking an interlocutory appeal by permission; the trial court granted permission to file for an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals, which granted the motion for interlocutory appeal. Gladden v. Cumberland Trust & Inv. Co., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 203 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2016), rev'd, Harvey ex rel. Gladden v. Cumberland Trust & Inv. Co., 532 S.W.3d 243, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 701 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2017).

There was insufficient language to incorporate the arbitration provision of the operating agreement into the unit purchase agreements, and therefore the fraudulent inducement claim properly remained subject to judicial determination; the trial court's ultimate denial of the motion to compel arbitration of that dispute was affirmed on that basis. Sports Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

2. Applicability.

Circuit court order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing was not appealable under T.C.A. § 29-5-319. This section was procedural and was not preempted by the conflicting Federal Arbitration Act provision, 9 U.S.C. § 16. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011), rev'd, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

Appellees sought in part to appeal the trial court's decision to compel certain claims to arbitration, but such a right was not afforded pursuant to the appeal provisions of the statute, and thus the court dismissed this appeal. Sports Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019).

Collateral References.

Adoption of manifest disregard of law standard as nonstatutory ground to review arbitration awards governed by Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA). 14 A.L.R.6th 491.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage: enforceability of policy provision limiting appeals from arbitration. 23 A.L.R.5th 801.

29-5-320. Construction of part.

This part shall be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.

Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 21.

Law Reviews.

Vacatur of Awards Under the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act: Substance, Procedure, and Strategies for Practitioners, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 271 (2015).

Cited: Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 914 S.W.2d 445, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. 1996); Buraczynski v. Eyring, 919 S.W.2d 314, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. 1996); Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010); Elliott v. Icon in the Gulch, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. General Consideration.

T.C.A. § 29-5-320 prompts a court to interpret the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-5-30129-5-320, in a manner consistent with the other states that have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, 401 S.W.3d 595, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Apr. 25, 2013).

Chapter 6
Attachment and Replevy

29-6-101. Grounds for attachment.

Any person having a debt or demand due at the commencement of an action, or a plaintiff after action for any cause has been brought, and either before or after judgment, may sue out an attachment at law or in equity, against the property of a debtor or defendant, in the following cases:

  1. Where the debtor or defendant resides out of the state;
  2. Where the debtor or defendant is about to remove, or has removed, the debtor's or defendant's person or property from the state;
  3. Where the debtor or defendant has removed, or is removing, the debtor's or defendant's person out of the county privately;
  4. Where the debtors or defendants concealed is so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon the debtor or defendant;
  5. Where the debtor or defendant absconds, or absconded concealing the debtor's or defendant's person or property;
  6. Where the debtor or defendant has fraudulently disposed of, or is about fraudulently to dispose of, the property;
  7. Where any person liable for any debt or demand, residing out of the state, dies, leaving property in the state; or
  8. Where the debtor or defendant is a foreign corporation which has no agent in this state upon whom process may be served by any person bringing suit against such corporation; provided, that the plaintiff or complainant need only make oath of the justness of the claim, that the debtor or defendant is a foreign corporation and that it has no agent in the county where the property sought to be attached is situated upon whom process can be served.

Code 1858, § 3455 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19, 21; 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 1; 1837-1838, ch. 166, § 1; 1843-1844, ch. 29, § 1; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 5211; Code 1932, § 9396; Acts 1968, ch. 523, § 1 (17.05); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-601.

Cross-References. Attachment after creditor's bill, § 29-12-102.

Exemption of public employees' retirement benefits, § 8-3516 (Vol. 3 Appendix).

Exemption of welfare grants, §§ 71-2-216, 71-3-121, 71-4-117, 71-4-1112.

Mechanic's lien, enforcement by attachment, § 66-11-126.

Powers of general sessions judge, §§ 16-15-401, 16-15-804, 16-15-805, 16-15-806.

Real defendant in action against attaching officer, §§ 20-1-117, 20-1-118.

Registration of abstract, §§ 25-5-107, 25-5-108, 25-5-109.

Seizure of person or property, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 64.

Sheriff's fee, § 8-21-901.

Venue of actions, § 20-4-103.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 328, 407, 414, 418, 423.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 753.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-64-2.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 4-12, 25, 30, 35, 73, 77, 86, 103, 106-112, 120-132, 138, 144; 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, § 121.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Constitutional Law — Pinsky v. Duncan: Due Process and the Death of a Prejudgment Attachment Statute, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 413 (1991).

Domestic Relations — 1960 Tennessee Survey (William J. Harbison), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1121.

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Replevin — Prior Notice and Hearing — Due Process, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 125.

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

Comparative Legislation. Replevin:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-100 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-809 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 18-3-30 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 426.450 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-37-101 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 533.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-472 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-218 et seq.

Cited: Gaines v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 52 S.W. 467, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 158 (1898); Pinkerton v. Fox, 23 Tenn. App. 159, 129 S.W.2d 514, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939); Coffey v. Durand, 27 Tenn. App. 704, 167 S.W.2d 684, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (1940); Anderson v. Ellington, 300 F. Supp. 789, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591 (M.D. Tenn. 1969); Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974); General Electric Supply Co. v. Arlen Realty & Development Corp., 546 S.W.2d 210, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. 1977); Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Auer, 514 F. Supp. 631, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15593 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); Bodin Apparel, Inc. v. Lowe, 614 S.W.2d 571, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980); W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Union Export Co. v. N.I.B. Intermarket, A.B., 786 S.W.2d 628, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. 1990); Flake v. Flake, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

2. —Constitutionality of Statutes.

Code 1932, § 9406 which permitted a creditor of a nonresident debtor to attach a resident debtor who owed a nonresident debtor of the principal debtor was unconstitutional as a violation of due process since it provided no effective manner of service upon the nonresident principal debtor or for impounding res in which the principal debtor had any interest subject to attachment or garnishment. Dickson v. Simpson, 172 Tenn. 680, 113 S.W.2d 1190, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 113, 116 A.L.R. 380 (1937).

Where, in an action attaching real property, nonresident parties defendant were properly notified by publication but not otherwise notified, although the plaintiffs knew, or through reasonable diligence could have discovered their actual addresses, it was held that the notice was insufficient depriving the nonresident parties defendant of their property without due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14, and that the entire attachment action was void insofar as it affected their rights. Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

The Tennessee attachment statute is not facially invalid as lacking due process, and even if it were, adequate state remedies existed which precluded a federal civil rights action challenging application of the statute. McLaughlin v. Weathers, 170 F.3d 577, 1999 FED App. 94P, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3949 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1999), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1134, 119 S. Ct. 1812, 143 L. Ed. 2d 1015, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 3522 (1999).

3. —Construction.

The attachment statutes are liberally construed as to the remedy, once jurisdiction has been properly obtained, but in so far as they prescribe the causes for which attachment may issue they are very strictly construed. Willshire v. Frees, 184 Tenn. 523, 201 S.W.2d 675, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1947).

Court would permit amendment of suit commenced by attachment in such a manner that case could be disposed on merits rather than on technicalities. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

Although the Tennessee attachment statutes are to be liberally construed as a general rule, a strict construction is afforded to the attachment statutes insofar as prescribed causes for which attachment may issue; however, avoidance of an attachment on the basis of a mere technicality in the plaintiff's affidavit appears to be contrary to public policy in Tennessee. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

4. —Nonresident Complainant.

Nonresident complainant can obtain relief by attachment since legislature used words “any person.” Hall v. Jordan, 190 Tenn. 1, 227 S.W.2d 35, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1950), superseded by statute as stated in, Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

5. —Form of Action Maintainable.

Any form of action may be maintained under attachment for the recovery of money due and owing, where personal service cannot be had, and it is the only method of bringing the party in. Lucky v. Miller, 16 Tenn. 90, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1835).

6. —Requisites of Jurisdiction.

Sale of land of nonresident in an action of trespass wherein a writ of attachment was issued and the property levied upon passed good title to the purchaser of the land even though the affidavit was defective and there was no publication of notice since the levy of the writ of attachment is the one essential requisite to jurisdiction of the proceeding. Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U.S. 308, 19 L. Ed. 931, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1123 (1870).

Facts required by statutes to justify attachments are jurisdictional. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

7. —Chancery Jurisdiction — Extent.

The chancery court possesses no power or jurisdiction to impound, by attachment, property of the defendant for the purpose of satisfying the judgment of the plaintiff in a pending suit at law, when the judgment shall be obtained. Union Bank v. Newman, 23 Tenn. 330, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1843); Isaacks v. Edwards, 26 Tenn. 465, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1846).

Fact that in proceedings in chancery, bill alleged that interest of defendant in property sought to be attached was of an equitable nature did not deprive clerk and master of right to grant writ of attachment even though the interest was in fact a legal interest. Johnson v. Rankin, 59 S.W. 638, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1900).

Jurisdiction of a court of chancery to attach is twofold: as an incident to its power to issue extraordinary process, and under this section in special cases. Certain jurisdictional facts must be made to appear. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

8. —Fraud in Obtaining Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of attachment suit cannot be obtained by fraud, as by a resident creditor of a nonresident procuring a third person to buy property from such nonresident that he might attach the indebtedness or proceeds of such property, which was done. The jurisdiction in such case was fraudulently obtained, and the suit was dismissed, on plea. Timmons v. Garrison, 23 Tenn. 148, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1843). See National Bank v. Winston, 64 Tenn. 685, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (1875); Sims v. Ashworth, 3 Shan. 40 (1878).

9. —Failure to Properly Allege Grounds.

Attachment which did not follow the wording of the statute was void. Conrad v. McGee, 17 Tenn. 428, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1836).

Where an attachment is sued out, and none of the grounds for an attachment, embraced in the provisions of the attachment laws, are alleged, it will be dismissed upon demurrer confined to that point. Fay v. Jones, 38 Tenn. 442, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 209 (1858); Baker & Paul v. Huddleston, 62 Tenn. 1, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1873).

Where the bill was not filed as an attachment bill, and set forth none of the causes required for attachment, but simply prayed for an attachment to issue, such bill did not fall within the provisions of the attachment laws, and the issuance and levy of the attachment, in such case, created no lien upon the lands. Harrison v. Wade, 43 Tenn. 505, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1866).

Attachment was improperly issued in divorce case even though a divorce case is considered a proceeding in chancery where neither statutory grounds were alleged for attachment or the inherent jurisdiction of the court as a court of equity invoked. Humphreys v. Humphreys, 39 Tenn. App. 99, 281 S.W.2d 270, 1954 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (1954), superseded by statute as stated in, Moore v. Moore, — S.W.2d —, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 869 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 1991).

10. —Clerk and Master as Plaintiff.

Clerk and master is entitled to attachment, upon petition in the cause, to secure notes made to him for the benefit of suitors, upon sufficient grounds therefor stated. Rutland v. Cummings, 26 Tenn. 279, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1846).

11. —Surety Suing.

That one is surety on the obligation which is basis of attachment does not prevent his attaching a debt due his debtor. Chicago Sugar-Refining Co. ex rel. Goins v. Jackson Brewing Co., 48 S.W. 275, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

12. —Corporations Sued.

Corporations can sue and be sued, under the attachment laws, as well as individuals. Bank of Ala. v. Berry, 21 Tenn. 443, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1841); State v. Nashville Univ., 23 Tenn. 157, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1843); Union Bank v. United States Bank, 23 Tenn. 369, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1843); Hadley v. Freedmans Sav. & Trust Co., 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 122 (1874).

Attachment may be sued out against a foreign corporation. Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Southern Steel Co., 123 Tenn. 428, 131 S.W. 988, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 16, 31 L.R.A. (n.s.) 278 (1910).

Money due to a nonresident for services rendered out of the state to a foreign corporation can be subjected to attachment and garnishment in the hands of that corporation in Tennessee by a local creditor of the nonresident, when the foreign corporation has an office or agency in this state and is amenable to process here. Burnett v. Simmons, 175 Tenn. 422, 135 S.W.2d 452, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1939).

13. —National Banks — Status.

In view of the National Bank Act of congress providing that “no attachment shall be issued against such an association on its property” before final judgment, in any state court, a national bank whether solvent or insolvent, is within the exemption from the issue of attachment before judgment. No jurisdiction is so acquired of a national bank. Rosenheim Real-Estate Co. v. Southern Nat'l Bank, 46 S.W. 1026, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 124 (1897), cited and approved in Van Reed v. People's Nat'l Bank, 198 U.S. 554, 25 S. Ct. 775, 49 L. Ed. 1161, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1087 (1905).

14. —Creditor's Debt to Debtor — Attachment.

A creditor may reach a fund in his own hands belonging to his debtor, or an indebtedness due from himself to his debtor, by a bill in chancery, and by attachment and injunction where there is cause for the same. Boyd v. Bayless, 23 Tenn. 386, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1843).

15. —Assigned Debt — Attachment.

Attachment of assigned debt before notice to debtor prevails over the assignment. Dillingham v. Traders' Ins. Co., 120 Tenn. 302, 108 S.W. 1148, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 49, 16 L.R.A. (n.s.) 220 (1907).

16. —Existing Mortgage — Priority.

Attachment by creditor in Tennessee of property here but which had been validly mortgaged by instrument legally registered in another state will be inferior to the mortgagee's rights, unless he consented to permanent removal of the property. Bankers' Finance Corp. v. Locke & Massey Motor Co., 170 Tenn. 28, 91 S.W.2d 297, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1936).

17. —Assignee in Insolvency.

An assignee in insolvency who stands in the shoes of an attachment defendant is governed by the same rule of law as governs such defendant. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

18. —Marshaling of Assets Between Attaching Creditors.

Where numerous creditors, having no liens upon the property of their debtor, all sought to acquire liens by attachments, some of which were not duly perfected for want of necessary parties, there can be no marshaling of assets between the successful and unsuccessful creditors. The doctrine of marshaling assets does not apply. King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914).

19. —Waiver of Defects.

Though granted upon insufficient allegations, an attachment holds unless, at the proper stage, steps be taken to discharge it, and objections to the process are waived by answer to the bill. Johnson v. Luckado, 59 Tenn. 270, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1873); West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882).

Appearance and answer of plea to the merits is a waiver of the defects in the affidavit for an attachment. West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882).

Objection of defendant to attachment and publication was waived when he obtained order setting aside default judgment and filed an answer to merits. Hall v. Jordan, 190 Tenn. 1, 227 S.W.2d 35, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1950), superseded by statute as stated in, Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

20. —Collateral Attack on Sale for Omission of Allegations.

Though the affidavit be defective in omission of allegation that the claim “is just,” a subsequent sale thereunder cannot be collaterally attacked, where attaching plaintiff had attached to his declaration an itemized statement of account sworn to as being true, just and correct. McElwee v. Steelman, 38 S.W. 275, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Ch. App. May 27, 1896).

21. —Fiat of Judge — When Necessary.

Attachment upon grounds other than the statutory grounds is extraordinary process, and cannot be issued without the fiat of a judge or chancellor, and if it be so issued, it will be void, and so will a replevy bond given for the property levied on under such attachment. Dillin v. O'Donnell, 63 Tenn. 213, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (1874); Greenlaw v. Logan, 70 Tenn. 185, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 153 (1879); Rogers v. Newman, 73 Tenn. 255, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1880). See August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); Lane v. Wood, 1 Shan. 648 (1876).

22. —Attachment Not Sustained — Dismissal of Bill.

Where there is no personal jurisdiction of the defendant, and the jurisdiction depends upon the attachment of the property, not sustained, the bill must be dismissed with costs, without giving the complainant a judgment against the defendant. A plea in abatement putting in issue the grounds does not constitute such appearance as will warrant a personal judgment upon the cause of action, where the issue is found in favor of the defendant. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868); Sherry v. Divine, 58 Tenn. 722, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (1872); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874).

23. —Agreement to Delay Preventing Attachment.

If a creditor expressly agrees, upon sufficient consideration, to take no step to collect his debt within a given time, he cannot maintain an attachment bill thereon filed within the time. Craigmiles v. Hays, 75 Tenn. 720, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (1881).

24. —Nature of Defense Required.

Where the jurisdiction of the court depended upon the attachment sued out under this chapter, defense had to be made by plea in abatement; but when it was sued out under §§ 29-12-101, 29-12-102, the attachment of property was not essential to the jurisdiction of the court, and the defense could be made by answer, without a plea in abatement. Tarbox v. Tonder, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1873); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874). See Nailer v. Young, 75 Tenn. 735, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1881); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

Where an attachment was obtained upon a bill in chancery on the ground that the defendant was about fraudulently to dispose of his property, the grounds of the attachment had to be denied by plea in abatement, not by denial in the answer. Pace v. Plumlee, 2 Shan. 55 (1876); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

25. —Plea in Abatement.

If the defendant appeared and pleaded to the merits before the justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), it was too late to file a plea in abatement in the circuit court, after an appeal had been taken thereto. West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882).

Where creditors of husband attached stock of goods in possession of husband who claimed to act as agent of wife the husband could not file an answer asserting that property was owned by his wife since defense could only be by plea in abatement. Walters v. Brown, 46 S.W. 777, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

26. —Appeal Bond — Requisites.

The appeal bond in attachment suits under this chapter, though against land and in chancery, must be for the recovery, damages, and costs, where a judgment or decree is rendered against the defendant, and he appeals, unless he takes the oath prescribed for poor persons. Staub v. Williams, 69 Tenn. 36, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1878); Staub v. Williams, 69 Tenn. 123, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1878); Rogers v. Newman, 73 Tenn. 255, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1880); Watkins v. Clifton Hill Land Co., 91 Tenn. 683, 20 S.W. 246, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1892).

27. Nonresidence as Ground for Attachment.

The fact that the debtor resides out of the state is a sufficient ground for an attachment at law or in equity upon a legal debt or demand. Herndon v. Pickard, 73 Tenn. 702, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1880). See Mulloy v. White, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 9 (1875); Brewer v. De Camp Glass Casket Co., 139 Tenn. 97, 201 S.W. 145, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1918).

It is the public policy that nonresidents will not be permitted to escape attachment by technicalities or technical defects. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

28. —Declaration — Showing Nonresidence.

A charge that the “defendant is not an inhabitant of the state” substantially charges the fact of his nonresidence as one ground for the attachment. Klepper v. Powell, 53 Tenn. 503, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 388 (1871).

In an attachment bill, it was sufficient to state the residence of the parties in the caption of the bill, without stating or repeating it in the charging part or body of the bill. If the residence of the defendant be stated to be in another state named, this is a sufficient allegation that he is a nonresident of this state. Grubbs v. Colter, 66 Tenn. 432, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1874).

Averment that defendant was a “citizen” of another state was sufficient averment of his nonresidence, so as to authorize the issuance of the attachment. Butterfeild v. Miller, 195 F. 200, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1362 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1912).

29. —Citizenship and Residence — Comparison.

Distinction between residence and citizenship is well established in the construction of the foreign attachment laws of the different states. A person may be a citizen of a state, and at the same time a nonresident of the state, within the attachment laws. Cain v. Jennings, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876); Butterfeild v. Miller, 195 F. 200, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1362 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1912); Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914).

One may be a citizen and yet a nonresident. Tigret v. Walker, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. (2 Higgins) 567 (1912).

30. —Domicile — Relation to Residence.

The term “domicile,” in the sense of the attachment laws, implies residence with the intention of making it the home or habitation of the party without a present intention of removing therefrom. Butterfeild v. Miller, 195 F. 200, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1362 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1912).

One may be domiciled within this state and still be a nonresident. Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914); Brown v. Brown, 150 Tenn. 89, 261 S.W. 959, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1924); Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

31. —Facts Constituting Nonresidence.

For a citizen to become a nonresident, there must be an actual removal from the state, with the intention of not returning, though his family does not accompany him; and a resident of this state does not become a nonresident by purpose, preparations, and arrangements to change his residence, where his residence and domicile are not in fact changed. Smith v. Story, 20 Tenn. 420, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1839); Green v. Allen, 24 Tenn. 170, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1844); Kellar v. Baird, 52 Tenn. 39, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 230 (1871); Klepper v. Powell, 53 Tenn. 503, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 388 (1871); Whitly v. Steakly, 62 Tenn. 393, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1874); Cain v. Jennings, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876); Haynes v. Powell, 69 Tenn. 347, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1878); Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914).

Defendant in an attachment proceeding who moved his family and effects to this state, rented a house and hired servants, opened a bank account, rented a post office box and undertook to complete a railroad contract of more than two years duration, and who had no home or property at the place of his former residence was a resident of Tennessee under the attachment laws. Stratton v. Brigham, 34 Tenn. 420, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1854).

Absence from the state on business or pleasure, there being an intention to return, does not render one a nonresident. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

While defendant had not changed his domicile from Tennessee, yet, as a practical matter, his business as railroad contractor was out of this state with headquarters in New York City, his visits to Tennessee were infrequent and of short duration, he had no definite idea of returning to this state at any particular time, and was a nonresident for attachment purposes. Southern R.R. v. McDonald, 59 S.W. 370, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1900).

32. —Residence for Purposes of Exemption and Attachment Distinguished.

One who is domiciled in Tennessee, although he may be temporarily absent from the state for a considerable length of time on business, is entitled to hold his exempt property free from attachment or execution for debt even though such absence be so prolonged as to justify an attachment in lieu of personal service as to other kinds of property. Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914).

33. —Declaration of Intention — Effect.

As ground for attachment, residence may be a question of intention, and a declaration of intention overcomes facts indicating the contrary. Divine v. Dennis, 1 Shan. 378 (1875); Hascall v. Hafford, 107 Tenn. 355, 65 S.W. 423, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 89 Am. St. Rep. 952 (1901).

34. —Nonresident Complainant.

Under this section and § 29-6-111 nonresident wife was entitled to bring suit against nonresident husband in chancery by attachment of land for recovery of money expended for support of minor children under theory of quasi-contract without having recovered judgment at law. Hall v. Jordan, 190 Tenn. 1, 227 S.W.2d 35, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1950), superseded by statute as stated in, Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

If assignment of account to resident trustees was for purpose of substituting a Tennessee creditor for a nonresident creditor in proceeding against nonresident debtor action should have been dismissed. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

35. —Nonresident Defendant — Burden of Proof.

In attachment on ground of nonresidence, defendant cannot claim homestead in absence of proof that he is a resident. Doran v. O'Neal, 37 S.W. 563, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

36. —Debt to Nonresident — Subjecting to Payment of Nonresident's Debt.

Where the complainant is indebted to a nonresident defendant in an amount equal to such defendant's indebtedness to complainant, by note in the hands of defendant's agent here, or of a third person as trustee for defendant's benefit, or where such note has been reduced to judgment in the name of the agent or trustee, complainant may, by attachment and injunction in chancery, subject his own indebtedness to defendant to the satisfaction of the defendant's indebtedness to complainant. But if complainant's note was in the possession of the nonresident defendant, and not reduced to judgment here, nothing could be done. Boyd v. Bayless, 23 Tenn. 386, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1843).

37. —Foreign Corporation as Party.

An attachment may be sued out against a foreign corporation, to reach its property and assets within the jurisdiction of the court. Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Southern Steel Co., 123 Tenn. 428, 131 S.W. 988, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 16, 31 L.R.A. (n.s.) 278 (1910).

38. —Nonresident Partner — Liability for Firm Debts.

Where one member of a partnership resides out of the state, he may be proceeded against by attachment by a partnership creditor, and his interest in the firm assets may be levied on and subjected to the payment of the debt. McHaney v. Cawthorn, 51 Tenn. 508, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (1871).

39. —Mortgagee as a Party.

A creditor attaching, under this statute, the property of a nonresident debtor, must, where the legal title is in a mortgagee, make the mortgagee a party defendant. Otherwise the mortgagee may assert his rights and cut off the attachment by foreclosure. King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914).

Where numerous creditors of a nonresident debtor were, by various bills, striving for priority by attachments on his property, the complainants in one of the bills, who did not make the mortgagee of the attached land a party defendant, are not entitled to amend their bill to correct the defect, where such attachment would deprive the complainants in the other attachment bills of their priority already acquired by valid attachment liens on the property, with the mortgagee made a party. King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914).

After the consolidation of various separate attachment bills against the property of a nonresident debtor, parties to some of the bills may move to quash the attachment in one of the bills, and except to the report of the master fixing priority, and where such parties were not parties to the bill until the consolidation of the suit, their right to object to the failure of the complainants therein to make the mortgagee of the attached property a party defendant was not waived, and might be raised by the objections made. King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914).

40. —Knowledge of Proceeding — Effect.

A decree cannot be impeached by one who is defendant in an attachment suit in which the affidavit was based upon nonresidence, although the affidavit was untrue, where the defendant knew of the pendency of such suit and failed to plead or answer denying the truth of the affidavit. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

41. Removing or About to Remove from State.

42. —Sufficiency of Allegations.

That the defendant “has removed himself, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him” is no ground for attachment. McCulloch v. Foster, 12 Tenn. 162, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1833); Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850).

“Left the state” is not sufficient ground for attachment. Mulherrin v. Hill, 52 Tenn. 58, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 232 (1871).

A charge that a debtor hastily removed his live stock to another state, for the purpose of hindering and delaying complainant in the collection of his debts, is not equivalent to the requirement of this statute. Craigmiles v. Hays, 75 Tenn. 720, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (1881).

“From the jurisdiction of the court” is insufficient allegation of ground for attachment. Bucyrus Co. v. McArthur, 219 F. 266, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1345 (M.D. Tenn. 1914).

43. —Requisite Amount of Property Removed.

It is not possible to define the amount of property removed, or about to be removed, which will bring the debtors within the scope of our attachment laws. It need not be all his property, nor will a comparative little suffice, but it is to be an amount of substantial consequence, in reference to the ability of his estate to bear honestly the withdrawal without affecting the security of his creditors in this state. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868); Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874).

The removal of an insignificant amount of a debtor's property will not support an attachment. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

44. —Temporary Removal.

The mere taking of his property out of the state by a debtor, for a temporary purpose, to be returned, is not a removal from the state within the sense of the attachment laws. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868).

45. —Fraud or Injury Unnecessary.

Fraud or injury in the removal is not necessary to sustain attachment granted upon the ground that the defendant was about to remove, or had removed, himself or property from the state. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868); A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

46. —Debt Owing Nonresident Removed.

The removal of indebtedness owing by a debtor in Tennessee to the creditor or his assignee in a foreign state is a removal of property within the meaning of this statute. Dillingham v. Traders' Ins. Co., 120 Tenn. 302, 108 S.W. 1148, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 49, 16 L.R.A. (n.s.) 220 (1907).

47. —“About to Remove” as Ground.

“About to remove himself or property” is sufficient ground for attachment, when alleged in positive terms. Runyan v. Morgan, 26 Tenn. 210, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1846); Nelson v. Fuld, 89 Tenn. 466, 14 S.W. 1079, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Dec. 1891). See Phipps v. Burnett, 96 Tenn. 175, 33 S.W. 925, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1896).

The word “about” must be taken in its common acceptance — near to in the performance of some act. Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874).

48. — —Steamboats.

An attachment will lie on the ground that the defendant, the owner and master of a steamboat, is about to remove himself and the steamboat beyond the limits of the state, but the departure of a steamboat in the course of regular trips from a port in this state to a port in another state, and return, is not a removal from this state in the sense of the attachment laws. If a steamboat not engaged in a regular trade is about to be removed with the intention of a removal from the state, then the attachment will lie. Runyan v. Morgan, 26 Tenn. 210, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1846); Lyons v. Mason, 44 Tenn. 525, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1867).

49. —Evidence Under Declaration of “About to Remove.”

Upon the issue to the ground of attachment laid, that “the defendant is about to remove his property out of the state,” it is competent to prove that the defendant removed his property out of the state soon after the suing out of the attachment. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868).

To sustain the issue of “about to remove,” it is not necessary to show the actual removal. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868).

50. Removing or About to Remove from County Privately.

51. —Corporations.

A corporation was deemed a person within this provision. State v. Nashville Univ., 23 Tenn. 157, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1843).

52. —Openly Removing from One County to Another.

Where a person moves out of the county openly, and with a full knowledge of all his neighbors of his intended removal, and the place of his destination, an attachment is not authorized. Attachment does not lie where the defendant has openly moved, and has taken up his residence in another county in this state. Dunn v. Myres, 11 Tenn. 413, 11 Tenn. 414, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1832); Bank of Ala. v. Berry, 21 Tenn. 443, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1841).

53. Concealing or Absconding.

54. —Kind of Concealment Required.

Concealment of a debtor which will justify an attachment must be clandestine and intentional, and for the purpose of evading service of legal process. Farmers & Traders Bank v. Evans, 95 Tenn. 702, 34 S.W. 2, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1895).

55. —Property Concealed — Sufficiency of Allegation.

An allegation that the defendant is “concealing his property and effects” is sufficient for an attachment, without an allegation that he is absconding or concealing himself, as the removal or concealment of the debtor's property is a substantive ground of attachment. Boyd v. Buckingham & Co., 29 Tenn. 434, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1850).

56. —Absconding — Sufficiency of Allegation.

The charge that the defendant “hath absconded or conceals himself from said county” does not authorize an attachment. Conrad v. McGee, 17 Tenn. 428, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1836).

To abscond, in a legal sense, means to hide, conceal, or absent one's self clandestinely, with intent to avoid legal process. A charge that the defendant is “about to abscond” is not sufficient cause. Bennett v. Avant, 34 Tenn. 152, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1854).

57. —“Concealing” — Proof.

Statement of defendant that he was going to sell everything and leave the place of his residence, and that if plaintiff got a judgment he would be able to collect nothing, was sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff under plea in abatement to attachment based on concealment of property. Wilson v. Bryant, 167 Tenn. 107, 67 S.W.2d 133, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1934).

58. Fraudulent Disposal.

59. —Chancery Jurisdiction.

Where judgment creditor and judgment debtor were residents of Florida, and debtor sought fraudulently to convey property located in Tennessee in order to defeat the judgment, chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction of action to set conveyance aside. Anderson v. Stribling, 160 Tenn. 453, 26 S.W.2d 131, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1930).

60. —Suit in Equity Unnecessary.

The creditor may treat a fraudulent sale as void and attach the property. No suit in equity is necessary. Cryer v. Mayfield, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 537 (1914).

61. —Defendant About to Convey Away His Property as Ground.

An attachment by bill, which simply seeks to subject certain land of the debtor, upon the ground that the defendant is about to convey away his property fraudulently, is an attachment under this statute. Tarbox v. Tonder, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1873).

62. —“About” Defined — Sufficiency of Charge.

The word “about” is defined, in the sense of the attachment laws, to be “near to in action, or near to in the performance of some act.” To authorize an attachment on the ground that the defendant is about fraudulently to dispose of his property, the charge, if not in the words of the statute, must import that defendant is on the eve of such fraudulent disposition of his property, and the charge that the defendant will dispose of his property in order to defraud his creditors, is not sufficient. Jackson v. Burke, 51 Tenn. 610, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 211 (1871); Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874).

63. —Fraudulent Transfer — Facts Not Constituting.

That complainant has reason to believe, and does believe, that defendant will convey and dispose of his groceries, in order to defraud his creditors, shows no sufficient grounds for an attachment. Jackson v. Burke, 51 Tenn. 610, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 211 (1871); Brown v. Crenshaw, 64 Tenn. 584, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1875); Nelson v. Fuld, 89 Tenn. 466, 14 S.W. 1079, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Dec. 1891); Phipps v. Burnett, 96 Tenn. 175, 33 S.W. 925, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1896).

It is not a fraudulent transfer of an individual merchant's property, for which attachment lies, where he places part of his stock in a nearby town in partnership with another, provided the partnership was a fair one and there was a valuable consideration, no purpose to cheat creditors appearing. Mack v. Jones, 31 F. 189, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2585 (W.D. Tenn. 1887).

Allegation that a debtor has or is about to fraudulently convey is not sustained by proof of a financial statement if that be so generally true that it fairly represents his condition, nor by proof that a successful merchant bought imprudently, where creditors pressed goods on him, nor by proof that a few articles were sold at or below cost to attract customers. Mack v. Jones, 31 F. 189, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2585 (W.D. Tenn. 1887).

64. —Apprehension and Belief Insufficient.

A simple apprehension and belief that the defendant is about fraudulently to dispose of his property is not sufficient ground for an attachment. The law requires the allegation of an act accomplished or about to be accomplished, as a matter of fact. Brown v. Crenshaw, 64 Tenn. 584, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1875); Nelson v. Fuld, 89 Tenn. 466, 14 S.W. 1079, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Dec. 1891).

The allegation that the complainant is informed and believes that the defendant is about to remove his property beyond the limits of the state, or an allegation in the affidavit that the creditor “is informed and believes” that his debtor “has fraudulently disposed of or is about fraudulently to dispose of his property,” without averring, as a matter of fact, that the debtor had made, or was about to make, such fraudulent disposition, is insufficient for the issuance of an attachment. Nelson v. Fuld, 89 Tenn. 466, 14 S.W. 1079, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Dec. 1891).

65. —Insufficient Allegations — Examples.

An allegation “that defendants, in conveying their property, will endeavor to defeat the collection of complainant's debt that they have avoided, and, as he believes, they intend, by future and fraudulent conveyances and transfers, to evade and avoid payment of his debt” is not ground for issuing the attachment writ. McHaney v. Cawthorn, 51 Tenn. 508, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (1871); Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874).

An affidavit which states the ground for an attachment to the best of the affiant's knowledge and belief is sufficient. Phipps v. Burnett, 96 Tenn. 175, 33 S.W. 925, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1896).

66. Person Dying Out of State.

An attachment will lie against a nonresident decedent's estate here. Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

67. —Administrator as Party.

It was intimated, but not decided, that the administrator of the nonresident decedent is not a necessary party, under this statute, but it was adjudged that the attachment was good, though the administrator was only made a party by an amendment or amended bill. Alston v. Sharp, 70 Tenn. 515, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1879).

68. —Insolvent Estate Attached.

Where the creditor of an insolvent estate, prior to the suggestion of insolvency, attached, under this statute, the assets of the estate here, he is not entitled to priority of satisfaction in the settlement of the estate, and the subsequent suggestion of insolvency defeats the attachment lien. Bacchus v. Peters, 85 Tenn. 678, 4 S.W. 833, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1887). See Hubbard v. Epps, 2 Shan. 132 (1876).

69. State Immunity.

This chapter contains no provision whereby the legislature has manifested its consent to attachment proceedings brought against the state and such a suit must be dismissed. Brewington v. Brewington, 215 Tenn. 475, 387 S.W.2d 777, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 666 (1965).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 218-248.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 23-70.

Action based upon statute as one in which attachment will lie. 26 A.L.R. 563, 51 A.L.R. 1386.

Administrator's wrongful attachment, liability of estate for. 44 A.L.R. 674, 127 A.L.R. 687.

Alien enemy, attachment of property of. 147 A.L.R. 1309, 148 A.L.R. 1386, 149 A.L.R. 1454, 152 A.L.R. 1451, 153 A.L.R. 1419, 155 A.L.R. 1451, 156 A.L.R. 1448, 157 A.L.R. 1449.

Attachment and garnishment of funds in branch bank or main office of bank having branches. 12 A.L.R.3d 1088.

Attachment for goods or money embezzled, stolen, or converted. 4 A.L.R. 832.

Attachment in libel and slander cases. 11 A.L.R. 378, 61 A.L.R. 1347.

Attachment or garnishment as affected by trick or device by which the property of or indebtedness to nonresident was subjected to the jurisdiction. 37 A.L.R. 1255.

Attorney's compensation for services in attachment, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 788, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Bankruptcy, right to and form of judgment against one discharged in, in order to sustain attachment. 81 A.L.R. 81.

Death of grantee or transferee of property conveyed or transferred in fraud of creditors as affecting right of creditors of grantor or transferor to attach same. 116 A.L.R. 1196.

Divorce or alimony, jurisdiction on constructive service in suit for, to reach property within state as affected by attachment. 10 A.L.R.3d 212.

Duress, recovery upon ground of duress of money paid upon excessive or unfounded claim to avoid attachment. 18 A.L.R. 1233.

Equity suits, attachment statute as applicable to. 154 A.L.R. 95.

Excessive claim, attachment as affected by. 68 A.L.R. 853.

Foreign attachment or garnishment as available in action by nonresident against nonresident or foreign corporation upon a foreign cause of action. 14 A.L.R.2d 420.

Foreign corporation as a nonresident for purposes of attachment law of state in which it is doing business or is domesticated. 114 A.L.R. 1378.

Funds in hands of his attorney as subject of attachment or garnishment by client's creditor. 35 A.L.R.3d 1094.

Information, and belief, affidavits stating grounds of attachment on. 86 A.L.R. 588.

Intent to defraud or delay creditors as inferable as matter of law from fact that debtor has removed, or is about to remove, property from the state without making adequate provision for his creditors. 92 A.L.R. 966.

Interstate shipment, attachment under state law of railroad property in suit involving. 64 A.L.R. 359.

Inverse order of alienation, rule as to, on sale to subject land to lien of attachment. 131 A.L.R. 42.

Joint bank account as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution by creditor of one of the joint depositors. 11 A.L.R.3d 1465.

Judgment, attack upon attachment after, because of defects or irregularities. 129 A.L.R. 779.

Maintainability of replevin or similar possessory action where defendant, at time action is brought, is no longer in possession of property. 97 A.L.R.2d 896.

Maintenance of replevin or similar possessory remedy by cotenant, or security transaction creditor thereof, against other cotenants. 93 A.L.R.2d 358.

Marketability of title as affected by attachment. 57 A.L.R. 1406, 81 A.L.R.2d 1020.

Mechanic's lien as waived by attachment. 65 A.L.R. 316.

Mere possession in plaintiff as basis of action for wrongful attachment. 150 A.L.R. 239.

Money only, what constitutes an action for recovery of, within statutes as to character of actions in which attachment may issue. 76 A.L.R. 1446.

Potential liability of insurer under liability policy as subject of attachment. 33 A.L.R.3d 992.

Practice of law by corporation, procuring attachment proceedings as. 73 A.L.R. 1335, 105 A.L.R. 1364, 157 A.L.R. 282.

Recovery of damages for mental anguish, distress, suffering, or the like, in action for wrongful attachment, garnishment, sequestration, or execution. 83 A.L.R.3d 598.

Release or modification of lien to which property was subject when attachment was levied, effect of. 128 A.L.R. 1392.

Residence of partnership for purposes of statutes authorizing attachment on ground of nonresidence. 9 A.L.R.2d 471.

Seal as necessary to authentication of attachment. 30 A.L.R. 734.

Stoppage in transitu, termination of right of, by seizure of goods in possession of carrier under attachment. 7 A.L.R. 1408.

Third person, attachment of property conveyed by, to another third person, upon consideration furnished by debtor. 91 A.L.R. 741.

Trick or device by which property of nonresident was subjected to jurisdiction. 37 A.L.R. 1255.

Vendee's or optionee's interest in respect of real property, lien or attachment on, as attaching to title acquired by completion of contract or exercise of option. 85 A.L.R. 929.

What constitutes malice sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages in action for wrongful attachment or garnishment. 61 A.L.R.3d 984.

What constitutes nonresidence for purpose of attachment. 26 A.L.R. 180.

What is an action for “debt” within attachment or garnishment statute. 12 A.L.R.2d 787.

Worker's Compensation Act, attachment to enforce award (or judgment thereon), under. 126 A.L.R. 150.

Attachment 110-115.

29-6-102. Debts not due.

An attachment may, in like manner, be sued out upon debts or demands not due, in any of the cases mentioned in § 29-6-101, except the first; that is, when the debtor or defendant resides out of the state.

Code 1858, § 3456 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 50, §§ 1, 3); Shan., § 5213; Code 1932, § 9400; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-602.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nonresidence — Insufficiency of Grounds.

In an action ex contractu, an original attachment writ shall not issue for debts or demands not due, where the sole ground of the attachment is the nonresidence of the debtor or defendant. If any other ground exists, it may issue, although the debt is not due, as well against a nonresident as against a resident. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Merchants Nat'l Bank v. McCarger, 56 Tenn. 401, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (1872).

2. Prematurity as Defense.

Where an attachment for debt not due at the commencement of the suit has been defeated by a plea in abatement, there can be no decree for the debt, if the prematurity of the suit be relied on as a defense in the answer. Pigue v. Young, 85 Tenn. 263, 1 S.W. 889, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1886); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891); Casey & Hedges Mfg. Co. v. Weatherly, 101 Tenn. 318, 47 S.W. 432, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1898).

3. Subsequent Attaching Creditors — Impeachment of Attachment.

Subsequent attaching creditors may impeach an attachment for defects appearing on the face of the proceedings, as where the attachment was issued on the ground of the nonresidence of the defendant, to collect and secure debts not due; and, also, where the debtor and attaching creditor resided in the same foreign state, though this fact is not apparent on the face of the proceedings, and no affidavit was made by the attaching creditor, as required by § 29-6-109. Bank of Rome v. Haselton, 83 Tenn. 216, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1885).

4. Knowledge of Proceedings — Effect.

While a debt not due is not enforceable by attachment, if the defendant knew of the proceeding and failed to defend on the ground of immaturity of the debt, he may not impeach a decree based thereon, so far as the property attached is concerned. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

While an attachment based on a debt not due at the time the bill was filed and an affidavit of nonresidence was upheld as to property levied on where defendant had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to defend, a personal judgment was not enforceable as such, there being no service of process. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896).

5. Successful Defendant — Liability for Costs.

Where a successful defendant in an attachment suit, by his conduct and misrepresentations, though innocently made, induced the complainant to believe that he had good cause for attachment, he may be taxed with costs. Pigue v. Young, 85 Tenn. 263, 1 S.W. 889, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1886).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 56-59.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 15, 86.

What is an action for “debt” within attachment statute. 12 A.L.R.2d 787.

What sort of claim, obligation, or liability is within contemplation of statute providing for attachment, or giving right of action for indemnity, before a debt or liability is due. 58 A.L.R.2d 1451.

Attachment 24.

29-6-103. Endorser or surety.

Any accommodation endorser or surety may, in like manner, sue out an attachment against the property of such endorsor's or surety's principal, as a security for the liability, whether the debt on which the accomodation endorsed or surety is bound be due or not.

Code 1858, § 3457 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 8); Shan., § 5214; Code 1932, § 9401; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-603.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 13, 129; 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, §§ 17, 18; 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 32.

Cited: Thurman v. Jenkins, 61 Tenn. 426, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 199 (1873); McBee v. Bearden, 75 Tenn. 731, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (1881); Williamson Leasing Co. v. Kephart, 627 S.W.2d 683, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

This statute must be liberally construed in favor of the remedy of endorsers and sureties. Burrough v. Brooks, 40 Tenn. 392, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1859).

2. Sureties on Guardian Bond Suing.

Where a debtor has conveyed by deed of trust and covered his property to avoid the effect of attachment suits pending against him, he has an equitable estate or equity existing in the property which the unsecured sureties on his guardian bond may attach to enforce their claim for indemnity against loss for their liability on such bond. Howell v. Cobb, 42 Tenn. 104, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 26, 88 Am. Dec. 591 (1865); Greene v. Starnes, 48 Tenn. 582, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1870); Saylors v. Saylors, 50 Tenn. 525, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1871); Miller v. Speed, 56 Tenn. 196, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (1872); Howell v. Thompson, 95 Tenn. 396, 32 S.W. 309, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1895).

3. Subsequent Endorser Against Prior Endorser.

This statute does not authorize an attachment by a subsequent accommodation endorser against a prior accommodation endorser for the same principal, for the prior endorser is not a “principal” of the subsequent endorser, within the meaning of this statute. Turner v. Newman, 23 Tenn. 329, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1843); Union Bank v. Newman, 23 Tenn. 330, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1843).

4. Sale of Property Attached.

The sureties of a guardian may attach his property, as indemnity for their liability, before they have paid the same, and unless he will give security satisfactory to the court to indemnify the sureties, the attached property will be decreed to be sold, and the funds applied to the payment of the liability of such guardian. Howell v. Cobb, 42 Tenn. 104, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 26, 88 Am. Dec. 591 (1865).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 61, 222.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 20, 21.

Attachment 16.

29-6-104. Judgment postponed until debt due.

No final judgment or decree shall be rendered upon attachment under § 29-6-102 or § 29-6-103, until the debt or demand upon which it is based becomes due; nor shall any property levied upon thereby be sold, until final judgment or decree, except property of a perishable nature, which may be sold as in other attachment cases.

Code 1858, § 3458 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 50, § 1); Shan., § 5215; Code 1932, § 9402; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-604.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 5.

Cited: In re Elrod, 42 B.R. 468, 1984 B.R. LEXIS 5206 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984).

Collateral References. Judgment 210.

29-6-105. Discharge on giving bond.

The attachment by endorser or surety shall be discharged, if the principal will give bond and security, to be approved by the court, in term time, or its clerk in vacation, to indemnify the plaintiff.

Code 1858, § 3459 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 8); Shan., § 5216; Code 1932, § 9403; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-605.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 13.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 523-526, 544.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 305.

Attachment 261-264.

29-6-106. Tort actions.

  1. In all actions for torts, brought in any court having jurisdiction thereof, where the defendant is a nonresident of this state, or falls within any of the provisions of § 29-6-101 authorizing attachment to issue, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff to commence such suit by attachment in the same manner as suits are commenced upon contracts by existing laws.
  2. The plaintiff or plaintiff's agent or attorney shall first make affidavit before the judge or clerk issuing the attachment that the damages sued for are justly due the plaintiff, as affiant believes, but that the true amount of such damages are not ascertained, and that one (1) or more of the causes exist for the issuance of the attachment.
  3. The plaintiff, plaintiff's agent or attorney, shall give bond with one or more approved securities in double the supposed amount of the damages claimed, unless otherwise fixed, payable to defendant, and conditioned as now provided by law in attachment cases.
  4. It is the duty of the judge or clerk, before whom the affidavit is made and bond given, to issue the attachment, returnable as in other attachment cases upon contracts.

Acts 1865-1866, ch. 22, §§ 1, 2; Shan., §§ 5211a1, 5211a2; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9397, 9398; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-606.

Cross-References. Names included in process, § 21-1-202.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 28, 148.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: Gray v. Houck, 167 Tenn. 233, 68 S.W.2d 117, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934); Dickson v. Simpson, 172 Tenn. 680, 113 S.W.2d 1190, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 113, 116 A.L.R. 380 (1937).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court.

This statute did not enlarge the powers of the circuit court nor confer on it authority to entertain procedure authorized by § 9406 of the 1932 Code which was cognizable only in courts of chancery. Lamb v. Quigg, 166 Tenn. 365, 61 S.W.2d 466, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1932).

2. Money Due Nonresident for Services Rendered Out of State.

Money due to a nonresident for services rendered out of state to a foreign corporation can be subjected to attachment and garnishment in the hands of that corporation in Tennessee by a local creditor of the nonresident where the foreign corporation has an office or agency in this state and is amenable to process here and this is true even though the claim is for damages arising out of tort. Burnett v. Simmons, 175 Tenn. 422, 135 S.W.2d 452, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1939).

3. Attestation of Affidavit.

Where suit against nonresident was by original attachment in circuit court for damages for tort committed by defendant, court properly sustained defendant's motion to quash the attachment because the affidavit in support of the writ was verified by oath attested by notary public instead of by the clerk who issued the writ. Campbell v. Brady, 158 Tenn. 98, 11 S.W.2d 687, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (1928).

4. Pauper's Oath.

An action in tort commenced by original attachment under the provisions of this section may be properly brought upon the pauper oath. Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938).

The fact that replevin cannot be had on pauper oath is immaterial on the question of whether or not a suit in tort commenced on original attachment under this section can be commenced on pauper oath since in attachment the property is not turned over to the plaintiff and may be replevied by the defendant. Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 40, 50-54.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 10.

Attachment 7.

29-6-107. Return of summons unserved.

  1. In any civil action, when the summons has been returned “not to be found in my county,” as to all or any one of the defendants, residents of the county, the plaintiff may have an alias and pluries summons for the defendant, or, at plaintiff's election, sue out attachment against the estate of such defendant.
  2. Upon the return of the attachment levied on any property of the defendant, the cause proceeds against such defendant in all respects as if originally commenced by attachment.

Code 1858, §§ 3466, 3467 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 17); Shan., §§ 5226, 5227; Code 1932, §§ 9413, 9414; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-607.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 328, 340.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 2, 46, 122, 125; 21 Tenn. Juris., Process, § 15.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Where, after several unsuccessful attempts to secure service of process on a debtor, the creditor proceeded to effect attachment and garnishment of the debtor's wages under this section and § 29-7-101, which do not provide notice or hearing prior to the issuance of the writ, the court held that the opportunity given for ultimate judicial determination was adequate and that mere postponement of such judicial determination did not constitute a denial of procedural due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14, § 1. Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974), aff'd, 425 U.S. 927, 96 S. Ct. 1656, 48 L. Ed. 2d 170, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 1289 (1976).

2. Restrictions on Use of Attachment.

Attachment of property is not the ordinary mode of obtaining jurisdiction, but it is extraordinary, and not to be resorted to when personal service can be had in order to obtain jurisdiction. Green v. Snyder, 114 Tenn. 100, 84 S.W. 808, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1905).

Attachment statutes are liberally construed as to the remedy once jurisdiction is obtained, but insofar as they prescribe the causes for which attachment may issue they are very strictly construed. Willshire v. Frees, 184 Tenn. 523, 201 S.W.2d 675, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1947).

3. Defendant's Residence in County — Necessity.

If the sheriff's return shows that the defendant resides in another county, a judicial attachment will not lie. Slatton v. Jonson, 5 Tenn. 196, 5 Tenn. 197, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1817).

The right of suit in all transitory actions follows, but does not precede, the person of the defendant so that jurisdiction is not acquired where such suit is brought against one not a resident of the county and not actually within the county when and where the suit is instituted, and such suit may be abated on plea of defendant. Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Nashville v. Webb, 114 Tenn. 432, 85 S.W. 404, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1905), superseded by statute as stated in, Five Star Express v. Davis, 866 S.W.2d 944, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. 1993).

4. Change of Residence — Effect.

If defendant were a resident and subject to be served with the ordinary process of law, when the suit was commenced, he cannot, by a subsequent change of residence, whether for the mere purpose of evading service or in good faith, defeat the plaintiff's right to a judicial attachment. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

5. Temporary Absence — Effect.

The mere temporary absence of the defendant, for a lawful purpose and without any purpose to evade the process, is no ground for a judicial attachment. Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

6. Levy of Judicial Attachment and Publication — Effect.

Without both levy and publication in due form, a judicial attachment will not support a judgment, unless the defendant shall appear. Ingle v. McCurry, 48 Tenn. 26, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1870); Bains v. Perry, 69 Tenn. 37, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1878).

The judicial attachment, when all the requirements of the statutes are observed, performs the functions of both a summons and attachment, if followed by publication duly made according to law, but the record must affirmatively show the levy of the attachment and publication as required, and judgment without personal service of process or the publication prescribed by statute is void. Ingle v. McCurry, 48 Tenn. 26, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1870); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Bains v. Perry, 69 Tenn. 37, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1878); Wooten v. Daniel, 84 Tenn. 156, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1885).

7. Court Order Unnecessary.

No order of the court is necessary to authorize the clerk to issue alias and pluries summons. Cherry v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 84 Tenn. 292, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1886).

8. Mode of Evasion of Service — Unimportance.

It cannot be of the slightest importance, in view of this remedy, in what way, or by what artifice, the service of process is evaded by the defendant, whether by concealment in the county of his residence, or in a different county, or by a change of residence to another state. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

9. Return as Showing Statutory Facts.

In judicial attachments prescribed statutory facts are made to appear upon the record by the officer's return on the summons. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

10. Return of “Not to be Found in My County” — Effect.

The return implies that the residence of the defendant is in the county, and that the sheriff has been at his place of abode; and if these are not the facts, the return is a false one, and subjects the sheriff to an action for a false return. He should return the truth of the case, either that the defendant is not an inhabitant of his county, or that he resides in another county, naming it, if such be the case. Slatton v. Jonson, 5 Tenn. 196, 5 Tenn. 197, 1817 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1817); Grewar v. Henderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 76 (1872); Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

The language of the return imports that, after diligent inquiry and search by the sheriff, at the usual residence of the defendant and elsewhere, he is not to be found, being either actually absent from the county, or having concealed himself, so as to avoid the service of process. Welch v. Robinson, 29 Tenn. 264, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1849); Grewar v. Henderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 76 (1872); Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

Return “not to be found in my county” implies that the defendant is an inhabitant of this state at the time of the institution of the suit and that his residence is in the county in which the suit is commenced, and that he evades the service of process. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851); Grewar v. Henderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 76 (1872); Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

11. —Insufficient Return.

A judicial attachment is only authorized by the precise return provided by the statute. A return “The defendant not found in my county” does not give the court jurisdiction to issue such writ. Welch v. Robinson, 29 Tenn. 264, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1849); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891).

12. —Insufficient Facts to Justify Return.

Where deputy serving a personal summons called at residence of defendant several times but never found her home and made no inquiry as to where she could be found, a return “after diligent search and inquiry not found,” and attachment issued pursuant to such return was void, and trial court erred in not dismissing defendant's plea in abatement where evidence showed that defendants was in her home every evening and in her place of business every day, and had no notice until she saw publication notice in the paper. Willshire v. Frees, 184 Tenn. 523, 201 S.W.2d 675, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1947).

13. Original or Ancillary Attachment — Effect of Levy.

The levy of alias and pluries attachments, whether original or ancillary, and the officer's return thereon, and publication thereafter made, has the effect to bring the defendant, in legal contemplation, before the court, and confers jurisdiction necessary to authorize it to proceed to final judgment; and the plaintiff is not bound to resort to an alias or pluries summons, or judicial attachment. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865).

14. Abatement of Attachment.

A judicial attachment, as well as the alias or pluries process, may be abated upon a plea denying the truth of the officer's such return. Examples of such pleas held to be sufficient. Grewar v. Henderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 76 (1872); Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Robson v. Hunter, 90 Tenn. 242, 16 S.W. 466, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1891). See James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851).

If the defendant was not, in fact, a resident of the county when the suit was instituted, the return is false, and if alias summons issued thereon is served on the defendant, he may, notwithstanding the false return, abate the suit, on the plea that he was not a resident of the county, nor, in fact, in the county, at the time it was instituted. Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886). See Smyth v. Moffett, 6 Tenn. App. 381, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 158 (1927).

A plea in abatement was the proper method of reaching and quashing a writ of attachment where the return was false. Smyth v. Moffett, 6 Tenn. App. 381, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 158 (1927); Willshire v. Frees, 184 Tenn. 523, 201 S.W.2d 675, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1947).

15. —Insufficient Plea in Abatement.

A plea in abatement to a judicial attachment, which alleges that the defendant was not a resident of the state, at the time of its issuance, is bad in substance, because it does not allege that he was a nonresident at the commencement of the suit. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 19.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 68.

Attachment 318-329.

29-6-108. Property of nonresidents.

No judicial attachment shall issue against the estate of any person residing without the limits of the state, unless such process is grounded on an original attachment, or unless the leading process in the suit has been executed on the person of the defendant when within the state.

Code 1858, § 3468 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 23); Shan., § 5228; Code 1932, § 9415; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-608.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 125.

Law Reviews.

Domestic Relations — 1960 Tennessee Survey (William J. Harbison), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1121.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Where an original attachment has been issued and levied on the property of a nonresident, and publication has been made as required by law, a judicial attachment may be issued to attach other or additional property discovered, or, where the leading process has been served on the nonresident defendant while within the jurisdiction of the court, a judicial attachment may be issued to attach any property here that may be discovered. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851).

This section has no relation to § 29-6-107, which refers to residents of this state at the time the action was commenced, but applies only to nonresidents. James v. Hall, 31 Tenn. 297, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1851).

2. Effect of Statute.

This section as applied to sales of land by sheriff on execution changed the common law requirements that owner out of possession of land claimed by another adversely could not execute a valid deed to the property and as a result a deed executed by sheriff on an execution against owner out of possession passed good title though another person was in possession claiming adversely to the debtor. Park's Lessee v. Larkin, 1 Tenn. 101, 1805 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1799).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 219-230, 250.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 95, 98.

Foreign attachment or garnishment as able in action by nonresident against nonresident or foreign corporation upon a foreign cause of action. 14 A.L.R.2d 420.

Foreign corporation as a nonresident for purposes of attachment law of state in which it is doing business or is domesticated. 114 A.L.R. 1378.

Residence of partnership for purposes of statutes authorizing attachment on ground of nonresidence. 9 A.L.R.2d 471.

What constitutes nonresidence for purpose of attachment. 26 A.L.R. 180.

Judgment 17(11).

29-6-109. Parties residents of same foreign state.

When the debtor and creditor, tort-claimant and tort-feasor, are both nonresidents of this state, and residents of the same state, the creditor or claimant shall not have attachment against the property of the debtor, or the tort-defendant unless the creditor or claimant swears that the property of the latter has been fraudulently removed to this state to evade the process of law in the state of domicile or residence.

Acts 1870-1871, ch. 122, § 1; Shan., § 5212; mod. Code 1932, § 9399; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-609.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 339.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 6, 26, 114, 117; 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 102.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature and Effect of Statute.

The statute in this section was an amendment to the general attachment laws and especially was it intended to be amendatory to the whole of § 29-6-101, and applicable to subsection (7) thereof. Merchant v. Preston, 69 Tenn. 280, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1878); Bryan v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Tenn. 349, 104 S.W. 523, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1907).

The statute compiled in this section was intended to require the additional ground for attachment that the property of the debtor had been fraudulently removed to this state to evade the process of law in the state of the domicile or residence of both parties when they were both nonresidents of this state. Merchant v. Preston, 69 Tenn. 280, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1878). See Beasley v. Parker, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 47 (1875); White v. Monahan, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 195 (1912).

The provisions of this section do not either expressly or by implication deny foreign creditors the right to sue their debtors in personam when found within this state. Phillips v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 183 Tenn. 266, 191 S.W.2d 554, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1946).

This section does not bar suit in circuit court by foreign corporation against Florida resident on a judgment secured in Florida where suit was in personam and not in rem. Phillips v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 183 Tenn. 266, 191 S.W.2d 554, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1946).

Under this section a nonresident corporation cannot commence suit by attachment against another nonresident corporation. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

2. Chancery Jurisdiction.

Though the debtor and creditor are nonresidents of this state, and both are residents of the same state, our chancery courts have jurisdiction under § 16-11-107, independently of the attachment laws, and notwithstanding this section, to aid such creditor to subject such debtor's real or personal property situate in this state to the payment of his debt, where the creditor has exhausted his legal remedy in the state of their common residence. Taylor v. Badoux, 92 Tenn. 249, 21 S.W. 522, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1893); Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Matherwell Iron & Steel Co., 95 Tenn. 172, 31 S.W. 1002, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 75, 29 L.R.A. 164 (1895); Bryan v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Tenn. 349, 104 S.W. 523, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1907).

Where a nonresident loaned money to another nonresident, on the borrower's promise to repay the loan out of funds then in, or to come into, the hands of persons in Tennessee, for the borrower, such promise amounted to an equitable appropriation of an appropriate portion of such funds, which equity would enforce in this state. Allison v. Pearce, 59 S.W. 192, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 77 (1900).

3. Fraudulent Removal — Necessity of Averment.

A nonresident creditor cannot subject the claim of his nonresident debtor residing in the same state, on a judgment recovered by such debtor in this state against his debtor, in the absence of allegation that such claim had been fraudulently removed. Brown v. Pace, 49 S.W. 355, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 123 (1898).

This section comprehends actions by nonresidents who are seeking to impound property in this state for the satisfaction of damages claimed for a tort, and the omission of an averment in the affidavit that the property sought to be attached was removed to this state to evade the process of the law in the state of their domicile is fatal to the validity of the attachment. Bryan v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Tenn. 349, 104 S.W. 523, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1907).

In suit by wife for support where bill showed on its face that husband and wife were nonresidents of Tennessee and residents of same state, attachment would not lie against Tennessee farm land even if otherwise proper since bill did not allege under oath that property was removed to Tennessee to evade the service of process in state of residence of parties. Pierce v. Pierce, 204 Tenn. 659, 325 S.W.2d 253, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (1959).

4. Lack of Oath — Effect.

The absence of the oath required by this section is a fatal defect to the attachment. Bank of Rome v. Haselton, 83 Tenn. 216, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1885); Bryan v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Tenn. 349, 104 S.W. 523, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1907).

5. Amendment of Void Affidavit.

An attempt to amend a void affidavit cannot supply jurisdiction. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

6. Heirs of Debtor and Creditor Resident of Same Foreign State.

If the creditor and debtor, or the widow and heirs of the creditor, if he be dead, are residents of the same state, and nonresidents of Tennessee, this statute is applicable, but an attachment will not lie under § 29-6-101(7), without alleging and showing the additional ground required by this section. Merchant v. Preston, 69 Tenn. 280, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1878).

7. Attacking General Assignment.

A nonresident creditor may attack his nonresident debtor's general assignment for want of registration in this state, and by attachment of the property embraced therein, which is situated in this state, obtain priority over the assignment. Douglas v. Bank of Commerce, 97 Tenn. 133, 36 S.W. 874, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1896).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 69.

Attachment 25.

29-6-110. Jurisdiction of courts.

Suits by original attachment may be brought in any court, or before any magistrate, having jurisdiction of the cause of action.

Code 1858, § 3460 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19; 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 1; 1837-1838, ch. 166; 1851-1852, ch. 177); Shan., § 5217; Code 1932, § 9404; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-610.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 13-39.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 91.

Equity jurisdiction to sequester, seize or otherwise provisionally secure, assets for application upon money demand which has not been reduced to judgment. 116 A.L.R. 270.

In personam jurisdiction over nonresident based on ownership, use, possession, or sale of real property. 4 A.L.R.4th 955.

Interstate shipment, attachment under state law of railroad property in suit involving. 64 A.L.R. 359.

Jurisdictional amount in suit for attachment by several claimants. 72 A.L.R. 205.

Service of process in attachment proceeding on foreign corporation doing business in state. 113 A.L.R. 140.

Trick or device by which property of nonresident was subjected to jurisdiction. 37 A.L.R. 1255.

Attachment 66-76.

29-6-111. Attachment by chancery on legal debts.

Any person may also sue out an attachment in the chancery court, upon debts or demands of a purely legal nature, except causes of action founded on torts, without first having recovered a judgment at law, whenever the amount in controversy is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.

Code 1858, § 3461 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 1; 1837-1838, ch. 166, § 1); Shan., § 5218; Code 1932, § 9405; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-611.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 119.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 4, 25, 86, 112.

Law Reviews.

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Cited: Isaacks v. Edwards, 26 Tenn. 465, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1846); Wilson v. Beadle, 39 Tenn. 510, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (1859); W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Section on Equity Jurisdiction.

This section and § 29-6-132 greatly enlarge and extend the remedy by original attachment; but, when properly construed, they do not alter the fundamental principles of equity jurisdiction, nor do they destroy the long established rules which distinguish the proceedings in courts of law and of equity. Lane v. Marshall, 48 Tenn. 30, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1870).

2. Nonresident Complainant.

Use of the words “any person” without limitation in this section necessitates the conclusion that the nonresident complainants may obtain relief by attachment under this section. Hall v. Jordan, 190 Tenn. 1, 227 S.W.2d 35, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1950), superseded by statute as stated in, Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

3. Statement of Grounds — Necessity.

Chancery jurisdiction of attachments is given by this statute, if the grounds for the attachment given in the statute are stated in the bill. Klepper v. Powell, 53 Tenn. 503, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 388 (1871).

4. Equity of Redemption — Attachment.

A general creditor, without judgment, may, by bill in chancery, attach the equity of redemption of a nonresident debtor and defendant in land, and subject it to the payment of his debt. Herndon v. Pickard, 73 Tenn. 702, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1880); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

5. Suit for Support of Children.

Under this section and § 29-6-101 nonresident wife was entitled to bring suit against nonresident husband in chancery by attachment of land for recovery of money expended for support of minor children under theory of quasi-contract without having recovered judgment at law. Hall v. Jordan, 190 Tenn. 1, 227 S.W.2d 35, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1950), superseded by statute as stated in, Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Collateral References. Attachment 68.

29-6-112. Officer granting attachment.

The attachment may be granted by any judge of the circuit, criminal, or special court, by any chancellor or judge of the court of general sessions, or by the clerk of the court to which the attachment is made returnable.

Code 1858, § 3463 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 11); Shan., § 5221; Code 1932, § 9408; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-612.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 119, 332, 633.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 107.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law — Pinsky v. Duncan: Due Process and the Death of a Prejudgment Attachment Statute, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 413 (1991).

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The provision authorizing the chancellor himself to issue the attachment is not in conflict with Tenn. Const., art. VI, § 12, requiring all writs to bear teste and to be signed by the respective clerks. Lyle v. Longley, 65 Tenn. 286, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1873).

2. Attachments in Aid of Suit.

Justices of the peace (now general sessions judges) have jurisdiction to issue ancillary attachments in aid of suits pending in the circuit court, just as upon original cause. Scott v. White, 1 Shan. 23 (1849).

Ancillary as well as original attachments may be issued by a justice (now general sessions judge), returnable to the circuit court. Thompson v. Carper, 30 Tenn. 542, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1851).

Attachments in aid of a suit must be issued from the same court which had jurisdiction of the plaintiff's demand. Brown v. Brown, 34 Tenn. 431, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1854).

3. Clerk's Jurisdiction.

The clerk of the court is authorized to issue the writ of attachment sued out upon the ground of the nonresidence of the defendant. Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

4. Statutory Attachments.

Chancery courts, circuit courts, and justices of the peace (now general sessions judges) are empowered to issue attachments of property in certain specific cases. These may be called statutory attachments and in the cases provided for they may be issued by the clerk and master without a fiat, or by the clerk of the circuit court, a circuit judge, a chancellor, or a justice of the peace. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 277.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 100.

Attachment 142.

29-6-113. Plaintiff's affidavit.

In order to obtain an attachment, the plaintiff, plaintiff's agent or attorney, shall make oath in writing, stating the nature and amount of the debt or demand, and that it is a just claim; or, if the action is for a tort, that the damages sued for are justly due the plaintiff or plaintiffs, as affiant believes, but that the true amount of such damages is not ascertained; and, also, that one (1) or more of the causes enumerated in § 29-6-101 exists.

Code 1858, § 3469 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19; 1837-1838, ch. 166, § 3); Acts 1865-1866, ch. 22, § 1; integrated in Shan., § 5229; Code 1932, § 9416; T.C.A (orig. ed.), § 23-613.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 119, 329, 407, 418.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 5, 26, 28, 70, 98, 111.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Constitutional Law — Pinsky v. Duncan: Due Process and the Death of a Prejudgment Attachment Statute, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 413 (1991).

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Cited: Smith v. Chris-More, Inc., 535 S.W.2d 863, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. 1976); Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Auer, 514 F. Supp. 631, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15593 (E.D. Tenn. 1977).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Although the Tennessee attachment statutes are to be liberally construed as a general rule, a strict construction is afforded to the attachment statutes insofar as prescribed causes for which attachment may issue; however, avoidance of an attachment on the basis of a mere technicality in the plaintiff's affidavit appears to be contrary to public policy in Tennessee. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

2. Person Making Affidavit.

An affidavit may be made by any member of a plaintiff firm, and where the affidavit merely recites that one of the firm of “Moody & Bigelow,” made oath and was subscribed “J. W. Moody & Bigelow,” and was duly attested, it was held that it sufficiently appeared that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to by J. W. Moody, a member. Moody & Bigelow v. Alter, Winston & Co., 59 Tenn. 142, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1873).

An attachment may be issued upon the oath of an agent or attorney, and his authority will be presumed, in the absence of evidence that he was not authorized to swear to the bill. Baker & Paul v. Huddleston, 62 Tenn. 1, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1873); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891).

3. Signing and Certifying — Necessity.

An affidavit neither signed nor certified is no affidavit. Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871).

4. Status of Affidavit — Parol Evidence to Vary.

The affidavit is the basis of the suit, and is a part of the record, and not subject to be aided or attacked by parol evidence. Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850); Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871).

5. Verified Bill as Affidavit.

Verified bill constitutes an affidavit for attachment, and dispenses with the necessity for a separate affidavit. Butterfeild v. Miller, 195 F. 200, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1362 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1912).

6. Sufficiency of Allegations.

Affidavit stating grounds of attachment to the best of affiant's knowledge and belief is sufficient. Bank of Ala. v. Berry, 21 Tenn. 443, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1841); Phipps v. Burnett, 96 Tenn. 175, 33 S.W. 925, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1896).

An affidavit for attachment, which does not state the nature of the debt, whether by note, bill of exchange, or a breach of contract, will not authorize the issuance of the writ. Sullivan v. Fugate, 48 Tenn. 20, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1870); Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872); Sherry v. Divine, 58 Tenn. 722, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (1872); Willey v. Roirden, 61 Tenn. 227, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 363 (1872); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874); Alston v. Sharp, 70 Tenn. 515, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1879).

Affidavit for attachment stating that the defendant “is justly indebted” to the plaintiff is equivalent to the statement that the demand or debt is “a just claim,” for a bill or affidavit for attachment stating facts showing the claim to be just is sufficient, without stating in the very words that it is “a just claim.” Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874); Alston v. Sharp, 70 Tenn. 515, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1879); Hart, Teneray & Co. v. N.T. Dixon & Bro., 73 Tenn. 336, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 133 (1880); Lowenstine v. Gillespie, 74 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1881).

Affidavit stating that creditor “is informed and believes” that defendant company “have fraudulently or are about fraudulently to dispose of their property” and without the averment that defendant company had done the one or was about to do the other was insufficient. Nelson v. Fuld, 89 Tenn. 466, 14 S.W. 1079, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Dec. 1891).

An affidavit for an attachment, reciting that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff “in the sum of $1,500, debt and damages by open account,” is not defective as leaving the amount sued for indefinite by the use of the term “damages,” that word, from its connection, being construed to mean merely interest. Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

Attachment was improperly issued in divorce case even though a divorce case is considered a proceeding in chancery where neither statutory grounds were alleged for attachment or the inherent jurisdiction of the court as a court of equity invoked. Humphreys v. Humphreys, 39 Tenn. App. 99, 281 S.W.2d 270, 1954 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (1954), superseded by statute as stated in, Moore v. Moore, — S.W.2d —, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 869 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 1991).

7. Insufficient Affidavit — Effect on Proceedings.

If the affidavit be defective and is not amended, the proceedings will be void. Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850); New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

A judgment before a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), based on an insufficient affidavit for the attachment, with attachment levied on land, will not authorize the condemnation of the land, and the suit should be dismissed. Sullivan v. Fugate, 48 Tenn. 20, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1870).

An attachment issued upon an insufficient affidavit, and all proceedings based thereon, without appearance, are void. Sullivan v. Fugate, 48 Tenn. 20, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1870); Sherry v. Divine, 58 Tenn. 722, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (1872).

Where the affidavit stated that the defendant was justly indebted to the plaintiff in a certain stated sum, without stating, in so many words, that it was a “just claim,” if the claim is a note, and is filed with the papers, and the land levied on in a suit before a justice (now general sessions judge), and judgment rendered, and the land condemned and sold in the circuit court, the proceedings cannot be collaterally impeached, though the judgment might have been reversed upon an appeal or writ of error. Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874).

8. Waiver of Insufficiency of Allegations.

Where the allegations for an attachment are insufficient, but there is an answer to the bill, and no steps taken, at the proper stage, to discharge the attachment, the insufficiency of the grounds for the attachment is waived by the answer, and the attachment will hold. Johnson v. Luckado, 59 Tenn. 270, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1873); West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882).

9. Amendment by Creditor.

Where, prior to the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff creditor made a motion to amend its affidavit supporting the attachment of the defendant debtor's property, and the plaintiff's request to amend merely involved the insertion of a punctuation mark (a semicolon) to clarify the plaintiff's averment concerning the imminency of the removal out of the state of defendant's equipment, the motion to amend would be granted. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

10. Amendment by Clerk.

A clerk who has issued an ancillary attachment without an affidavit or upon a void affidavit has no power to amend the proceedings, and such attachment will be quashed on motion of defendant, after verdict and judgment on the merits. Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871); Wiley v. Bennett, 68 Tenn. 581, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1877).

11. Priority Between Attachments.

An attachment issued regularly after the date of a levy of a previous defective attachment, before the amendment of the defect in the bill, is entitled to priority over the one first issued. Kendrick v. Mason, 62 S.W. 359, 1901 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1901).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 254-275, 427, 429, 441.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 106.

Attack upon attachment after judgment because of defects in affidavit. 129 A.L.R. 779.

Discharge of attachment, or bond for its dissolution, by subsequent amendment of pleadings or the writ. 74 A.L.R. 912.

Information and belief, affidavits stating grounds of attachment on. 86 A.L.R. 588.

Intent to defraud, sufficiency of affidavit respecting as against objection that it is a mere legal conclusion. 8 A.L.R.2d 578.

Jurat or signature of officer, omission of, from affidavit. 1 A.L.R. 1571, 116 A.L.R. 587.

Surety on bond given to prevent, or secure release of, attachment, right of, to attack attachment after recovery of judgment by plaintiff, on ground of defects in, or falsity of, affidavit. 89 A.L.R. 269.

Swearing to affidavit in attachment before unauthorized person as a defect curable by amendment. 91 A.L.R. 917.

Waiver of defects in affidavit. 72 A.L.R. 122.

Attachment 91.

29-6-114. Alternative statement of grounds.

It is no objection to the attachment that the bill, affidavit, or attachment states in the alternative, or otherwise, more than one (1) of the causes for which attachment may be sued out.

Code 1858, § 3470 (deriv. Acts 1843-1844, ch. 29, § 4); Shan., § 5230; Code 1932, § 9417; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-614.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 13.

Cited: Lester v. Cummings, 27 Tenn. 385, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1847).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 266.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 126.

Attachment 115.

29-6-115. Plaintiff's bond.

The officer to whom application is made, shall, before granting the attachment, require the plaintiff, the plaintiff's agent or attorney, to execute a bond with sufficient security, payable to the defendant, and conditioned that the plaintiff will prosecute the attachment with effect, or, in case of failure, pay the defendant all costs that may be adjudged against defendant, and, also, all such damages as the defendant may sustain by the wrongful suing out of the attachment.

Code 1858, § 3471 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19); Shan., § 5231; mod. Code 1932, § 9418; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-615.

Cross-References. Clerk's fees, § 8-21-401.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 124, 331, 333.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 5, 33, 177, 179.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Constitutional Law — Pinsky v. Duncan: Due Process and the Death of a Prejudgment Attachment Statute, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 413 (1991).

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

Cited: Campbell v. Cresap, 166 Tenn. 75, 59 S.W.2d 523, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1932); Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Auer, 514 F. Supp. 631, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15593 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. State — Exemption from Requirement.

The state cannot be required to give an attachment bond, and no liability can be created on the part of persons purporting to execute such bond as sureties. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

2. Pauper Oath.

An attachment may be issued upon the pauper oath, although in an action for tort, and the attachment is ancillary to the summons in such case. Barber v. Denning, 36 Tenn. 267, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1856); Wiley v. Bennett, 68 Tenn. 581, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1877).

Section 20-12-127 setting forth the instances where the pauper oath is authorized must be construed in pari materia with the provision of this section requiring a security bond in attachment, and under § 20-12-127 both original and ancillary attachment may be had on the pauper oath. Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938).

3. Suit Not Requiring Bond.

The court did not err in failing to require statutory attachment bond under this section on part of plaintiffs where parties had agreed that garnishee hold $3,000 out of any funds that might be due the defendant. Tygart v. Frazer, 193 Tenn. 345, 246 S.W.2d 39, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 297 (1952).

4. Conditions in Bond Not According to Law.

The clerk has no authority to take an attachment bond conditioned otherwise than as required by law, or the fiat of the judge, and any condition beyond such requirement would be void, and be treated as surplusage, the bond being valid to the extent of its legal conditions. Ranning v. Reeves, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 263 (1875); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

5. Indemnity Clause Lacking.

The execution of a bond is a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of the attachment, and if it contains no clause of indemnity for wrongfully suing out the attachment, it is fatally defective, and the bill may properly be dismissed for such defect, on motion, but the bond may be amended, or a new bond given, on application to the court below. Bank of Ala. v. Fitzpatrick, 23 Tenn. 311, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1843); Alexander v. Lisby, 32 Tenn. 107, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1852); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rainey, 120 Tenn. 357, 113 S.W. 397, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1907).

6. Disappearance of Bond — Effect.

Disappearance of bond executed under judge's fiat is no ground for dissolving the attachment and accompanying injunctive order. Gribble v. Ford, 52 S.W. 1007, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898).

7. Signing of Bond — Effect as to Suit Against Surety.

Where the bond was conditioned to be void if the suit was prosecuted with effect, or if the plaintiff in the attachment should pay all such costs and damages as should be recoverable against him, in any suit or suits which might thereafter be brought, for wrongfully suing out the attachment, if the bond was not signed by plaintiff, suit cannot be maintained against the surety until such costs and damages have been ascertained by suit against such plaintiff; but if the bond was signed by the plaintiff, an action may be maintained on the bond against him and his sureties jointly. Smith v. Eakin, 34 Tenn. 456, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1854); Jennings v. Joiner & Norris, 41 Tenn. 645, 1861 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1861); Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

8. Procedure for Assessment of Damages.

Motion by defendant to hear proof and assess damages in proceeding at law was not proper, as the practice is to institute a separate suit. Lawing v. Schaufflu, 162 Tenn. 79, 34 S.W.2d 1055, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 85 A.L.R. 633 (1931).

9. Election as to Proceeding on Bond at Law or in Equity.

A party who brought, concurrently, an action at law upon an attachment bond against the principal obligor alone, and motions in equity against the principal obligor and his sureties and also against the sureties alone, should have been put to his election, upon the court's own motion, as to whether he will proceed at law or in equity. Kendrick v. Moss, 104 Tenn. 376, 104 Tenn. 576, 58 S.W. 127, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1900).

10. Joinder of Principal in Suit on Bond.

An action on an attachment bond should not be entertained against the sureties, without the joinder of their principal as a defendant. Kendrick v. Moss, 104 Tenn. 376, 104 Tenn. 576, 58 S.W. 127, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1900).

11. Rules Governing Damage Suit.

In action for damages for wrongful suing out of an attachment, defendant's contention that the rule applicable to suits for malicious prosecution of civil suits should apply was not available to him, where the attachment was levied upon property not belonging to the attachment defendant, and the real owner of the property was not made a party to the attachment. South Knoxville Contracting & Constr. Co. v. Brakebill, 10 Tenn. App. 325, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (1929).

The principles of the common law on the subject of actions for malicious prosecution suits apply to actions for damages for wrongful suing out of an attachment, and in order to recover, plaintiff must show malice and lack of probable cause, and a decision of the attachment suit in his favor. Boyce v. Early-Stratton Co., 10 Tenn. App. 545, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (1930).

12. Beneficiaries of Attachment Bond — Suit by.

The attachment bond will inure to the benefit of each and all of the several defendants who may be aggrieved by the wrongful suing out of the attachment, and, among others, to the benefit of the defendant whose property is attached as the property of the debtor, although the bond is made payable to one defendant named “et al.,” and the defendant suing was not the one named. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

If one defendant alone, in the attachment, is aggrieved, he may sue in his own name, with an averment in his declaration that the other defendants had no interest in the damages claimed, or he may sue in the name of all the defendants to the attachment for his use, and the suit may be continued in his own name if the other plaintiffs die, or if, at the instance of his adversary, the trial court compels him so to do. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

13. Assignee in Bankruptcy — Extent of Right to Sue for Damages.

The right of action for a wrongful attachment, as to injury and actual damages to the property, passes to the assignee in bankruptcy, but the right to recover damages personal to the defendant in the attachment, and vindictive damages, if the case be one for such, remains with the bankrupt; but the aggregate recoveries cannot exceed the penalty of the bond, when the action is on the bond. Doll v. Cooper, 77 Tenn. 576, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1882); Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

14. Judgment on Facts of Case as Bar to Suit on Bond.

A judgment in favor of the defendant in an action against him, on the facts of the case, for wrongful suing out of an attachment is conclusive between the parties, and may be relied on by the surety as res judicata in a subsequent suit against him. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883); Fowlkes v. State, 82 Tenn. 14, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1884).

15. Damages for Wrongful Attachment — Elements.

The measure of damages for the wrongful suing out of an attachment is (1) loss by injuring, detaining, or converting the property attached; (2) loss by injury to plaintiff's business, reputation, and credit, as where plaintiff is thrown into bankruptcy by the attachment; (3) vindictive damages based on the falsity or mala fides of the claim, wanton abuse of process, or express malice in suing out, levying, or continuing the attachment; and these constitute the recovery in an action on the attachment bond, as well as in the action at common law. Vindictive damages cannot be recovered unless the declaration avers malice. Doll v. Cooper, 77 Tenn. 576, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1882); Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883). See South Knoxville Contracting & Constr. Co. v. Brakebill, 10 Tenn. App. 325, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (1929).

In a suit on an attachment bond against a surety thereon, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover exemplary damages, unless the principal is fixed with malice, or a wrongful abuse of the process. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

A suit for damages for the wrongful suing out of an attachment may be either on the bond or on the facts of the case as against the plaintiff in the attachment suit. In both cases, the action is really on the facts of the case, and the measure of damages is precisely the same, except the damages on the bond are limited by the amount of the penalty. In both cases, malice and want of probable cause go in aggravation of damages. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883); Lipscomb v. Shofner, 96 Tenn. 112, 33 S.W. 818, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1895).

Attorney's fees, incurred in defending a wrongful attachment or injunction suit, are not elements of the damages that may be recovered for the breach of an attachment or injunction bond, but costs paid are recoverable. Stringfield v. Hirsch, 94 Tenn. 425, 29 S.W. 609, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 56, 45 Am. St. Rep. 733 (1894); Gordon v. Kentucky Midland Coal Co., 152 Tenn. 367, 278 S.W. 68, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 79, 42 A.L.R. 1052 (1925); Sklar v. Bernstein, 7 Tenn. App. 593, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

Where a fund already in custodia legis is impounded by a wrongful attachment or injunction, the taxes accruing thereon pending the litigation, and the receiver's compensation for lending the fund during the litigation, which was retained out of the accruing interest, are not elements of damages recoverable for breach of the attachment or injunction bond. Stringfield v. Hirsch, 94 Tenn. 425, 29 S.W. 609, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 56, 45 Am. St. Rep. 733 (1894).

In suit on bond, defendant was entitled to recover as damages premiums paid for replevy or refunding bond executed to release the attachment. Gordon v. Kentucky Midland Coal Co., 152 Tenn. 367, 278 S.W. 68, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 79, 42 A.L.R. 1052 (1925).

16. Insufficient Grounds Stated Where Sufficient Grounds Exist — Damages.

The attachment is wrongfully sued out where it is sued out upon insufficient grounds stated as the grounds of the attachment, although sufficient grounds may have, in fact, existed, without reference to the intent, and although the suit was prosecuted in good faith, as well as where it has been sued out and set on foot from motives of malice and oppression. The damages, however, would be confined, in the first case, to the actual damages for the injuries sustained, while in the second case, vindictive damages might be allowed. Smith v. Eakin, 34 Tenn. 456, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1854); Cox v. Crumley, 73 Tenn. 529, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1880); Doll v. Cooper, 77 Tenn. 576, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1882); Lobenstein v. Hymson, 90 Tenn. 606, 18 S.W. 250, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1891); Swepson v. Davis, 109 Tenn. 99, 70 S.W. 65, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 62, 59 L.R.A. 501 (1902). See Boyce v. Early-Stratton Co., 10 Tenn. App. 545, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (1930).

17. Burden of Proof in Action for Damages.

In an action to recover damages for the wrongful suing out and prosecution of an attachment suit, the plaintiff must show that the suit was decided in his favor, or, at any rate, that the attachment was dismissed, and the burden is upon him to show the damages. Pharis v. Lambert, 33 Tenn. 228, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1853); Memphis Gayoso Gas Co. v. Williamson, 56 Tenn. 314, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 148 (1872), overruled, Roberts v. Federal Express Corp., 842 S.W.2d 246, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. 1992); Boyce v. Early-Stratton Co., 10 Tenn. App. 545, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (1930); Ranning v. Reeves, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 263 (1875); Sloan v. McCracken, 75 Tenn. 626, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 159 (1881); Swepson v. Davis, 109 Tenn. 99, 70 S.W. 65, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 62, 59 L.R.A. 501 (1902); Scheibler v. Steinburg, 129 Tenn. 614, 167 S.W. 866, 1915D Am. Ann. Cas. 1162, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1914).

18. Action for Malicious Prosecution in Absence of Attachment.

An action for malicious prosecution will lie where a civil suit, brought maliciously and without probable cause, has resulted in actual damages, although it was begun by mere personal service of process, and was unattended by attachment of property or deprivation of personal liberty. Lipscomb v. Shofner, 96 Tenn. 112, 33 S.W. 818, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1895).

19. Appeal in Suit on Bond.

Appeal from the judgment on motion to assess damages in attachment suit, or from a suit at law upon the bond, does not carry to the appellate court, for revision, the judgment in the original cause. Macheca v. Panesi, 72 Tenn. 544, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1880).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 252, 518-522.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 145-147.

Assignment of judgment as carrying collateral rights of assignor as to attachment bonds. 63 A.L.R. 291.

Bankruptcy, obligation of surety on attachment bond as affected by attachment defendant's adjudication in. 68 A.L.R. 1331.

Bankruptcy of debtor within four months after attachment or execution as discharging surety on bond to release property. 36 A.L.R. 449, 107 A.L.R. 1138.

Constitutionality of statute making the giving of security a condition of right of defendant in foreign attachment to appear and defend. 17 A.L.R. 884.

Contempt by false justification by surety. 89 A.L.R.2d 1258.

Death of principal defendant as discharging surety on bond given for release of attachment. 21 A.L.R. 290, 131 A.L.R. 1146.

De minimis non curat lex as applied to deficiency in attachment bond. 44 A.L.R. 184.

Judgment by consent, confession or default of principal as affecting sureties whose obligation is conditioned upon judicial determination of liability of principal. 51 A.L.R. 1493.

Levy, or valid levy, as condition of liability on attachment bond. 108 A.L.R. 917.

Surety on bond given to prevent, or secure release of, attachment, right of, to attack attachment after recovery by plaintiff of judgment in attachment action, on ground of absence of, or defects in, bond of plaintiff in attachment. 89 A.L.R. 268.

Waiver of defects in bond. 72 A.L.R. 124.

Wrongful seizure of property, may or must claim for damages resulting from, be enforced by action on attachment bond. 85 A.L.R. 646.

29-6-116. Amount of bond.

The bond to be required before issuance of the writ shall be in penalty as follows:

  1. When the amount of the claim is less than the value of the property sought to be attached, a bond in a penalty equal to the asserted amount of the plaintiff's or complainant's debt or lien plus an additional sum which in the opinion of the issuing officer will be sufficient to cover the probable cost of litigation and all damages that may be sustained by reason of the wrongful suing out of the writ;
  2. When the amount of such debt, or lien of the plaintiff or complainant shall be greater than the value of the property sought to be attached, the penalty shall be equal to the estimated value of such property plus an additional sum which in the opinion of the issuing officer will be sufficient to cover such costs and damages;
  3. When the claim is for unliquidated damages, the penalty shall be equal to the value of the personal property to be attached plus such sum as will be sufficient to cover such costs and damages; or
  4. When the property to be attached is real estate, the issuing officer shall only require a bond in penalty sufficient to cover all such costs and damages as same may be estimated by the issuing officer.

Acts 1927, ch. 78, §§ 1-4; mod. Code 1932, § 9419; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-616.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 331.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Constitutional Law — Pinsky v. Duncan: Due Process and the Death of a Prejudgment Attachment Statute, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 413 (1991).

Cited: Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Auer, 514 F. Supp. 631, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15593 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983); Durkan Patterned Carpet, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Dev. Group (In re Premier Hotel Dev. Group), 270 B.R. 234, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1576 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 330.

Attachment 131.

29-6-117. Description of property.

  1. A substantially accurate description of the property to be attached, and its approximate value, shall be set forth in the bill or affidavit praying for the writ of attachment, and if in the bill of complaint, same shall be verified by the oath of the complainant, complainant's agent or attorney.
  2. The issuing officer shall look to but not be bound by such recitations.
  3. Lacking such description and valuation, the bond shall be in a penalty double the amount claimed by the plaintiff or complainant.

Acts 1927, ch. 78, § 5; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9420, 9421; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-617.

Cross-References. Exempt personal property, title 26, ch. 2, part 1.

Homestead exemption, title 26, ch. 2, part 3.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 329.

Cited: Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Auer, 514 F. Supp. 631, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15593 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); Durkan Patterned Carpet, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Dev. Group (In re Premier Hotel Dev. Group), 270 B.R. 234, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1576 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001); CainRash Architectural Group, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Dev. Group (In re Premier Hotel Dev. Group), 271 B.R. 813, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 36 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 441.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 147.

Attachment 152.

29-6-118. Filing of affidavit and bond.

The affidavit and bond shall be filed by the officer taking them, in the court to which the attachment is returnable, and shall constitute a part of the record in the cause.

Code 1858, § 3472; Shan., § 5232; Code 1932, § 9422; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-618.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 33.

Collateral References. Attachment 123.

29-6-119. Pleadings on debt not due.

If the debt or demand, on which the attachment suit is brought, is not due at the time of the service of the attachment, the plaintiff is not required to file any pleadings until the maturity of such debt or demand.

Code 1858, § 3525; Shan., § 5285; Code 1932, § 9477; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-619.

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 15, 105.

Attachment 211, 212.

29-6-120. Contents of writ.

The writ shall be addressed to the sheriff of the county, unless the suit be before a judge of the court of general sessions, and then it may be addressed to a constable; and it shall command the sheriff or constable to attach and safely keep, repleviable upon security, the estate of the defendant, wherever the same may be found in the county, or in the hands of any person indebted to or having any of the effects of the defendant, or so much thereof as shall be of value sufficient to satisfy the debt or demand, and the costs of the complaint.

Code 1858, § 3473 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19); Shan., § 5233; Code 1932, § 9423; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-620.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Real Estate — Attachment.

In the absence of any positive limitations of the right of attachment, real estate may be as well attached as personalty, and the existence, within the knowledge of the officer, of a sufficiency of personal property which he might seize, will not invalidate the levy on land, and such levy is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866).

Attachment under this section is against the “estate of the defendant” and it was not necessary to show that search was made and no personal property found in order for levy on realty of the defendant to be valid. Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866).

2. Levy on Land — What Constitutes.

A levy upon “all the right, title and interest” of the mortgagor in land is not merely a levy upon the mortgagor's equity, but is equivalent to a levy on the lands. McDonnell v. Amo, 162 Tenn. 36, 34 S.W.2d 212, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1931).

3. Writ Not Specifying Property — Effect as to Lien.

While the attachment writ need not specifically describe the property to be attached, but may be issued broadly against the estate of the defendant, the lien does not attach before the levy, unless the property is specified in the bill or writ of attachment. Vance v. Cooper, 42 Tenn. 497, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1865); Lacy & McGee v. Moore, Lewis & Govan, 46 Tenn. 348, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1869); Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Vance v. Cooper, 49 Tenn. 93, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (1870). See Hughes v. Tennison, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 641 (1878).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 283-287.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 180-200.

Attachment 140-158.

29-6-121. Form of writ.

  1. The writ may be substantially in the following form:

    State of Tennessee,

    County.

    To the sheriff of  County, greeting:

    Whereas, A B (or C D, as the agent or attorney of A B) hath complained on oath to me, E F, judge (chancellor or clerk), that G H is justly indebted (or liable) to A B in the sum of  dollars, and affidavit having also been made in writing, and bond given as required by law in attachment cases, you are hereby commanded to attach so much of the estate of G H as will be of value sufficient to satisfy the debt and costs according to the complaint, and such estate, unless replevied, so to secure that the same may be liable to further proceedings thereon to be had at the  court, to be held for the county of  , on the  day of  next (or before a general sessions judge of  county, on the  day of  ), when and where you will make known how you have executed this writ. Witness, E F, judge of the  court (chancellor or clerk), this  day of  , 20  . E F.

  2. No objection will lie to the form of the attachment, if the essential matters in this section be set forth in such attachment.

Code 1858, §§ 3474, 3475 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 24); Shan., §§ 5234, 5235; Code 1932, §§ 9424, 9425; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-621.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 33, 36, 108.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attachments Covered.

The form prescribed is for an original attachment, and not for an ancillary attachment, which must refer to and identify the suit in aid of which it is issued. Peak v. Buck, 62 Tenn. 71, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1873).

2. Date of Writ.

It is proper to date the writ of attachment with the date of its issuance, and not to teste it as of the term preceding its issuance; but if the date of the issuance is endorsed on the writ, it is sufficient, for this section is merely directory, and the attestation may be rejected as surplusage. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865).

3. Person Issuing Writ.

The writ may be issued by a judge of the circuit court himself, or by the chancellor, or by a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), or by the clerk of the court. Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

4. Writ Incorporated with Summons.

The attachment writ may be incorporated with the leading process, so that it distinctly appears and is levied upon the property. Brown v. Brown, 34 Tenn. 431, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1854); Hillman & Bros. v. Anthony, 63 Tenn. 444, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (1874); McLeod v. Capell, 66 Tenn. 196, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1874).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 283-287.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 184-198.

Attachment 145.

29-6-122. Return of affidavit and bond.

The affidavit and bond shall be returned by the officer granting the attachment to the tribunal to which the attachment is made returnable.

Code 1858, § 3516 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19); Shan., § 5276; Code 1932, § 9467; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-622.

Collateral References. Attachment 207-209.

29-6-123. Abatement for want of affidavit or bond.

Attachments issued without affidavit and bond, as herein prescribed, may be abated by plea of the defendant.

Code 1858, § 3476 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19); Shan., § 5236; Code 1932, § 9426; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-623.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 75.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Averments and Verification.

The averments of the plea in abatement must be positive, and leave nothing to inference, and it must be verified by affidavit. A statement upon information and belief of the affiant is insufficient. Bank of Tennessee v. Jones, 31 Tenn. 391, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. Apr. 1852); Trabue v. Higden, 44 Tenn. 620, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1867); Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868); Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891); Armstrong v. State, 101 Tenn. 389, 47 S.W. 492, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1898).

The plea in abatement may be verified by attorney or agent, and the fact of the agency need not be stated on the face of the plea. Bank of Tennessee v. Jones, 31 Tenn. 391, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. Apr. 1852); Carter v. Vaulx, 32 Tenn. 639, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1853); Bank of Tennessee v. Anderson, McDermot & Cobb, 35 Tenn. 669, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1856); Klepper v. Powell, 53 Tenn. 503, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 388 (1871); Carlisle v. Cowan, 85 Tenn. 165, 2 S.W. 26, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1886); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891).

A plea in abatement need not be verified before the court where the suit is pending. It may be verified before any officer within this state authorized to administer oaths; and it may be verified before any officer of another state who is authorized by the laws of this state to administer oaths. The verification may be made by affidavit before a notary public in and for another state. Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891).

2. —Waiver of Defects.

If the verification of the plea in abatement to the attachment is defective, but the plaintiff treats such plea as valid, and goes to a hearing upon it, he waives the defect. Such objection on the hearing comes too late. Wilson v. Eifler, 47 Tenn. 31, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1869); Seifred v. People's Bank, 60 Tenn. 200, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (1873); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874).

3. Pauper Oath.

This section has application where pauper oath in lieu of bond has not been taken but does not operate to defeat the pauper oath. Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938).

4. Groundless Attachment — Effectiveness in Absence of Plea.

Where the suit does not rest upon the attachment as its leading process, and the only office of the attachment is to fasten a lien upon the property, it seems that, even if the attachment was groundlessly issued, it will accomplish its end, if not abated by a proper judicial action. Bittick v. Wilkins, 54 Tenn. 307, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1872); Robinson v. Brown, 60 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 473 (1872).

5. Defective Bond — Effect on Attachment.

The attachment issued on a defective bond is not void, but voidable only, and the sheriff cannot excuse himself, on that ground, for failing to execute the writ. Shaw v. Holmes, 51 Tenn. 692, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 223 (1871). See Stevenson v. McLean, 24 Tenn. 332, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1844); Reams v. McNail, 28 Tenn. 542, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1848); Trotter v. Nelson, 31 Tenn. 7, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1851); Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U.S. 308, 19 L. Ed. 931, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1123 (1870); Harlan v. Harlan, 82 Tenn. 107, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1884); State v. Hood, 84 Tenn. 235, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1886); Cowan v. Sloan, 95 Tenn. 424, 32 S.W. 388, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1895).

6. Defect Apparent on Face of Proceedings — Remedy.

Where the defect appears on the face of the proceedings, a plea in abatement is not necessary to bring it before the court. It is where the defect is not so apparent that a plea in abatement becomes indispensable. Where the defect is so apparent the attachment may be abated upon a motion to quash it, or by a plea in abatement. Parker v. Porter, 12 Tenn. 81, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1833); Bryan v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 119 Tenn. 349, 104 S.W. 523, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1907); Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

7. Amendment of Verification.

The affidavit to a plea in abatement may, by leave of the court, be amended by filing an additional affidavit. Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891).

8. All Grounds for Attachment to be Traversed.

Plea in abatement must traverse all grounds alleged for the issuance of the attachment. Cooke v. Richards, 58 Tenn. 711, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1872).

9. Replication to Negative Plea Unnecessary.

Negative plea in abatement makes an issue without replication, though the complainant may file a replication. It is not necessary. Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891).

10. Effect of Answer on Plea in Abatement.

Where an attachment is obtained upon a bill in chancery, the ground of the attachment must be contested by plea in abatement, and not by denial in the answer, as matter of abatement is waived by answering. Foster v. Hall, 23 Tenn. 346, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1843); Isaacks v. Edwards, 26 Tenn. 465, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1846); Kendrick v. Davis, 43 Tenn. 524, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1866), questioned, Sewell v. Tuthill & Pattison, 112 Tenn. 271, 79 S.W. 376, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (1904); Boyd v. Martin, 56 Tenn. 382, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1872); Tarbox v. Tonder, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1873); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901); Pennel v. State, 122 Tenn. 622, 125 S.W. 445, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1909); Cate v. Popejoy, 19 Tenn. App. 643, 94 S.W.2d 51, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 74 (1935).

The defendant has the right to plead in abatement to ancillary attachment, and, at the same time, to the merits of the suit in which it is issued. Robb v. Parker, 51 Tenn. 58, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1871); Price v. Bescher, Shultz & Co., 59 Tenn. 372, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1873); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

Where the attachment bill, in addition to the statutory grounds of attachment alleged, further charges facts and circumstances as evidence of such ground, the negative plea in abatement, denying such statutory grounds, must be supported by an answer denying such facts and circumstances, and such answer will not overrule the plea in abatement, and the answer may also contest the merits of the claim sued on. Seifred v. People's Bank, 60 Tenn. 200, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (1873); Pigue v. Young, 85 Tenn. 263, 1 S.W. 889, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1886); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891).

Where personal jurisdiction is obtained upon a defendant after an original attachment the defendant may in such case, plead in abatement to the original attachment in chancery, and may at the same time answer to the merits, and such answer does not overrule the plea in abatement. Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

11. Pleading Abatement by Answer.

Where attachment is based upon allegation that defendant was about to dispose of his property fraudulently, and no plea in abatement filed, it was not sufficient merely to put in issue the ground for attachment by answer. Cate v. Popejoy, 19 Tenn. App. 643, 94 S.W.2d 51, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 74 (1935).

12. Personal Appearance.

A plea in abatement to the attachment, putting in issue the grounds thereof, does not constitute such appearance as will warrant a personal judgment upon the cause of action, where the issue upon the ground of attachment is found in favor of the defendant. Freidlander, Stick & Co. v. S. Pollock & Co., 45 Tenn. 490, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1868); Boon v. Rahl, 48 Tenn. 12, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1870); Sherry v. Divine, 58 Tenn. 722, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (1872); Willey v. Roirden, 61 Tenn. 227, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 363 (1872); Seifreid v. Peoples Bank, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 17 (1874).

Filing of replevy bond constitutes an appearance. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

13. —Effect on Original Attachment.

Where there has been personal service of process upon the defendant or he voluntarily enters his personal appearance, or appears otherwise than to plead in abatement to the attachment, the attachment then serves merely the purpose of an ancillary attachment. Bivins v. Mathews, 66 Tenn. 256, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1874); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

14. Effect of Abatement on Suit.

Where the attachment is used to bring a party into court, as well as to impound the property, if it be abated, the suit must be dismissed, but where the attachment is ancillary, the defendant being brought into court by summons, the abatement of the attachment will have no effect upon the trial of the case upon the merits. Kruger v. Stayton, 58 Tenn. 726, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1872); Younger v. Younger, 90 Tenn. 25, 16 S.W. 78, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1890).

Collateral References. Abatement and Revival 30.

29-6-124. Correction of defects.

The attachment law shall be liberally construed, and the plaintiff, before or during trial, shall be permitted to amend any defect of form in the affidavit, bond, attachment, or other proceedings; and no attachment shall be dismissed for any defect in, or want of, bond, if the plaintiff, plaintiff's agent, or attorney will substitute a sufficient bond.

Code 1858, § 3477; Shan., § 5237; Code 1932, § 9427; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-624.

Cross-References. Amended and supplemental pleadings, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 331, 335.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 3, 30-34, 36, 70, 138.

Cited: Arledge v. White, 38 Tenn. 241, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Hart, Teneray & Co. v. N.T. Dixon & Bro., 73 Tenn. 336, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 133 (1880); Smyth v. Moffett, 6 Tenn. App. 381, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 158 (1927); First Nat'l Bank v. Prairie Corp., 547 F. Supp. 14, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14720 (E.D. Tenn. 1982); Durkan Patterned Carpet, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Dev. Group (In re Premier Hotel Dev. Group), 270 B.R. 234, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1576 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2001).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Grounds for Attachment — Strict Construction.

Although the attachment laws are to be liberally construed so far as they regard the application of the remedy, yet, so far as they prescribe the causes for which an attachment may issue, no material departure from the specific requirements of the statutes has ever been tolerated by the Supreme Court, and the statutes will not be strained to include cases, or causes of attachment, not embraced in the terms of the statute. Jackson v. Burke, 51 Tenn. 610, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 211 (1871); Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874); Brown v. Crenshaw, 64 Tenn. 584, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1875).

2. Time for Amendment.

Amendment to a defective affidavit should have been allowed where offered after the proof was taken in chancery proceeding but before the hearing. Wrompelmeir v. Moses, 62 Tenn. 467, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1874).

The writ of attachment and the affidavit therefor may be amended any time before or during trial, but not afterwards. Dickinson v. Redmond, 3 Shan. 620 (1875).

After appearance, and defense to the merits in an original attachment suit, an amendment to the affidavit, showing the debt due by account, and the claim just, may be properly allowed. Allen v. New York & E. Tenn. Iron Co., 2 Shan. 388 (1877).

3. Extent of Amendment Permitted.

By this section an affidavit may be amended as to any defect in form but this does not authorize an amendment which affects the substance of the affidavit. Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871); A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

It is the public policy that nonresidents will not be permitted to escape attachment by technicalities or technical defects. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

Plaintiff should be permitted to amend attachment bill to correct defect in placing name of wrong person in wrong bill and in not being specific although setting forth a ground for attachment. McEwan, Gearinger, Banks & Hutcheson v. Lookout Mt. Hotel, Inc., 207 Tenn. 197, 338 S.W.2d 601, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (1960).

Amendments are only allowable to cure defects of form, not to substitute a valid affidavit for one which is void. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

Where, prior to the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff creditor made a motion to amend its affidavit supporting the attachment of the defendant debtor's property, and the plaintiff's request to amend merely involved the insertion of a punctuation mark (a semicolon) to clarify the plaintiff's averment concerning the imminency of the removal out of the state of defendant's equipment, the motion to amend would be granted. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp., 29 B.R. 240, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6417 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983).

4. Insufficient Affidavit.

An affidavit neither signed nor sworn to is no affidavit, and therefore cannot be amended. If the clerk allows the plaintiff to amend it after his issuance of the attachment, it is a nullity, and does not cure the omission or render the attachment valid. Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871); Lillard v. Carter, 54 Tenn. 604, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1872); Wiley v. Bennett, 68 Tenn. 581, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1877).

This statute allows amendments of affidavits “for any defect of form” only, and was not intended to allow the substitution of a valid and sufficient affidavit for one wholly insufficient to authorize the issuance of an attachment. Lillard v. Carter, 54 Tenn. 604, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1872); Keller v. Federal Bob Brannon Truck Co., 151 Tenn. 427, 269 S.W. 914, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1924); New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

An affidavit certified to be signed without actual signature may be amended. West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882). See Johnson v. Luckado, 59 Tenn. 270, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1873); Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874).

Where the affidavit is actually made, and the clerk or justice (now general sessions judge) failed to attest it, the defect may be cured by amendment. West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882). See Johnson v. Luckado, 59 Tenn. 270, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1873); Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874).

5. Waiver of Defects.

An appearance and answer, or a plea to the merits, is a waiver of failure to attest affidavit or failure to sign affidavit certified to be signed. West Tenn. Agrl. & Mechanical Ass'n v. Madison, 77 Tenn. 407, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1882). See Johnson v. Luckado, 59 Tenn. 270, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1873); Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874).

Where there was a failure to give bond on issuance of an attachment, and later, on court's leave, one was filed, a plea in abatement based on the failure being overruled, there was no reversible error. Long v. Fisher Typewriter Co., 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 668 (1901).

6. Bond Amended in Lower Court — Effect.

Under this section it was proper for chancellor to allow defect in signature on bond to be corrected and upon such amendment complainant would be entitled to the full benefit of his attachment. Brooks & Co. v. Hartman, 48 Tenn. 36, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1870).

7. Parties Added by Amendment — Effect as to Attachment Lien.

Where a bill for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien failed to make the trustees in a prior mortgage parties, but later brought them in by amendment, such amendment does not, under this section, destroy an attachment levied against the contractor and owner under the original bill, especially where there is no question as to any intervening attachments levied by others between the original bill and the amended bill. Niehaus v. C. B. Barker Const. Co., 135 Tenn. 382, 186 S.W. 461, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1916).

8. Attachments at Law and in Equity — Election as to Procedure.

A plaintiff who has attached a party's effects, both at law and equity, may dismiss his attachment at law and proceed in equity. Niehaus v. C. B. Barker Const. Co., 135 Tenn. 382, 186 S.W. 461, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1916).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Affidavit Lacking.

An affidavit for an attachment merely defective in form is amendable, but if there is no affidavit at all, one cannot be supplied or made as an amendment after the attachment has issued. McReynolds v. Neal, 27 Tenn. 12, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 149 (1847); Scott v. White, 1 Shan. 23 (1849); Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850).

2. Insufficient Affidavit.

Where the affidavit was defective in not stating the cause for which issued and was not amended, the attachment proceedings were void and a sale thereunder passed no title, and the fact that the attachment recited that the affidavit was duly made did not cure the defect for the affidavit was part of the record as well as the attachment writ. Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850).

3. Levies Made Before Amendment of Bill — Effect.

If the attachment be levied on the property of one not a party to the suit, and afterwards he is made a party by an amended bill, other levies having been made by others in the meantime, the amendment will not relate so as to overreach the intervening levies. Lillard v. Porter, 39 Tenn. 177, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

4. Bond Amended in Lower Court — Effect.

Where a defective bond is amended, the effect is the same as if it had originally been sufficient, and a defective bond may be amended, or a new bond given, on application in the court below, but not in the appellate court. Bank of Ala. v. Fitzpatrick, 23 Tenn. 311, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1843); Alexander v. Lisby, 32 Tenn. 107, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1852).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 258, 284, 327-329, 519, 520, 527-546.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 141, 170.

Amendment of attachment bond. 47 A.L.R.2d 971.

Abatement and revival 32.

29-6-125. Alias writs.

Alias writs of attachment or new writs of garnishment may issue without new bond or affidavit, when no property has been found, or not sufficient to satisfy the debt, or when, pending the suit, the plaintiff wishes to garnishee other persons.

Code 1858, § 3517; Shan., § 5277; Code 1932, § 9468; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-625.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 278.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 104, 200.

Attachment 155.

29-6-126. Summons on original attachment.

In all suits commenced by original attachment in any court of record, or before a general sessions judge, it shall be the duty of the clerk issuing the attachment, upon application of the plaintiff, to issue a summons also against the defendant for the same cause of action, and if the summons is executed on the defendant, or when the officer returns on the summons that the officer has levied the writ of attachment, but returns on the summons accompanying the writ of attachment that the defendant is not to be found, the plaintiff may sue out alias and pluries summons, directed to the county where the defendant resides, to have service upon the defendant; and if the summons is executed, no publication shall be made, and there shall be no stay of judgment as required by law in attachment cases where the defendant is made a party by attachment and publication only. The summons shall be in the usual form, and, in addition, shall notify the defendant that an original attachment suit has been commenced against the defendant, and shall be returned to the same court as the attachment.

Acts 1871, ch. 134, §§ 1, 2; 1895, ch. 68; integrated in Shan., §§ 5222, 5223; Code 1932, §§ 9409, 9410; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-626.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 334.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-64-2.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 79, 106; 21 Tenn. Juris., Process, § 3.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section is not a denial of due process of law. Mountain City Mill Co. v. A. Waller & Co., 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 629 (1901).

2. Application.

An indebtedness due to one nonresident defendant, owing to him by a resident debtor, can be attached in chancery by a citizen of this state without judgment at law, on the ground that such nonresident is himself a debtor to another nonresident who is debtor to complainant. Mountain City Mill Co. v. A. Waller & Co., 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 629 (1901).

3. Sufficiency of Summons.

The question whether the warrant states a cause of action is determined from its face, unaided by statements in attachment writ or affidavit therefor. Rosenbaum v. Herron, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 630 (1914).

Justice's (now general sessions judge's) warrant issued in attachment proceeding was defective where it failed to state the name of the plaintiff and the nature of the cause of action. J.C. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Security Banking Co., 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 127 (1915).

Without reference in the summons to an antecedent attachment, there is nothing to identify an original attachment and a summons subsequently issued as belonging to the same suit. There could not be two leading writs against the same defendants. Purnell v. Morton Live Stock Co., 156 Tenn. 383, 1 S.W.2d 1013, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1928).

4. Necessity and Effect of Summons.

If the summons is served on the defendant, then it becomes the leading process in the case, the attachment, if levied on property, becomes equivalent to an ancillary attachment, and holds the property until the termination of the litigation. If the summons is not served, and the attachment is levied on property, then the case is to proceed as in other cases of original attachment suits. Bivins v. Mathews, 66 Tenn. 256, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1874).

Attachment suit is not changed in its character, because process is personally served upon defendant coming within the jurisdiction of the court, after the attachment has been issued and levied, it then becoming practicable to summon the defendant personally. Grubbs v. Colter, 66 Tenn. 432, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1874).

The plaintiff cannot recover judgment in attachment suit, without personal service of summons, where the attachment writ has not been levied on the property as required by law. Emmett v. Crawford, 78 Tenn. 21, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1882). See Pennebaker v. Tomlinson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 111 (1873).

Nothing in this section evinces a purpose to subject a suitor, brought into the jurisdiction of the court to challenge the validity of an original attachment suit, to service of process. Purnell v. Morton Live Stock Co., 156 Tenn. 383, 1 S.W.2d 1013, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1928).

Where jurisdiction was obtained in suit against a nonresident by original attachment, service on the nonresident while within the state for the purpose of entering a special appearance by plea in abatement and motion to dismiss and for purpose of conferring with counsel did not give the court personal jurisdiction of the defendant upon dismissal of the original attachment. Purnell v. Morton Live Stock Co., 156 Tenn. 383, 1 S.W.2d 1013, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1928).

5. Appearance — Effect.

Though appearance gives the court jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it does not give jurisdiction of the property sought to be attached, if the attachment be not sustainable. John Weis, Inc. v. Reed, 22 Tenn. App. 90, 118 S.W.2d 677, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

6. Effect of Dismissing Attachment.

A judgment for plaintiff's debt will not be rendered, where an original attachment is dismissed, unless there has been service of summons upon the defendant as provided by this statute. Mayor, etc., of Nashville v. Wilson, 88 Tenn. 407, 12 S.W. 1082, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1890).

Dismissal of the original attachment suit destroys the attachment writ as a leading process and ends the suit because jurisdiction is dependent upon the attachment. Purnell v. Morton Live Stock Co., 156 Tenn. 383, 1 S.W.2d 1013, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1928).

7. Money Paid into Court Under Garnishment Proceedings.

Where a nonresident recovered a judgment against a resident, in this state, and the judgment debtor was garnisheed in an action against such judgment creditor, and the amount was paid into court and garnishment dismissed, the money so paid was not subject to attachment at instance of a nonresident under this section. Brown v. Pace, 49 S.W. 355, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 123 (1898).

Where judgment on garnishment was paid into court and satisfied of record, a decree that any balance after payment of demand of attachment creditor and costs be returned to the judgment debtor was erroneous. Brown v. Pace, 49 S.W. 355, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 123 (1898).

8. Replevy Bond.

Where a replevy bond is executed, the defendant thereby waives the right to traverse the grounds alleged for attachment if the attachment be valid on its face and the court has jurisdiction; otherwise judgment cannot be rendered on the bond. McWaters v. Hall, 15 Tenn. App. 46, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (1932).

A defendant is entitled to obtain the release of property attached either by giving a replevy bond or a forthcoming bond, but where the bond executed is in double the amount of plaintiff's claim and makes no provision for a return of the property, it is to be deemed a replevy bond. McWaters v. Hall, 15 Tenn. App. 46, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (1932).

9. Suit Against Carrier's Insurers.

The right of complainant insurance company to sue and recover of the carrier's insurers is but incidental to its litigation with the carrier, and such a litigation against the insurers, under this section, is in the nature of a garnishment proceeding against them, and stands on the same ground, so far as the question of removal from the state court to the federal court is concerned, as though these defendants were in fact garnishees. Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Delaware Mut. Safety Ins. Co., 91 Tenn. 537, 19 S.W. 755 (1892), aff'd, Merchants' Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 14 S. Ct. 367, 151 U.S. 368, 38 L. Ed. 195, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 412 (1894).

10. Judgment for Debt and Attachment Quashed — Costs.

Where there was personal service on the defendant, and the attachment was quashed for fatal defects, judgment may be rendered against the defendant for the debt, and in such case, the defendant will be taxed with all costs incident to the suit and debt, and the plaintiff with all costs incident to the attachment branch of the suit. Dougherty v. Kellum, 71 Tenn. 643, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1879); Mayor, etc., of Nashville v. Wilson, 88 Tenn. 407, 12 S.W. 1082, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1890).

11. Judgment in Supreme Court.

Where an attachment was sued out before a justice (now general sessions judge), and levied upon land, to enforce an alleged lien, and the enforcement of the lien was allowed by the justice, but no judgment for debt was asked for or rendered before him, and the papers were returned to the circuit court to have the land condemned and sold, no judgment for the debt can be rendered in the Supreme Court. Mayor, etc., of Nashville v. Wilson, 88 Tenn. 407, 12 S.W. 1082, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1890).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 284, 344, 439, 445, 560, 562.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 489.

Attachment 153.

29-6-127. Return of ancillary attachment.

Attachments sued out in aid of a suit already brought shall be made returnable to the court before whom the suit is pending.

Code 1858, § 3462; Shan., § 5220; Code 1932, § 9407; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-627.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 5, 108.

Cited: Peoples Nat'l Bank v. King, 697 S.W.2d 344, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. 1985).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose and Nature of Ancillary Attachment.

Office of ancillary attachment is to fasten upon the property of the defendant and to hold the same to secure the payment of the judgment which the plaintiff expects to recover. It is not leading process, and cannot be made the instrument by which the court acquires jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891).

2. Allegations in Affidavit and Writ.

It should be stated in the affidavit and alleged in the ancillary attachment, whether the action be ex delicto or on contract, that a suit has been commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, the nature thereof, the tribunal in which it is depending, the amount of the debt or damages claimed in the action, or the amount of damages laid in the action, and that the cause of action stated is just, or the proceeding will be void. Thompson v. Carper, 30 Tenn. 542, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1851); Morris v. Davis, 36 Tenn. 452, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1857); Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Smith v. Foster, 43 Tenn. 139, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1866); Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 45 Tenn. 561, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1868); Gibson v. Carroll, 48 Tenn. 23, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1870); Ogg v. Leinart, 48 Tenn. 40, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1870); Robb v. Parker, 51 Tenn. 58, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1871); Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871); Ludlow v. Ramsey, 78 U.S. 581, 20 L. Ed. 216, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1504 (1870); Lewis v. Woodfolk, 61 Tenn. 25, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 337 (1872); Peak v. Buck, 62 Tenn. 71, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1873); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Sparkman v. Sparkman, 63 Tenn. 45, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1874); Dickinson v. Redmond, 3 Shan. 620 (1875).

3. Jurisdiction to Issue Writ.

Justices of the peace (now judges of the court of general sessions) have jurisdiction to issue ancillary attachment in aid of suits pending in the circuit court, just as upon original cause. Scott v. White, 1 Shan. 23 (1849).

4. Form of Writ.

The form of the original writ of attachment is not the appropriate form for the ancillary writ of attachment. Peak v. Buck, 62 Tenn. 71, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1873).

5. Time of Attachment.

The ancillary writ of attachment in actions ex delicto may issue simultaneously with or subsequently to the original summons, or commencement of the suit. Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873).

6. Necessity of Service.

Summons must be served, because the levy of an ancillary attachment, without such service, does not bring the defendant into court. Ingle v. McCurry, 48 Tenn. 26, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1870); Finley v. Gaut, 67 Tenn. 148, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 341 (1874).

7. Amendment of Affidavit.

The omission to sign the sworn affidavit for an ancillary attachment sued out before a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) in aid of a suit pending in the circuit court, may be amended in the circuit court. Scott v. White, 1 Shan. 23 (1849).

8. Plea in Abatement.

Where an ancillary attachment is levied upon property, the defendant may plead in abatement of the attachment any pleas allowable to an original attachment; and may have the issue tried before the trial on the merits, but the parties will be given a reasonable opportunity for preparation for such trial; and if the facts are sufficient, and found for the defendant, the property will be released; but, if found for the plaintiff, the defendant will not be precluded from his defense to the merits. Robb v. Parker, 51 Tenn. 58, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1871); Price v. Bescher, Shultz & Co., 59 Tenn. 372, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1873); Third Nat'l Bank v. Foster, 90 Tenn. 735, 18 S.W. 267, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1891).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 1, 471.

Attachment 318-329.

29-6-128. Amount of property attached.

The writ of attachment should direct so much of the property of the defendant to be attached as will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's debt or demand, and all costs.

Code 1858, § 3497; Shan., § 5257; Code 1932, § 9448; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-628.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 333.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 283, 287.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 235.

Attachment 173.

29-6-129. Territorial application of process.

The process of attachment issues against the property of the defendant wherever the same may be found.

Code 1858, § 3464 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 19); Shan., § 5224; Code 1932, § 9411; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-629.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 333.

29-6-130. Counterpart writs.

The officer granting the attachment may direct, upon proper application, that counterpart writs of attachment issue to any county in which property of the defendant may be found, or such counterparts may be subsequently applied for and obtained upon good cause shown.

Code 1858, § 3465; Shan., § 5225; Code 1932, § 9412; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-630.

Cross-References. Counterpart summons, § 20-2-108.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 333.

Cited: Peoples Nat'l Bank v. King, 697 S.W.2d 344, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. 1985).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 278.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 200.

29-6-131. Execution by constables.

  1. Constables may execute attachments returnable before general sessions judges, and in cases where the defendant is about to abscond or remove.
  2. This chapter and chapter 7 of this title in relation to the duties of attaching officers embrace constables whenever they are authorized to serve attachments.

Code 1858, § 3496 (deriv. Acts 1799, ch. 25, § 1); Shan., § 5256; Code 1932, § 9447; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-631.

Collateral References. Attachment 223.

29-6-132. Property subject to levy.

Attachments may be levied upon any real or personal property of either a legal or equitable nature, debts or choses in action, whether due or not due, in which the defendant has an interest.

Code 1858, § 3500; Shan., § 5260; Code 1932, § 9451; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-632.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 17, 53, 145, 148; 6 Tenn. Juris., Conflict of Laws, Domicile and Residence, § 12.

Law Reviews.

Alienability of Future Interests in Tennessee, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 80.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Equitable Property Attached — Requisites of Bill.

Where equitable property is sought to be attached, the bill must proceed against it as such, must state the nature of the title, and make the holder of the legal title a party. An attachment against land as the property of the defendant will be understood as directed against his legal interest, and if he has none, the attachment will be nugatory, and the purchaser at a sale thereunder will acquire no title. Lane v. Marshall, 48 Tenn. 30, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1870); Rice v. O'Keefe, 53 Tenn. 638, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1871); Hillman v. Werner, 56 Tenn. 586, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 179 (1872); Hardwick v. Beard, 57 Tenn. 659, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 284 (1873); Lyle v. Longley, 65 Tenn. 286, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1873); Moore v. State Ins. Co., 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 379 (1875); Rhodes v. Floyd, 1 Shan. 549 (1876); Fulghum v. Cotton, 74 Tenn. 590, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 300 (1880); Blackburn v. Clarke, 85 Tenn. 506, 3 S.W. 505, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1887); Jackson v. Coffman, 110 Tenn. 271, 75 S.W. 718, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1903); King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914); Prichard Bros. v. Causey, 158 Tenn. 53, 12 S.W.2d 711, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1929).

2. Time of Return.

Where the sheriff endorsed on a slip a memorandum sufficiently describing the property levied on by him, with date and hour of levy, which slip was folded with the writ and handed to the attorney having control of the process, and the attorney two days later referring to registry records wrote out the return in full on the writ, which was signed by the sheriff, the time of the return was as shown by the slip. McMillan v. Gaylor, 35 S.W. 453, 1895 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1895).

3. Specific Property Attached.

4. —Balance of Debt.

Where it is sought to attach and subject indebtedness owing to the defendant, only the surplus or balance of the debt, after deducting an opposing debt, is subject to attachment. Fay v. Reager, 34 Tenn. 200, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1854); Arledge v. White, 38 Tenn. 241, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Johnson v. Hoyle, 40 Tenn. 56, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1859); Nashville v. Potomac Ins. Co., 61 Tenn. 296, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 375 (1872); Mann v. Mann, 59 Tenn. 245, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1873); Mowry v. Davenport, 74 Tenn. 80, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1880); Steele v. Friarson, 85 Tenn. 430, 3 S.W. 649, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1887).

5. —Bonds in Hands of Trustee as Evidence of Indebtedness on Condition.

Where a corporation signed and placed $10,000 of mortgage bonds in the hands of trustees to be issued and delivered to a bank in satisfaction of a debt assumed by the corporation, but the bank declined to accept the bonds and release the corporation on the indebtedness assumed, the bonds were to be evidences of indebtedness on condition not complied with, and were not assets subject to attachment. Alabama Marble & Stone Co. v. Chattanooga Marble & Stone Co., 37 S.W. 1004, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 44 (1896).

6. —Interest in Partnership Assets.

By attachment chancery could acquire jurisdiction of nonresident members of a partnership, in a suit to subject the interest of one or more of the partners to the payment of a claim due from him or them to a resident creditor, and ascertain such interest or interests. Gaines v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 52 S.W. 467, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 158 (1898).

7. —Negotiable Note.

Where it was sought to attach a negotiable note, which was not actually seized and levied upon as tangible property, it can only be reached by garnishment of the payer, and the suit becomes a garnishment proceeding for this purpose but if the garnishee answered that the note was not in his possession and that he did not know who held the note, which had not yet matured, judgment cannot be rendered against him, where such note is not delivered up and he is not completely exonerated or indemnified from all liability thereon, as provided in § 29-7-105. Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

8. —Nonresident's Equity of Redemption.

A general creditor of a nonresident debtor may, by bill in chancery, attach the interest of his debtor in land sold by judicial sale for debt, and subject the same to the satisfaction of his demand, because he is not in a condition to redeem, and cannot put himself in such condition, for the reason that he has no judgment, and cannot obtain one. Herndon v. Pickard, 73 Tenn. 702, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1880); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

9. —Trust Property After Death of Cestui Que Trust.

Where land was conveyed in trust for use of married woman with power in her surviving husband to convey by will to such persons as she should appoint, and she died intestate, a creditor filing attachment bill against her son acquired a lien by levy on his interest without joining the trustee. Campbell v. Atwood, 47 S.W. 168, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 135 (1897).

10. Perfection of Judgment Lien.

This section is inapplicable to the perfection of a judgment lien. Bodin Apparel, Inc. v. Lowe, 614 S.W.2d 571, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

11. Checks.

A check is subject to attachment. Peoples Nat'l Bank v. King, 697 S.W.2d 344, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. 1985).

12. Letter of Credit.

Customer, who had payor bank issue an irrevocable letter of credit, was not entitled to an attachment of the proceeds of the letter of credit where the attachment issued after payor bank accepted draft complying with the letter of credit, and attachment was invalid under § 47-4-303. Union Export Co. v. N.I.B. Intermarket, A.B., 786 S.W.2d 628, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. 1990).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 91-217.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 71-90.

Branch banks, deposit in. 50 A.L.R. 1354, 136 A.L.R. 471.

Building and loan association or savings and loan association, members interest in, as within provisions of Uniform Stock Transfer Act as to levy on shares of stock. 143 A.L.R. 1152.

Commissions of trustee. 143 A.L.R. 190.

Contempt by levy on property pending receivership. 39 A.L.R. 22, 48 A.L.R. 241.

Contingent remainder as subject to levy and sale by creditor. 60 A.L.R. 803.

Creditors' rights as affected by grant to one for life, and afterwards, either absolutely or contingently, to grantor's heirs or next of kin. 16 A.L.R.2d 691.

Estate by entirety, levy on, for satisfaction of individual debt of spouse. 16 A.L.R. 969, 58 A.L.R. 1320.

Federal control, levy on property of public utility under. 4 A.L.R. 1680, 8 A.L.R. 969, 10 A.L.R. 956, 11 A.L.R. 1450, 14 A.L.R. 234, 19 A.L.R. 678, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Fee simple conditional estate, liability of, for debts of tenant. 114 A.L.R. 615.

Growing crops as subject of levy and seizure. 103 A.L.R. 464.

Incompetent or infant under guardianship, property of, as subject to execution or attachment. 92 A.L.R. 919.

Interest subject to homestead right in others as subject to attachment or execution. 122 A.L.R. 1150.

Joint bank account as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution by creditor of one joint depositor. 86 A.L.R.5th 527.

Judgment in tort action as subject of attachment pending appeal. 121 A.L.R. 420.

Levy by husband's creditors on curtesy initiate. 133 A.L.R. 633.

Liability insurance carried by a charity as subject to appropriation in satisfaction of judgment in tort. 25 A.L.R.4th 517.

Liability of unassigned dower right to seizure for widow's debt. 81 A.L.R. 1110.

Liquor license as subject to execution or attachment. 40 A.L.R.4th 927.

Massachusetts or business trust, levy on shares in. 88 A.L.R.3d 704.

Mortgagor's statutory right to redeem or his right to possession after foreclosure as subject of levy and seizure. 42 A.L.R. 884, 57 A.L.R. 1128.

Municipal funds and credits as subject to levy under execution against municipality. 89 A.L.R. 863.

Negotiable warehouse receipt, attachment of goods covered by. 40 A.L.R. 969.

Note or check itself as subject of levy and seizure. 41 A.L.R. 1003.

Pledgor's interest as subject to attachment by pledgee for another debt. 126 A.L.R. 188.

Prisoner, money or other property taken from, as subject of attachment or seizure under execution. 16 A.L.R. 378, 48 A.L.R. 583, 154 A.L.R. 758.

Property of nongovernmental charity as subject to execution under judgment for damages in tort. 25 A.L.R.4th 517.

Redemption, levy on debtor's statutory right of. 42 A.L.R. 884, 57 A.L.R. 1128.

Redemption money in hands of officer as subject to attachment or execution. 94 A.L.R. 1049.

Retirement or pension proceeds or annuity payments under group insurance as subject to attachment or garnishment. 28 A.L.R.2d 1213.

Right of judgment creditor of joint tenant to levy on his interest in real property jointly held. 111 A.L.R. 171.

Safety deposit box, levy upon contents of. 11 A.L.R. 225, 19 A.L.R. 863, 39 A.L.R. 1215.

Seat in chamber of commerce, board of trade, or stock exchange as subject of attachment, garnishment, or execution. 14 A.L.R. 284.

Shares of corporate stock as subject of execution or attachment. 1 A.L.R. 653.

Situs of corporate stock (or stock in joint stock company) for purpose of execution or attachment. 122 A.L.R. 338.

Special bank deposits as subject of attachment or garnishment to satisfy depositor's general obligations. 8 A.L.R.4th 998.

Vendee's interest under conditional sales contract as subject to attachment or execution. 61 A.L.R. 781.

Vendee's interest under executory contract as subject to execution or attachment. 1 A.L.R.2d 727.

Verdict in tort action. 156 A.L.R. 1431.

Withdrawal value of stock in building and loan association as basis of attachment or execution by creditor of member. 94 A.L.R. 1017.

Attachment 178.

29-6-133. Personal property preferred.

The officer to whom the writ is delivered shall attach and take into the officer's possession, in the first instance, so much of the personal property of the defendant as may be necessary to meet the exigency of the writ, and shall levy the attachment, when necessary, upon the defendant's real estate.

Code 1858, § 3498; Shan., § 5258; Code 1932, § 9449; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-633.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 37.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Levy on Realty with Knowledge of Existence of Personalty.

The existence to the knowledge of the levying officer of sufficient personalty which he might seize will not invalidate levy on realty. Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866).

2. Order of Levy of Several Attachments.

Successive attachments are leviable in the order in which they come to the officer's hands, and if several writs are in his hands not impressed with any priorities, he cannot give priority to any of them by actually levying some before others. Lea v. Maxwell, 38 Tenn. 365, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Stone v. Abbott, 62 Tenn. 319, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1874).

3. Failure to Make Return — Effect on Levy.

Where the levy of an attachment has been actually made, its efficacy cannot be impaired by the sheriff's failure to make return of it. Lea v. Maxwell, 38 Tenn. 365, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Dec. 1858).

4. Sheriff's Liability.

A sheriff is responsible in damages to the injured party for losses occasioned by his official negligence. So, it is his duty, in attaching property for a debt, to secure enough, if in his power, to make the debt; or, in taking a replevy bond in such case, to see that the security is sufficient. If he fail in either, whereby a loss of the debt is occasioned, he will be held liable therefor. McKinney v. Craig, 36 Tenn. 577, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1857).

5. Surety's Liability.

A surety upon a delivery bond executed after a supposed levy, signing upon officer's representation of levy, when in fact none was made, is not bound, since officer did not “attach and take into his possession.” Connell v. Scott, 64 Tenn. 595, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1875).

6. Liability for Rent.

Where property of a tenant, located in a room leased by him under a yearly lease, is levied on and left there in charge of a watchman, the tenant and not the levying officer is liable for rents pending a disposition of the property. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 46 S.W. 1009, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1897).

7. Taking Property into Possession.

Since the requirement that the officer take into his possession property upon which he is levying only refers to personal property, a levy of attachment upon land is not void because the officer levying the attachment did not go upon the land. Moore v. Walker, 178 Tenn. 218, 156 S.W.2d 439, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1941).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 76.

Attachment 49.

29-6-134. Excessive levy.

If the officer make an excessive levy, the officer shall be liable as in case of excessive levy by execution.

Code 1858, § 3499; Shan., § 5259; Code 1932, § 9450; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-634.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Amount of Levy — Duty of Officer.

It is the duty of an officer to levy on property sufficient to make the debt in his hands amply secure against all probable contingencies, but it should not be excessive. Brown v. Allen, 40 Tenn. 429, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1859); Beasly v. Johnson, 57 Tenn. 413, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1873).

2. Officer's Title — Effect of Excessive Levy.

An excessive levy will not vitiate the title of the officer to the property levied on. Brown v. Allen, 40 Tenn. 429, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1859); Beasly v. Johnson, 57 Tenn. 413, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1873).

3. Plaintiff's Liability for Excessive Levy.

The creditor is not liable for an excessive levy made by the sheriff, at least unless it should appear that he had knowingly procured the sheriff to make such levy. Beasly v. Johnson, 57 Tenn. 413, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1873).

4. Several Claiming Property — Reduction of Levy.

An excessive levy may be reduced by the court, upon the answer or petition of the defendants, the complainant being allowed to elect on which property he will retain the levy, and, in the absence of such election, the burden of the debt will be proportioned upon the defendants, where there are several claiming in different rights, and each defendant may replevy the property claimed by him, or become the receiver upon proper bond. Hughes v. Tennison, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 641 (1878).

Collateral References. 30 Am. Jur. 2d Executions § 70.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 235.

De minimis non curat lex as applied to excessive levy. 44 A.L.R. 184.

Liability of creditor for excessive attachment or garnishment. 56 A.L.R.3d 493.

Recovery of damages for mental anguish, distress, suffering, or the like, in action for wrongful attachment, garnishment, sequestration, or execution. 83 A.L.R.3d 598.

Sheriffs 109.

29-6-135. Transfer after attachment.

Any transfer, sale, or assignment, made after the filing of an attachment bill in chancery, or after the suing out of an attachment at law, of property mentioned in the bill or attachment, as against the plaintiff, shall be inoperative and voidable, as elsewhere provided.

Code 1858, § 3507 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 9); Shan., § 5267; mod. Code 1932, § 9458; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-635.

Cross-References. Filing abstract of proceedings in county other than in which attachment is filed or issued, §§ 25-5-107, 25-5-108, 25-5-109.

Lis pendens, title 20, ch. 3.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 329.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Assignments, § 48; 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 53, 56; 6 Tenn. Juris., Conflict of Laws, Domicile and Residence, § 12; 18 Tenn. Juris., Lis Pendens, § 3.

Cited: Mullendore v. Hall, 2 Tenn. Ch. App. 273 (1901); General Electric Supply Co. v. Arlen Realty & Development Corp., 546 S.W.2d 210, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. 1977).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Object and Scope of Provision.

The object of this statute was to prevent the debtor from evading the attachment, after the bill had been filed or the writ issued and before the levy, by sales or transfer of his estate. But this rule only applies to conveyances, transfers, sales, or assignments of property specifically mentioned and described in the attachment bill or writ. Burrough v. Brooks, 40 Tenn. 392, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1859); Vance v. Cooper, 42 Tenn. 497, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1865); Lacy & McGee v. Moore, Lewis & Govan, 46 Tenn. 348, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1869); Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Vance v. Cooper, 49 Tenn. 93, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (1870); Irvine v. Muse, 57 Tenn. 477, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 244 (1873); Hambrick v. Bragg, 63 Tenn. 33, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1874); Alley v. Myers, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 206 (1875); Doe v. Childress, 88 U.S. 642, 22 L. Ed. 549, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1399 (1874).

This section has no extraterritorial effect, so as to defeat the right of a bona fide purchaser of a note in another state. Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

2. Type of Transfers.

The principle that the levy, under an attachment bill in which the property is specifically described or referred to, takes effect and becomes a lien from the date of the filing of the bill, does not apply to a contest between creditors, but is confined by statute to sales or transfers by the debtor. Peoples' Bank v. Mitchell, 2 Shan. 58 (1876). See Prichard Bros. v. Causey, 158 Tenn. 53, 12 S.W.2d 711, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1929).

Pendency of attachment suit in circuit court, filed to enforce lien for labor or materials, operates as lis pendens, during which all transfers are void as to the lienor. Brantingham v. Beasley, 2 Tenn. App. 598, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

3. Description of Property — Sufficiency to Warrant Applying Lis Pendens Doctrine.

To overreach a sale and conveyance to an innocent purchaser, after the filing of the attachment bill, but before the levy of the attachment writ, the particular property must be specified in the bill and attachment writ. If the property is not specifically mentioned in the attachment bill and writ, the attachment does not affect the property until actually levied, that is, where the attachment is against the defendant's estate generally, or against his goods and chattels, lands and tenements, the attaching creditor acquires no rights against the debtor's property until the attachment is actually levied, because the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply in such case. Lacy & McGee v. Moore, Lewis & Govan, 46 Tenn. 348, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1869); Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Vance v. Cooper, 49 Tenn. 93, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 196 (1870); Alley v. Myers, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 206 (1875). See Hervey & New v. Champion, 30 Tenn. 569, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1851); Hambrick v. Bragg, 63 Tenn. 33, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1874).

An allegation in the bill of complaint for enforcement of lien describing the property as “one saw mill owned by me and unencumbered” is not sufficient to create lien lis pendens. Potter v. Foster, 16 Tenn. App. 336, 64 S.W.2d 520, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9 (1932).

4. Filing of Bill — Effect.

The filing of the bill does not create a lien, but it operates as a lis pendens, during which all transfers are void and the suit thus holds the property until the lien can be impressed on it by the levy or the attachment, as the levy and not the statute or suit, creates the lien. Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Potter v. Foster, 16 Tenn. App. 336, 64 S.W.2d 520, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9 (1932).

5. Levy Creating Lien.

The levy of the attachment on land creates a mere lien thereon. Green v. Shaver, 22 Tenn. 139, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1842); Perkins' Heirs v. Norvell, 25 Tenn. 151, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1845); McKnight v. Hughes, 72 Tenn. 522, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1880); Puckett v. Richardson, 74 Tenn. 49, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1880); Montgomery v. Realhafer, 85 Tenn. 668, 5 S.W. 54, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 9, 4 Am. St. Rep. 780 (1887).

The levy of the attachment on personalty does not divest the title as the levy of the execution does. It merely creates a lien on it. Snell v. Allen, 31 Tenn. 208, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1851); Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866); Doe v. Childress, 88 U.S. 642, 22 L. Ed. 549, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1399 (1874); Herman v. Katz, 101 Tenn. 118, 47 S.W. 86, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 39, 41 L.R.A. 700 (1897).

The doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to mere attachment bills, so as to give a lien upon the property sought to be attached, from the filing of the bill. The lien is only acquired from the levy of the attachment, and in cases of successive attachments, the one first levied has priority. Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880). See Lea v. Maxwell, 38 Tenn. 365, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Dec. 1858); Stone v. Abbott, 62 Tenn. 319, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1874).

6. Date of Lien.

Where land upon which levy of attachment was levied was described in the attachment bill, the lien of attachment dated from the time the bill was filed and attachment was levied and not merely from the date of the service of summons. Moore v. Walker, 178 Tenn. 218, 156 S.W.2d 439, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1941).

7. Deed Registered Before Levy — Priority.

Where land has been sold and conveyed before the filing of the bill, and the deed is registered afterwards, but before the levy of the attachment, it will overreach and prevail over the attachment. Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

8. Levy Before Registry of Deed — Priority.

The levy of the attachment will overreach an unregistered deed previously executed, but not registered until after such levy. Hervey & New v. Champion, 30 Tenn. 569, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1851); Sharp v. Hunter, 47 Tenn. 389, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1870), superseded by statute as stated in, W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Lane v. Marshall, 48 Tenn. 30, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1870); Boyd v. Roberts, 57 Tenn. 474, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 243 (1873); Parker v. Freeman, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 612 (1876); Moore v. Walker, 178 Tenn. 218, 156 S.W.2d 439, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1941).

9. Purchaser Under Attachment — Status of Subsequent Purchaser from Owner.

The purchaser of corporation stock at a sale under an attachment will acquire a valid title as against a subsequent purchaser of the same stock from the nonresident owner, although the latter purchaser paid for the stock and obtained the stock certificates before receiving notice of the attachment. Young v. South Tredegar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189, 2 S.W. 202, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 29, 4 Am. St. Rep. 752 (1886); Cates v. Baxter, 97 Tenn. 443, 37 S.W. 219, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 164 (1896); McClung v. Colwell, 107 Tenn. 592, 64 S.W. 890, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 115, 89 Am. St. Rep. 961 (1901) (decisions prior to Uniform Stock Transfer Law and § 48-1016 et seq. (repealed)).

10. Order of Sale — Election of Plaintiff.

The attachment is a proceeding in personam, and not in rem, and the property attached cannot be condemned to be sold until after judgment against the defendant debtor, when the plaintiff may have a writ of venditioni exponas awarded to sell the property held bound by the lien of the attachment, or he may have the ordinary writ of fieri facias awarded, and cause it to be levied on the property attached, or such other property of the defendant as may be found. Green v. Shaver, 22 Tenn. 139, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1842); Perkins' Heirs v. Norvell, 25 Tenn. 151, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1845); Snell v. Allen, 31 Tenn. 208, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1851); Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866).

11. Loss of Lien.

The lien of the attachment levy may be lost by the laches, inaction, or negligence of the plaintiff in not properly and promptly pursuing it, and in failing, within a reasonable time, to take out final process on his judgment. Snell v. Allen, 31 Tenn. 208, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1851); Mann v. Roberts, 79 Tenn. 57, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1883); Pennebaker v. Tomlinson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 111 (1873). See Etheridge v. Edwards, 31 Tenn. 426, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1852).

A lien acquired by levy of an attachment on real estate was not lost by failure to bring the property to sale within a year from rendition of the judgment where there was nothing in the averment of facts to show it was lost or waived. Campbell v. Atwood, 47 S.W. 168, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 135 (1897).

12. Lis Pendens Statute.

Lis pendens recordation requirements of § 20-3-101 apply to this section, and bank's judgment lien did not defeat the rights of bona fide purchasers where the abstract filing requirements of § 20-3-101 were not met. American Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Wilds, 545 S.W.2d 749, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

An attaching creditor who records a notice of lis pendens has priority over a bona fide conveyee whose deed is not recorded until after the registration of the lis pendens notice. W. & O. Constr. Co. v. IVS Corp., 688 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 272-276.

Attachment 182.

29-6-136. Actions after attachment of debt or effects.

If, after the service upon any person of a copy of the bill, or levy of the attachment at law upon debts or effects in such person's hands, any person should pay the debt, or secrete the effects, or purchase in any other claim against the defendant, that person shall be liable to the same extent as before the payment, secreting, or purchase.

Code 1858, § 3508; Shan., § 5268; Code 1932, § 9459; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-636.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 338.

Collateral References. Equity 115.

29-6-137. Postponement of judgment if debt attached before due.

If debts or choses in action not due are levied upon, no final judgment or decree shall be rendered until they become payable.

Code 1858, § 3501; Shan., § 5261; Code 1932, § 9452; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-637.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Scope of Section.

This section can have no extraterritorial effect so as to defeat the bona fide purchaser of a note in another state. Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 15, 272.

29-6-138. Collection of choses by officer.

In all cases where choses in action are attached, the officer levying the attachment may collect the same until the writ is returned, unless otherwise ordered.

Code 1858, § 3502; Shan., § 5262; Code 1932, § 9453; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-638.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 9.

Cited: Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 77, 303, 304.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 86.

Attachment 166.

29-6-139. Money received on attachment.

Money attached by the officer, or coming to the officer's hands by virtue of the attachment, shall forthwith be paid over to the clerk of the court in which the suit is pending, to be by the clerk retained until the further action of the court.

Code 1858, § 3506; Shan., § 5266; Code 1932, § 9457; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-639.

29-6-140. Appointment of receiver.

The court before whom the suit is pending, may, at any time, appoint a receiver to take possession of property attached under this chapter or chapter 7 of this title, and to collect, manage, and control the same, and pay over the proceeds according to the nature of the property and exigency of the case.

Code 1858, § 3503; Shan., § 5263; Code 1932, § 9454; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-640.

Cross-References. Judicial power to appoint receivers in general, § 29-1-103.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 342, 353.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Powers of Court.

Justice (now judge of general sessions court) may appoint a receiver, and order property of a perishable nature to be sold, and the fund to be held until the stay of the judgment expires. Spradlin v. Bratton, 74 Tenn. 685, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1881).

2. Choses in Action of Bankrupt.

The choses in action of one in bankruptcy pass to the trustee in bankruptcy who alone can sue for same. State v. Allstadt, 166 Tenn. 349, 61 S.W.2d 473, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 140 (1933), rehearing denied, 166 Tenn. 349, 62 S.W.2d 566 (1933).

3. Custody of Property in Absence of Receiver.

Personal property attached remains in the custody of the levying officer, if not replevied or placed in the hands of a receiver. Pennebaker v. Tomlinson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 111 (1873).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 313.

Receivers 181.

29-6-141. Perishable property.

  1. Perishable property may be sold by order of the court before whom the suit is pending, unless replevied by the defendant.
  2. If any, or all, of the property is of so perishable a nature, or so expensive, as to render a sale necessary for the interest of the parties, before the officer can make the return, the officer may sell the same, upon advertisement as in the case of execution sales, and make return of the facts with the proceeds of sale.

Code 1858, §§ 3504, 3505 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 4; 1845-1846, ch. 108, § 5); Shan., §§ 5264, 5265; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9455, 9456; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-641.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 353.

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 319.

Construction and effect of provision for execution sale on short notice, or sale in advance of judgment under writ of attachment, where property involved is subject to decay or depreciation. 3 A.L.R.3d 593.

Attachment 196.

29-6-142. Order of publication.

  1. The officer granting the attachment may, at the time, direct that, as soon as the attachment is levied, publication be made in some newspaper, requiring the defendant to appear at a time and place to be mentioned in such publication, before the court having cognizance of the attachment, and defend the action thus commenced, otherwise the cause may be proceeded with ex parte.
  2. If the order of publication is not then made, the clerk of the court or the court itself may make such order at any time thereafter.

Code 1858, §§ 3518, 3519 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 54, § 2; 1845-1846, ch. 108, § 2); Shan., §§ 5278, 5279; Code 1932, §§ 9469, 9470; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-642.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 334.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 81.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: Strass v. Weil, 45 Tenn. 120, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1867); Gavin v. Vance, 33 F. 84, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2907 (C.C.W.D. Tenn. 1887).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nonresident Defendants — Adequacy of Notice.

There seems to be no authority sustaining a notice, such as is provided for in this and the following sections as being sufficient to give jurisdiction over a nonresident, in the absence of impounded res belonging to him. Dickson v. Simpson, 172 Tenn. 680, 113 S.W.2d 1190, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 113, 116 A.L.R. 380 (1937).

Where, in an action attaching real property, nonresident parties defendant were properly notified by publication but not otherwise notified, although the plaintiffs in the action knew, or through reasonable diligence could have discovered, their actual addresses, it was held that the notice was insufficient, depriving the nonresident parties defendant of their property without due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14 and that the entire attachment action was void insofar as it affected their interests. Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

2. Time — Requisite Allegations.

The order of publication may be made when the attachment is granted, and before it is levied, where it provides that the publication notice shall be made when the levy is made. The order of publication need not be identical with the notice published, and it need not recite facts apparent from other parts of the record; but the notice, being intended to notify and inform the defendant, must contain statements sufficient for that purpose, as required by § 29-6-145. Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Netherland v. Johnson, 73 Tenn. 340, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1880); Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Holland v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 84 Tenn. 414, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1886); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886); Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

3. Failure to File Order of Publication.

Attachment is not vitiated by clerk's failure to file, or enter on the rule docket, the order of publication, because the levy of the attachment and the publication of a sufficient notice are the essential requirements of the statute, and when this has been complied with, it is sufficient. Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 220.

Attachment 209(3).

29-6-143. Entry of publication order in record.

  1. The order should be entered upon the general sessions judge's docket, as well as endorsed upon the papers, in all attachment cases returned before a magistrate.
  2. In all other cases, the entry should be upon the minutes or rule docket of the court.

Code 1858, § 3520 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 108, § 4); Shan., § 5280; Code 1932, § 9471; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-643.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Failure to Enter on Docket — Effect.

The failure of the clerk to enter the order of publication on the docket will not avoid the proceedings. Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904).

Collateral References. Attachment 209(3).

29-6-144. Publication of notice of levy.

  1. As soon as the attachment is levied upon property of the defendant, the clerk of the court shall make out, in pursuance of the order of publication, a memorandum or notice thereof, and cause same to be published forthwith in some convenient newspaper according to law.
  2. The publication shall be made for four (4) consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the county in which the suit is brought, if any, and, if not, in some convenient newspaper to be designated in the order, the last publication to be at least one (1) week before the time fixed for the defendant's appearance.

Code 1858, §§ 3521, 3523 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 5; 1841-1842, ch. 54, § 2; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 3); Shan., §§ 5281, 5283; Code 1932, §§ 9472, 9474; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-644.

Cross-References. Defendant to answer within 30 days of summons, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.01.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 334.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 83.

Cited: Netherland v. Johnson, 73 Tenn. 340, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1880); Gardner v. Swift & Co., 113 Tenn. 1, 80 S.W. 764, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1904); Willshire v. Frees, 184 Tenn. 523, 201 S.W.2d 675, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 406 (1947); Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nonresident Defendants — Adequacy of Notice.

Where, in an action attaching real property, nonresident parties defendant were properly notified by publication but not otherwise notified, although the plaintiffs in the action knew, or through reasonable diligence could have discovered, their actual addresses, it was held that the notice was insufficient depriving the nonresident parties defendant of their property without due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14, and that the entire attachment action was void insofar as it affected their interests. Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

2. Want of Publication — Effect.

Failure to make publication in an attachment against a nonresident is a fatal defect. Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872). But see Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974), noted above.

3. Requisite Number of Days of Publication.

To make the publication required by this section does not require a period of 35 days but it may be accomplished within 28 days next before the appearance day. Lowenstine v. Gillespie, 74 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1881).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 313-315.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 220.

Attachment 171.

29-6-145. Contents of notice.

This memorandum or notice shall contain the names of the parties, the style of the court to which the attachment is made returnable, the cause alleged for suing it out, and the time and place at which the defendant is required to appear and defend the attachment suit.

Code 1858, § 3522 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 5); Shan., § 5282; Code 1932, § 9473; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-645.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 83.

Cited: Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

This section applies only when attachment is the leading process, and not where attachment is the means of fixing a lien upon property to secure a decree on the equities set up in the bill of complaint. Guthrie v. Brown, 57 Tenn. 380, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (1872).

This section is inapplicable where bill is to enforce vendor's lien. Kyle v. Philips, 65 Tenn. 43, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (1873).

2. Necessary Allegations.

Even if it be not indispensable to recite the fact of the levy, the notice must certainly show that the defendant was required to appear and answer a suit commenced by attachment of property. Bains v. Perry, 69 Tenn. 37, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1878); Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Byram v. McDowell, 83 Tenn. 581, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1885).

3. Attachment — Necessity.

There need be no attachment where the bill is filed to clear title to realty in this state or to enforce a contract in respect thereto. Ray v. Haag, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 249 (1901).

4. Failure to Comply with Section — Effect.

A publication, under this section, not containing the requisites thereof, would give the court no jurisdiction of a judicial attachment, and a judgment by default founded thereon would be void. Riley v. Nichols, 48 Tenn. 16, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1870), overruled in part, Lowenstine v. Gillespie, 74 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1881).

5. Defective Publication.

A publication notice is fatally defective where it fails to show that the attachment had been issued, or that it had been levied, or the cause for which it had been issued. Riley v. Nichols, 48 Tenn. 16, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1870), overruled in part, Lowenstine v. Gillespie, 74 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1881); Bains v. Perry, 69 Tenn. 37, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1878); Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Holland v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 84 Tenn. 414, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1886).

6. Recital of Publication — Sufficiency.

Where a record, attacked collaterally, fails to show formal entry of actual publication in a suit begun by attachment, recital in decree or order in the record that such publication had been duly made suffices unless contradicted by the record itself. Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 313-315.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 220.

Attachment 171.

29-6-146. Notice mailed to nonresidents.

  1. Where publication is made for a nonresident defendant the clerk of the court, in which such suit is filed, shall, immediately after the first publication, mail a copy of the newspaper containing such publication to each of the nonresident defendants directed to each nonresident defendant's last known place of residence, if such place of residence is known or can be ascertained upon inquiry.
  2. The clerk shall make an entry thereof upon the rule docket showing that such notice has been mailed, for which the clerk shall receive a fee of twenty-five cents (25¢), to be collected by the clerk as other costs in the case.
  3. Any failure of the clerk to give such notice shall not invalidate or make voidable any proceeding in court against a nonresident defendant.

Acts 1923, ch. 13, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 5284a1; mod. Code 1932, § 9476; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-646.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 334.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Adequate Notice Requirement of Due Process.

Where, in an action attaching real property, nonresident party defendants were properly notified by publication but not otherwise notified, and the plaintiffs in the action knew, or through reasonable diligence could have discovered, their actual addresses, it was held that the notice was insufficient, depriving the nonresident party defendants of their property without due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14, and that the entire attachment action was void insofar as it affected their interests. Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 315.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 489.

Attachment 73.

29-6-147. Attachment in lieu of personal service.

The attachment and publication are in lieu of personal service upon the defendant, and the plaintiff may proceed, upon return of the attachment duly levied, as if the suit had been commenced by summons.

Code 1858, § 3524 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 5; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 3); Shan., § 5284; Code 1932, § 9475; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-647.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 5, 6.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prerequisites to Attachment.

Attachment is an extraordinary mode and not to be resorted to when personal service can be had to obtain jurisdiction of the person. Green v. Snyder, 114 Tenn. 100, 84 S.W. 808, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1905).

2. Jurisdiction of Nonresident — How Obtained.

Where a suit is commenced by original attachment against a nonresident debtor, and after the levy of the attachment on his property, he enters his appearance, publication is unnecessary. Allen v. New York & E. Tenn. Iron Co., 2 Shan. 388 (1877).

Courts of law cannot entertain suit against a nonresident for a personal demand, upon publication alone, without attachment or other impounding of property situated within the jurisdiction of the court. Farmers' & Traders' Bank of Allen County, 88 Tenn. 279, 12 S.W. 545, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1889). See Southern R. Co. v. Williams, 141 Tenn. 46, 206 S.W. 186, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1918).

Want of jurisdiction over the nonresident is not cured by the fact that a codefendant, jointly sued but severally liable for the demand, was duly served with process. Farmers' & Traders' Bank of Allen County, 88 Tenn. 279, 12 S.W. 545, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1889).

Attempted attachment of funds in hands of clerk and master of chancery court subject to the orders of the chancellor for distribution in connection with partition suit was void and did not authorize circuit court to proceed against nonresident or give the court jurisdiction of her person. Martin v. Wood, 212 Tenn. 389, 370 S.W.2d 478, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1963).

Proceeding under this section only binds the property and does not give the court jurisdiction of the person of the nonresident or authorize it to enter a personal judgment against him. Martin v. Wood, 212 Tenn. 389, 370 S.W.2d 478, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1963).

3. Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements — Effect.

Without both a levy of the attachment and publication made in due form, and the record reciting the facts, the judgment will be void, unless the defendant appears. Riley v. Nichols, 48 Tenn. 16, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1870), overruled in part, Lowenstine v. Gillespie, 74 Tenn. 641, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 189 (1881); Ingle v. McCurry, 48 Tenn. 26, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1870); Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872); Kyle v. Philips, 65 Tenn. 43, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (1873); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Bains v. Perry, 69 Tenn. 37, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1878); Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Holland v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 84 Tenn. 414, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1886).

4. Recitals in Order and Notice.

The clerk's order of publication need not recite that the attachment was levied, but this recital must be in the published notice. The order of publication may be made when the attachment is granted, and before the levy thereof, and may be general; and, consequently, it cannot recite the levy. The order of publication need not be identical with the published notice, and it need not recite the facts apparent from other parts of the record, but the published notice must contain statements sufficient to notify and inform the defendant of the suit. Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Holland v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 84 Tenn. 414, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1886).

5. Sufficiency of Recitals of Publication.

The recital in the order pro confesso, whether before the master or the chancellor, or in the judgment by default at law, that publication was duly made, is sufficient to show that fact, unless it appears from something in the record that the facts were positively otherwise. Kilcrease's Heirs v. Blythe, 25 Tenn. 378, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1845); Gilchrist v. Cannon, 41 Tenn. 581, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1860); Claybrook v. Wade, 47 Tenn. 555, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1870); Kyle v. Philips, 65 Tenn. 43, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (1873); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Netherland v. Johnson, 73 Tenn. 340, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1880); Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Davis v. Reaves, 75 Tenn. 585, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1881); Harris v. McClanahan, 79 Tenn. 181, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1883); Byram v. McDowell, 83 Tenn. 581, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1885); Pope v. Harrison, 84 Tenn. 82, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1885); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886); Reinhardt v. Nealis, 101 Tenn. 169, 46 S.W. 446, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1898).

The following recitations in decrees, or orders pro confesso, as to the publication, have been held sufficient: “It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that publication has been made” (Kilcrease v. Blythe, 25 Tenn. 378, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1845)); “that publication was duly made” (Gilchrist v. Cannon, 41 Tenn. 581, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1860); Claybrook v. Wade, 47 Tenn. 555, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1870); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873)); “that defendant was regularly before the court by the levy of an attachment and by publication in a newspaper” (Kyle v. Philips, 65 Tenn. 43, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (1873)); “that publication has been regularly made” (Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880); Netherland v. Johnson, 73 Tenn. 340, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1880)); “that publication has been made according to law” (Allen v. Gilliland, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886)).

6. Recitals in Pro Confesso at Rules — Effect.

Recitals in orders pro confesso, taken before the master at rules, have the same effect as if entered in the decree of the court. Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886).

7. Recitals in Decree — Contradiction.

The recitals in the decree as to publication can only be contradicted by the record in the case, and extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict a record when collaterally attacked, except for fraud. Gilchrist v. Cannon, 41 Tenn. 581, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1860); Claybrook v. Wade, 47 Tenn. 555, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1870); Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); Davis v. Reaves, 75 Tenn. 585, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (1881); Byram v. McDowell, 83 Tenn. 581, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1885); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886); Reinhardt v. Nealis, 101 Tenn. 169, 46 S.W. 446, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1898).

8. Recitals in Judgment at Law — Conclusiveness.

A recital of publication in a judgment at law, there being nothing in the record to contradict it, nor any bill of exceptions in the case, is as conclusive as a like recital in a chancery decree under like circumstances. Netherland v. Johnson, 73 Tenn. 340, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1880); Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S.W. 781, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1886).

9. Fraud — Effect and Remedy.

Where the attachment suit was based on false grounds, and publication made accordingly, the decree with proper recitals, valid on its face, and not contradicted by the record, may be attacked and annulled by original bill for fraud, but not collaterally. Walker v. Day, Griswold & Co., 67 Tenn. 77, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 333 (1874); Haynes v. Powell, 69 Tenn. 347, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1878); Maddox v. Apperson, 82 Tenn. 596, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1885); Keith v. Alger, 114 Tenn. 1, 85 S.W. 71, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1904); Puckett v. Griffith, 128 Tenn. 565, 162 S.W. 581, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1913).

Jurisdiction of a nonresident obtained by fraud by attachment of property invalidates the proceeding. J.G. Battelle & Co. v. Youngstown Rolling Mill Co., 84 Tenn. 355, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1886), overruled, Simpson v. East T., V. & G. R.R. Co., 89 Tenn. 304, 15 S.W. 735, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1890).

10. —Fraud Occurring at Certain Point in Suit.

Where, upon bill to set aside attachment proceedings for fraud, the court finds that the fraud occurred at a certain point in the progress of the suit, and did not go to the entire cause, and that the original complainants were entitled to take up the litigation anew at the point where the fraud occurred, they should apply for that redress in that suit, and obtain the necessary decree for the purpose; but if the decree was rendered without reservation, it was final and conclusive against their right to take up the litigation at the point where the fraud occurred. Day, Griswold & Co. v. Walker, 75 Tenn. 712, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1881). See Howard v. Jenkins, 73 Tenn. 176, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1880).

Collateral References. Attachment 207-209.

29-6-148. Appearance of defendant.

  1. Should the defendant appear in time, the defendant may make defense, and the cause proceed as if the suit had been commenced by personal service of process.
  2. If the defendant fails to appear or make defense, the plaintiff may take judgment at law, or obtain a decree in equity, in like manner as if the defendant had failed to appear and defend upon personal service of process.

Code 1858, § 3526; Shan., § 5286; Code 1932, § 9478; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-648.

Collateral References. Attachment 210.

29-6-149. Right to replevy — Amount of bond.

The defendant in an attachment suit may replevy the real or personal property attached by giving bond, with good security, payable to the plaintiff, in double the amount of the plaintiff's demand, or, at defendant's option, in double the value of the property attached, conditioned to pay the debt, interest, and costs, or the value of the property attached, with interest, as the case may be, in the event the defendant shall be cast in the suit.

Code 1858, § 3509 (deriv. Acts 1839-1840, ch. 43, § 1; 1843-1844, ch. 29, § 2; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 12); Shan., § 5269; Code 1932, § 9460; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-649.

Cross-References. Replevin of personalty as original action, title 29, ch. 30, part 2.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 342.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 2, 46, 52, 72; 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 9; 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, §§ 2-6, 17.

Cited: Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 173 Tenn. 140, 114 S.W.2d 953, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1938); Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Compliance with Statutory Requirements — Necessity.

The right to replevy attached property is fixed by statute, and the bond is prescribed by statute, and should not be interfered with by an order of the court. Raht v. Mining Co., 2 Shan. 8 (1876).

A replevy bond made payable to the officer instead of the plaintiff, and not conditioned as required by law, is good, and entitles the plaintiff to all the remedies given on correct replevy bonds. Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

The court cannot read conditions into replevy bonds, but liability is in accordance with the statute. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rainey, 120 Tenn. 357, 113 S.W. 397, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1907); Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

Where after original attachment action defendant filed replevin action against sheriff in justice (now general sessions) court, and executed bond showing on face that it was filed in different proceeding and was not payable to plaintiff, and was not delivered to levying officer or clerk of court having original jurisdiction, the bond was not properly issued so as to constitute a replevy bond under this and the following sections and the court could not make such bond a part of record or enter judgment against surety without notice. Allstadt v. Stephenson, 31 Tenn. App. 552, 218 S.W.2d 744, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

2. Property Subject to Replevy.

A partner may replevy, but cannot replevin, partnership property levied on under an execution against a copartner. Jones v. Richardson, 99 Tenn. 614, 42 S.W. 440, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1897).

3. Giving Bond — Liability Under.

A replevy bond cannot properly be given by anyone except the defendant to an attachment suit, and judgment upon such a bond cannot be entered against anyone except the defendant and his sureties. Smith v. Winkler, 8 Tenn. App. 207, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (1928).

4. Agreement Operating as Bond.

Where, after property is attached, instead of executing a formal statutory bond, the defendant agrees in writing that the property shall be released and that if suit and attachment are sustained, the defendant and surety will pay the value of the property, not to exceed the sum of $2,000, such agreement will be treated as a bond conditioned to pay the value of the property attached. Wilson v. Bryant, 167 Tenn. 107, 67 S.W.2d 133, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1934).

5. Effect of Bond.

Where real estate is attached on statutory grounds and bond executed, the bond stands in lieu of the property attached, but where complainant has an independent equitable lien and resorts to attachment of the land and other property, it is competent for the chancellor, complainant assenting, at the instance of a surety on the bond, to provide for the enforcement, and exhaustion of such lien before proceeding on the replevy bond. Chrisenberry v. Wylie, 54 S.W. 49, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899).

Where defendant gave replevy bond he was entitled to possession of goods, since bond stood in the place of the property and trial court was not entitled to appoint a receiver to sell the property attached. Phillips-Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 63 S.W. 185 (Tenn. 1900).

A replevy bond which dissolves the attachment and discharges the property, constitutes an appearance and a waiver of questions of jurisdiction of the person, but does not validate attachment proceedings which are void and not merely voidable, nor confer jurisdiction of the subject-matter where the court did not have it. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930); Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932); McWaters v. Hall, 15 Tenn. App. 46, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (1932).

The makers of a replevy bond are under § 29-6-152 estopped to deny the validity of the bond, although it may not accurately conform in its conditions to the provisions of this section. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

The replevy bond, as distinguished from a replevin bond, is a substitute for the property attached in the way of personal security, and releases it from the lien of attachment, and leaves it subject to be levied on, under other attachments or executions, though it was originally attached on the ground of a fraudulent conveyance and was replevied by the fraudulent purchaser. Third Nat'l Bank v. Keathley, 35 Tenn. App. 82, 242 S.W.2d 760, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

6. —Bond as Appearance.

Where a replevy of property attached dissolves the attachment and discharges the property it constitutes an appearance and operates as a waiver of any question with respect to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant, however, a replevy bond given in a void attachment suit does not confer jurisdiction upon the court. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

7. —Asserting Lien in Answer to Obligation on Bond.

The obligors on the replevy bond are bound to surrender the property itself, and cannot say, when called upon to do so, that the property was, at the time of the giving of the bond, subject to a lien in their favor, in virtue of which they have since seized and will hold it. In order to assert their lien, they must resort to other remedies than that of giving a replevy bond. Having taken this course, they must abide their obligation. It has been distinctly held that they cannot set up, in answer to their obligation, a right to the property in some third person, or in themselves. Central Trust Co. v. Evans, 73 F. 562, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1818 (6th Cir. 1896).

8. —Defense of Right to Pro Rata Share in Property Made After Giving Bond.

Where plaintiffs in an action under the Bulk Sales Act to set aside the conveyance of property to the defendants attached the property whereon the defendants gave bond and replevied the property thereby substituting personal security for the property and judgment in the action was for the plaintiffs, plaintiffs were entitled to recover on the replevy bond and the defendants could not set up as a defense the fact that if they had not given the bond they would have been entitled to claim a pro rata in the property attached. Third Nat'l Bank v. Keathley, 35 Tenn. App. 82, 242 S.W.2d 760, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

9. —Lien Released by Bond.

Where purchaser of land under oral contract brought suit to rescind the contract because of the defendant seller's failure to comply with the contract, and sought to recover the payment made by him on the land, and to declare a lien on the land for the amount of the payment, and attached the land, defendant's replevy bond released the attachment lien, but not the lien for purchase money paid. Chrisenberry v. Wylie, 54 S.W. 49, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899).

10. —Right to Levy Other Attachments on Property Replevied.

The replevy bond is a substitute for the property attached, in the way of personal security, and releases it from the lien of the attachment, and leaves it subject to be levied on, under other attachments or executions, though it was originally attached upon the ground of a fraudulent disposition, and was replevied by the fraudulent purchaser. However, to subject such property to other levies, the bond must be a replevy bond, and not a bond for the forthcoming of the property. Jacobi v. Schloss, 47 Tenn. 385, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 159 (1870); Cheatham v. Galloway, 54 Tenn. 678, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1872); Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Frankle v. Douglas, 69 Tenn. 476, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1878); Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Evans, 66 F. 809, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1895).

Where a fraudulent vendee replevies the property, he cannot transfer good title by a trust deed thereon to secure the sureties on the replevy bond as against other levying creditors of the fraudulent vendor. Frankle v. Douglas, 69 Tenn. 476, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1878).

11. Amount and Type of Bond.

The defendant replevying the property attached may, at his election, give a replevy bond, either in double the amount of the plaintiff's demand, conditioned to pay the debt, interest, and costs, or in double the value of the property attached, conditioned to pay the value of the property attached, with interest, in the event he shall be cast in the suit. Caution should be exercised as to the liability intended to be assumed. Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872); Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874); Fleshman v. Trollinger, 163 Tenn. 157, 40 S.W.2d 1029, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1930). See Bond v. N. Greenwald & Co., 51 Tenn. 453, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 187 (1871).

A defendant, whose property is attached, has the option of giving, either of two bonds, one in double the amount of complainant's demand, or one in double the value of the property attached, and upon giving either kind of bond he is entitled to a release of the property from the attachment and its restoration to him, and should the complainant recover the decree should be rendered upon the bond. Phillips-Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 63 S.W. 185 (Tenn. 1900).

12. —Value of Property — Necessity for Fixing.

Where the condition of the replevy bond is to pay the value of the property attached, its value should be fixed in the bond, and where there are several articles, the value of each should, perhaps, be fixed separately. Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872).

13. —Conditions and Amount — Respective Weight in Construing Bond.

Where a replevy bond was given under this section, but not clearly showing whether it was for double the amount of plaintiff's demand, or double the value of the property, but which was conditioned “to be satisfied by delivery of the property or its value,” the condition as thus expressed must control, and the bond construed to be one for double the value of the property, so that a personal judgment or decree for the amount of the recovery could not be entered against the sureties on such bond, without the right to satisfy such judgment or decree by returning the property. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Evans, 66 F. 809, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1895); Central Trust Co. v. Evans, 73 F. 562, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1818 (6th Cir. 1896).

More weight should be given to the condition than to the amount; and where the bond is for double the amount of the demand, but not conditioned to pay the debt, interest and cost, and yet does not show the value of the property to be fixed but is conditioned on return of property, it does not comply in terms with either form prescribed and will be construed to comply with the second and to allow of return of the property. Fleshman v. Trollinger, 163 Tenn. 157, 40 S.W.2d 1029, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1930).

14. —Bonds in Double the Amount of Debt.

Where the replevy bond is in fact for about double the amount of plaintiff's demand, without purporting to be for double plaintiff's demand, and conditioned to “abide by and perform and satisfy the order and judgment of the court,” and not fixing the value of the property, or providing for its return, the bond will be construed to be one in double the amount of the debt, and the judgment or decree will be for the amount of the debt, interest, and costs, however much exceeding the value of the property replevied; and notwithstanding the hardship of the case, the legal result of the terms of the bond must be enforced. Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872); Dale & Frierson v. Heffner & Duncan, 63 Tenn. 217, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 231 (1874).

15. —Bonds in Double the Value of Property.

A replevy bond conditioned in a fixed sum “to produce the property, if demanded, in as good condition as it then was, and deliver it to the proper officer of the court,” is construed to be a bond in double the value of the property, conditioned to pay its value and interest, in the event defendant be cast in the suit; and the proper judgment is for the penalty of the bond, which may be satisfied by the delivery of the property or the payment of its value. Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879); Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880); Smyth v. Barbee, 77 Tenn. 173, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1882); Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Evans, 66 F. 809, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1895).

A replevy bond in the penalty of double the value of the property, conditioned for the forthcoming of the property to answer the final decree, must be construed as falling under the second class of bonds mentioned in this section, and as conditioned to pay the value of the property, with interest, in the event the defendant be cast in the suit, though there be no stipulation for interest, and a judgment for that sum, with interest thereon, is proper, neither party demanding a reference. Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

In a suit to recover $20,000, where the property was attached, a replevy bond given in the penalty of $1,200, conditioned to produce the property or pay the value thereof, without being expressly made payable either in double the amount of plaintiff's demand or in double the value of the property attached, as required by this section, must be construed as given in double the value of the property attached, although the value thereof be not fixed in the bond, and the judgment thereon should allow its satisfaction by the return of the property as provided in § 29-6-154. Johnston v. Phillips, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 662 (1913); Massachusetts Bonding Co. v. McLemore, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 633 (1914).

Bond executed to release attached property by the defendant which appears to be in double the amount of the plaintiff's claim, and which makes no provision for return of the property released, is not a forthcoming bond, but a replevy bond liable for any judgment rendered thereon for the plaintiff. McWaters v. Hall, 15 Tenn. App. 46, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (1932).

Where there was no proof of the value of the property and where it was evident that the replevy bond was not for double the amount of the plaintiff's demand, it will be assumed that the defendant elected to give bond for double the value of the property and that the officer taking the bond fixed the value of the property at half the penal sum of the bond. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

16. Estoppel to Deny Validity of Bond — Want of Title as Defense.

A defendant obtaining a replevy of property attached, and the sureties on his replevy bond, are estopped to deny the validity of the bond or proceedings under which the possession was obtained, and, where the bond was conditioned to pay the debt, they cannot prevent a decree on the bond by showing that the defendant had no title to the property. Stephens v. Green County Iron Co., 58 Tenn. 71, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1872); Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872); Dale & Frierson v. Heffner & Duncan, 63 Tenn. 217, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 231 (1874); Smyth v. Barbee, 77 Tenn. 173, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1882).

17. Estoppel to Contest Validity of Attachment.

Where attachment was issued, garnishment served and bond in double the amount of the debt executed, conditioned that if attachment be sustained the bond was to be in force, and the only question raised by the pleading was as to residence of defendant as to which plaintiff prevailed, defendant could not later insist on no liability on the bond because plaintiff had not proved that garnishee did not owe defendant. Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

18. Goods Wrongfully Attached for Debt of Another — Estoppel by Result of Suit.

The owner of goods wrongfully attached for the debt of another, upon a false averment of fraud, who retains possession and gives forthcoming bond for them in the attachment case, to which he is not a party, and declines to become a party otherwise, is estopped, after they have been condemned to sale in the attachment suit, to maintain an independent suit against the plaintiff in the attachment proceedings for the value of the goods thus wrongfully converted. His remedy was by assertion of his rights in the attachment suit. But the owner is not estopped in such case to maintain an independent suit against the plaintiff in the attachment proceedings for goods other than those attached where the same have been seized under execution to satisfy the balance of the judgment in the attachment case. McCadden v. Lowenstein, 92 Tenn. 614, 22 S.W. 426, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1893).

19. Liability of Surety.

The surety upon a replevy bond for delivery of the property, executed after the supposed levy of an attachment, being led to sign the bond by the representation of the officer that a levy had been made, is not bound thereby, where, in fact, there was no levy. Connell v. Scott, 64 Tenn. 595, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1875).

Where no judgment or decree can be rendered against the defendant, none can be rendered against the surety on the replevy bond. Federlicht v. Glass, 81 Tenn. 481, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1884).

Any doubt as to surety's liability should be resolved in his favor. Fleshman v. Trollinger, 163 Tenn. 157, 40 S.W.2d 1029, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1930).

20. —Dismissal of Suit as to One Defendant.

The sureties on a replevy bond are discharged from liability by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the suit as to one of the joint defendants in whose joint behalf was the undertaking of the sureties on such bond. Harris v. Taylor, 35 Tenn. 536, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1856). See Kelly v. Gordon, 40 Tenn. 683, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1859); Smith v. Roby, 53 Tenn. 546, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1871).

21. —Failure to Fix Value of Property in Bond.

Failure to fix value of property in bond will not release surety. Dale & Frierson v. Heffner & Duncan, 63 Tenn. 217, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 231 (1874).

22. —Use and Wear on Property.

Sureties on replevy bond are not liable for loss of value by use or wear during the time it was held under the bond. Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874).

23. —Court's Sale of Property Pending Suit.

Where the court ordered the property attached and replevied to be delivered up by the defendant and sold, which was done, there could be no decree against the sureties on the replevy bond for the difference between what was actually realized by the sale and the value fixed in the bond. Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874).

24. —Sale of Property Under Execution — Effect.

A replevy bond construed to be one in double the amount of the debt means that the surety is obligated to pay the judgment, if one is recovered; and, in that event, a judgment may be rendered on the bond for the penalty thereof, to be satisfied by the payment of the recovery against the defendant, but not to be satisfied, as to the surety, by the return of the property or its value. This is so, though the property attached and replevied has been sold under execution, and the proceeds applied to the judgment, leaving a large balance unpaid. Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872).

25. —Binding Effect of Judgment on Surety.

A surety on a replevy bond is bound by result of litigation against his principal, and is bound by the judgment in the case against his principal who acquiesces therein. The surety cannot, by writ of error, review the proceedings in that case, even though they be irregular and erroneous. Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Greenlaw v. Logan, 70 Tenn. 185, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 153 (1879); Central Trust Co. v. Evans, 73 F. 562, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1818 (6th Cir. 1896).

A bill will not lie by the sureties on a replevy bond, after judgment on the bond in the suit in which it was given, valid on its face, merely upon the ground that the interest of the principal in the goods replevied was that of a partner in a firm insolvent at the time of the attachment, the bill not being good as a bill of review nor as an original bill to impeach the judgment for fraud. Smyth v. Barbee, 77 Tenn. 173, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1882). See Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

26. Nature of Bond as Affecting Judgment.

Where the replevy bond is in the penalty of double the plaintiff's debt, conditioned, in the alternative, to pay the debt, interest, and costs, or the value of the property, without fixing the value thereof in the bond, as might have been done, the judgment on the bond shall be for the amount of the debt, interest, and costs, and not merely for the value of the property. Bond v. N. Greenwald & Co., 51 Tenn. 453, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 187 (1871); Dale & Frierson v. Heffner & Duncan, 63 Tenn. 217, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 231 (1874); Johnston v. Phillips, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 662 (1913).

Where the penalty is double the amount of the debt, judgment may be rendered for the penalty, to be satisfied with the payment of the debt, interest, and costs, or the judgment may be rendered on the bond for the amount of the debt and costs, if not in excess of the penalty. If the penalty of the bond is in double the value of the property, judgment may be rendered for the penalty, to be satisfied by the return of the property or the payment of its value, with interest from the date of the bond, and costs, or the payment of the recovery. Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872); Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874); Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879); Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Evans, 66 F. 809, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1895); Johnston v. Phillips, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 662 (1913).

Where the condition of the bond was that the defendant “shall abide by, and faithfully perform, such order and decree as the court may make in this cause, and return the property or pay such moneys as the court may order,” the proper judgment on the bond would be for the penalty of the bond, to be satisfied by paying the value of the property, with interest from its date, or by returning the property. Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874); Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874).

If complainant recovers and replevy bond is double the amount of demand, the decree should be for the penalty of the bond to be satisfied by payment of recovery, but if replevy bond is double the amount of the property attached, the decree should be for the penalty of the bond to be satisfied by the delivery of the property or its value. Phillips-Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 63 S.W. 185 (Tenn. 1900).

A judgment on the replevy bond given under this section, whether by the original defendant or an intervening defendant, should be for the amount of the bond or the debt, without any provisions for a return of the property so replevied, because there is no such requirement in this section, which must be distinguished from a replevin bond in an action of replevin. People's Nat'l Bank v. Corse, 133 Tenn. 720, 182 S.W. 917, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1915). But see § 29-6-154.

27. Interest.

Interest will be allowed on the value of the property replevied from the date of the bond, but interest will not be allowed on the penalty of the bond, though the judgment rendered on the bond will bear interest pending the appeal, notwithstanding the fact that the allowance of such interest will make the judgment in the appellate court exceed the penalty of the bond. Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874).

28. Attachment Wrongfully Sued Out — Recovery of Cost of Bond.

Where attachment was wrongfully sued out, defendant may recover cost of the execution of replevy bond, in action on the attachment bond. Gordon v. Kentucky Midland Coal Co., 152 Tenn. 367, 278 S.W. 68, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 79, 42 A.L.R. 1052 (1925).

29. Discharge in Bankruptcy — Effect on Obligation under Bond.

The obligation created by a replevy bond given in an attachment suit to pay the value of the property attached and replevied, if the defendant fail to sustain his title, is not a debt created by fraud, but is a contingent debt provable under the bankruptcy law, and the obligor's discharge releases him from his liability on the bond; but a discharge of the principal on such bond does not operate to discharge the surety thereon. Wolf v. Stix, 99 U.S. 1, 25 L. Ed. 309, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1501 (1879).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 523-526, 544.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 305, 315.

Bankruptcy of debtor as affecting necessity of compliance with conditions precedent to enforcement of bond in attachment or other judicial proceeding. 130 A.L.R. 1162.

Bankruptcy, right to and form of judgment against one discharged in, in order to perfect right of action against one secondarily liable as surety on bond given to dissolve attachment. 81 A.L.R. 81.

Death of principal defendant as discharging surety on bond given for release of attachment. 21 A.L.R. 290, 131 A.L.R. 1146.

Discharge of surety on bond given to release property by bankruptcy of debtor within four months after attachment or execution. 36 A.L.R. 449, 107 A.L.R. 1138.

Filing bond to secure release or return of seized property as appearance. 57 A.L.R.2d 1109.

Posting of redelivery bond by defendant in attachment as waiver of damages for wrongful attachment. 57 A.L.R.2d 1376.

Right of surety on bond given to prevent, or secure release of, attachment, to attack attachment after recovery by plaintiff or judgment in attachment action. 89 A.L.R. 266.

Value of attached property as limit of liability on bond to release attachment. 80 A.L.R. 595.

Waiver of objections to attachment by giving bond for release thereof. 72 A.L.R. 122.

Attachment 300.

29-6-150. Replevy before return or sale.

The officer levying the attachment shall take the bond, if tendered, at any time before the officer has made sale of the property or return of the process, in which case the officer will fix the value of the property, and judge of the sufficiency of the security.

Code 1858, § 3510 (deriv. Acts 1839-1840, ch. 43, § 2); Shan., § 5270; Code 1932, § 9461; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-650.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 342.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, §§ 5, 6.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Duty and Liability of Sheriff.

It is the duty of the sheriff, in taking a replevy bond for the property attached, to see that the security is sufficient; and, for his failure to do so, he will be held liable for the loss occasioned thereby. McKinney v. Craig, 36 Tenn. 577, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1857).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 307, 308.

Replevin 5.

29-6-151. Replevy after return.

After the return of the attachment, and at any time before sale of the property attached, the clerk of the court to which return is made shall take the replevy bond and fix the value of the property, and judge of the sufficiency of the security.

Code 1858, § 3511 (deriv. Acts 1839-1840, ch. 43, § 2); Shan., § 5271; Code 1932, § 9462; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-651.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 342.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, § 6.

Cited: Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prima Facie Correctness of Clerk's Valuation.

Clerk's valuation upon taking the replevy bond is prima facie correct. Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874).

2. Relief from Clerk's Valuation.

The valuation made by the clerk, upon taking the bond, is not conclusive. Either party desiring it may show by proof the true value, or have an order of reference to ascertain the same. Muhling v. Ganeman, 63 Tenn. 88, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1874); Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874); Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879).

3. Demand for Reference — Necessity.

Unless a reference is moved for, an appeal is not necessary, and the party is not entitled, as a matter of right, to a reference in the appellate court where it was not demanded in the lower court, though it may be allowed at his cost. Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879); Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

Collateral References. Replevin 5.

29-6-152. Defective replevy bonds.

Replevy bonds are subject to the rules prescribed in §§ 8-19-302, 8-19-303.

Code 1858, § 3512; Shan., § 5272; Code 1932, § 9463; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-652.

Cited: McWaters v. Hall, 15 Tenn. App. 46, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (1932); Third Nat'l Bank v. Keathley, 35 Tenn. App. 82, 242 S.W.2d 760, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Replevy.

The replevy of property attached constitutes a general appearance, and a waiver of questions of jurisdiction of the person. New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 160 Tenn. 329, 24 S.W.2d 881, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1930).

2. Validity of Bond.

A replevy bond is not affected, though it be called a delivery bond by the sheriff in his return. Stephens v. Green County Iron Co., 58 Tenn. 71, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1872).

A condition in the replevy bond to abide by and perform and satisfy the order and judgment of the court, at the return term of the attachment, or that the defendant will surrender himself into the custody, is a good statutory bond, there being no other objections to it. Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872).

3. —Bond Not Executed in Course of a Judicial Proceeding.

A replevy bond cannot be regarded as one executed in the course of judicial proceedings and properly filed, where the sheriff failed to return the attachment and bond, as required by law, and such bond is not cured by this section. Green v. Lanier, 52 Tenn. 662, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 294 (1871).

4. Common Law Bond — Obligors' Remedies.

If the replevy bond is a common law bond, and not a strictly statutory bond, the obligors are subject to the remedies given upon strictly statutory bonds. Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879); Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

5. Estoppel to Deny Validity of Bond or Proceedings.

A party obtaining a replevy of property attached is estopped to deny the validity of the bond or the proceedings under which he obtained the possession, and so are the sureties on the replevy bond. Stephens v. Green County Iron Co., 58 Tenn. 71, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1872); Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872); Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn. App. 500, — S.W.2d —, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

Makers of bond estopped to deny its validity, though its conditions may not accurately conform to statute. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

6. —Ancillary Attachment.

The defendant is not estopped from objecting to the legality of the ancillary attachment proceedings by the execution of a replevy bond. Dickinson v. Redmond, 3 Shan. 620 (1875).

Collateral References. Replevin 33.

29-6-153. Filing of replevy bond.

The bond, if given to the officer levying the attachment, shall be returned by the officer with the attachment; and, whether given to such officer or to the clerk, it constitutes a part of the record.

Code 1858, § 3513; Shan., § 5273; Code 1932, § 9464; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-653.

Cross-References. Surety requiring counter security, § 29-33-104.

Cited: Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

Collateral References. Replevin 33.

29-6-154. Judgment against defendant and sureties.

The court may enter up judgment or decree upon the bond, in the event of recovery by the plaintiff, against the defendant and the defendant's sureties, for the penalty of the bond, to be satisfied by delivery of the property, or its value, or payment of the recovery, as the case may be.

Code 1858, § 3514; Shan., § 5274; mod. Code 1932, § 9465; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-654.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, §§ 15, 17.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Form of Judgment.

While § 29-6-149 does not prescribe a condition that the bond may be satisfied by a return of the property, yet under this section and § 29-6-155, judgment should be for the penalty of the bond, which may be satisfied by the payment of the plaintiff's recovery, interest, and costs, or by the delivery or forthcoming of the property, or by the payment of its value, with interest as the case may be, that is, according as the bond may be in the one form or the other. If the bond be in a penalty double the plaintiff's demand, then the judgment should be for such penalty to be satisfied by the payment of the plaintiff's recovery, interest, and costs; but if the bond be in double the value of the property, the judgment should be for the penalty, to be satisfied by a return or forthcoming of the property, or paying its value, with interest from the date of the bond. Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874); Kuhn v. Spellacy, 71 Tenn. 278, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1879); Ward v. Kent, 74 Tenn. 128, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1880).

A judgment for the plaintiff sustaining the attachment and ordering its enforcement, though awkwardly expressed, was manifestly intended as a judgment in the alternative for either return of the replevied property or for payment of the judgment. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

The court is not empowered to enter any other form of judgment on the bond than the two forms alternately provided by this section and § 29-6-155 and as called for by the contract expressed in the bond. Third Nat'l Bank v. Keathley, 35 Tenn. App. 82, 242 S.W.2d 760, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

2. Judgment on Bond.

A judgment, against sureties on a replevy bond given for the replevy of property attached, rendered before a judgment against the defendant upon the cause of action for which the suit was brought, is void. Morning v. Alexander, 57 Tenn. 606, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1873).

Both the debt and the lien must be adjudged before the bond can be enforced. Where only the debt has been adjudged, and the question of lien is yet to be adjudged, the appellate court cannot render a judgment upon the replevy bond, but must remand the cause for adjudication as to lien, where the lien exists. Casey & Hedges Mfg. Co. v. Weatherly, 97 Tenn. 297, 37 S.W. 6, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1896).

3. Judgment for Less Than Penalty of Bonds.

If, in an action on a replevy bond executed by defendant, judgment was rendered for less than the penalty of the bonds, the defendant and the surety on the bonds cannot complain on that account in view of this section and § 29-6-155. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

4. Perishable Property Sold Pending Suit — Judgment Against Sureties for Deficiency.

Where perishable property was sold by the court under forced sale pending suit, judgment against sureties upon bond for difference between the value of the property as estimated in the bond and the amount for which it sold was improper. Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874).

5. Decree Providing for Exhausting Lien of Complainant Before Proceeding on Bond.

The chancellor, complainant assenting, may at instance of surety provide in his decree for exhaustion of the lien of complainant before proceeding on the bond. Chrisenberry v. Wylie, 54 S.W. 49, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899).

Collateral References. Attachment 338.

29-6-155. Judgment on replevy bond.

If the property attached has been replevied by the defendant, the court, upon recovery by the plaintiff, is authorized to render judgment against the defendant and the defendant's sureties in the replevy bond, for the penalty of such bond, but to be satisfied by the payment of the value of the property, with interest from the date of the bond, or by the payment of the plaintiff's demand as ascertained, with interest and costs, or by the forthcoming of the property, as the case may be.

Code 1858, § 3535 (deriv. Acts 1843-1844, ch. 29, § 3; 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 12); Shan., § 5295; Code 1932, § 9487; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-655.

Cross-References. Judgment on bond or for return of property, § 29-23-105.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, § 17.

Collateral References. Attachment 353.

29-6-156. Loss of replevied property.

The death or destruction of the property, without any fault of the defendant, after the replevy, is no defense to the liability on such bond.

Code 1858, § 3515; Shan., § 5275; Code 1932, § 9466; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-656.

Cross-References. Judgment on bond or for delivery of property, § 29-23-105.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 18; 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, §§ 18, 23.

Cited: Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Loss of Property — Nonstatutory Bond.

Where the bond was not conditioned as required by statute, or where there was simply a forthcoming bond, and the property was destroyed or died, the sureties of the replevy bond were not bound. Green v. Lanier, 52 Tenn. 662, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 294 (1871); Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Guthrie v. Brown, 57 Tenn. 380, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (1872).

2. Loss of Property — Replevy Bond.

Death or destruction of property does not release surety on the replevy bond. Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872).

Where the property attached is replevied, the replevy bond represents the debt, and stands in lieu of the property, and judgment may be given on the bond for the value of the property where it has been lost before the trial. Epperson v. Van Pelt, 68 Tenn. 73, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1876).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 302.

Replevin 127-135.

29-6-157. Application of property to judgment.

The property attached, if not replevied, with its proceeds or increase from the date of levy, shall be subjected to the satisfaction of the judgment or decree by sale upon such terms and conditions as may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed for the interest of all parties, by order of sale, or by other process necessary to effect the object.

Code 1858, § 3536 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 1); Shan., § 5296; Code 1932, § 9488; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-657.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 343.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 55, 86, 101.

Cited: Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prayer for Sale Unnecessary.

Special prayer for sale of the property attached is not necessary. Eaton v. Breathett, 27 Tenn. 534, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1847); Quinn v. Leake, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 67 (1872).

2. Order of Sale — Necessity.

The fact that the justice (now general sessions judge) in rendering judgment did not order the attached property sold did not operate as an abandonment of the attachment where the justice adjudged that the attachment be sustained. Sadler v. Murphy, 18 Tenn. App. 340, 77 S.W.2d 70, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

3. Venditioni Exponas — Authority to Issue.

Venditioni exponas is an important link in the purchaser's chain of title, and the clerk must look alone to the judgment for his authority to issue it, and he has no authority to issue it under a judgment that awards execution generally, but does not order a condemnation. Staunton v. Harris, 56 Tenn. 579, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (1872); Hillman v. Werner, 56 Tenn. 586, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 179 (1872); Hurst v. Liford, 58 Tenn. 622, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 311 (1872).

4. Division of County Before Sale — Effect.

Where, after the condemnation of land attached and the award of a writ of venditioni exponas, and after its issuance, that part of the county in which the land lay was taken off of the county for the creation of a new county, the sheriff of the county in which the suit was prosecuted may sell the land under the writ of venditioni exponas. Tyrell's Heirs v. Rountree, 32 U.S. 464, 8 L. Ed. 749, 1833 U.S. LEXIS 358 (1833).

5. Dismissal of Bill — Effect on Intervenor's Petition.

Where one intervenes in an attachment case, without independently attaching property, and without publication notice as to nonresident defendant, such petition fails on dismissal of the original bill of complaint. Doak v. Stahlman, 58 S.W. 741, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 178 (1899).

6. Appeal — Effect on Third Person's Bill.

Where appeal is prayed from judgment in attachment case, it is error to dismiss a bill filed by third person claiming title to the property, for want of equity, since complainant could not seek relief by petition in the court below, as the appeal removed the case from that court. Jones v. Stewart, 61 S.W. 105, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 147 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1900).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 570.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 318.

Attachment 13.

29-6-158. Land subjected to judgment of general sessions court.

In all attachment cases returnable before a judge of the court of general sessions, when land has been levied upon, either by the attachment or by execution under the judgment, and it is necessary to sell the land to satisfy the judgment, the papers shall be returned to the circuit court, and the land condemned, as in other cases of levy upon land by execution of a general sessions judge.

Code 1858, § 3537; Shan., § 5297; Code 1932, § 9489; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-658.

Cited: Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessity of Return.

Where the justice's (now general sessions judge's) attachment has been levied on land, judgment should be rendered by the justice for the debt, and the final judgment against a defendant without service of process or appearance stayed; and if it is necessary to sell the land to satisfy the judgment, the papers shall be returned to the circuit court for condemnation of the land to be sold to satisfy such judgment, as in cases of levy on land by a justice's execution. Sullivan v. Fugate, 48 Tenn. 20, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1870); Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872); Boyd v. Gentry, 59 Tenn. 625, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1874). See State v. Covington, 72 Tenn. 51, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1879).

2. Affidavit — Entry — Effect of Defect.

The affidavit upon which the attachment issued must be entered on the minutes, in the judgment of condemnation, as required by § 19-3-104(d) (now 16-15-804), and if the affidavit fails to state a sufficient ground for the attachment, the sale under the condemnation judgment will be void, for the affidavit in attachment cases is the basis of the suit, and is a part of the record. Maples v. Tunis, 30 Tenn. 108, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1850); Jas. N. Watt & Co. v. Carnes, 51 Tenn. 532, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1871).

3. Effect of Erroneous Proceedings.

Where the justice (now general sessions judge) failed to make publication for a nonresident defendant, failed to stay final judgment and the affidavit failed to state the nature of the debt, or that it was a just debt, upon appeal or writ of error from the judgment of condemnation of the land in the circuit court, the appellate court will reverse such judgment and discharge the attachment. Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872); Crabtree v. Bank of Winchester, 108 Tenn. 483, 67 S.W. 797, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1902).

4. Right of Survivorship.

The right of survivorship, previously conveyed or attached by a judgment creditor, is not destroyed by the dissolution of a tenancy by the entireties. Third Nat'l Bank v. Knobler, 789 S.W.2d 254, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 173 (Tenn. 1990).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 570.

51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace § 77.

Attachment 167.

29-6-159. Execution for unsatisfied balance.

When the property attached is not sufficient to satisfy the recovery, execution may issue for the residue, in case there shall have been appearance by, or personal service of summons on, the defendant.

Code 1858, § 3538; Shan., § 5298; mod. Code 1932, § 9490; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-659.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 97; 19 Tenn. Juris., Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 53.

Cited: Walker v. Cottrell, 65 Tenn. 257, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1873); Hyder v. Butler, 103 Tenn. 289, 52 S.W. 876, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1899).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

A personal judgment for money rendered against a nonresident, who is not served with process and does not appear, in a proceeding by attachment of his property, subjecting the attached property and awarding execution for the unsatisfied balance and costs, is coram non judice and void, as being without due process of law, when called in question, either in the courts of this state or of any other state, so far as it exceeds the amount for which the attached property is sold. Kemper-Thomas Paper Co. v. Shyer, 108 Tenn. 444, 67 S.W. 856, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1902).

2. Nature of Attachment.

Attachment is not in rem but is in personam, and is only a means of security. Green v. Shaver, 22 Tenn. 139, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1842); Perkins' Heirs v. Norvell, 25 Tenn. 151, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1845); Snell v. Allen, 31 Tenn. 208, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1851).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 570.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 324, 333.

29-6-160. Stay of judgment.

  1. Where the defendant does not appear, the court may, and a general sessions judge shall, stay final judgment or decree, not exceeding twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months from the time of the return.
  2. Where the attachment is sued out because the defendant is a nonresident, the stay shall be allowed, unless sufficient cause appear to the contrary.

Code 1858, §§ 3527, 3528 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 25; 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 5; 1845-1846, ch. 108, § 2); Shan., §§ 5287, 5288; Code 1932, §§ 9479, 9480; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-660.

Cross-References. Stay of proceedings to enforce judgment, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 343.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 96.

Cited: Spradlin v. Bratton, 74 Tenn. 685, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1881); Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Manner of Accomplishing Stay.

After the return of the attachment levied, the stay may be accomplished by proceeding no further with the suit until the time expires, or by rendering judgment and providing on its face for the stay of the execution of the same for the required time. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Claybrook v. Wade, 47 Tenn. 555, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1870); Mulloy v. White, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 9 (1875).

2. Necessity of Stay.

In an original attachment case before a justice (now general sessions judge) where publication is required for the nonresident, and the defendant does not appear, a final judgment, rendered within the six months after the return of the attachment levied, is void, and the proceedings will be quashed upon appeal. Sorrels v. Wiley, 53 Tenn. 318, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (Tenn. Oct. 14, 1871). See Rumbough v. White, 58 Tenn. 260, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 256 (1872); Nashville & C.R.R. v. Todd, 58 Tenn. 549, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1872).

3. Court of Record — Discretion as to Stay.

It is discretionary with a court of record whether the judgment be stayed, and the appellate court will be slow to revise this discretion. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Boggess v. Gamble, 43 Tenn. 148, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1866).

4. Stay as to Nonresident.

Where the attachment is sued out upon the ground that the defendant is a nonresident, the judgment must be stayed unless sufficient cause to the contrary is made to appear. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Claybrook v. Wade, 47 Tenn. 555, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 172 (1870); Mulloy v. White, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 9 (1875).

5. Notice for Nonresidents — Return.

The publication notice for nonresidents in attachment cases may be made returnable to a regular rule day, like process. Fellows v. Cook, 57 Tenn. 81, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (1872); Harris v. Bogle, 115 Tenn. 701, 92 S.W. 849, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1906).

6. Execution upon Expiration of Stay.

The complainant under attachment bill, without personal service of process, but upon publication for a nonresident, is entitled to have his final decree executed at the expiration of the stay, without the imposition of other terms. Mulloy v. White, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 9 (1875).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 315, 491.

Justices of the peace 135(4).

29-6-161. Nonresident setting aside default judgment.

In all cases of attachment sued out because the defendant resides out of the state, or has merely departed or removed property from the state, the judgment or decree by default may be set aside, upon application of the defendant and good cause shown, within twelve (12) months thereafter, and defense permitted upon such terms as the court may impose.

Code 1858, § 3529; Shan., § 5289; Code 1932, § 9481; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-661.

Cross-References. Effect of decree pro confesso in chancery cases, § 21-1-401.

Setting aside default judgment, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 55.02.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 344, 345.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 93, 94.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Adequate Notice Requirement of Due Process.

Where, in an action attaching real property, nonresident party defendants were properly served by publication but not otherwise notified, although the plaintiffs in the action knew, or through reasonable diligence could have discovered, their actual addresses, it was held that the notice was insufficient, depriving the nonresident party defendants of their property without due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14 and that the entire attachment action was void insofar as it affected their interests. Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

2. Requirement of Nonresidence.

It must appear as a matter of fact that the defendant was a nonresident. Gill v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. 88, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1871); Cain v. Jennings, 2 Shan. 209 (1877), aff'd, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876).

3. Grounds of Attachment As Determining Rights of Nonresident.

Where the attachment was sued out upon several grounds stated in the alternative, some of which were the grounds stated in this section, the court would, upon application of the defendant and good cause shown, within the time limited, have power to set aside the judgment, and permit defense, upon his showing that the true ground of the attachment, stated in the attachment, was one of the grounds in this section, and that the other grounds stated were not true. Smith v. Foster, 43 Tenn. 139, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1866); Gill v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. 88, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1871); Cain v. Jennings, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876).

When the issuance of the attachment is based upon the ground that the nonresident is an absconding debtor, he will be precluded from the mode of redress prescribed by this section, and must seek his remedy on the bond, as provided in § 29-6-162. Patterson v. Arnold, 44 Tenn. 364, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1867); Gill v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. 88, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1871).

4. Prompt Assertion of Rights — Necessity.

The affidavit should affirmatively show that the applicant has come forward at the earliest possible moment, or at least with reasonable speed, to assert his legal rights. The year is not given as a matter of right, and if the defendant is guilty of laches, does not show good cause. Cain v. Jennings, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876).

5. Application of Defendant — Nature.

An application is in the nature of a motion for a new trial or a petition for a rehearing, and may be supported by affidavits, but the petition and affidavits are not parts of the record, unless made so by a bill of exceptions. Smith v. Foster, 43 Tenn. 139, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1866); State ex rel. Sneed v. Hall, 43 Tenn. 255, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1866); Wilson v. Waters, 47 Tenn. 323, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1869).

6. Time for Disposition of Application.

The application must be made within the 12 months, but it is not required that it shall be disposed of within that time. The address of the application to the proper tribunal, and the filing of it in the right office, with good cause shown in the application, is a compliance with the law. Bledsoe v. Wright, 61 Tenn. 471, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1873).

7. “Good Cause.”

The “good cause” must go to the merits. If the matter relied on be in abatement, it must be distinctly and unequivocally stated, and must negative the ground of attachment. Gill v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. 88, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1871); Collins v. Knight, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 183 (1876); Cain v. Jennings, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876). See Smith v. Foster, 43 Tenn. 139, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1866); State ex rel. Sneed v. Hall, 43 Tenn. 255, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1866); Fellows v. Cook, 57 Tenn. 81, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (1872); Ledgerwood v. Miller, 2 Shan. 66 (1876).

Where the defendant fails to dispute or contest the justice of the debt on which the suit is based, and shows no excuse for not making defense after full notice, he fails to show good cause. Gill v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. 88, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 322 (1871); Cain v. Jennings, 2 Shan. 209 (1877), aff'd, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876).

8. Action of Nonresident as General Appearance.

Where following a suit commenced by attachment of his property and judgment by default, a nonresident defendant filed a petition which under this section he prayed be treated as an answer to the original bill and later filed an answer to the original bill, a plea in abatement filed after the petition and answer was made too late in that the petition and answer constituted a general appearance and the defendant could not thereafter object to the jurisdiction. Gore v. McDaid, 27 Tenn. App. 111, 178 S.W.2d 221, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 135 (1943).

9. Resident Sued as Nonresident.

Where the defendant was proceeded against as a nonresident, when in fact he was a resident, and a decree has been rendered against him, his petition stating that he was a resident, that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit, showing merits, and praying for supersedeas, and leave to make defense, must not be taken from the files, upon the ground that it was unaccompanied by an answer. It was not necessary for him to answer until it was determined by the court that he was entitled, upon the fact stated in the petition, to make defense by answer. A reasonable time must be given him to make answer. Metcalf v. Landers, 62 Tenn. 35, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 133 (1873).

10. Payment of Debt After Sale.

Before the confirmation of a chancery sale, under an attachment against a nonresident defendant, it may be set aside, on payment of the attaching creditor's debt, though the bidder be a third person; and while, regularly, the application should be made before the confirmation of the sale, where the party was thrown off his guard by a promise from complainant's attorney to take the money, the sale was set aside after its confirmation, but during the term at which the confirmation was had. Abbott v. Fagg, 48 Tenn. 742, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1870).

11. Effect of Final Decree.

After final decree, and service of a copy of the decree upon him, the nonresident will only be permitted to defend, under § 21-1-404, within six months after such service, by answer, upon petition for leave, showing a meritorious defense, and giving security for costs. Ledgerwood v. Miller, 2 Shan. 66 (1876).

A decree for complainant and against defendant for the debt, and for a sale of the property attached to satisfy the same, is a final decree in the sense of the statute allowing a nonresident defendant not served with process to make defense at any time before final decree, although further action in regard to another fund impounded is suspended till another suit about the same is terminated. Cain v. Jennings, 2 Shan. 209 (1877), aff'd, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 131 (1876).

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 497.

Attachment 225-279.

29-6-162. Action on attachment bond.

  1. In all other cases of judgment or decree by default, the defendant cannot deny or put in issue the ground upon which the attachment was issued, but may, at any time thereafter, and within one (1) year after the suing out of the attachment, commence an action on the attachment bond, and may recover such damages as the defendant has actually sustained for wrongfully suing out the attachment.
  2. If sued out maliciously, as well as wrongfully, the jury may, on the trial of such action, give vindictive damages.

Code 1858, §§ 3530, 3531; Shan., §§ 5290, 5291; Code 1932, §§ 9482, 9483; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-662.

Cross-References. Judgment on bond or for delivery of property, § 29-23-105.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 344.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 183.

Cited: Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remedies of Defendant.

Where attachment is based upon ground that debtor is absconding, he must seek remedy upon the bond. Patterson v. Arnold, 44 Tenn. 364, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1867).

If defendant is successful in attachment suit he has three remedies: (1) he may sue on the bond and recover according to its conditions, (2) he may sue the plaintiff on the facts and recover according to the statute as though a bond was given, (3) he may sue for malicious prosecution as at common law and recover according to the common law, where there has been malice and want of probable cause. Jerman v. Stewart, Gwynne & Co., 12 F. 266, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2498 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1882).

2. Requisite Showings by Plaintiff.

The plaintiff in action must show that the suit complained of is ended and by a decision in his favor; also, malice and lack of probable cause. Boyce v. Early-Stratton Co., 10 Tenn. App. 545, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1 (1930).

3. Reference as to Damages.

A reference to ascertain damages for wrongfully suing out an attachment being in the nature of a new suit, an appeal from a decree thereon does not bring up for review the decree in the original cause or on the merits of those issues. Rouss v. Kendrick, 41 S.W. 1074, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1897).

Reference in chancery to master of question of damages, where grounds for attachment were not supported by proof, was not error. Russellville Bank & Trust Co. v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. App. 460, 65 S.W.2d 202, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 546-549, 642.

7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 509, 542.

Right to recover attorneys' fees for wrongful attachment. 65 A.L.R.2d 1426.

Attachment 341-354.

29-6-163. Persons under disability.

Persons laboring under the disabilities of infancy, or unsoundness of mind, at the rendition of the judgment or decree by default, have six (6) months, after the removal of such disability, to appear and show cause against such judgment or decree.

Code 1858, § 3532; Shan., § 5292; mod. Code 1932, § 9484; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-663.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 344.

Cited: Groves v. Witherspoon, 379 F. Supp. 52, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8982 (E.D. Tenn. 1974).

29-6-164. Death of defendant.

The death of the defendant proceeded against by attachment, without personal service, whether the death occur before or after the commencement of the action, does not render the proceedings void, but the defendant's heirs or representatives, as the case may be, have the right, within three (3) years from the rendition of final judgment or decree, to make themselves parties by petition showing merits verified by affidavit, and contest the plaintiff's demand.

Code 1858, § 3533; Shan., § 5293; Code 1932, § 9485; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-664.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 344.

Collateral References. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 266.

29-6-165. Title vested in purchasers.

The judgment or decree, if executed before it is set aside, under any of the provisions of §§ 29-6-16129-6-164, will be a protection to all persons acting under it, and will confer a good title to all property sold by virtue thereof.

Code 1858, § 3534; Shan., § 5294; Code 1932, § 9486; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-665.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 344.

Collateral References. Attachment 201.

Chapter 7
Attachment by Garnishment

29-7-101. Assets subject to garnishment.

Where property, choses in action, or effects of the debtor are in the hands of third persons, or third persons are indebted to such debtor, the attachment may be by garnishment.

Code 1858, § 3478 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5238; Code 1932, § 9428; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-701.

Cross-References. Collection of taxes by garnishment, § 67-5-2004.

Execution by garnishment, §§ 26-2-202, 26-2-203, 26-2-204, 26-2-205, 26-2-206, 26-2-207, 26-2-208, 26-2-209, 26-2-210, 26-2-211, 26-2-212, 26-2-213, 26-2-214, 26-2-215, 26-2-216, 26-2-217, 26-2-218, 26-2-219, 26-2-220, 26-2-221, 26-2-222, 26-2-223.

Exempt claims, §§ 26-2-105, 26-2-106, 26-2-107, 26-2-108, 26-2-109, 26-2-110, 26-2-111, 26-2-112, 26-2-113, 26-2-114, 26-2-115.

Exemption of welfare grants, §§ 71-2-216, 71-3-121, 71-4-117, 71-4-1112.

Garnishment of public employees' salaries, §§ 26-2-221, 26-2-222.

Sheriff's fee for summons, § 8-21-901.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 330, 338.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 2, 4, 7, 46, 148, 174.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Creditor's Rights and Security Transactions — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1058.

Enforcing Money Judgments in Tennessee (Lonnie C. Rich), 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 65.

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

Attorney General Opinions. Garnishment of employee tips, OAG 85-215 (7/24/85).

Employer's fee for compliance with garnishment, OAG 07-016 (2/12/07).

Comparative Legislation. Garnishment:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-370 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-110-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 18-4-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 425.501 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-35-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 525.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-440.1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-511 et seq.

Cited: Anderson v. Ellington, 300 F. Supp. 789, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12591 (M.D. Tenn. 1969); Deutscher v. Tennesco, Inc. (In re Southern Indus. Banking Corp.), 45 B.R. 97, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4498 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Where, after several unsuccessful attempts to secure service of process on a debtor, the creditor proceeded to effect attachment and garnishment of the debtor's wages under this section and § 29-6-107, which do not provide notice or hearing prior to the issuance of the writ, the court held that the opportunity given for ultimate judicial determination was adequate and that mere postponement of such judicial determination did not constitute a denial of procedural due process of law under U.S. Const., amend. 14, § 1. Maxwell v. Hixson, 383 F. Supp. 320, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6133 (E.D. Tenn. 1974), aff'd, 425 U.S. 927, 96 S. Ct. 1656, 48 L. Ed. 2d 170, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 1289 (1976).

2. Applicability.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 69(a), Tennessee Code Annotated and case law thereunder are applicable to garnishments in bankruptcy court. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

3. Nature of Proceeding.

Garnishment proceedings merely subrogate judgment creditor to the debtor's rights against the garnishee, and only to rights that the debtor could enforce against such garnishee. Dickson v. Simpson, 172 Tenn. 680, 113 S.W.2d 1190, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 113, 116 A.L.R. 380 (1937).

4. Right of Garnishment.

A debt sued on, either at law or in equity, and a judgment or decree, and debts due or to become due may be reached by garnishment. Penniman & Bro. v. Smith, 73 Tenn. 130, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1880); Bryan v. Zarecor, 112 Tenn. 503, 81 S.W. 1252, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1904).

This section makes no distinction between the wages or salary of the debtor and other property owned by the debtor. Crook v. L. H. Brooks Co., 174 Tenn. 194, 124 S.W.2d 259, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1939).

This section does not authorize attachment by garnishment as against wages due state employee. Brewington v. Brewington, 215 Tenn. 475, 387 S.W.2d 777, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 666 (1965).

Obligation of insurer, under settlement option elected by life insurance beneficiary to make instalment payments, is subject to attachment by garnishment. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 393 F. Supp. 204, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5766 (E.D. Tenn. 1974), aff'd without opinion, 516 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1975), aff'd without opinion, John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 516 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. 1975).

5. —Bill in Chancery.

A garnishment bill lies in chancery where attachment is sought, and, answer of the garnishee may in any case be fully contested in such case. McCrae v. Bank of West Tennessee, 46 Tenn. 474, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1869); Nashville v. Potomac Ins. Co., 61 Tenn. 296, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 375 (1872); Parsons v. McGavock, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 581 (1875).

6. —Federal Court.

A suit by attachment in the ordinary or garnishment form could not be maintained in federal court without personal service on the principal defendant or his voluntary appearance. Central Trust Co. v. Chattanooga, R. & C.R.R., 68 F. 685, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3493 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. 1895).

Suit could not be maintained by residents of Tennessee in federal court in Tennessee to garnish wages of employees of receiver for foreign railroad corporation whose lines extended into Tennessee where both receiver and employees were nonresidents. Central Trust Co. v. Chattanooga, R. & C.R.R., 68 F. 685, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3493 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. 1895).

7. —Liability Contingent and Uncertain.

Where under automobile liability contract it is provided that the insurer should not be liable until amount of liability of insured has been determined, the insured had no right to attach by garnishment of the insurer in action against nonresident defendant, since the insured's obligation was but contingent and uncertain, at that stage. Gray v. Houck, 167 Tenn. 233, 68 S.W.2d 117, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

8. —National Bank as Defendant.

The federal statute forbidding issuance of attachment against a national bank or property thereof in any suit in a state court prohibits garnishment in an action against such bank as principal defendant, before final judgment. Rosenheim Real-Estate Co. v. Southern Nat'l Bank, 46 S.W. 1026, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 124 (1897).

9. —Plaintiff Garnisheeing Self.

No Code provision authorizes a plaintiff to garnish himself for a debt due defendant. Rice v. Sharpleigh Hdwe. Co., 85 F. 559, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2895 (W.D. Tenn. 1898).

10. —Prisoner's Personal Property.

Personal property in no way connected with the criminal charge, taken by police officer from prisoner, for the safekeeping of such property, or to remove from his control the possible means of effecting his escape, is not subject to attachment by garnishment in the officer's hands. Hill v. Hatch, 99 Tenn. 39, 41 S.W. 349, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 6, 63 Am. St. R. 822 (1897).

11. —Resident's Debt to Nonresident.

The debt of a resident to a nonresident is property of the latter in this state, in such sense that it may be attached and subjected, by garnishment and publication, to the indebtedness of the nonresident to another citizen. Kemper-Thomas Paper Co. v. Shyer, 108 Tenn. 444, 67 S.W. 856, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1902).

12. —Salary Paid in Advance.

Where salary was paid an employee in advance by employer garnisheed who answered that he owed employee nothing, the fact that the check drawn for payment did not show payment in advance did not charge the employer as garnishee, if in fact it was a payment in advance. Rowland v. Quarles, 20 Tenn. App. 470, 100 S.W.2d 991, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

13. Status of Claims.

After an attaching creditor's rights to a fund have been fixed by garnishment process, they cannot be affected by debtor's consent that the fund be applied on another claim. Eddington v. Matthews, 53 S.W. 1099, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 98 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899).

An attaching creditor seeking jurisdiction of a nonresident by garnishment can occupy no higher ground than the debtor in asserting rights against the garnishee and can enforce no demand against the garnishee which the debtor himself could not. Gray v. Houck, 167 Tenn. 233, 68 S.W.2d 117, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

Where the garnishee (third-party debtor) was obligated to pay royalties to the debtor, and the debtor assigned his right to receive these royalties, but the assignee failed to notify the garnishee of this assignment before garnishment, the garnishor (creditor) had priority over the assignee. Union Livestock Yards, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 552 S.W.2d 392, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 210 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 1-12, 330-407, 511-517, 587-649.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 1; 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 70.

Accounts in one's hands for collection as subject of garnishment. 60 A.L.R. 884.

Another court of the state in which it was rendered, judgment as subject to garnishment in. 43 A.L.R. 190.

Attached property, right of creditor upon dissolution of his own attachment to garnish custodian of. 59 A.L.R. 526.

Bank deposit as subject of garnishment for debt of depositor as affected by previous acts by bank in relation to deposit. 107 A.L.R. 697.

Banks, garnishment or similar proceeding as within statute prohibiting attachment, injunction, or execution against, before final judgment. 90 A.L.R. 345.

Branch bank, garnishment of deposit in. 50 A.L.R. 1354, 136 A.L.R. 471.

Cash transaction, right to garnish amount payable under contract contemplating. 95 A.L.R. 1497.

Check, giving of, by debtor before garnishment as affecting right to garnish debt. 94 A.L.R. 1391.

Checks, garnishment of bank in suit against payee or other holder of a check upon the bank. 5 A.L.R. 589.

Commissions of debtor as executor or administrator or trustee. 143 A.L.R. 190.

Contents of a safety deposit box. 11 A.L.R. 225, 19 A.L.R. 863, 39 A.L.R. 1215.

Contractor under construction contract, liability of obligor to garnishment in respect of obligation to. 82 A.L.R. 1115, 16 A.L.R.5th 548.

Conversion of property, liability for, as subject of garnishment by creditor of the owner. 91 A.L.R. 1337.

Cooperation, aid, and (or) assistance, breach by assured of requirement as to, as affecting garnishment proceedings by injured person against insurer. 139 A.L.R. 808.

Corporate stock or stock in joint stock company, situs of, for purpose of garnishment. 122 A.L.R. 338.

County as subject to garnishment process. 60 A.L.R. 823.

Director general of railroads. 4 A.L.R. 1717, 8 A.L.R. 969, 10 A.L.R. 956, 11 A.L.R. 1450, 14 A.L.R. 234, 19 A.L.R. 678, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Employee retirement pension benefits as exempt from garnishment, attachment, levy, execution, or similar proceedings. 93 A.L.R.3d 711.

Escrow, garnishment of money in. 10 A.L.R. 741.

Exemption of nonresident from garnishment as impairing obligation of existing contracts. 93 A.L.R. 185.

Facility of payment clause, garnishment of proceeds of policy containing. 166 A.L.R. 54.

Fire insurer, garnishment of. 38 A.L.R. 1072, 53 A.L.R. 724.

Foreign attachment or garnishment as available in action by nonresident against nonresident or foreign corporation upon a foreign cause of action. 14 A.L.R.2d 420.

Foreign attachment or garnishment upon which jurisdiction is dependent resting upon property coming into hands of garnishee, or obligations having their inception, after service of the writ. 53 A.L.R. 1022.

Funds deposited in court as subject of garnishment. 1 A.L.R.3d 936.

Funds in hands of his attorney as subject of attachment or garnishment of client's creditor. 35 A.L.R.3d 1094.

Garnishment against executor or administrator by creditor of estate. 60 A.L.R.3d 1301.

Garnishment against executor or administrator by creditor of heir, legatee, distributee, or creditor of estate. 59 A.L.R. 768.

Garnishment as remedy in case of violation of Bulk Sales Law. 155 A.L.R. 1061.

Garnishment of carrier in respect of goods shipped. 46 A.L.R. 933.

Garnishment of Federal Railroad Administration. 28 A.L.R. 839.

Garnishment of salaries, wages, or commissions not expressly exempted by statute. 56 A.L.R. 601.

Garnishment of salaries, wages, or other compensation of public officials or employees. 56 A.L.R. 903, superseded by statute as stated in, G.W. Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Mt. McKinley Fence Co., 97 Wn. App. 191, 982 P.2d 114, 1999 Wash. App. LEXIS 1169 (1999).

Garnishment of salary, wages, or commissions where defendant-debtor is indebted to garnishee-employer. 93 A.L.R.2d 995.

Harassment or garnishment by employee's creditor as constituting misconduct connected with employment so as to disqualify employee from unemployment compensation. 86 A.L.R.2d 1013.

Home Owners' Loan Corporation or other similar agency as subject to garnishment. 108 A.L.R. 705.

Homestead, proceeds of voluntary sale of. 1 A.L.R. 483, 46 A.L.R. 814.

Incompetent or infant under guardianship, property of, as subject to garnishment. 92 A.L.R. 919.

Indebtedness to partnership as subject of attachment or garnishment by creditor of individual partner. 71 A.L.R. 77.

Interest of mortgagor or pledgor in property in possession of mortgagee or pledgee as subject of garnishment. 83 A.L.R. 1383.

Joint bank account as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution by creditor of one joint depositor. 86 A.L.R.5th 527.

Judgment in tort action as subject of garnishment pending appeal. 121 A.L.R. 420.

Jurisdiction to garnish a debt due from a foreign corporation doing business within the state to a nonresident, arising from business outside the state. 27 A.L.R. 1396.

Liability insurer's potential liability for failure to settle claim against insured as subject to garnishment by insured's judgment creditors. 60 A.L.R.3d 1190.

Money due only on further performance of contract by debtor. 2 A.L.R. 506.

Money or other property taken from prisoner as subject of garnishment. 16 A.L.R. 378, 154 A.L.R. 758.

Municipal funds and credits as subject to garnishment on judgments against municipality. 89 A.L.R. 863.

Negotiable Instruments Law as affecting theory that a check is an assignment of the drawer's funds as between holder of check and creditor of the drawer garnishing the bank. 5 A.L.R. 1672.

Negotiable warehouse receipt, garnishment of goods covered by. 40 A.L.R. 969.

Note or check itself as subject of garnishment. 41 A.L.R. 1003.

Notice to debtor of assignment, priority of assignment of chose in action over subsequent garnishment as affected by lack of. 52 A.L.R. 109.

Options or other benefits available to insured in his lifetime as subject to garnishment by his creditors. 37 A.L.R.2d 268.

Recovery of damages for mental anguish, distress, suffering, or the like, in action for wrongful attachment, garnishment, sequestration, or execution. 83 A.L.R.3d 598.

Redemption money in hands of officers as subject to garnishment. 94 A.L.R. 1049.

Residence of partnership for purposes of statutes authorizing garnishment on ground of nonresidence. 9 A.L.R.2d 471.

Resident or foreign corporation doing business within state as subject to garnishment because of indebtedness to nonresident who in turn is indebted to nonresident principal defendant. 116 A.L.R. 387.

Retirement or pension proceeds or annuity payments under group insurance as subject to attachment or garnishment. 28 A.L.R.2d 1213.

Right of garnishee, other than bank holding deposit, to set off claims not due or certain when garnishment is served. 57 A.L.R.2d 700.

Right of one to summon or charge himself as garnishee. 31 A.L.R. 711, 61 A.L.R. 1458.

Salaries or wages payable in advance. 56 A.L.R. 629.

Seat in chamber of commerce, board of trade, or stock exchange. 14 A.L.R. 284.

Sharecropper's share in crop wholly or partly unharvested as subject to garnishment. 82 A.L.R.2d 858.

Special bank deposits as subject of attachment or garnishment to satisfy depositor's general obligations. 8 A.L.R.4th 998.

Spendthrift trust, garnishment of surplus accumulations in hands of trustee. 36 A.L.R.2d 1215.

Statute exempting from garnishment debt evidenced by negotiable instrument, construction, application, and effect of. 71 A.L.R. 581.

Suit, garnishment as, within rule that state may not be sued without its consent. 114 A.L.R. 261.

Tenant's obligation in respect of rent, garnishment of, by landlord's creditor. 100 A.L.R. 307.

Tort, unliquidated claims of damage in, as subject of garnishment. 93 A.L.R. 1088.

Vendee's interest under conditional sale contract as subject to garnishment. 61 A.L.R. 781.

Wages earned after service of writ. 56 A.L.R. 634, 637.

Waiver by municipal corporation of immunity from garnishment. 2 A.L.R. 1586.

What amounts to a contingency within statute or rule permitting garnishment before an obligation is due or payable, if payment or delivery is not dependent upon a contingency. 134 A.L.R. 853.

What constitutes malice sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages in action for wrongful attachment or garnishment. 61 A.L.R.3d 984.

Wife's claim to alimony or other allowances in divorce or separation suit as passing or exempt from passing, to trustee in wife's bankruptcy, under § 70(a) of Bankruptcy Act (11 USC § 110(a)). 10 A.L.R. Fed. 881.

Withdrawal value of stock in building and loan association as subject to garnishment. 94 A.L.R. 1017.

29-7-102. Wages earned and payable outside state.

Wages earned out of this state and payable out of this state shall be exempt from attachment or garnishment in all cases, where the cause of action arose out of this state, and it shall be the duty of garnishees in such cases to plead such exemption unless the defendant is actually served with process.

Acts 1903, ch. 590, § 1; Shan., § 5238a1; Code 1932, § 9429; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-702.

Cross-References. Assignment of income by a court for child support, § 50-2-105.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 148.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This statute is constitutional. Taylor v. Mosley, 157 Tenn. 592, 11 S.W.2d 876, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 225 (1928); Merrill v. Merrill, 188 Tenn. 10, 216 S.W.2d 705, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 486, 7 A.L.R.2d 488 (1948).

2. Causes of Action Arising Within State — Example.

Garnishment proceedings against wages earned out of the state but payable within the state brought by a mother, a resident of Tennessee, against her former husband, a nonresident, to recover medical expenses paid out by her for medical expenses for their minor children was a suit on a cause of action arising in this state notwithstanding the fact that the mother obtained a divorce and support order for the children in another state as the divorce decree did not discharge the obligation of defendant for cost of such emergency expenses. Merrill v. Merrill, 188 Tenn. 10, 216 S.W.2d 705, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 486, 7 A.L.R.2d 488 (1948).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 33, 176.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment §§ 123, 125.

29-7-103. Method of effecting — Answer.

  1. Attachment by garnishment is effected by informing the debtor of the defendant, or person holding the property of the defendant, that the property in the defendant's hands, or the hands of the person holding the property of the defendant, is attached, and by leaving with the defendant or such other person a written notice that the defendant or such other person is required to appear at the return term of the attachment, or before a judge of the court of general sessions, at a time and place fixed, to answer such questions as may be asked the defendant or such other person touching the property and effects of the defendant.
  2. The garnishee may appear and make an answer initially either in person or by filing a written answer.

Code 1858, § 3479 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22; 1815, ch. 20, §§ 1, 3); Shan., § 5239; Code 1932, § 9430; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-703; Acts 1986, ch. 761, § 2.

Cross-References. Alias writs, § 29-6-125.

Appearance and answer by garnishee, § 26-2-204.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 338.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 152, 174.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Sufficiency of Notice.

The service of a garnishment upon one member of a partnership is notice to all the members, and the payment of the debt by a partner, in ignorance of the service of such garnishment, to the debtor, does not discharge the garnishee from liability to the execution creditor. State ex rel. Arnold v. Linaweaver, 40 Tenn. 51, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 16, 75 Am. Dec. 757 (1859); Bolling v. Anderson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 127 (1873).

Service of garnishment notice upon a depot agent of a railroad company, in a county other than that in which the company has its principal office for business, is not service on the company, in the absence of any reason for not serving it on the president, treasurer, directors, or some officer at its principal place of business. Lambreth & Co. v. Clarke, 57 Tenn. 32, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 390 (1872); Nashville & C.R.R. v. Todd, 58 Tenn. 549, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1872).

Oral notice given to the garnishee by the officer to appear and answer will not suffice. Nashville & C.R.R. v. Todd, 58 Tenn. 549, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1872); Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Brooks, 90 Tenn. 161, 16 S.W. 77, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 7, 25 Am. St. Rep. 673 (1891).

Garnishees had sufficient notice of garnishment proceeding where they were served with a subpoena duces tecum. In re Rice's Appeal, 188 Tenn. 284, 219 S.W.2d 177, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 340 (1949).

2. —Service on Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance.

Acceptance of service of garnishment by the commissioner does not suffice to impound right under a policy in favor of principal defendant, there being no manucaption or seizure of the policy. Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford & Cantrell, 164 Tenn. 107, 46 S.W.2d 64, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1932), rehearing denied, 164 Tenn. 107, 47 S.W.2d 558 (1932).

Since actual notice to the debtor is required, an acceptance of service of the garnishment notice by the commissioner of insurance (now commissioner of commerce and insurance) in behalf of the debtor garnisheed, a foreign insurance company, does not impound the debt. Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. Nall, 166 Tenn. 647, 64 S.W.2d 505, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1933).

3. Lack of Notice — Effect.

A judgment against a garnishee, rendered without due service of written notice upon him, and without his appearance or waiver of notice, is void. Nashville & C.R.R. v. Todd, 58 Tenn. 549, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1872); Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Brooks, 90 Tenn. 161, 16 S.W. 77, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 7, 25 Am. St. Rep. 673 (1891).

If the conditional judgment is void for want of service upon or appearance by the garnishee, then the final judgment rendered upon service of the scire facias, but without appearance of the garnishee, will be void also. Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Brooks, 90 Tenn. 161, 16 S.W. 77, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 7, 25 Am. St. Rep. 673 (1891).

4. Sufficiency of Appearance.

In obedience to notice, the garnishee must appear and be examined. An ex parte statement prepared in the absence of the plaintiff and filed as an answer is not a compliance. Foster v. Saffell, 31 Tenn. 90, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1851).

5. Levy on Book Accounts — Effect.

Where a book containing accounts was levied on, but the debtors shown thereon were not brought before the court by garnishment, there was nothing attached, and plea in abatement was not necessary to raise the point. Gordonsville Milling Co. v. Jones, 57 S.W. 630, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 45 (1900).

6. Amendments.

A sheriff may amend his return on a garnishment so as to change the date of answer thereof, particularly when ordered to do so by the court. Newport v. Semones, 39 Tenn. App. 647, 286 S.W.2d 876, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (1955).

The property of a debtor impounded by an attachment by garnishment which was valid in the beginning was not thereafter invalidated nor was the status of the impounded property changed by reason of amendments which postponed the date on which the garnishees were to answer the court. Newport v. Semones, 39 Tenn. App. 647, 286 S.W.2d 876, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (1955).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 335, 337, 339, 340, 359.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 119.

Assignment by principal defendant to nonresident served constructively, as affecting jurisdiction to garnish debt. 39 A.L.R. 1465.

Attorney's compensation for services in garnishment, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 788, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Bond, assignment of judgment as carrying rights of assignor as to. 63 A.L.R. 291.

Content of notice to nonresident principal essential to garnishment. 92 A.L.R. 570.

Discharge of garnishment, or bond for its dissolution, by subsequent amendment of pleadings or the writ. 74 A.L.R. 912.

Estoppel or waiver, necessity of pleading, in garnishment proceeding. 120 A.L.R. 97.

Information and belief, answer on, by trustee or garnishee in garnishment or trustee process. 125 A.L.R. 253.

Joint debtors, debt owing to two or more as subject of garnishment in action against less than all. 57 A.L.R. 844.

Jurisdictional amount in garnishment proceeding by several. 72 A.L.R. 205.

Jurisdiction of justice's court (or similar court) of garnishment proceeding incidentally involving title to land. 115 A.L.R. 540.

Service of process in garnishment of foreign corporation doing business in state. 113 A.L.R. 140.

Trick or device by which indebtedness to nonresident was subjected to jurisdiction. 37 A.L.R. 1255.

Waiver or admission by garnishee as affecting principal defendant. 64 A.L.R. 430.

Who may serve writ, summons, or notice of garnishment. 75 A.L.R.2d 1437.

Garnishment 188-190.

29-7-104. Notice to retain possession.

The notice should also require the defendant not to pay any debt due by the defendant, or thereafter to become due, and to retain possession of all property of the defendant, then or thereafter in defendant's custody or under defendant's control, to answer the garnishment.

Code 1858, § 3480; Shan., § 5240; Code 1932, § 9431; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-704.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Garnishment on Custody of Property.

Upon the service of the garnishment notice, the property, effects, or debt in the hands of the garnishee pass into the custody of the law, and beyond the control of either the garnishee or the judgment debtor. State ex rel. Arnold v. Linaweaver, 40 Tenn. 51, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 16, 75 Am. Dec. 757 (1859); Beaumont v. Eason, 59 Tenn. 417, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1873).

2. Effect of Garnishment on Lien.

Lien passes with debt, under attachment and garnishment bill. Merrill v. Elam, 63 Tenn. 235, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 236 (1874).

Collateral References. 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 152.

Garnishment 90-103.

29-7-105. Liability on instrument.

The garnishee shall not be made liable upon a debt due by negotiable or assignable paper, unless such paper is delivered, or the garnishee completely exonerated or indemnified from all liability thereon, after the garnishee may have satisfied the judgment or decree.

Code 1858, § 3495; Shan., § 5255; Code 1932, § 9446; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-705.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 145.

Law Reviews.

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

Cited: Hauf v. Wilson, 31 F. 384, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2616 (C.C.W.D. Tenn. 1887).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose.

One of the purposes of this section is to make Tennessee's garnishment laws conform with the rights of a holder of a note set forth in § 47-3-301. Pepper/Holt Joint Venture v. Roderick Group (In re Hodevco, Inc.), 165 B.R. 855, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 460 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1994).

2. Paper Not Delivered and Garnishee Not Indemnified.

The garnishee cannot be held liable unless the note be delivered up, or he be completely indemnified against liability on it, after paying it as garnishee, which may be done in equity but not at law. Pickler v. Rainey, 51 Tenn. 335, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1871); Matheny v. Hughes, 57 Tenn. 401, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 222 (1873); Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

A garnishment is properly discharged where the garnishee's acknowledged indebtedness is evidenced by his negotiable notes, which are not surrendered, and owner of which is not shown, and as to which no indemnity is given or offered to the garnishee. Hughes v. Powers, 99 Tenn. 480, 42 S.W. 1, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1897); Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

Where a foreign fire insurance company remitted the amount of a loss by a negotiable draft, which was delivered to payee on February 15th, and a garnishment notice was not effectually served by a judgment creditor at that time, the debt was one due by negotiable paper, and the garnishment was ineffectual because the instrument was not delivered nor the garnishee company indemnified. Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. Nall, 166 Tenn. 647, 64 S.W.2d 505, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1933).

3. Garnishor Not Holder of Note.

Where garnishor of note served notice of the garnishment on the note's maker, which honored the garnishment by paying three quarterly payments of principal and interest to the circuit court, later collected, but garnishor never became the holder of the note, nor agreed to indemnify the maker against double liability to the debtor, the attempted garnishment failed to attach the judgment to the note, and never disturbed the debtor's legal right to receive payments under the note as holder and payee. Since such right was a legal interest recognized by Tennessee law, the debtor's right to receive payments under the note became property of the bankruptcy estate upon the debtor's filing under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Pepper/Holt Joint Venture v. Roderick Group (In re Hodevco, Inc.), 165 B.R. 855, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 460 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1994).

4. Note Not Due in Hands of Defendant as Payee.

Where the garnishee answers that he is indebted by note still in the hands of the defendant as payee, if it is not past due, he cannot be held, because the surrender of the note cannot be effected in the proceeding, and if the note should be transferred before maturity to a bona fide holder, the garnishment judgment would be no defense against it. Pickler v. Rainey, 51 Tenn. 335, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1871); Matheny v. Hughes, 57 Tenn. 401, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 222 (1873).

5. Past Due Unassigned Paper.

If suit has been brought on past due negotiable paper and it has no assignment on it, then the garnishee is liable to judgment. Huff v. Mills, 15 Tenn. 41, 15 Tenn. 42, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1834); Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

It is a good defense to an action by the assignee of a bill single against the maker, that, after maturity of the paper and prior to its assignment, the maker has been served with process of garnishment by an execution creditor of the payee, and, upon an answer stating the facts, had been compelled to pay the amount by judgment upon the process. Daniel v. Rawlings, 25 Tenn. 403, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1846).

6. Whereabouts of Paper Unknown.

While negotiable paper is in some cases subject to garnishment, if the garnishee answers that he does not know where it is or who holds the instrument, though it is then past due, no judgment can be rendered against him. Huff v. Mills, 15 Tenn. 41, 15 Tenn. 42, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1834); Turner v. Armstrong, 17 Tenn. 412, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1836); Moore v. Green, 23 Tenn. 299, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1843); Daniel v. Rawlings, 25 Tenn. 403, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1846); Moses v. McMullen, 44 Tenn. 242, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1867); Hughes v. Powers, 99 Tenn. 480, 42 S.W. 1, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1897); Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

Where garnishee answers that he has no knowledge of the whereabouts of note and it distinctly appears in his answer that the note is not matured, no valid judgment can be rendered against him. Hughes v. Powers, 99 Tenn. 480, 42 S.W. 1, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1897); Kimbrough v. Hornsby, 113 Tenn. 605, 84 S.W. 613, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1904).

7. Payment of Note into Court.

Action of court affording indemnity to garnishees upon their payment of a note into court unless their conduct showed collusion and/or fraud afforded the protection from additional liability contemplated by this section. Wilson v. Johnson, 566 S.W.2d 855, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 560 (Tenn. 1978).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 77, 147-158, 449, 489, 490.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 293.

Note or check itself as subject of garnishment. 41 A.L.R. 1003.

Statute exempting from garnishment debt evidenced by negotiable instrument, construction, application, and effect of. 71 A.L.R. 581.

Garnishment 38.

29-7-106. Return of notice.

A copy of the notice served upon the garnishee should be returned by the officer, with the attachment and levy, duly executed.

Code 1858, § 3481 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5241; Code 1932, § 9432; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-706.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 342.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment §§ 158-160.

Notice 10, 11.

29-7-107. Examination of garnishee.

The garnishee shall be examined as prescribed in § 26-2-204.

Code 1858, § 3482; Shan., § 5242; Code 1932, § 9433; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-707; modified.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 346-353, 360.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment §§ 215, 216.

Garnishment 149.

29-7-108. Compensation of garnishee.

The garnishee is allowed the compensation and privileges of a witness, for the garnishee's attendance and answer, and all costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

Code 1858, § 3490 (deriv. Acts 1826, ch. 17, § 1); Shan., § 5250; Code 1932, § 9441; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-708; modified.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attorney's Fee.

Although a garnishee is entitled to compensation and privileges of a witness for his attendance and answer, there is no provision for an attorney's fee for a garnishee and the trial court was in error in making such an award. Mayer v. Mayer, 532 S.W.2d 54, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 407.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 264.

Liability of creditor for excessive attachment or garnishment. 56 A.L.R.3d 493.

Garnishment 136.

29-7-109. Motion to garnish other debtors.

If, upon the examination of any garnishee, it appears that there is any of the defendant's estate in the hands or under the control of any person not summoned, the court shall, upon the motion of the plaintiff, grant attachment, to be levied on the estate in the hands or under the control of such person, who shall be summoned and made liable as other garnishees.

Code 1858, § 3489 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22; 1815, ch. 20, §§ 1, 3); Shan., § 5249; Code 1932, § 9440; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-709.

Collateral References. 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 25.

Liability insurer's potential liability for failure to settle claim against insured as subject to garnishment by insured's judgment creditors. 60 A.L.R.3d 1190.

Garnishment 133.

29-7-110. Exoneration by payment or delivery.

  1. A garnishee, at any time after answer, may be exonerated from further responsibility by paying over and delivering to the officer or court, before or after the return of the attachment, the money and property of the defendant, or so much thereof as may be equal to the property directed to be attached.
  2. Such property or money delivered or paid over may afterwards be treated as though attached in the usual manner.

Code 1858, § 3483; Shan., § 5243; Code 1932, § 9434; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-710.

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 399.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 225.

Garnishment 234-237.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

29-7-111. Death of garnishee.

If the garnishee die after having been summoned in garnishment, and pending the litigation, the proceedings may be revived by or against the deceased garnishee's representatives.

Code 1858, § 3491 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 77, § 1); Shan., § 5251; Code 1932, § 9442; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-711.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 707.

Collateral References.

Garnishment against executor or administrator by creditor of estate. 60 A.L.R.3d 1301.

29-7-112. Judgment against garnishee.

If it appears that the garnishee is indebted to the defendant, or has property and effects of the defendant subject to the attachment, the court may, in case recovery is had by the plaintiff against the defendant, give judgment against the garnishee for the amount of the recovery or of the indebtedness and property.

Code 1858, § 3484 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5244; Code 1932, § 9435; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-712.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prerequisites to Judgment.

No judgment can be rendered against a garnishee until a valid judgment has been first rendered against the defendant debtor, and if the judgment against such defendant is void, the judgment against the garnishee will also be void. Seawell v. Murphy, 3 Tenn. 478, 1814 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1814); Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 45 Tenn. 561, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1868); Nashville & C.R.R. v. Todd, 58 Tenn. 549, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (1872); Walton v. Sharp, 79 Tenn. 578, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1883).

2. Construction with Other Sections.

Both T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209 and 29-7-114 authorize the imposition of a conditional judgment if the garnishee fails to answer; the appellate court, mindful of the trial court's explicit findings that the agents of the mother's employer acted in bad faith and persistently worked in concert with the mother to defeat the garnishments and that certain penalties or sanctions may have been called for, nevertheless held that under the plain language of the garnishment statutes at issue, a conditional judgment was not among the available options, (here $82,817 for child support due), where the employer admitted that the mother was employed during the pertinent period, provided information about the mother's salary, and asserted that the reason for its failure to answer the garnishment in a timely manner was due to simple negligence. Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 285, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 761 (Tenn. Sept. 7, 2004).

3. Payment Covered by Garnishment.

Trial court erred in denying a former wife's motion for a judgment against a corporation as garnishee for the amount it paid to a former husband's attorney because the corporation was liable to the wife pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-7-112 since the payment was covered by the garnishment; because the corporation had a debt to the husband at the time of the garnishment notice, although the debt was not payable until a later time, the garnishment notice attached the payment made to the attorney, and since the corporation made the payment directly to the husband, it was liable to the former wife. McKee-Livingston v. Livingston, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 755 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

Collateral References. 6 Am Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 384-388.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 244.

Effect as between garnisher and principal defendant of judgment against garnishee. 103 A.L.R. 839.

Effect of judgment in garnishment proceedings as between garnishee and principal defendant. 166 A.L.R. 272.

Estoppel of garnishee or surety on delivery bond to deny indebtedness to principal defendant by judgment against the latter which the garnishee, surety or his reinsurer sought to prevent. 27 A.L.R. 1543.

Foreign country, conclusiveness as to merits of judgment of courts of, in garnishment proceeding. 46 A.L.R. 449, 148 A.L.R. 991.

Liability insurer's potential liability for failure to settle claim against insured as subject to garnishment by insured's judgment creditors. 60 A.L.R.3d 1190.

Garnishment 174-187, 234-237.

29-7-113. Execution on maturity of debt.

If the debt of the garnishee to the defendant is not due, execution will be suspended until its maturity.

Code 1858, § 3485 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 43, § 7); Shan., § 5245; Code 1932, § 9436; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-713.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 146.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Section.

The garnishment fastens on debts, whether due or not and if not due judgment may be rendered and execution stayed until the debt falls due. Lockett v. Beaver, 97 Tenn. 396, 37 S.W. 140, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (1896).

This section clearly indicates that ordinarily, choses in action may be garnisheed, whether due or not, but under § 26-2-105 (now § 26-2-102) only such wages and salary as are due at the time of the service of the garnishment are liable to it. Weaver v. Hill, 97 Tenn. 402, 37 S.W. 142, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 159 (1896).

Obligation of insurer, under settlement option elected by life insurance beneficiary to make instalment payments, is subject to attachment by garnishment as the payments become due. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 393 F. Supp. 204, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5766 (E.D. Tenn. 1974), aff'd without opinion, 516 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1975), aff'd without opinion, John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 516 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. 1975).

2. Contingent and Uncertain Rights.

Where, by the terms of a contract of insurance, insured had no right of action for indemnity stipulated until a judgment is rendered against him, the right of the insurer was contingent and uncertain, and the insurer was not chargeable as garnishee prior to such judgment. Gray v. Houck, 167 Tenn. 233, 68 S.W.2d 117, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934) (This section not cited in the opinion.)

Collateral References. Garnishment 41.

29-7-114. Default by garnishee — Conditional judgment.

If, when duly summoned, the garnishee fail to appear and answer the garnishment, the garnishee shall be presumed to be indebted to the defendant to the full amount of the plaintiff's demand, and a conditional judgment shall be entered up against the garnishee accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3486 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5246; Code 1932, § 9437; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-714.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 140.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The conditional judgment is not punitive, but is an enforcement tool; it serves as a “wakeup call” to the garnishee, alerting it that a proper answer and defense must be forthcoming in order to prevent entry of a final judgment. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

Both T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209 and 29-7-114 authorize the imposition of a conditional judgment if the garnishee fails to answer; the appellate court, mindful of the trial court's explicit findings that the agents of the mother's employer acted in bad faith and persistently worked in concert with the mother to defeat the garnishments and that certain penalties or sanctions may have been called for, nevertheless held that under the plain language of the garnishment statutes at issue, a conditional judgment was not among the available options, (here $82,817 for child support due), where the employer admitted that the mother was employed during the pertinent period, provided information about the mother's salary, and asserted that the reason for its failure to answer the garnishment in a timely manner was due to simple negligence. Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 285, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 761 (Tenn. Sept. 7, 2004).

2. Applicability.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 69(a), Tennessee Code Annotated and case law thereunder are applicable to garnishments in bankruptcy court. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

Creditor's prosecution of a conditional judgment against the bankruptcy debtor's employer under T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209, 29-7-114, 29-7-115, 29-7-116, for failure to answer the garnishment, was not a violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524, because the conditional judgment was sought only against the employer as a defendant-garnishee. Kanipe v. First Tenn. Bank (In re Kanipe), 293 B.R. 750, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1695 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002).

3. Suits Against State.

This section is unworkable and has no application to suits against the state to garnishee salary or wages of state employees. State ex rel. Allen v. Cook, 171 Tenn. 605, 106 S.W.2d 858, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1937).

4. Existence of Debt.

Factual disputes over whether the garnishee (a professional corporation of which defendant was an employee) was indebted to defendant did not defeat entry of a conditional judgment against the garnishee, where no representative of the garnishee, other than the defendant's (and presumably the garnishee's) attorney appeared at the hearing upon the motion to compel the garnishee to pay funds to the court. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

Plain language of T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209 and 29-7-114 authorizes the imposition of a conditional judgment if the garnishee fails to answer the garnishment, but there is no language in the statutes indicating that if the answer is not timely or sufficient, a conditional judgment may be entered. The conditional judgment remedy is clearly intended to be a “wake-up call” to the garnishee; however, if the garnishee files an answer before the conditional judgment is imposed, this obviates the need for such a “wake-up call.” Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 285, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 761 (Tenn. Sept. 7, 2004).

Trial court properly held an estate executrix liable for failing to honor a garnishment by distributing funds from the estate to the judgment debtor after the executrix had been properly served notice of the garnishment and her attorney had assured the judgment creditor that his judgment would be paid from the debtor's share of the estate. Stocklin v. Lord, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 602 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2014).

5. Entry of Judgment.

Trial court erred by entering a final judgment against garnishees for the full amount of a debt because no conditional judgment was entered, and the record failed to demonstrate that the required notice of a conditional judgment was served upon the garnishees; moreover, a judgment should not have been entered against the garnishees for the entire amount of the debt since they answered and properly informed the trial court regarding the amount of their payments made to the debtor. The trial court should only have entered judgment against garnishees if it determined that the amount they had already paid into the court's registry was insufficient to satisfy the garnishees' statutory obligations. Emrick v. Moseley, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Nov. 20, 2014).

Conditional judgment against a garnishee was properly vacated because the garnishee responded within the time allowed by a trial court's order, even though that time exceeded ten days. Smith v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment § 399.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 255.

Garnishment 179.

29-7-115. Notice of conditional judgment.

Upon this conditional judgment, a scire facias shall issue to the garnishee, returnable to the next term of the court, or to a day and place fixed before a general sessions judge, to show cause why final judgment should not be entered against the garnishee.

Code 1858, § 3487 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5247; Code 1932, § 9438; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-715.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. Nall, 166 Tenn. 647, 64 S.W.2d 505, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1933).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Defense by Garnishee.

The garnishee is, upon the return of the scire facias, in the same situation as he was on the return of the original garnishment summons or notice, of which the scire facias is, in effect, only a repetition. He may answer precisely as he might have answered had he appeared then. Hogshead v. Carruth, 13 Tenn. 226, 13 Tenn. 227, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 147 (1833); Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Brooks, 90 Tenn. 161, 16 S.W. 77, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 7, 25 Am. St. Rep. 673 (1891).

If the attachment proceedings are wholly void, the garnishee may, and he should, avail himself of this, as any judgment against him in such a case will not protect him afterwards against his creditor. Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 45 Tenn. 561, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1868).

2. —Matter in Abatement of Attachment.

A garnishee cannot insist on matter which, by plea, would be good in abatement only of the attachment, for that must come from the defendant. Cheatham v. Trotter, 7 Tenn. 198, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1823).

3. Construction with Other Statutes.

Creditor's prosecution of a conditional judgment against the bankruptcy debtor's employer under T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209, 29-7-114, 29-7-115, 29-7-116, for failure to answer the garnishment, was not a violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524, because the conditional judgment was sought only against the employer as a defendant-garnishee. Kanipe v. First Tenn. Bank (In re Kanipe), 293 B.R. 750, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1695 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002).

4. Notice Not Given.

Trial court erred by entering a final judgment against garnishees for the full amount of a debt because no conditional judgment was entered, and the record failed to demonstrate that the required notice of a conditional judgment was served upon the garnishees; moreover, a judgment should not have been entered against the garnishees for the entire amount of the debt since they answered and properly informed the trial court regarding the amount of their payments made to the debtor. The trial court should only have entered judgment against garnishees if it determined that the amount they had already paid into the court's registry was insufficient to satisfy the garnishees' statutory obligations. Emrick v. Moseley, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 986 (Tenn. Nov. 20, 2014).

Collateral References. Garnishment 179.

29-7-116. Final judgment.

Upon the return of this scire facias duly served, or two (2) returns of “not to be found in my county,” the conditional judgment shall be made final, and execution issued accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3488 (deriv. Acts 1794, ch. 1, § 22); Shan., § 5248; Code 1932, § 9439; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-716.

Law Reviews.

Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Creditor's prosecution of a conditional judgment against the bankruptcy debtor's employer under T.C.A. §§ 26-2-209, 29-7-114, 29-7-115, 29-7-116, for failure to answer the garnishment, was not a violation of the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524, because the conditional judgment was sought only against the employer as a defendant-garnishee. Kanipe v. First Tenn. Bank (In re Kanipe), 293 B.R. 750, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1695 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002).

Collateral References. Garnishment 188-190.

29-7-117. Conclusiveness of judgment.

The judgment in the garnishment suit, condemning the property or debt in the hands of the garnishee to the satisfaction of the plaintiff's demand, is conclusive as between the garnishee and defendant.

Code 1858, § 3493; Shan., § 5253; Code 1932, § 9444; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-717.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Notice of Assignment — Effect on Garnisheeing Creditor.

Where the payee of notes placed them with an attorney for collection, and afterwards assigned them, and, thereafter, a party who had recovered a void judgment against the payee, and who knew of the assignment of the notes, garnisheed the attorney, and, out of the fund in his hands, procured satisfaction of his void judgment, his assignee could recover from the plaintiff what he had recovered from the attorney, as the judgment was a nullity, and the garnishment proceedings, with knowledge of the assignment, were a fraud upon the assignee. Haynes v. Gates, 39 Tenn. 598, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (Tenn. Apr. 1859); Miller, Stewart & Co. v. O'Bannon, 72 Tenn. 398, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1880).

2. Void Attachment.

This section does not cure a void attachment proceeding, and notwithstanding its positive provision as to the conclusiveness of the judgment, a judgment against a garnishee, based upon a void attachment proceeding, is void. Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 45 Tenn. 561, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1868); Alley v. Myers, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 206 (1875).

3. Wrongful Judgment.

Where the garnishee was indebted by a note dischargeable in iron to be delivered on a given day, which not being done, the note became a money demand, but he answered that he owed the defendant the iron, which was accordingly condemned and sold, it was held that this judgment did not discharge him from his money liability to the principal defendant (the garnishee's creditor). Miller v. McClain, 18 Tenn. 245, 1837 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1837).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 392, 393.

38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 293.

Judgment 705.

29-7-118. Stay of general sessions judge's judgment.

The garnishee against whom a judgment for money is rendered by a judge of the court of general sessions, is entitled to the stay of execution allowed by law on general sessions judge judgments.

Code 1858, § 3494 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 177, § 1); Shan., § 5254; Code 1932, § 9445; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-718.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

Collateral References. 51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace § 123.

29-7-119. Appeal.

An appeal lies in all garnishment cases, at the instance of the plaintiff, the defendant, or the garnishee.

Code 1858, § 3492; Shan., § 5252; Code 1932, § 9443; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-719.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 45; 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 170, 176.

Cited: First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 332 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Scope of Section.

This section contemplates an appeal by the respective parties who may be aggrieved. Atnip v. Gilbert, 1 Shan. 119 (1859).

2. Nature and Effect of Proceedings.

The garnishment proceeding is not a distinct suit, and, upon appeal from a justice (now general sessions judge) to the circuit court, the defendant may have an issue formed and submitted to a jury as to whether the original judgment has been paid, and in such case, the execution being already in court, a certiorari is unnecessary. Kaylor v. Brunswick & Bro., 53 Tenn. 235, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1871).

An appeal from a judgment at law in a garnishment proceeding will be treated as an appeal in the nature of a writ of error. Saunders v. Moore, 21 Tenn. App. 375, 110 S.W.2d 1046, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

3. Default Judgment — Appeal.

Judgment by default against garnishee is appealable. Marshall v. Johnson Hdwe. Co., 5 Tenn. App. 369, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (1926).

4. Appeal by Defendant Debtor — Effect as to Garnishee.

The original debtor defendant has no right of appeal from a judgment rendered against a garnishee when he does not complain of the judgment and execution against himself, but only that the garnishee is aggrieved by the judgment against him. Such appeal will be dismissed. Atnip v. Gilbert, 1 Shan. 119 (1859).

The defendant debtor may appeal from a judgment against the garnishee although the latter does not complain. Kalisky v. Currey, 68 Tenn. 214, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1877).

An appeal by the judgment debtor does not bring up the case as to the nonappealing garnishee. Bryant v. Bigelow, 77 Tenn. 135, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1882).

Collateral References. Appeal and error 78(1), 99.

Chapter 8
Change of Name — Correction of Errors in Birth Certificates

29-8-101. Jurisdiction — Persons ineligible — Inmates.

  1. The circuit, probate and county courts have concurrent jurisdiction to change names and to correct errors in birth certificates on the application of a resident of the county in which the application is made.
    1. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, persons who have been convicted of the following offenses shall not have the right to legally change their names:
      1. First or second degree murder; or
      2. Any offense, the commission of which requires a sexual offender to register pursuant to the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004, compiled in title 40, chapter 39, part 2.
    2. If the court has reason to believe that the petition is being made to defraud or mislead, is not being made in good faith, will cause injury to an individual or to compromise public safety, then the petition shall be denied.
    3. If the person seeking to have the person's name changed has a felony conviction, other than for those offenses enumerated in subdivision (b)(1), then the petition is presumed to be made in bad faith, to defraud or mislead, to cause injury to an individual or to compromise public safety. The name change shall not be granted unless the individual requesting the name change proves by clear and convincing evidence that the petition is not based upon an intent to defraud or mislead, is made in good faith, will not cause injury to an individual and will not compromise public safety.
    4. This subsection (b) shall not apply if the name change is the result of a lawful marriage, marital dissolution or adoption.
  2. No public funds shall be expended to change the name of any person who is an inmate in the custody of the department of correction.

Code 1858, § 3636 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 16, § 1; 1851-1852, ch. 338, § 1); Shan., § 5402; mod. Code 1932, § 9561; impl. am. Acts 1949, ch. 127, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 9561; Acts 1951, ch. 202, § 38; modified; Acts 1978, ch. 661, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-801; Acts 1995, ch. 548, § 1; 1998, ch. 756, § 1; 2009, ch. 385, § 1.

Cross-References. Change of name in adoption proceedings, § 36-1-115.

Jurisdiction of courts, §§ 16-10-107, 16-16-107.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), Nos. 1-8-11, 1-8-11A.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Names, § 1.

Law Reviews.

Change of Names, Legitimation, and Adoption, 19 Tenn. L. Rev. 418.

Pleadings, Motions and Pre-Trial Procedure, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 219.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

The Tennessee Court System — Probate Courts, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 461.

Attorney General Opinions. A court of competent jurisdiction may grant a name change to a non-U.S. citizen who is a resident of the county in which the court sits as long as that person complies with the relevant provisions of Tennessee law and the name change is not done for any fraudulent purpose, OAG 01-104 (6/27/01).

Comparative Legislation. Change of name:

Ala.  Code § 12-13-1.

Ark.  Code § 9-2-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 19-12-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 93-17-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 527.270 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 101-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-217.

Cited: Cunningham v. Golden, 652 S.W.2d 910, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Maiden Name.

There is no legal requirement in Tennessee that a married woman automatically assume the surname of her husband and she may elect to retain her own surname or adopt the surname of her husband. Dunn v. Palermo, 522 S.W.2d 679, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 724 (Tenn. 1975).

2. Prisoner Petitions.

Prisoner's involuntary presence in county by virtue of incarceration did not establish residency for purposes of petition requesting a name change for religious reasons, thus trial court properly dismissed the petition. In re Joseph, 87 S.W.3d 513, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

3. Minors.

Where a father was incarcerated for sexually abusing his stepdaughter, there was a sufficient basis in the record to support the trial court's determination that changing his two minor children's surname was in their best interest. Hill v. Hill, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2011).

Right to change one's name applied to minor child so long as the change was in the child's best interest. In re Leyna A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2017).

Collateral References. 57 Am. Jur. 2d Name §§ 10-16; 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records § 9.

65 C.J.S. Names § 11.

Duty and discretion of court in passing upon petition to change name of individual. 79 A.L.R.3d 847.

Right of married woman to use maiden name. 67 A.L.R.3d 1266.

Courts 472.3.

29-8-102. Petition.

The application to change the name or to correct an error in a birth certificate shall be by petition, in writing, signed by the applicant and verified by affidavit, stating that the applicant is a resident of the county, and giving the applicant's reasons for desiring the change or correction.

Code 1858, § 3637 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 16, § 1); Shan., § 5403; Code 1932, § 9562; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 661, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-802.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8-11.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Probate Courts, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 461.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Decedent's adoptive father had no standing to contest the name chosen by the decedent's surviving spouse to be inscribed on the decedent's headstone because, inter alia, T.C.A. § 29-8-102 did not apply when a name other than the decedent's legal name was used on a headstone. In re Estate of Love, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2015).

Petition provided the required facts, as the parents presented three witnesses and the statements of three professionals who unequivocally stated that the requested name change was in the child's best interest, the child had committed no crimes, and there was no evidence of intent to defraud or mislead, of not acting in good faith, or of the possibility of injury to an individual. In re Leyna A., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2017).

Collateral References. 57 Am. Jur. 2d Name § 13.

65 C.J.S. Names § 11.

Circumstances justifying grant denial or denial of petition to change adult's name. 79 A.L.R.3d 562.

Right of married woman to use maiden surname. 67 A.L.R.3d 1266.

Names 8-11.

29-8-103. Clerk's fees.

The clerk's fee for services in proceedings under this chapter shall be the same as for like services in other cases, to be paid by the party petitioning.

Code 1858, § 3647 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 16, § 3; 1851-1852, ch. 338, § 1); Shan., § 5413; Code 1932, § 9572; impl. am. Acts 1949, ch. 127, § 9; C. Supp. 1950, § 9572; Acts 1951, ch. 202, § 38; modified; impl. am. Acts 1957, ch. 59, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 661, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-803.

Cross-References. Clerk's fees, §§ 8-21-401, 8-21-701.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Probate Courts, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 461.

29-8-104. Judgment.

The court may order the name to be changed or the birth certificate to be corrected by entry of record reciting the petition and its reasons therefor.

Code 1858, § 3638 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 16, § 1); Shan., § 5404; mod. Code 1932, § 9563; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 661, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-804.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Probate Courts, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 461.

Collateral References.

Circumstances justifying grant or denial of petition to change adult's name. 79 A.L.R.3d 562.

Names 20.

29-8-105. Effect.

Any person whose name is thus changed may thereafter be known and designated, sue and be sued, by the new name.

Code 1858, § 3639 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 16, § 2); Shan., § 5405; Code 1932, § 9564; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-805.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Probate Courts, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 461.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Minors.

Where a father was incarcerated for sexually abusing his stepdaughter, there was a sufficient basis in the record to support the trial court's determination that changing his two minor children's surname was in their best interest. Hill v. Hill, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2011).

Collateral References. 57 Am. Jur. 2d Name § 16.

65 C.J.S. Names § 11.

Names 20.

Chapter 9
Contempt of Court

29-9-101. Officers authorized to punish.

Any officer authorized to punish for contempt is a court within the meaning of §§ 29-9-10129-9-106.

Code 1858, § 4112; Shan., § 5924; Code 1932, § 10125; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-901.

Cross-References. Contempt for noncompliance with hospital authority audit requirements, § 7-57-404.

Contempts and attachments in general sessions courts, § 16-15-713.

County Sheriff's Civil Service Law, proceedings in contempt to enforce order or subpoena of board, § 8-8-417.

Criminal contempt, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42.

Powers of courts, § 16-1-103.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, § 2.

Law Reviews.

Preferences, Priorities, and Powers of the State in the Collection of Delinquent Revenue: Tennessee's Tax Enforcement Procedures Act (Donald J. Serkin), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 707.

Attorney General Opinions. Imprisonment for contempt of city court, OAG 84-283 (10/18/84).

Appointed city judges' limited authority to punish for contempt, OAG 95-020 (3/27/95).

Arrest or citation in counties with more than one general sessions court, OAG 99-149 (8/10/99).

Comparative Legislation. Contempt of court:

Ala.  Code § 12-1-8 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-10-108 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 15-1-4 et seq.

Ky. CR 70.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 9-1-17.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 476.110.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-11 et seq.

Va. Code § 18.2-456 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Powers of Court.

The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the courts of justice. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

2. City Judge.

City judge is authorized to punish for contempt. State ex rel. May v. Krichbaum, 152 Tenn. 416, 278 S.W. 54, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1925).

3. Procedure and Practice.

The nature of the inquiry in a contempt proceeding should admit of no strict or technical rulings against the accused but the freest opportunity should always be given him to produce his defense. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

As a father who was charged with indirect criminal contempt in post-divorce proceedings was not provided with adequate notice of the charges, as required, the contempt charge against him could not stand. Sprague v. Sprague, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2013).

4. —Presumption of Innocence.

In the trial of a criminal contempt case the defendant is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

5. —Defenses.

Criminal contempt of court may not be committed with impunity upon advice of counsel. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

While fact that person charged with contempt acted upon advice of counsel will not bar punishment, such fact may be considered in mitigation of such punishment. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

6. —Appeal.

Supreme court may revise and reduce the sentence on appeal in contempt proceeding if the punishment seems to be excessive. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

7. Contempt Not Found.

From a doctor's suit against a public hospital regarding his staff privileges being revoked, the doctor's lawyers should not have been held in civil contempt after they sought public records from the hospital while the doctor's interlocutory appeal regarding a discovery dispute was pending because the plain language of the order staying “all proceedings below” was not broad enough to apply to separate actions under T.C.A. § 10-7-505(a) seeking access to public records; the appellate court's stay order could reasonably have been interpreted to apply only to the pending legal and administrative proceedings between the doctor and the hospital. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2008).

8. Illustrative Cases.

Case brought under T.C.A. § 29-9-101 for criminal contempt of court through willful failure to pay ordered child support was not a criminal case, as defined in T.C.A. § 40-14-301(3), that triggered the due process mandates of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(c)(2) or T.C.A. § 40-14-307(a) to provide the indigent defendant with a verbatim transcript at the state's expense. State ex rel. Creighton v. Foster, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011).

Father was held in criminal contempt by a trial court in post-divorce proceedings, as the contempt was not conditioned on his correcting or remedying a failure to comply with a past order and there was no opportunity to purge the contempt; rather, the trial court's action in “reserving punishment” pending compliance was tantamount to the imposition of a suspended sentence. Sprague v. Sprague, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2013).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in a foreclosure proceeding by denying the borrower's motion for a continuance of the damages hearing to procure a court reporter because neither party retained a court reporter to attend the damages hearing, despite having ample time to do so, and the court noted that the case had been set for some time and that the borrower should have had a court reporter present if the had wanted one there. Starkey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 190 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019).

Collateral References. 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 1-10, 62-76, 116-118, 119-141.

17 C.J.S. Contempt § 53.

Admissibility, in contempt proceeding against witness, of evidence of incriminating nature of question as to which he invoked privilege against self-incrimination. 88 A.L.R.2d 463.

Defense of entrapment in contempt proceedings. 41 A.L.R.3d 418.

Disqualification of judge in proceedings to punish contempt against or involving himself or court of which he is a member. 64 A.L.R.2d 600, 37 A.L.R.4th 1004, 3 A.L.R. Fed. 420.

Oral court order implementing prior written order or decree as independent basis of charge of contempt within contempt proceedings based on violation of written order. 100 A.L.R.3d 889.

Prejudicial effect of holding accused in contempt of court in presence of jury. 29 A.L.R.3d 1399.

Right to counsel in contempt proceedings. 52 A.L.R.3d 1002.

Contempt 36.

29-9-102. Scope of power.

The power of the several courts to issue attachments, and inflict punishments for contempts of court, shall not be construed to extend to any except the following cases:

  1. The willful misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
  2. The willful misbehavior of any of the officers of such courts, in their official transactions;
  3. The willful disobedience or resistance of any officer of the such courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of such courts;
  4. Abuse of, or unlawful interference with, the process or proceedings of the court;
  5. Willfully conversing with jurors in relation to the merits of the cause in the trial of which they are engaged, or otherwise tampering with them; or
  6. Any other act or omission declared a contempt by law.

Code 1858, § 4106 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 19, § 1); Shan., § 5918; Code 1932, § 10119; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-902.

Cross-References. Basic judicial power, § 16-1-103.

Chancery courts, title 21, ch. 1, part 3.

Commitment to jail, § 41-4-103.

Legislative committee, §§ 3-3-110, 3-3-111, 3-3-112.

Local violations, failure to appear, § 29-9-108.

Sheriff, contempt against, § 8-8-207.

Unlawful acts relating to juries constituting contempt, § 22-2-102.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 374, 458.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667.

Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 24.14.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), Nos. 1-45.01-1, 1-45.06-1.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 30; 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, §§ 2-6, 8; 20 Tenn. Juris., Perjury, § 2; 25 Tenn. Juris., Witnesses, § 5.

Law Reviews.

A Critical Survey of Developments in Tennessee Family Law in 1976-77, V. Children (Neil P. Cohen), 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 451.

Contempt of Court, 2 Tenn. L. Rev. 215.

Contempt — Refusal To Accept Appointment as Attorney, 18 Tenn. L. Rev. 772.

Evidence — Perjury As Contempt of Court, 7 Tenn. L. Rev. 213.

Paine on Procedure: Contempt of Court (Donald F. Paine), 44 Tenn. B.J. 33 (2008).

Summary Proceedings in Direct Contempt Cases, 15 Vand. L. Rev. 241.

The Contempt Powers of Tennessee Courts (E. Michael Ellis), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 538.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Attorney General Opinions. Judicial powers relating to persistently absent or late attorneys, OAG 84-296 (11/6/84).

Incarceration for non-payment of fines, OAG 89-03 (1/26/89).

General sessions court contempt powers, OAG 89-08 (1/26/89).

Public defenders' representation of indigents in child support and contempt proceedings, OAG 98-092 (4/15/98).

Finding of criminal contempt not conviction under T.C.A. § 38-8-106(4), OAG 03-071 (5/27/03).

Authority of city court to punish an individual for contempt of court when the person fails to appear in court for an appointed court date.  OAG 11-17, 2011 Tenn. AG LEXIS 19 (2/15/11).

A court has authority to enter a default judgment of contempt in a proceeding for civil contempt if the alleged contemnor fails to respond or appear, as long as the alleged contemnor has been provided with proper notice and the opportunity to respond. OAG 15-36, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 36  (4/21/15).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Scope of Power Generally.

The matter of determining and dealing with contempts is within the court's sound discretion subject to the absolute provisions of law and its determination is final unless there is plain abuse of discretion. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

While the power to punish for contempt may and should be used in appropriate cases, it should not be used unless the case clearly calls for its exercise and such power should be exercised only when necessary to prevent actual, direct obstruction of, or interference with the administration of justice. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

In the event that criminal contempt was at issue, the trial court was not permitted to award the wife attorney's fees in the criminal contempt proceeding. Parimore v. Parimore, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Assuming that civil contempt was at issue, the record was devoid of any order actually finding the husband's conduct to be willful or finding him in contempt, and in the absence of both an evidentiary hearing on the contempt petition and specific findings supporting the award of attorney's fees, this portion of the judgment was reversed. Parimore v. Parimore, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

2. —Statutory Basis of Contempt.

The inferior courts have no power to punish contempts, except such acts or omissions as are embraced within the statutes, because the vast and undefined scope of contempts at common law have been repealed, except such as have been reenacted in our statutes. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868); Scott v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S.W. 824, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1902); Derryberry v. Derryberry, 8 Tenn. Civ. App. 401 (1918).

Power to punish for contempt is inherent but not unlimited and it can be exercised only within the rules of law. Loy v. Loy, 32 Tenn. App. 470, 222 S.W.2d 873, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949).

In order for perjury to amount to contempt, there must be an additional element of obstruction of justice or interference with the processes of the court. Maples v. State, 565 S.W.2d 202, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. 1978).

3. —Civil and Criminal Contempt Distinguished.

The distinction between criminal and civil contempts is observed in the Code. While particular acts do not always readily lend themselves to classification as civil or criminal contempts, a contempt is considered civil when the punishment is wholly remedial, serves only the purposes of the complainant, and is not intended as a deterrent to offenses against the public. Higgins v. Lewis, 23 Tenn. App. 648, 137 S.W.2d 308, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Criminal contempt actions are those to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the court while civil contempt actions are those brought to enforce private rights. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

Even though the trial court at one point stated that it was citing appellant for civil contempt, his conduct in violating a court order forbidding him to harass his former wife was more properly criminal contempt, which is punishment for an offense against the authority of the court. Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 848 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

This section invokes the civil authority of the court to vindicate its authority, and, unlike § 36-5-104, does not state a criminal penalty. Smith v. Smith, 924 S.W.2d 682, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), appeal denied, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. July 1, 1996).

In civil contempt, the imprisonment is meted out for the benefit of a party litigant; however, where a court imprisons and/or fines an individual simply as punishment for the contempt, this remedy is commonly referred to as “criminal contempt.” Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

In parties' post-divorce proceedings, the father was held in criminal, rather than civil, contempt because the contempt holding was not conditioned on his correcting or remedying a failure to comply with a past order, and he was not given an opportunity to purge his contempt. Sprague v. Sprague, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2013).

Trial court did not reversibly err in failing to specify whether the contempt found was civil or criminal because the trial court's utilization of the remedy of incarceration to compel performance was civil contempt; because the trial court directed that the father could purge himself of contempt by making an arrearage payment, the trial court found him to be in civil contempt, not criminal contempt. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

Trial court found that defendant willfully disobeyed its order in posting materials online and the punishment imposed was for the purpose of vindicating the authority of the court and to discipline defendant, not for the purpose of forcing him to comply with an order or to benefit a private party; defendant was mistaken in arguing that the nature of the contempt was civil and that he should have been permitted to remove the posts and thereby avoid the punishment. State v. Thigpen, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2020).

4. —Direct and Indirect Contempt.

There are two species of contempt, direct and indirect, which differ, among other ways, in the minimal procedures that will satisfy the requirements of due process in the case of each. State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. 1978).

Direct contempt is based upon acts committed in the presence of the court, and may be punished summarily. State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. 1978).

Indirect contempt is based upon acts not committed in the presence of the court, and may be punished only after the offender has been given notice, and the opportunity to respond to the charges at a hearing. State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. 1978).

An act not committed in the presence of the court is treated as indirect contempt even though the act may be admitted by the offender in open court. State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. 1978).

5. —Criminal Courts.

The criminal courts possess the same power as circuit courts to punish for contempt, and may impose a fine not exceeding $50.00 and imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or such other punishment as the circuit courts may inflict for contempts, where otherwise specially provided. McCarthy v. State, 89 Tenn. 543, 15 S.W. 736, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1890).

Where four state witnesses testified the defendant advised and counseled them to swear falsely and defendant denied that he did so, the evidence did not preponderate against the judgment of contempt of court for suborning perjury. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

6. —City Judge.

A city judge is authorized to punish for contempt. State ex rel. May v. Krichbaum, 152 Tenn. 416, 278 S.W. 54, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1925).

7. —Punishment.

Punishment for contempt for disobeying a subpoena which was fixed within the limits set by the statute was within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wahlquist v. State, 213 Tenn. 626, 378 S.W.2d 742, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (1964).

Where neither the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-9-105 nor T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) required that disobedience of a trial court's order be ongoing, the trial court erred in dismissing a company's petition for contempt against a union as moot because, although the union had willfully disobeyed the court's orders regulating the conduct of the parties during the strike, the court found that that activity had ended before the hearing on the petition for contempt and damages. Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2005).

Under the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-9-105, damages were available to a party injured by a contemnor's acts in violation of a court's order. When the contempt consisted of the performance of a forbidden act, the cessation of the contemptuous conduct after the entry of the order prohibiting that conduct did not preclude a finding of civil contempt and an award of damages. Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2005).

Although a trial court did not err in holding a husband in willful contempt, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 16-1-103 and 29-9-102, for violating a statutorily-mandated temporary injunction, the trial court did err in banning all contact between the husband and the parties'  child as punishment for the contemptuous behavior because the total suspension of the husband's visitation was not the least drastic measure available and was therefore unjustified. Slagle v. Slagle, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2012).

8. —Successive Contempts.

Where there is an additional contempt of court, committed after the fine and imprisonment for the first contempt, there may be imposed on the contemnor another fine and imprisonment for the additional or second contempt. In re Vanvaver, 88 Tenn. 334, 12 S.W. 786, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1890).

An attorney's conduct amounted to three successive acts of contempt where he committed an act in the presence of the jury which disrupted the trial and led to removal of the jury from the courtroom, attempted to leave the courtroom and continued disrespectful remarks and baiting of the trial judge, and refused to gain control of himself leading to his removal from the courtroom. State v. Turner, 914 S.W.2d 951, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

9. —Injunction Against Contempt Order.

A judge of any court, proceeding according to law, has authority to control the officers of court and to punish them for contempt, and no other judge has any authority to enjoin the execution of the order made for this purpose. Sanders v. Metcalf, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 419 (1873).

10. —After Appeal.

Contention that an appellate court has no jurisdiction to examine witnesses and, therefore, can pronounce no judgment of contempt, is unsound. State v. Anderson, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 1 (1915).

After a broad appeal from the final decree of the chancery court, making a temporary injunction perpetual, that court has no jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings against the defendant for his violation of the injunction. A broad appeal from a final decree in chancery vacates that decree. McCormick v. Phillips, 140 Tenn. 268, 204 S.W. 636, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 1918F L.R.A. (n.s.) 791 (1918).

Where a broad appeal is so taken the appellate court has jurisdiction to punish the defendant for contempt, because of his violation of the injunction. McCormick v. Phillips, 140 Tenn. 268, 204 S.W. 636, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 1918F L.R.A. (n.s.) 791 (1918).

An appeal from a chancery decree making a temporary injunction perpetual does not prevent an indictment of the defendant for public contempt for violation of the injunction, and his punishment in a criminal court. McCormick v. Phillips, 140 Tenn. 268, 204 S.W. 636, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 1918F L.R.A. (n.s.) 791 (1918).

11. Procedure and Practice.

Formal charge of contempt against a person in violation of Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 9, § 25 shall be filed in the supreme court of Tennessee, and upon receipt, the supreme court shall appoint a special master who shall conduct an evidentiary hearing, make findings of fact, and return the record and its findings to the supreme court; upon review, the supreme court shall make a determination as to whether a contemptuous act has been committed and what, if any, punishment will follow. Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 104 S.W.3d 465, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. 2003).

Husband's argument that he was not properly served with the wife's petition for contempt was without merit under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) because the certificate of service required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.03 was prima facie evidence that the document was served in the manner described in the certificate and it raised a rebuttable presumption that it was received by the person to whom it was sent. Dhillon v. Dhillon, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2010), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2010), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2010).

Although the trial court witnessed defendant's absence from the attorney setting, defendant's alleged willful conduct occurred outside of the trial court's presence or ability to perceive, and thus the trial court erred by proceeding summarily and should have followed the notice and hearing procedures; defendant was not provided with notice, an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense, and an opportunity to be heard, plus he was entitled to bail on the contempt charge, but there was no indication in the record that such bail was provided. State v. Cathey, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 655 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 1, 2016).

Mother was properly served with the motion for criminal contempt because service upon the mother's attorney constituted service upon her. Howell v. Smithwick, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Tennessee law was well established as to the de novo nature of a hearing before a juvenile court judge of a matter previously heard by a magistrate, and the father had proper notice of the type of hearing he was requesting; his procedural due process rights were not violated by the trial court's consideration of all evidence presented regarding his compliance or noncompliance with the December 2013 order through the time of the August 2016 rehearing. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

Trial court did not err by applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and declining to apply a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard, and the court rejected the fathers requests to follow precedent regarding the evidentiary standard related to civil contempt proceedings in federal courts and other select states rather than precedent established in Tennessee courts under the state statutory scheme. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

11.5. —Assisting Unrepresented Party.

Plaintiff failed to establish that counsel's conduct in assisting defendant in the underlying action, without being recognized as attorney of record, rose to the level of criminal contempt, T.C.A. § 29-9-102, because aiding an unrepresented person in a limited advisory capacity did not obstruct the administration of justice. Green v. Champs-Elysees, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2013), appeal denied, Green v. Champs-Elysees, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 707 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2013).

12. —Jury Trial.

An individual charged with contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102 is not entitled to a jury trial when the remedy sought is that of criminal contempt. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

13. —Action at Chambers.

A chancellor may at chambers deal with one charged with contempt in respect of his orders. Derryberry v. Derryberry, 8 Tenn. Civ. App. 401 (1918).

14. —Instituting Prosecution.

The mode of proceeding in equity for breach of an injunction is to give the adverse party notice that, on a certain day in the term, a motion will be made against him to show cause why an attachment should not issue; and on that day the parties will be heard, and attachment issue, if a proper case be made out, on which the defendant will be arrested, and may give bail; the plaintiff may then file interrogatories, and if the contempt is denied, an issue may be made, and proof heard. Rutherford v. Metcalf, 6 Tenn. 58, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1818).

It is not necessary that a prosecution be instituted by petition. An oral motion, based on an affidavit making out a prima facie case, is sufficient. If the affidavit on which the motion is based be meager, it may be amended on remand. Scott v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S.W. 824, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1902).

Summary contempt hearing was unnecessary to prevent obstruction of or interference with the administration of justice because (1) nothing showed a wife obstructed proceedings in a manner constituting exceptional circumstances, (2) the court found it unnecessary to act “swiftly and firmly” to prevent misconduct, when the court ordered the parties to undergo drug testing and return to court, and (3) the court did not order the testing due to the wife obstructing a hearing. McKenzie v. McKenzie, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

15. —Proper Charge.

Contempt of court for suborning perjury — advising, counseling and encouraging others to testify falsely — is a proper charge for a contempt proceeding. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

It was error to hold a mother in contempt for enrolling the parties'  child in a school program without the father's required consent because (1) the mother was held in criminal contempt when the mother's fine was not conditioned on remedying the mother's noncompliance, and (2) Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b) was not followed, as the mother was not given notice in the father's petition or by the court that the mother was charged with criminal contempt. Thomas v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

16. —Contempt Order Improper.

From a doctor's suit against a public hospital regarding his staff privileges being revoked, the doctor's lawyers should not have been held in civil contempt after they sought public records from the hospital while the doctor's interlocutory appeal regarding a discovery dispute was pending because the plain language of the order staying “all proceedings below” was not broad enough to apply to separate actions under T.C.A. § 10-7-505(a) seeking access to public records; the appellate court's stay order could reasonably have been interpreted to apply only to the pending legal and administrative proceedings between the doctor and the hospital. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2008).

Imposition of summary contempt on an attorney pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102 was inappropriate because the hearing at which the trial court exercised its summary authority was held more than three weeks after the alleged contempt and was not the type of summary proceeding authorized and the need for summary punishment had greatly diminished. Daniels v. Grimac, 342 S.W.3d 511, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 695 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2010), review or rehearing denied, Daniel v. Grimac, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2011).

Trial court erred by finding a father in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support. The father was not provided notice under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b) as the petition stated only that the state was asking that the father be found to be in willful contempt, and the only relief sought was a judgment for a child support arrearage and an income assignment. State ex rel. Farris v. Bryant, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011).

Although a mother had the parties'  children baptized without the father's knowledge or consent contrary to the parties'  parenting plan, a trial court erred in finding the mother in civil contempt, T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), because the trial court sought to punish the mother for her past violation of the parenting plan, rather than to compel her compliance with such. Jarrell v. Jarrell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2012).

Trial court erred in holding a father in criminal contempt, T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), for repaying funds he borrowed from his parents after April 3, 2009, because the order failed to expressly and precisely spell out which loans the father was forbidden from repaying to his parents. Beyer v. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 229 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2013).

Trial court erred in finding a husband in criminal contempt for failure to pay pendente lite support on five occasions, as the evidence was insufficient to permit any trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the ability to pay the support owed. Patton v. Patton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).

Circuit court erred in summarily finding a defendant's attorney in criminal contempt for his allegedly wilful failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance because the attorney's conduct occurred outside the presence of the court where the court relied upon text messages from the attorney, in which he explained that he was aware of the 8:00 a.m. appearance time, but that he chose to appear in another court at 9:00 a.m., the trial court should have provided the attorney with notice, a reasonable time to prepare his defense, and an opportunity to be heard. State v. Anderson, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 733 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 9, 2015).

Evidence did not support a finding that the husband acted willfully for criminal contempt purposes; during the period of his unemployment, the husband's failure to pay support was not willful, but even after he regained employment, the proof failed to show that he possessed a culpable state of mind. Lee v. Lee, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017).

17. —Presumption of Innocence.

Contempt proceedings in chancery partake of a criminal nature to the extent that the presumption of innocence obtains, and guilt must be clearly established. Kornik v. Kornik, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 41 (1913).

Once it has been determined that the contempt is criminal in nature, the law requires that the defendants' guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Strunk v. Lewis Coal Co., 547 S.W.2d 252, 1976 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976).

18. —Sworn Denial as Conclusive.

In a contempt case at common law, the sworn answer of the defendant charged with contempt of court, denying the contempt and making such statement as will free him from the imputed contempt, was conclusive and entitled him to his discharge; but in chancery the truth may be inquired into and ascertained by the court upon the interrogatories and the answer thereto. Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

The common law rule that the sworn denial of the defendant charged with contempt of court, and making such statement as would free him from the imputed contempt, was conclusive, has fallen into desuetude and evidence is admissible to controvert the statements therein, and the whole matter is subject to inquiry and ascertainment by the court, in cases at law as well as in chancery. Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

19. —Evidence.

As provided by §§ 40-2402 and 40-2403 (now §§ 40-17-102 (repealed) and 40-17-103), the alleged contemnor may testify. Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

The defendant cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself; but his claim of immunity must be made by him; and exception to the action of the court in asking him questions cannot be urged for the first time in the appellate court. Kornik v. Kornik, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 41 (1913).

Uncontroverted evidence established that on the occasion when defendant was alleged to have advised four men to commit perjury the men were all together and were instructed as a group; therefore, defendant's action constituted one contempt and his sentence of four consecutive terms of confinement and cumulative separate fines was erroneous. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

An attorney's admissions as to several out-of-court statements concerning his belief that his appointment to represent a criminal defendant had been politically motivated, his informing the judge that he had not yet worked on the case, and his assertion that he did not feel able to represent the defendant were not such acts as would support a finding of contempt in a summary proceeding. State v. Maddux, 571 S.W.2d 819, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 649 (Tenn. 1978).

Evidence was sufficient to support findings that an attorney's gestures and comments to the jury as the verdicts were being read and comments and conduct outside the courtroom toward the jurors and opposing counsel constituted willful misbehavior so near to the court that it obstructed the administration of justice, and a finding of two counts of criminal contempt was justified. Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. 1996).

Although the evidence presented at trial sufficiently establishes that defendant failed to pay child support on the dates in question and failed to pay alimony in any amount, the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant had the ability to pay these amounts at the time that they were due or that the failure to pay was willful, and the record was insufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's failure to pay child support was willful or that he had the ability to pay child support in the amount ordered at the time the support was due; the record was devoid of any evidence that defendant had the ability to make the alimony payments at the time that they were due. Cottingham v. Cottingham, 193 S.W.3d 531, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. 2006).

Evidence was insufficient to support a criminal contempt finding because it did not show that ex-husband willfully violated trial court's order to have his ex-wife designated as the surviving spouse for purposes of his pension and retirement benefits. Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 717 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2008).

Defendants'  contempt convictions were proper because repeated withdrawals of large sums of money from the bank, which depleted the company's collateral, constituted criminal contempt of court. Further, it was clear that one of the defendants was aware that money was being taken from the CDs purchased as collateral. State v. Aaron Bonding Co., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2011).

Ten counts of criminal contempt based on defendant's 10 separate withdrawals against the equity line of credit in violation of the marital dissolution agreement were affirmed because the bank records provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made the withdrawals. Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2012).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for his failure to pay the 2009 real estate taxes for the marital residence and his failure to pay his wife her pendente lite support as required by the marital dissolution agreement because the record showed that defendant had the ability to pay the financial obligations at the time they were due but that he failed to do so. The bank records showed that during the time defendant was not paying his obligations, he was spending an extraordinary amount on fine dining and travel and that he was receiving payments from his business in amounts between $ 11,000 and $ 14,000 each month. Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2012).

In a criminal contempt proceeding, the trial court erred in admitting a bank statement under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6)'s business record exception to the hearsay rule, because it was not properly self-authenticated under Tenn. R. Evid. 902(11). Patton v. Patton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).

Insufficient evidence supported a criminal contempt finding because (1) the court could not rely on extrinsic evidence of the results of drug testing, since the finding had to be based on the court's knowledge obtained through the court's own senses, (2) the test was not competent for determining intoxication, and (3) the evidence preponderated against a finding that the wife was intoxicated. McKenzie v. McKenzie, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).

Trial court's order did not address appellee's alleged use of appellant's social security number, nor was such conduct one of the grounds for contempt enumerated in T.C.A. § 29-9-102; the trial court reached the correct result of finding no contempt, but its reasoning was flawed because appellant had no basis for relief. Portice v. Portice, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 541 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 865 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

Evidence supported a determination that the wife willfully disobeyed a court directive where she refused to provide the names as directed, she was evasive and often not forthcoming, and thus, she had interfered with the court process under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3). Odom v. Odom, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 419 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

20. —Judgment.

The ground of contempt, upon which the judgment is rendered, must be set out upon the face of the judgment as the ground of jurisdiction upon which the judgment rests for its validity. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868).

In a prosecution for contempt, by motion based on affidavit, the action of the court thereon in awarding or denying the attachment should substantially appear in the order of the court, and such order or judgment should show the substance of the motion and the charge contained in the affidavit, but not evidentiary details. The substance of the order should appear in the attachment if awarded. Scott v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S.W. 824, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1902).

Where the judgment in a prosecution for contempt of court is too general and meager in not sufficiently setting out the ground on which the accused was found guilty, it may be corrected in the Supreme Court, so as to set out the sufficient facts. Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

In garnishment proceedings, it was error to refuse to hear a judgment creditor's evidence of a garnishee's bad faith because (1) it was a fact issue, (2) the judgment creditor properly raised the issue, (3) the court had statutory authority to enforce its orders in a garnishment proceeding, and (4) the garnishee was properly served with a contempt petition. Smith v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

20.5. Habeas Corpus.

Judgment granting a habeas corpus writ was reversed because the general sessions court, regardless of any legal error, had the authority to summarily hold defendant in contempt and under T.C.A. § 16-15-713, the general sessions court judge was authorized to impose a punishment of five days imprisonment upon finding defendant in contempt; although the general sessions court failed to provide the required notice and hearing, nothing in either the judgment or the record showed that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction. The claimed illegality regarding the failure to provide notice and a hearing rendered the contempt judgment merely voidable, which did not entitle defendant to habeas corpus relief. Lambert v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2012), cert. denied, Lambert v. Tennessee, 184 L. Ed. 2d 740, 133 S. Ct. 950, 568 U.S. 1131, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 860 (U.S. 2013).

20.7. Post-conviction Relief.

Court of Criminal Appeals properly dismissed a wife's petition for post-conviction relief because a criminal contempt adjudication in a divorce action did not amount to a criminal conviction under the general criminal laws for purposes of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 715 (Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

21. —Attorney's Fees.

In an action against an attorney for criminal contempt, the trial court had authority to order him to pay a private prosecutor's attorney's fees. Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. 1996).

Damages under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 may include attorney's fees. Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Trial court did not make a finding that the AG was in contempt of court, and the record failed to support a finding that the AG was in willful disobedience or resistance of any order or rule of court, particularly Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03, which was the rule at issue; the mere fact the AG failed to comply with the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.03 was wholly insufficient to conclude the AG was in willful disobedience of the rule, and accordingly T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) was inapplicable to the matters at issue. Cooper v. Creative Learning Child Care Ctr., 240 S.W.3d 230, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2007).

Because no statutory authority permitted a party to recover attorney's fees incurred to prosecute a petition for criminal contempt and the mother did not rely on a contractual provision in seeking to recover her attorney's fees in the context of the petition for criminal contempt, the father was not liable for the attorney's fees the mother incurred in prosecuting her petition for criminal contempt for failure to pay child support. Watts v. Watts, 519 S.W.3d 572, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2016).

22. —Appeal.

A judgment imposing a fine or imprisonment, or both, for contempt of court, not committed in the presence of the court, is subject to revision, on behalf of the alleged contemnor, brought up by appeal, writ of error, or certiorari. Hundhausen v. U. S. Marine Fire Ins. Co., 52 Tenn. 702, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 300 (1871); Brooks v. Fleming, 65 Tenn. 331, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 360 (1873), criticized, 81 Tenn. 52, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1884).

Appeal does not lie from a judgment inflicting punishment for contempt committed in the presence of the court. The remedy against arbitrary and oppressive judgments in such cases is by habeas corpus, or by writ of error or certiorari, with supersedeas to be granted by the Supreme Court, or a member thereof. Brizendine v. State, 103 Tenn. 677, 54 S.W. 982, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1899).

In a suit to enjoin depredations on land, where the defendants were discharged in complainant's contempt proceedings against them for violation of the temporary injunction, complainant is not entitled to an appeal to the court of appeals, because contempt proceedings are in their nature criminal. Gunter v. Seaboard Copper Mining Co., 142 Tenn. 14, 215 S.W. 273, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1919), superseded by statute as stated in, Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. May 16, 2005), superseded by statute as stated in, Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005).

Supreme court on appeal of contempt proceeding is entitled to revise decree if punishment is excessive. Metcalf v. Eastman, 190 Tenn. 206, 228 S.W.2d 490, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1950).

Supreme court has jurisdiction of appeal based merely on contempt feature of case, since contempt proceedings are criminal in nature. Metcalf v. Eastman, 190 Tenn. 206, 228 S.W.2d 490, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1950).

Finding that the defendant property owner was in civil contempt and an award of attorney fees and costs to the other property owner and trustee were proper because the defendant property owner failed to provide the appellate court with a transcript or statement of the evidence. Outdoor Mgmt. v. Thomas, 249 S.W.3d 368, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2007), appeal denied, Outdoor Mgmt., LLC v. Thomas, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 833 (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2007).

In a property dispute wherein a trial court ruled a right-of-way “should remain open and unobstructed,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant in civil contempt for erecting a gate over the right-of-way because the fact that the order did not contain language explicitly prohibiting a “gate” did not make the order ambiguous or unsupported; the erection of a gate clearly constituted an “obstruction.” Gilreath v. Peters, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2011).

23. Willful Misbehavior.

Trial attorney's convictions for contempt were invalid where obtained under circumstances in which trial judge should have appointed another judge to hear the case, and where the actions of the trial attorney were motivated by the sincere pursuit of vigorous advocacy he deemed necessary to represent a client on trial for his life and were thus not willful. State v. Green, 783 S.W.2d 548, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. 1990).

Evidence supported mother's conviction of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt where child's account of incident at his school was that both his parents were engaged in pushing, shoving, and yelling in the hallway of his school and that his mother tried to pull him away from his father. No matter how provoked or well-intentioned, the mother's conduct was willful and was inconsistent with order that directed parties to refrain from harassing, aggravating or demeaning conduct toward the other. Thigpen v. Thigpen, 874 S.W.2d 51, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

A finding of willful misconduct must precede a judgment for contempt; thus, a holding that a father was in contempt of prior court orders for the payment of child support was unjustified where the court found the father's “contempt” was not willful. Haynes v. Haynes, 904 S.W.2d 118, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

Based on evidence of an attorney's direct confrontation with the trial judge and boisterous conduct which required his removal from the courtroom, the court did not abuse its discretion in invoking summary disposition of three direct criminal contempts. State v. Turner, 914 S.W.2d 951, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

To find contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102, a court must find the misbehavior, disobedience, resistance, or interference to be willful. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

In order to find defendant's failure to pay alimony and child support was contemptuous, the court must first determine that the defendant had the ability to pay at the time the support was due and then determine that the failure to pay was willful. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

Inmate was not entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that because of his medical condition he should be drug tested by patch rather than urine sample when the Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., does not permit the filing of a suit against the state to construe statutes; the chancery court lacked the jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action against the Department of Correction and T.C.A. §§ 4-5-223 and 4-5-225 did not apply to the internal management of state government if the policy did not affect the private rights, privileges, or procedures available to the public pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, T.C.A. § 4-5-102(10)(A) (now § 4-5-102(12)(A)). Fuller v. Campbell, 109 S.W.3d 737, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 533 (Tenn. May 27, 2003), appeal denied, —S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. 2003).

Appellate court affirmed an order of contempt imposed against the members of a compensation self-insured group pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102 because the members were ordered by the court to make periodic payments, the members repeatedly failed to make the payments, and the members had notice of the contempt hearing and possible sanctions. State ex rel. Flowers v. Tenn. Trucking Ass'n Self Ins. Group Trust, 209 S.W.3d 602, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State ex rel. Flowers v. Tenn. Trucking Ass'n Self Ins. Group Trust & Trucking Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1010 (Tenn. 2006).

As an attorney committed fifty acts of willful criminal contempt pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) where his actions violated an order of suspension from the practice of law, concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment were imposed on him pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-103(b); the attorney failed to cease practicing law, did not inform his clients of his suspension, and continued to accept new clients, and committed other actions that violated the suspension and constituted violations of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, §§ 18.1, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, and 18.8.In re Sneed, 302 S.W.3d 825, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2010).

Dismissal of the husband's contempt motion against the wife after she fell behind in payments that she was to put in a trust account for their child's benefit was inappropriate because the husband was entitled to a hearing on the merits as to whether the wife's failure to comply was willful under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) and, if so, whether the husband was entitled to relief. The wife had already paid the $ 6,600 that she was behind, she could not be imprisoned for non-payment; however, that did not mean that the husband was not entitled to additional relief if the wife's conduct was contemptuous. Brumit v. Durham, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2010).

Evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding of willfulness where the appellate record contained sufficient evidence to conclude that the mother knew the contents of the juvenile court order, and intentionally claimed the child as a deduction, thereby disobeying the juvenile court's order. In re Sydney T.C.H., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010).

Juvenile court clerk's failure to produce files requested by the juvenile court referees was found to be willful under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) based on the clerk's nonresponsive answers to questions about what he did to produce the files specified in the referees'  order, including complaints about the lack of financial resources, descriptions of his attempts to secure more funding, references to discussions about the procedures for the dismissal docket, assertions that judicial officers sometimes fail to return checked-out files, observations that court files were scanned and could be accessed by computer, and claims that many files other than the files specified in the orders were regularly furnished to the referees. In re Lineweaver, 343 S.W.3d 401, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

Dismissal of a third count of contempt against the husband was inappropriate under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) because he was given sufficient notice since the wife's contempt petition satisfied all three requirements of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b)(1). In part, the wife's petition for contempt clearly and accurately referenced the prior orders that prohibited the husband from contacting the wife or coming around her for any reason. Fox v. Fox, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2010).

When a county sued to recover an unexecuted marriage license issued to Davy Crockett, and the license's possessor did not obey a court order to surrender the license, the possesor was properly held in contempt because: (1) the trial court's order was lawful in that the trial court had jurisdiction over both the subject matter of the case and the parties; (2) the order in question expressly and precisely spelled out the details of compliance in a way that would enable reasonable persons to know exactly what actions were required or forbidden, so the order was clear, specific, and unambiguous; (3) the record clearly indicated that the possessor violated the trial court's order by not returning the license to the court until twelve days after the trial court's order required the possessor to surrender the document; and (4) the possessor offered no evidence showing that the possessor's conduct in violating the court order was anything other than intentional and voluntary. Jefferson County v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2011).

Husband's contempt conviction under T.C.A. § 29-2-102(3) was not supported by sufficient evidence of willfulness as there was no evidence that the husband acted with a bad purpose when he drove on a city street to get to the wife's home 10 minutes after he was supposed to be at the wife's house to repair her car under an ambiguous order. Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 278 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Attorney who, during a court proceeding, communicated with his client's co-defendant who was represented by other counsel, violated Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 8, 4.2, and was sufficient to support a conviction for criminal contempt in violation of T.C.A. § 29-9-102(1). State v. Beeler, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2011), rev'd, 387 S.W.3d 511, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 810 (Tenn. May 9, 2012).

Defendant was entitled to reversal of his conviction for contempt, which was based on fact he talked to a client's codefendant who was represented by another attorney, because the evidence was insufficient to show “willful misconduct” for purposes of contempt; defendant vigorously contended that he had effective consent by virtue of the close cooperation of both attorneys in preparing a joint defense and the other attorney testified that he would have permitted the attorney to ask his client the question had the attorney sought permission. State v. Beeler, 387 S.W.3d 511, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 810 (Tenn. May 9, 2012).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's criminal contempt conviction under T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102, 40-11-150(i)(2), and 39-11-302(a) where defendant signed a no contact order as a condition of his bail, and the testimony of the parents of defendant's wife that defendant dropped off the wife at their house while the no contact order was in effect was credited. State v. Meadows, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2012).

Trial court did not err in finding the father guilty of four counts of criminal contempt based on e-mails and text messages from the father to the mother, following the parties' divorce, that were disparaging of the mother's parenting style and criticized specific parenting decisions she had made because the father's acts were intentional, not inadvertent or accidental, and because, while the father claimed that he sent the texts and e-mails out of concern for his children's welfare, the record demonstrated that he was aware that his acts would violate the trial court's directives. Duke v. Duke, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding the father guilty of criminal contempt based on the father's statement to the children following the parties' divorce that the mother, or someone working for her, was responsible for the death of a dog that belonged to the father's then-girlfriend because, regardless of the factual support the comment provided, the father decided to make the statement voluntarily and with knowledge that such a derogatory comment would violate the court's orders and his statutory obligations. Duke v. Duke, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015).

Magistrate did not abuse his discretion in concluding that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant summarily punishing an attorney for direct criminal contempt because the conduct constituted willful misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; the imposition of summary punishment was justified given the attorney's boisterous conduct in the courtroom and his failure to obey the magistrate's directives. In re Brown, 470 S.W.3d 433, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2015).

Trial court erred in remanding a father to jail until he paid the mother because it found that the father was indigent, and thus, no further incarceration was warranted for the father's civil contempt in failing to pay the obligations he owed to the mother; the father's refusal or inability to pay would not be remedied by further jail time. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Trial court did not err in finding a father in civil contempt for his failure to meet his financial obligations because the father's inability to pay, if any, was the result of his own intentional conduct; the father was willfully and voluntarily underemployed, and he lacked credibility and candor regarding his income and employment prospects. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because the husband committed two separate acts that constituted contempt; there was evidence to support a finding that the husband lied about the amount of taxes that were due on the parties'  real property, and there was also sufficient evidence that he intentionally withheld information that he had approximately $ 411,000 in an account at the same time he represented that he was in dire need of money to pay these taxes. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding a husband guilty of criminal contempt for failure to disclose his ownership interest in property because the trial court explained its findings regarding the property in substantial detail and concluded that the husband's testimony regarding the property was emblematic of his overall disregard for his sworn oath; the record did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because the record supported its conclusion that the husband violated statutory injunctions by purchasing, buying, or selling real estate after being served with the divorce complaint and notice of injunction. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found contempt against a husband for failure to disclose one of the two parcels that comprised property because there was sufficient evidence upon which a trier of fact could have found the husband's failure to have the full value of the property appraised was willful. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court had a sufficient basis to find a husband willfully violated its order because he willfully failed to disclose the entire value of property; the trial court heard testimony at trial and still came to the conclusion that the husband willfully violated its order requiring him to disclose all information regarding, among other things, the property. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because the record contained adequate evidence upon which it could determine that, in light of the husband's pattern of contemptuous behavior, he willfully violated its order by not producing court-ordered information; the husband did not provide any explanation as to why he failed to comply with an order of the court until after the wife filed a petition for contempt. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt for not allowing the wife access to her email accounts; given the nature of the petition filed by the wife and the record of proceedings surrounding the trial court's order, including the husband's incorrect assertion that the wife had no work email account, the trial court's order was sufficiently clear for the husband to have known that he was required to restore the wife's access to her email. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding of contempt because although a husband had been ordered to procure a life insurance policy by a certain date, the husband did not even argue on appeal that he did actually comply with the trial court's order and properly secured a life insurance policy for the benefit of his wife within the required time frame. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because there was sufficient proof that the husband's misconduct hindered and obstructed the trial court in its administration of justice; based on the volumes upon volumes of pleadings and transcripts of hearings devoted to clearing up the confusion caused by the husband's misrepresentations of the contents and value of the parties'  estate, there was sufficient proof that his misconduct hindered and obstructed the trial court. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because it had ample basis to determine that the husband's deliberate misrepresentations to the trial court obstructed its ability to carry out its duties and detracted from the authority of the court; the trial court determined that the husband made a deliberate choice to undervalue his net worth in his representations to the trial court. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court did not err in holding appellant in civil contempt; contrary to the court orders, he did not conduct company business only in the usual, regular and ordinary course, and he deliberately and willfully took steps to recruit company employees, solicit company customers, and deplete the company's inventory. Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding that a property owner was in contempt of court because–following the trial court's injunctive order not to obstruct the use of one of the two easements at issue–the owner willfully placed T-posts in the other easement near the point of intersect of the two easements which obstructed a neighbor's use of the easement that was not to be obstructed. The owner's argument that the trial court's order did not clearly and specifically prohibit him from placing T-posts in the other easement was without merit. Perry v. Niles, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2018).

Evidence did not preponderate against a finding that the father had financial resources but consistently placed paying child support lower on the priority list than other obligations; he had the ability to pay and therefore willfully violated the agreed order, and he failed to prove that he did not have the ability to pay the contempt purge payment required by a later order, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in civil contempt of court and ordering the purge payment. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

Trial court did not err by holding the father in criminal contempt for returning the children two days late and failing to provide the mother with his new cell phone number for 11 days because his violations were willful. Renken v. Renken, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019).

Judgment holding the mother in criminal contempt was affirmed, as her failure to have the child in Ohio for the father's parenting time as per court order was voluntary and intentional; her failure in the time since learning of her travel restrictions in early October to make arrangements to satisfy her obligations under the order relative to the father's Thanksgiving visitation demonstrated a conscious and deliberate decision to disregard the order. In re Khrystchan D., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2020).

24. Purpose.

The purpose of subdivision (1) was to subject any person to the penalties for contempt, where he willfully, by clamorous or violent language, or by turbulent conduct in the presence of the court, or near thereto, interrupted its proceedings, and thereby obstructed the administration of justice. Harwell v. State, 78 Tenn. 544, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 221 (1882).

25. Application to Direct Contempts Only.

Subdivision (1) refers to direct contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to amount to the same thing; it relates to direct personal misbehavior, and cannot be extended so as to embrace the effect that a newspaper article, published at some remote place, might have upon the attendants on the court, who happened to read such article. In re Hickey, 149 Tenn. 344, 258 S.W. 417, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1923).

When committed in the presence of the court, court may proceed on its own knowledge of the facts. State ex rel. May v. Krichbaum, 152 Tenn. 416, 278 S.W. 54, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1925).

26. —Court in Recess.

Whether the court was in session or in recess, contempt punishable where the judge criticized was yet in the courtroom. State ex rel. May v. Krichbaum, 152 Tenn. 416, 278 S.W. 54, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1925).

Where the defendant made remarks to the prosecutor when the court was not in session and the parties were merely in the courtroom awaiting the jury's return, the remarks, although inappropriate, did not “obstruct the administration of justice,” warranting a contempt conviction. State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

27. Disobedience.

Where witness in civil suit refused to produce written agreement when orally ordered to do so by chancellor and was ordered confined to jail, such contempt was civil, did not have to be reduced to writing, was disobedience of a command of the court, and confinement was lawful. Huggins v. Follin, 500 S.W.2d 435, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. 1973).

Where the state was aware of a deadline for the filing of pretrial memoranda, the court graciously extended the deadline, and the state indicated that it would obey the order within the extended deadline but failed to do so, the state was in contempt and an award of sanctions was properly ordered against it. State ex rel. Comm'r DOT v. Cox, 840 S.W.2d 357, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1006 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

28. —Generally.

The power to punish for contempts is absolutely essential to the protection and existence of courts. It existed at common law, and has been declared by statute. Subsection (3) expressly concedes the power of the several courts of this state to issue attachments and inflict punishment for contempt of court, for the causes therein stated. State v. Rust, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 181 (1874).

In order to authorize the imprisonment of a person to secure his attendance as a witness, he must be shown to be in actual contempt of the court, in refusing to obey the process of the court. Where a party is unable to give bond for his appearance, he must be discharged upon his own personal undertaking to appear, having committed no contempt warranting his imprisonment. Arrowood v. State, 2 Shan. 347 (1877).

Trial court erred in assessing a $1,830 judgment against a daughter for failing to return her mother to a nursing home in a timely way pursuant to a court order because although the daughter's actions led to additional costs, no legal basis for the judgment appeared in the record, and the trial court did not indicate that the judgment was a sanction for contempt; the daughter's failure to obey the trial court's order without further action by the conservator and the courts could factually support a finding of contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), but no petition for contempt was filed, the procedures mandated by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42 were not followed, and the amount of the judgment did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-9-103. In re Conservatorship of Goldie Childs, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2011).

29. Ambiguous Order.

Husband's contempt conviction under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) was not supported as the order violated was ambiguous as to whether the husband's appearance on a city street 10 minutes later than the husband could have been lawfully present in a driveway off the street to repair the wife's car violated it; the husband, the wife, and the trial court were justifiably confused about whether the husband should have gone to repair the car, or stayed away. Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 278 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

30. —Erroneous Order or Decree.

It is a contempt of court to violate or disobey an injunction, however erroneously, improperly, or improvidently issued, for, until it is properly dissolved, it must be implicitly observed, and the party enjoined is not allowed to speculate upon the equity of the bill, or the legality or regularity of the writ, but his duty is to obey. Rutherford v. Metcalf, 6 Tenn. 58, 1818 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1818); Blair v. Nelson, 67 Tenn. 1, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 314 (1874); State v. Rust, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 181 (1874); State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Disobedience to a valid and subsisting, though erroneous and reversible judgment, is a contempt of court; and such judgment is valid where the court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter. Such judgment is not vacated or suspended by prayer for appeal, although the court erroneously refused to grant it. In re Vanvaver, 88 Tenn. 334, 12 S.W. 786, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1890).

Violation of injunction issued without notice, when notice is required by statute, is punishable as a contempt, because such issuance is erroneous only as a matter of procedure. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

31. —Nonattendance of Witness.

Subsection (3) applies to the refusal of a witness to attend although under subpoena. State v. Reinhart, 92 Tenn. 270, 21 S.W. 524, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1893).

32. —Refusal to Serve as Juror.

Subsection (3) applies to a refusal to serve on a jury. Osborn v. State, 160 Tenn. 599, 28 S.W.2d 49, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 139 (1929).

33. Interference with Proceedings.

Defendant who conversed with two prospective grand jurors one of whom actually served on grand jury relative to merits of matter to come before grand jury could properly be found guilty of contempt. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

34. —Application to Pending Suits Only.

Subsection (4) applies to pending, not terminated, suits. In re Hickey, 149 Tenn. 344, 258 S.W. 417, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1923).

35. —Interference with Grand Jury.

The grand jury is a constitutional part of the court, and any illegal or corrupt interference with the grand jurors in the discharge of their duties, whether in or out of the courthouse, is a contempt of court. Harwell v. State, 78 Tenn. 544, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 221 (1882).

Defendant who talked to husband of prospective grand juror fell within purview of statute relative to otherwise tampering with jury. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

Fact that trial court on own motion issued show cause order based on what court considered reliable information relating to possible tampering with grand jury did not require trial judge to excuse himself as having prejudged case. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

Separate telephone conversations to prospective grand jury members could properly be considered separate attempts to tamper with grand jury. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

Where trial court issued show cause order on what it considered reliable information concerning tampering with prospective grand jurors and court assured itself of substance of charges before issuing order, failure to support order with affidavit was not prejudicial to defendants and did not require such order to be quashed. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's contempt conviction for four separate acts of publishing online certain materials related to his underlying charge of misdemeanor assault; the posts demonstrated both his unique style and the trial court found that he acted willfully in posting the material he knew was under a protective order and that he intended to interfere with the proceedings by intimidating and harassing the grand jurors in an effort to taint the jury pool for his trial. State v. Thigpen, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2020).

36. —Interference with Jurors Before Acceptance.

The attempt to induce officers to summon as jurors, in the particular case then to be tried, certain specified persons in preference to others, is a contempt of court, as an unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of the court in violation of this statute. Sinnott v. State, 79 Tenn. 281, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1883); Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

One charged with an offense, trying to influence in his behalf persons summoned for jurors, before their acceptance or nonacceptance on the jury, is guilty of a contempt of court. Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

Each separate attempt to influence a juror constitutes a separate contempt. Snodgrass v. State, 217 Tenn. 166, 395 S.W.2d 815, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 530 (1965).

37. —Juror Accepting Bribe.

Though a juror who accepts a bribe is guilty of the felony of bribery and also of contempt of court, and could be prosecuted for the felony or subjected to contempt proceedings, the spirit of the law is against such double punishment. Osborn v. State, 160 Tenn. 599, 28 S.W.2d 49, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 139 (1929).

A prospective juror who deliberately disqualifies himself to serve by agreeing to accept a bribe is guilty of contempt. Osborn v. State, 160 Tenn. 599, 28 S.W.2d 49, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 139 (1929).

38. —Judicial Sales.

Person who made a bid at judicial sale with the idea of inspecting the property before complying with the terms of the order of sale and told the clerk and master that he would be back the following Monday to comply with the bid but then refused to do so was guilty of contempt as abusing and interfering with the proceedings of the court. Matthews v. Eslinger, 41 Tenn. App. 116, 292 S.W.2d 543, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 118 (1955).

39. —Preventing Attendance of Witnesses.

To prevent, or to attempt to prevent, the attendance of a witness constitutes a contempt of court, even if done by a person not a party to the cause, and though done outside of the state and to prevent a nonresident witness from attending and to induce him to disobey a lawful summons. Such conduct is a contempt as interfering with the process or proceedings of the court. McCarthy v. State, 89 Tenn. 543, 15 S.W. 736, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1890).

To sustain a charge of contempt for decoying a witness from the state, it is necessary to show that a subpoena was issued for the witness; that is, the existence of process which was interfered with under subsection (4) must be shown by proper proof. Scott v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S.W. 824, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1902).

Where, in a prosecution for contempt by decoying a witness from the state to prevent his appearance before the grand jury, the defenses interposed are based upon alleged technical defects in the subpoena and manner of service on the witness, they should be given no weight when invoked by parties under prosecution for so decoying, it appearing that the witness himself recognized the validity of the subpoena and the legality of the service. Scott v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S.W. 824, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1902).

T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102(3) and (4), 29-9-103(a), and 39-16-507, evidence a clear public policy that a lawfully issued subpoena shall be honored both by the person against whom it is issued and other. Such a policy is in accord with society's self-evident goal of maintaining the integrity of its judicial system by insuring access to evidence necessary to the administration of justice; thus, a claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy lies in cases where a substantial factor in an employer's decision to terminate an employee is the fact that the employee honored a lawful subpoena. Willard v. Golden Gallon-TN, LLC, 154 S.W.3d 571, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

40. —Procuring False Testimony.

Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution, by persuasion and threats of personal violence before the trial, induced a witness to testify falsely in his favor as to a material fact in issue, he is guilty of contempt of court, and of unlawful abuse of and interference with the process and proceedings of the court. Ricketts v. State, 111 Tenn. 380, 77 S.W. 1076, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1903); Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908).

Contempt of court for suborning perjury — advising, counseling and encouraging others to testify falsely — is a proper charge for a contempt proceeding. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

Uncontroverted evidence established that on the occasion when defendant was alleged to have advised four men to commit perjury the men were all together and were instructed as a group; therefore, defendant's action constituted one contempt and his sentence of four consecutive terms of confinement and cumulative separate fines was erroneous. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

Where four state witnesses testified the defendant advised and counseled them to swear falsely and defendant denied that he did so, the evidence did not preponderate against the judgment of contempt of court for suborning perjury. Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1964).

41. —Publication.

The courts have the power to prevent the publication of testimony and other proceedings, during the progress of the trial of a case. This power and the mode of preventing the publication rest largely in the discretion of the judge. It is, in its nature and the occasion and manner of its exercise, without the possibility of control by a supervising court. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868).

It is the inherent right and power of the courts to punish for contempt the publishers of newspapers who, pending the trial of a case, publish matter for public circulation which is calculated to impede, embarrass, or affect the orderly trial and disposition of the case being heard. Tate v. State ex rel. Raine, 132 Tenn. 131, 177 S.W. 69, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1915).

The power of the court to punish for contempt one publishing during the pendency of litigation, matter tending to hinder or embarrass the court in the discharge of its functions, is not dependent upon any preliminary order forbidding such publication being served by the court upon the publisher, since one violating the law becomes amenable to punishment, irrespective of previous warning. Tate v. State ex rel. Raine, 132 Tenn. 131, 177 S.W. 69, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1915).

Publication relating to pending litigation is a contempt of court, where it is calculated to destroy the effect of the testimony of a witness, and such publication is within the statutory power of the court to punish as a contempt. Tate v. State ex rel. Raine, 132 Tenn. 131, 177 S.W. 69, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1915).

The publication of a newspaper article, charging that the circuit court judge (naming him) is wholly unfit and incapacitated to hold court, and that as a result, the court has broken down and ceased to function, not relating to any pending suit, nor questioning the integrity of the court, is not punishable under this statute as contempt; defendant's positive disclaimer of an intention to question the integrity of the court was a good defense, where the contrary did not clearly appear. In re Hickey, 149 Tenn. 344, 258 S.W. 417, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1923).

Any person, including a non-lawyer who violates the confidentiality mandate embodied in Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 9, § 25 may be charged with contempt, and a charge of contempt arising from a violation of Rule 9, § 25 is criminal in nature and may be brought by the complainant or respondent whose rights of confidentiality have been violated; additionally, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, or its agent the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, may bring an action for contempt to vindicate the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court, our rules, and orders. Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 104 S.W.3d 465, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. 2003).

42. Other Acts or Omissions.

Trial court had a sufficient basis upon which to find a husband guilty of criminal contempt for failing to disclose the sale of a lot because it reasonably concluded that the husband orchestrated the sale of the lot by a company in which he owned an interest. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

43. —Statute Declaring Act Contempt — Necessity.

Subsection (6) was not intended to embrace, and does not embrace, the vast and undefined scope of contempts at common law, outside of the classes prescribed by our statutory enactments. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868).

Subsection (6) is applicable to only such acts or omissions as may be declared by statute to be contempt, for it adds nothing to the other five specifications, nor does it make the common law applicable. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868); Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S.W. 1045, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1908); In re Hickey, 149 Tenn. 344, 258 S.W. 417, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1923).

Chancellor may imprison husband for contempt for failure to comply with order to pay wife's counsel fees and alimony during the pendency of suit for divorce. Kornik v. Kornik, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 41 (1913).

Where the husband refuses to pay the counsel fees and temporary alimony allowed the wife, the burden of proof is upon him, when arraigned for contempt for such refusal, to prove his financial inability to make the payment. Kornik v. Kornik, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 41 (1913).

A court ordering defendant in a divorce bill to pay alimony may imprison him until it is paid, if satisfied that the refusal is willful and contemptuous. Hooks v. Hooks, 8 Tenn. Civ. App. 507 (1918).

It is the general rule that where a man is actually unable to pay the alimony decreed he cannot be held to be guilty of contempt of court. However, a man cannot refuse to pay alimony at the time that he is employed and receiving wages, and then when he has spent the money and lost his job plead that he is unable to pay it. In such case he may be fined and imprisoned for contempt. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 23 Tenn. App. 359, 133 S.W.2d 617, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (1939).

44. Contemptuous Pleadings.

Where pleadings filed in court by defendant in replevin action contained abusive, slanderous and scurrilous matter among which were charges of crookedness by the court and star-chamber proceedings, a conviction for criminal contempt was proper. McCraw v. Adcox, 217 Tenn. 591, 399 S.W.2d 753, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (1966).

45. Attorney's Contempt — Effect on Criminal Defendant.

Defendant was not prejudiced by the action of the court in holding his attorney in contempt, where all jurors stated they were not prejudiced against defendant or his attorney. State v. Jefferson, 529 S.W.2d 674, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. 1975), rehearing denied, , 529 S.W.2d 674, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. 1975), overruled in part, State v. Mitchell, 593 S.W.2d 280, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 395 (Tenn. 1980).

46. Contempt Advised by Counsel.

Criminal contempt of court may not be committed with impunity upon advice of counsel. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

While fact that person charged with contempt acted upon advice of counsel will not bar punishment, such fact may be considered in mitigation of such punishment. Robinson v. Air Draulics Engineering Co., 214 Tenn. 30, 377 S.W.2d 908, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1964).

47. No Double Jeopardy Found.

The contempt of court, committed by defendant in a criminal prosecution, by inducing a witness for the state to testify falsely for him as to a material fact in issue is not merged into the subornation of perjury. The offenses are distinct and independent, and punishment may be inflicted for both. Ricketts v. State, 111 Tenn. 380, 77 S.W. 1076, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (1903).

A summary contempt citation followed by a prosecution for perjury does not subject an accused to the successive trials and prosecutions forbidden under the double jeopardy clause because the essential nature and elements of each offense and the proof necessary to establish each are not the same. Maples v. State, 565 S.W.2d 202, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. 1978).

Where defendant removed child in violation of court custody orders and was cited for contempt, contempt citation did not constitute double jeopardy bar to subsequent criminal prosecution for kidnapping; the statutes involved had different purposes, different elements of proof, contempt proceedings are not criminal prosecutions, and the offense under each statute was not the same offense. State v. Sammons, 656 S.W.2d 862, 1982 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).

Neither the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution nor that of the Tennessee Constitution bars separate proceedings and punishments for contempt and the substantive offense underlying the contempt. State v. Winningham, 958 S.W.2d 740, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1997).

47.5. Double Jeopardy Found.

Although a father asserted the trial court erred in failing to hold the mother in criminal contempt regarding alleged violations of the parties'  parenting plan, the father's appeal was dismissed because an acquittal of criminal contempt implicated constitutional double jeopardy provisions; thus, the father's appeal from the mother's acquittal of criminal contempt was barred. Adkisson v. Adkisson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013).

48. Visitation and Custody Orders.

Court improperly sentenced defendant to six months imprisonment for contempt for removing child in violation of court orders under § 36-5-104 because the only contempt power conferred upon the trial court for infractions of visitation and custody orders is found in this section. State v. Sammons, 656 S.W.2d 862, 1982 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).

Where husband intentionally placed himself in a position in which he would be unable to comply with the court's visitation order, but despite his conviction for contempt of court, there was no satisfactory evidence that he was thereafter able to procure his children's return to the court's jurisdiction, he could not be sentenced for repeated offenses but only for a single act of contempt. Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. 1993).

Evidence supported a trial court's findings of criminal contempt as it showed a mother violated a trial court's order governing communications between parties and that the mother willfully refused to allow the father visitation. Sloan v. Poff, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. May 26, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. July 14, 2011).

Appellate court erred by affirming a trial court's contempt findings and ordering a mother to pay the grandparents seeking visitation $32,000 of their attorney's fees because the trial court declined to make specific findings of fact as to the contempt. Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 718 (Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

Trial court erred in holding a father in contempt for violating the spring break provisions of the parties ‘ parenting plan because the mother agreed to let the children go with the father when they got out of school and “spring break” was not so well defined that a person of ordinary prudence would have known the weekends on both sides of the actual week school was out were not included, especially since the parties had treated them as being included the year before. Adkisson v. Adkisson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013).

Trial court erred in holding the mother in contempt for another incident in which the mother escorted the three-year-old child off the soccer field during a game when he was throwing a tantrum as it was unlikely that a reasonable person in the mother's position would expect to be held in criminal contempt for simply attending to the immediate needs of her very young child. Knellinger v. Knellinger, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013).

Trial court erred in holding the mother in contempt for failing to get the son to his baseball games 30 minutes prior to their start as the father's petition did not identify a specific date that the mother was late in this respect, and there was no evidence of a specific date for which she was tardy. Moreover, there was no evidence showing that the mother willfully intended to violate any court order. Knellinger v. Knellinger, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013).

Trial court erred in holding the mother in contempt for an incident in which the mother reacted to the step-mother offering candy to the mother's child as the mother's reaction to the step-mother pushing herself upon the mother and the child in this situation did not constitute a willful violation of a clear and unambiguous court order and, thus, could not be a basis for criminal contempt under this section. Knellinger v. Knellinger, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013).

In a divorce proceeding, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the mother was in criminal contempt based on her failing to ensure that the child completed his school work, failing to return a school book causing the father to purchase it again, failing to ensure that the child participated in scheduled speech therapy during her parenting time, failing to allow the child telephone contact with the father, and other failings. S. A. M. D. v. J. P. D., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2013), review denied and ordered not published, S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Trial court did not err in finding the father guilty of criminal contempt because the father to provide the mother with a written itinerary of his travel plans with the children when the father took the children on a trip to Colorado, in violation of the permanent parenting plan order; and the father was aware of his obligation to provide the mother with the itinerary, and that, despite repeated requests from the mother for that information, the father willfully failed and refused to provide it. Duke v. Duke, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015).

Trial court properly found a mother in criminal contempt for refusing and delaying a father's visitation because the mother was bound by the terms of the agreed temporary parenting plan, which provided for approved child care providers while in the other parent's care; the mother had the option of requesting mediation or a hearing if she felt that modification was necessary. Howell v. Smithwick, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Trial court erred in finding a mother in criminal contempt for deviating from a temporary parenting plan on a certain day because the father agreed for the mother to exercise parenting time on that day. Howell v. Smithwick, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017).

Trial court imposed punishment for criminal contempt on a father in custody dispute where it specified that the eight-day suspended sentence was the consequence for failing to notify the mother within 24 hours of one child's medical hospitalization and treatment, failing to provide the mother with information regarding the second child's academic awards and both bhildren's academic grades and attendance records, sending disparaging and damaging statements against the mother to one child during the mother's co-parenting time, and failing to take the children to court-ordered counseling. McClain v. McClain, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2017).

49. Child Support.

Contempt finding under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) was reversed because there was no direct evidence that the mother had the ability to pay the child support during the time period at issue; the trial court's finding that the mother's attitude was lackadaisical during the time her case was assigned to a problem solving program was not germane to the issue. State ex rel. Martin v. Lynch, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2010).

Order finding a father in criminal contempt for a failure to pay child support was vacated because  the Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42 requirements of notice were not satisfied; the attached exhibit to the petition for contempt did not clarify for the father the proper number of alleged violations or the correct amount of jail time he faced. The trial court also failed to give the father notice orally in open court as required by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b)(2), and the record raised serious doubts concerning whether the father clearly understood the criminal nature of the proceedings and that incarceration might have been the result of the hearing. Brown v. Batey, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2010).

Evidence supported a trial court's finding that a father's failure to pay child support was willful because the evidence showed that, although the father's mother had given the father $ 20,000 to assist with his financial needs and that the father received normal income from his business, the father did not make any effort to pay portion of his mounting child support arrearage during the relevant period, nor was there any evidence as to why the father failed to comply with his obligation to provide health insurance for his children. There was no evidence in the record to indicate that the father's decision to ignore his obligation was anything but willful. State ex rel. Creighton v. Foster, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011).

Husband's criminal contempt convictions for failure to pay child support and alimony were reversed as the trial court failed to first determine whether he had the ability to pay before finding his failure to pay was willful under T.C.A. § 29-9-102. Bowers v. Bowers, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011).

Sufficient evidence supported a trial court's finding that a husband was in criminal contempt, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-5-104 and 29-9-102(3), for failing to pay monthly pendente lite support because the husband made only a partial payment in May 2009 and no payment in June 2009, even though the husband had the ability to pay; the husband was sentenced to 20 days of incarceration. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

In criminal contempt proceedings, T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), sufficient evidence established that but for the time he was incarcerated and in the hospital, a father had the ability to pay sixteen bi-weekly child support payments because the father worked numerous jobs for years and his substance abuse problem did not excuse the obligation to pay support. State ex rel. Eason v. Swinger, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 190 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012).

Although a trial court properly held a husband in contempt, the trial court erred in sentencing the husband to 180 days of imprisonment because the husband was held in civil, not criminal contempt, and purged his contempt prior to a certain date by paying his child support and alimony obligations. Mays v. Mays, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012).

Sufficient evidence supported a trial court's finding a father guilty of five counts of criminal contempt, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), for failing to pay $ 850 in monthly child support because the father received checks from his employer during the five months at issue that exceeded his child support obligation, and, as such, the father had the ability to pay. Rutledge v. Kelly, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012).

Substantial and material evidence supported a trial court holding a father in contempt for failing to comply with the parenting plan's provisions concerning the payment of his share of the children's uncovered medical expenses, T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), because there was no question the father did not pay his share of the therapist's fees and refused to pay many of the other bills. Adkisson v. Adkisson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013).

Trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to a mother for a father's alleged willful failure to supply the mother with proof of his income in connection with a 2001 final decree requiring him to pay 21 percent of his fluctuating income as child support because the father was reasonable in assuming a 2003 order replaced the child support portion of the final decree and he was no longer required to comply with the proof of income; the 2003 order did not clearly require the father to provide proof of income. Allen v. Allen, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2013).

Because there was a reasonable basis for doubt regarding the meaning of the provision requiring the father to pay the non-school related expenses incurred on behalf of the children, the provision could not support a finding of civil contempt. Duke v. Duke, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 627 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the father in civil contempt for failing to pay child support, as the evidence showed that the father had the ability to work and was able to meet other obligations. Cisneros v. Cisneros, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 938 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal dismissed, Cisneros v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Because a father admitted his obligation to pay medical bills, and the trial court declined to find the father in contempt based on his failure to pay, the father was not harmed by the trial court's decision that the bills were due and owing; it appeared that the trial court merely affirmed the father's own admission that he was required to meet the obligations. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Trial court's order holding the father in criminal contempt for failing to pay child support in full each month was vacated because it contained insufficient findings of fact, as the trial court did not make a willfulness finding. The trial court only found that the father had failed to voluntarily make a child support payment to the mother since early December 2016 and the amount of the child support arrearage. Neely v. Neely, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2019).

49.5. Violation of Parenting Plan.

Mother willfully violated the parenting plan by asking the child to repeat to her that his father and stepmother touched his privates, had the ability to comply with the plan, and her conduct constituted civil, not criminal, contempt. Cremeens v. Cremeens, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2015).

Trial court did not err by denying the father's request to hold the mother in contempt because the evidence did not preponderate against its finding that the mother did not act willfully in violating the amended permanent parenting plan by not permitting the father to exercise his visitation as her actions were based on medical necessity, as the proof showed that the mother was allowed only once weekly visits of 24 hours at a time. Colley v. McBee, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2017).

Trial court properly held a former spouse in contempt for failing to comply with the court's orders in the final decree of divorce by failing to cooperate with their ex-spouse in renewing their child's passport when the ex-spouse wanted to travel with the child to Europe. Bradley v. Bradley, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 2018).

Father had received adequate notice that he faced a criminal contempt charge in a child custody modification proceeding where the mother's petition clearly stated that it was for criminal contempt and included the essential facts, the petition alleged that the father had violated the court's July 2016 consent order by taking the child to his attorney's office on January 13, 2017, to discuss her preference and sign an affidavit, the court's fiat informed the father that he faced possible incarceration if convicted, and the father was informed in open court on May that the criminal contempt hearing would take place when court convened on June 8, giving the father ample time to prepare a defense. Wassenberg v. Wassenberg, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2020).

50. Conduct at Depositions.

Plaintiff's poor conduct during a deposition, including repeated outbursts of profanity, constituted criminal contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(1). Dargi v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 23 S.W.3d 342, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

51. Disruption.

Evidence was sufficient for the trial court to hold defendant, a criminal defense attorney, in summary criminal contempt under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(a), as the record showed that his angry, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior towards the court, which devolved into a temper tantrum, was willful and obstructed the administration of justice. State v. Whetstone, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 805 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding appellant in contempt because it did not err by determining that appellant's statements constituted willful misbehavior obstructing the administration of justice, as appellant made the statements after leaving the courtroom without permission and after calling an opposing attorney a liar, she made the statements in response to the trial court's request that she apologize to the attorney, and the trial court warned appellant that he could hold her in contempt but the warning did not deter her from describing some of the people in the gallery as pedophiles and abusers of her children. Kenyon v. Plump, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2020).

52. Violation of Injunction.

Wife was properly held in criminal contempt for violating an injunction requiring that the parties comply with all Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically with regard to giving notice, regardless of the wife's use of the subpoenaed information in other actions, as a husband was not given proper notice of the subpoenas under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 45.02. Malmquist v. Malmquist, 415 S.W.3d 826, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

Wife was properly held in criminal contempt for violating an injunction against filing or making charges of any kind against a husband, even though an arrest warrant was issued after a probable cause hearing. Malmquist v. Malmquist, 415 S.W.3d 826, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

Wife was properly held in criminal contempt for violating an injunction against filing or making charges of any kind against a husband, even though she non-suited a petition for emergency injunctive relief, as the injunction enjoined the parties from simply filing suits against the other party, regardless of whether the party was required to appear and defend. Malmquist v. Malmquist, 415 S.W.3d 826, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

Wife was properly held in criminal contempt for violating an injunction against filing or making charges of any kind against a husband, even though the federal cases were filed during the pendency of a first contempt action, as the cases were still pending when the second contempt order was entered. Malmquist v. Malmquist, 415 S.W.3d 826, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

Wife was properly held in criminal contempt for violating an injunction since the wife had notice of the injunction as she had previously been found in violation of the same injunction and had been ordered to spend three nights in jail, and had consented to be bound by the injunction. Malmquist v. Malmquist, 415 S.W.3d 826, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

In a divorce matter, a trial court did not err in holding a husband in willful contempt, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 16-1-103 and 29-9-102, for violating the statutorily-mandated temporary injunction in T.C.A. § 36-4-106(d)(1)-(7) because the husband withdrew, transferred, and used, hundreds of thousands of dollars in marital assets to finance the “start-up costs” of a new business venture after the parties'  divorce was filed. Slagle v. Slagle, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2012).

Although a corporation leased the real property that it owned, and upon which an injunction had been issued due to zoning violations, as it was aware that the lessee intended to, and in fact did, carry on the prohibited conduct on the property, the corporation was properly held in contempt under T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102 and 29-9-103 for violations of the injunction pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(2). Smith County Planning Comm'n v. Carver Trucking, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2012).

Despite the fact that a corporation was allegedly dissolved pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 48-24-202(c) and 48-24-105(b), as it still owned property upon which zoning violations continued despite a court-ordered injunction, the trial court had the power under T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102 and 29-9-103 to hold the corporation in criminal contempt for violations of the injunction. Smith County Planning Comm'n v. Carver Trucking, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2012).

Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in holding a parent in civil contempt because the court found that the parent violated certain of the court's orders enjoining the parent from making comments about the other parent, the school situation of the parties'  child, and the judicial proceedings, both in person and on social media, through the parent's social media comments. Gider v. Hubbell, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2017).

Trial court properly found a husband guilty of criminal contempt because it determined that the husband willfully violated the statutory injunctions and its order by selling a lot without approval. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Husband was properly found guilty of criminal contempt because the trial court made the specific findings of fact that supported the allegation that the husband's failure to disclose the full value of properties constituted deliberate attempts on more than one occasion to conceal the information from the wife and the trial court; the trial court found that he violated the mandatory injunction by purchasing real estate after being served with the divorce complaint and notice of injunctions. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Competitor was properly convicted of criminal contempt because his recording of a substitute trustee's deed without adhering to the notice requirement of a temporary injunction demonstrated willful disobedience or resistance to the injunction and was directly attributable to the competitor; a trustee was bound to follow the competitor's directions, including recording the deed conveying property to the trust and, upon its sale, distributing a portion of the proceeds to pay his legal fees. Family Trust Servs., LLC v. Reo Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2018), appeal denied, Family Trust Servs., LLC v. REO Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 561 (Tenn. Sept. 13, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding that a property owner was in contempt of court because–following the trial court's injunctive order not to obstruct the use of one of the two easements at issue–the owner willfully placed T-posts in the other easement near the point of intersect of the two easements which obstructed a neighbor's use of the easement that was not to be obstructed. The owner's argument that the trial court's order did not clearly and specifically prohibit him from placing T-posts in the other easement was without merit. Perry v. Niles, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2018).

53. Failure to Pay Alimony.

Evidence supported a finding of criminal contempt for a former spouse's willful failure to comply with a final decree of divorce, which incorporated a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) that required the spouse to pay alimony and provide insurance, because the spouse had the ability to pay the financial obligations under the MDA, but purposefully transferred major assets to the spouse's second marital partner in an attempt to avoid the spouse's financial obligations under the MDA. Lattimore v. Lattimore, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2014), review denied and ordered not published, Lattimore v. Lattiimore, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 341 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2014).

Trial court erred by declining to find a husband in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the alimony provision of the parties'  marital dissolution agreement because the evidence preponderated against its determination that the husband's failure to comply was not willful; the husband created the situation causing his alleged inability to pay because he transferred significant assets of to his new wife. Lattimore v. Lattimore, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2019).

Trial court erred by declining to find a husband in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the alimony provision of the parties'  marital dissolution agreement because the trial court predicated its contempt adjudication on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Lattimore v. Lattimore, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2019).

Trial court erred by declining to find a husband in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the alimony provision of the parties'  marital dissolution agreement because the evidence preponderated in favor of a determination that the husband's failure to pay his spousal support obligation was intentional and voluntary; while he had the assets available to him to pay his obligation, he chose not to do so. Lattimore v. Lattimore, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2019).

54. Protective Order.

Trial court's factual findings, including that the wife credibly testified she did not send emails from the husband's account to her email address, was sufficient to prove that the husband violated the order of protection when he indirectly contacted the wife through email on four occasions Reynolds v. Reynolds, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 809 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2014).

55. Property Settlement.

Husband was aware of his obligations under the divorce decree and had the ability to comply with them at the time of the contempt hearing; he failed to participate in the trial court proceedings in any meaningful way, and in light of his persistent refusal to appear before the trial court and offer testimony in his own behalf, there was no reason to grant him relief from the trial court's order holding him in civil contempt as enforcement for the property settlement provisions of the parties'  marital dissolution agreement. Gibbs v. Gibbs, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2016).

Contempt was an appropriate method of enforcing the property settlement provisions of the parties'  marital dissolution agreement. Gibbs v. Gibbs, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2016).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the wife in willful civil contempt for denying the husband access to certain areas of the property and piled his belongings haphazardly atop the boat and in the yard, which belongings he was awarded in the parties' marital dissolution agreement. Landis v. Landis, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2016).

Parties were painstakingly specific when they enumerated in the marital dissolution agreement (MDA) the items the husband was entitled to retrieve, and absent from the exhaustive list was a boat trailer; the trial court erred in finding that the MDA required the wife to return the boat trailer to the husband, and thus the trial court erred in holding the wife in contempt for refusing to return it. Landis v. Landis, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2016).

Trial court erred in holding a former spouse in contempt for willfully disobeying an order in the final decree of divorce to cooperate with their ex-spouse's lender because the evidence showed that the former spouse believed that their ex-spouse was trying to refinance the former spouse's loan and add the ex-spouse's name to the spouse's deed rather than purchase the marital home outright. Bradley v. Bradley, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 2018).

Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a wife's contempt petition where the petition sought to secure the husband's compliance with the marriage dissolution agreement that had been made an order of the court, and Tennessee courts were empowered to inflict punishments for contempt of court. Foster v. Foster, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 214 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2019).

56. Bankruptcy.

While the bankruptcy petition's filing suspended the contempt proceedings, it did not have any effect on the trial court's previous adjudication of contempt, and as the automatic stay had expired, it had no effect on the contempt order or this appeal. Gibbs v. Gibbs, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2016).

57. Compensatory Damages.

Trial court did not err in finding that appellant's violation of court orders actually harmed the winning bidders of the company, because by depleting the company's inventory and recruiting employees for his own business, he diminished the value of business assets; because the trial court awarded $ 375,000 to compensate the bidders for breach of fiduciary duty, interference with business relations, and violation of court orders, it could not be determined if the evidence supported the amount awarded, and the award was vacated. Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

Collateral References. 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 13-61.

17 C.J.S. Contempt § 43.

Acquittal of criminal charges other than contempt as precluding contempt proceedings relating to same transaction. 88 A.L.R.3d 1089.

Affidavit to disqualify judge as contempt. 29 A.L.R. 1273.

Alimony, right to impose fine for failure to pay. 14 A.L.R. 717.

Allowance of attorneys' fees in civil contempt proceedings. 43 A.L.R.3d 793.

Appealability of acquittal from or dismissal of charge of contempt of court. 24 A.L.R.3d 650.

Appealability of contempt adjudication or conviction. 33 A.L.R.3d 448.

Assault on attorney as contempt. 61 A.L.R.3d 500.

Assault on judge, juror or witness as contempt. 18 A.L.R. 213, 55 A.L.R. 1230, 52 A.L.R.2d 1297.

Attorney, conduct of, in connection with making objections or taking exceptions during trial as contempt of court. 68 A.L.R.3d 314.

Attorney's alteration, substitution, abstraction, withholding, or destruction of pleadings and papers as criminal contempt. 151 A.L.R. 746.

Attorney's compensation for services in contempt proceedings, amount of. 57 A.L.R.3d 475.

Attorney's failure to attend court, or tardiness, as contempt. 97 A.L.R.2d 431, 13 A.L.R.4th 122.

Attorney's failure to attend court, or tardiness, as contempt. 13 A.L.R.4th 122.

Attorney's refusal to accept appointment to defend indigent, or to proceed in such defense, as contempt. 36 A.L.R.3d 1221.

Bail jumping after conviction, failure to surrender or to appear for sentencing and the like, as contempt. 34 A.L.R.2d 1100.

Boycott, violation of injunction against, as contempt. 6 A.L.R. 978, 16 A.L.R. 230, 27 A.L.R. 651, 32 A.L.R. 779, 116 A.L.R. 484.

Circumstances under which one court can punish a contempt against another court. 99 A.L.R.2d 1100.

Clerk of court, refusal or failure of, to comply with direction of court or judge, upon ground of its invalidity or supposed invalidity, as contempt. 119 A.L.R. 1380.

Collective bargaining agreement, violation of injunction against breach of, as a criminal contempt. 95 A.L.R. 51.

Commitment for contempt in failing to obey order of court as purging one of contempt. 56 A.L.R. 701.

Communicating with grand jury as contempt. 29 A.L.R. 489.

Conduct in delaying or obstructing discovery as basis for contempt proceeding. 8 A.L.R.4th 1181.

Contempt adjudication or conviction as subject to review, other than by appeal or writ of error. 33 A.L.R.3d 589.

Contempt for violation of compromise and settlement the terms of which were approved by court but not incorporated in court order, decree, or judgment. 84 A.L.R.3d 1047.

Decree or order which merely declares rights of parties without an express command or prohibition as basis of contempt proceeding. 29 A.L.R. 134.

De facto status of officer as affecting his criminal responsibility or liability to punishment for contempt. 64 A.L.R. 534.

Degree of proof necessary in contempt proceedings. 49 A.L.R. 975.

Delay in adjudication of contempt committed in the actual presence of court as affecting court's power to punish contemnor. 100 A.L.R.2d 439.

Demand as condition precedent to enforcement of payment of alimony by contempt proceedings. 63 A.L.R. 1220.

Disclosure of grand jury proceedings to outsider. 127 A.L.R. 272.

Disqualification of judge or change of venue, contempt proceeding as a “civil proceeding,” within statute relating to. 102 A.L.R. 398.

Duration of imprisonment for refusal to answer question as a witness before the grand jury. 28 A.L.R. 1364.

Emergency Price Control Act, criminal contempt for violation of. 156 A.L.R. 1462, 157 A.L.R. 1457, 158 A.L.R. 1464.

Enforcement of contract by party to procure insurance on his own life by contempt proceedings. 12 A.L.R.2d 983.

Executor, guardian, conservator, trustee, receiver or other fiduciary, refusal or failure of, to pay over or account for funds as contempt. 60 A.L.R. 322, 134 A.L.R. 927.

Failure to turn over property upon order of court, or violation of order of court other than the one appointing receiver. 39 A.L.R. 34, 48 A.L.R. 241.

False or inaccurate report of judicial proceedings as contempt. 99 A.L.R.2d 440.

Forcing party or prosecuting witness to withdraw or not to institute action or proceeding as contempt of court. 23 A.L.R. 187.

Habeas corpus proceedings, liability for contempt in connection with. 84 A.L.R. 812.

Holding jurors in contempt under state law. 93 A.L.R.5th 493.

Identity or whereabouts of, or other information relating to, his client, refusal of attorney to disclose. 101 A.L.R. 470.

Inability to comply with judgment or order as defense to charge of contempt. 22 A.L.R. 1256, 31 A.L.R. 649, 40 A.L.R. 546, 76 A.L.R. 390, 120 A.L.R. 703.

Inability to purge contempt as affecting adequacy of other remedies for purposes of prohibition against contempt proceedings. 136 A.L.R. 724.

Interference with enforcement of judgment in criminal or juvenile delinquent case as contempt. 8 A.L.R.3d 657.

Interlocutory decree of divorce, effect of contempt of court after. 109 A.L.R. 1013, 174 A.L.R. 519.

Judge, reflection on, by juror or grand juror as contempt. 125 A.L.R. 1280.

Judgment debtor's conveyance or transfer of property pending stay of execution as contempt. 122 A.L.R. 1346.

Judgment, statutes empowering court to require payment of, out of income of judgment debtor or by instalments, and to commit debtor to jail for failure to pay. 111 A.L.R. 404.

Judicial officer's civil liability for ordering arrest for contempt. 13 A.L.R. 1364, 55 A.L.R. 282, 173 A.L.R. 802.

Judicial or execution sale, acts interfering with or prejudicing, as contempt. 27 A.L.R. 1225.

Jurors, witness's attempt to influence, as contempt. 63 A.L.R. 1279.

Legislative power to abridge, limit, or regulate power of courts with respect to contempt. 121 A.L.R. 215.

Letter to court or judge with regard to a pending case, contempt by. 31 A.L.R. 1239.

Liquor law, criticism of attitude of court of judge toward violations of, as contempt. 58 A.L.R. 1001.

Mandamus, contempt for disobedience of. 30 A.L.R. 148.

Misconduct by jurors or grand jurors as contempt. 125 A.L.R. 1274.

Mistreatment of prisoner as contempt. 40 A.L.R. 1278.

Necessity and sufficiency of subsidiary or detailed findings supporting adjudication of direct contempt. 154 A.L.R. 1227.

Necessity of affidavit or sworn statement as foundation for constructive contempt. 2 A.L.R. 225, 41 A.L.R.2d 1263.

Perjury or false swearing as contempt. 89 A.L.R.2d 1258.

Picketing court or judge as contempt. 58 A.L.R.3d 1297.

Practicing or pretending to practice law without authority as contempt. 36 A.L.R. 533, 100 A.L.R. 236.

Privilege of defendant in contempt proceedings as to testifying against himself. 54 A.L.R. 1436.

Procuring or attempting to procure witness to leave jurisdiction as contempt. 21 A.L.R. 247, 33 A.L.R. 607.

Procuring perjury as contempt. 29 A.L.R.2d 1157.

Profane, or obscene language by party, witness, or observer during trial proceedings as basis for contempt citation. 29 A.L.R.5th 702.

Prosecuting witness, forcing withdrawal of, or abandonment of proceeding by, as contempt. 23 A.L.R. 187.

Publication or broadcast, during course of trial, of matter prejudicial to criminal defendant as contempt. 33 A.L.R.3d 1116.

Published article or broadcast as direct contempt of court. 69 A.L.R.2d 676.

Punishment of civil contempt in other than divorce cases by striking pleading or entering default judgment or dismissal against contemnor. 14 A.L.R.2d 580.

Punishment of election officers for contempt. 64 A.L.R. 1019.

Receiver, criticism of court's appointment of. 97 A.L.R. 903.

Receivership, conduct pending, as contempt of court. 39 A.L.R. 6, 48 A.L.R. 241.

Receivership, contempt by interference with property pending. 39 A.L.R. 6, 48 A.L.R. 241.

Replevin, failure or refusal to surrender possession or disclose whereabouts of property in, as contempt. 130 A.L.R. 632.

Restitution as purging contempt in violating injunction. 2 A.L.R. 169.

Reversal, modification, dismissal, dissolution, or resettlement of judgment or injunctive order as affecting prior disobedience as contempt. 148 A.L.R. 1024.

Right of witness in contempt proceeding to refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination, as to membership in or connection with party, society, or similar organization or group. 19 A.L.R.2d 388.

Right to punish for contempt for failure to obey court order or decree either beyond power or jurisdiction of court or merely erroneous. 12 A.L.R.2d 1059.

Search warrant, preventing, obstructing, or delaying service or execution of. 39 A.L.R. 1354.

Selection or summoning of jurors or grand jurors, misconduct of officers in, as contempt of court. 7 A.L.R. 345.

Self-incriminating evidence before grand jury, refusal to give, as contempt. 27 A.L.R. 140.

Self-incrimination, refusal to keep promise to waive privilege against, as contempt. 69 A.L.R. 855.

Separate acts of contempt as punishable in a single contempt proceeding. 160 A.L.R. 1104.

Shadowing, or tampering or communicating with, jurors as contempt. 63 A.L.R. 1269.

Specific performance of separation agreement, enforcement of decree for, by contempt proceedings. 154 A.L.R. 462.

Subpoenaing unnecessary witnesses as contempt. 37 A.L.R. 1113.

Sufficiency of notice to, or service upon, contemnor's attorney in civil contempt proceedings. 60 A.L.R.2d 1244.

Tenant of, or purchaser from, defendant in the suit, violation of injunction against use of premises for sale of intoxicating liquors by. 15 A.L.R. 391.

Use of affidavits to establish contempt. 79 A.L.R.2d 657.

Validity or scope of command of subpoena duces tecum, right to question, in proceeding for contempt in disobeying. 130 A.L.R. 332.

Validity, propriety, and effect of allowing or prohibiting media's broadcasting, recording, or photographing court proceedings. 14 A.L.R.4th 121.

Verdict, conduct of juror in respect of, as basis of charge of contempt. 32 A.L.R. 436.

Violation of injunction by one not a party to injunction suit. 15 A.L.R. 386.

Violation of state court order by one other than party as contempt. 7 A.L.R.4th 893.

What courts or officers have power to punish for contempt. 8 A.L.R. 1543, 54 A.L.R. 318, 73 A.L.R. 1185.

Witness, failure to obey order to procure, or aid in procuring, attendance of. 56 A.L.R. 174.

Contempt 32-36.

29-9-103. Punishment.

  1. The punishment for contempt may be by fine or by imprisonment, or both.
  2. Where not otherwise specially provided, the circuit, chancery, and appellate courts are limited to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00), and imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, and, except as provided in § 29-9-108, all other courts are limited to a fine of ten dollars ($10.00).

Code 1858, § 4107; Shan., § 5919; Code 1932, § 10120; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-903; Acts 1985, ch. 438, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Subsection (b) was amended twice in 1985, by ch. 324, § 1 (passed May 2, 1985), and by ch. 438 (passed May 22, 1985), neither amendment referring to the other. The section set out above is as amended by ch. 438, the later expression of legislative intent.

Cross-References. Criminal contempt, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42.

Disobedience of habeas corpus, § 29-21-128.

Tennessee Criminal Reform Act of 1989, § 40-35-101.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 377.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667, 838.

Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), §§ 9.30, 24.15.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-45.06-1.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, §§ 3, 13; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 60; 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, § 27; 25 Tenn. Juris., Witnesses, § 5.

Law Reviews.

Best Interest on the Move: Standards for Custodial Removal of Children from Tennessee (A. Darby Dickerson, W. David Stalnaker), 18 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 399 (1988).

16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 553 (1986).

Criminal Contempt, Jury Trial, Private Prosecutors & Child Support, (Clarke Lee Shaw), 34 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 22 (1998).

Developments in the Doctrine of Equitable Restraint: Deference Without Distinction (Edward J. McKenney, Jr.), 12 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 385 (1982).

Domestic Relations — 1963 Tennessee Survey (T.A. Smedley), 17 Vand. L. Rev. 1039.

Forms of Relief, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 400.

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

The Contempt Powers of Tennessee Courts (E. Michael Ellis), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 538.

The Tennessee Court System — Municipal Courts (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 431.

Attorney General Opinions. Imprisonment for contempt of city court, OAG 84-283 (10/18/84).

Limitation of contempt powers, OAG 89-15 (2/8/89).

Incarceration for wilful contempt for failure to pay support, OAG 89-104 (8/17/89).

Cited: Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (1960); State v. Sammons, 656 S.W.2d 862, 1982 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982); Oil, Chemical, etc., 719 S.W.2d 550, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2718 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986); In re Throneberry, 754 S.W.2d 633, 1988 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Winningham, 958 S.W.2d 740, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1997); Wilson v. Wilson, 984 S.W.2d 898, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 744 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Gray, 46 S.W.3d 749, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Freeman v. Freeman, 147 S.W.3d 234, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Moody v. Hutchison, 159 S.W.3d 15, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Cottingham v. Cottingham, 193 S.W.3d 531, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. 2006);  Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2010); In re Lineweaver, 343 S.W.3d 401, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010); McLean v. McLean, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 365 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2010); In re Drake L., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2010); State ex rel. Farris v. Bryant, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011); Sloan v. Poff, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011); State ex rel. Creighton v. Foster, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011); State v. Aaron Bonding Co., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 242 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2011); State ex rel. Eason v. Swinger, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012); Smith v. Garvin, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 2012); State v. Hill, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2012); Finchum v. Finchum, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 101 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jury Trial Not Required.

Although contempt proceedings are included in the federal constitutional requirement of trial by jury, the punishment authorized by this section is such as to make criminal contempt a “petty offense” for which trial by jury is not constitutionally required. Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 S. Ct. 1472, 20 L. Ed. 2d 538, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1632 (1968).

In a multiple count criminal contempt case, defendant was not entitled to a jury trial because, although he faced aggregate sentences of more than six months, the charges all related to defendant's violations of an order of protection, rather than direct insults or threats to the court. Sliger v. Sliger, 181 S.W.3d 684, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1049 (Tenn. 2005).

2. Construction with Other Acts.

Punishment for contempt in violating injunction against selling intoxicating liquors is not governed by this section, but by Acts 1913 (2nd Ex. Sess.), ch. 2, and particularly by § 7 thereof, compiled in § 29-3-112. State v. Ragghianti, 129 Tenn. 560, 167 S.W. 689, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1914).

Defendant was not entitled to trial by jury in contempt proceeding in circuit court for violating injunction against illegal sale of intoxicating liquor as provided that abatement of public nuisance should be conducted in accordance with procedure of court of chancery, and chancellor had authority to punish for contempt summarily. Pass v. State, 181 Tenn. 613, 184 S.W.2d 1, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 283 (1944).

In contempt proceeding to enforce child support payments contained in divorce decree, court was not limited to fine and imprisonment in amount provided by § 29-9-103 but could commit defendant to enforce payment of arrears under authority of § 29-9-104. Black v. Black, 50 Tenn. App. 455, 362 S.W.2d 472, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1962).

Proceedings under §§ 29-9-103, 29-9-104 are not mutually exclusive since under § 29-9-103 the punishment is for criminal contumacy in resisting the authority of the court while § 29-9-104 confers upon the courts essential powers of coercion to enable them to enforce their judgments and decrees. Black v. Black, 50 Tenn. App. 455, 362 S.W.2d 472, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1962); Mowery v. Mowery, 50 Tenn. App. 648, 363 S.W.2d 405, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (1962).

Where the trial court cited T.C.A. § 29-2-102 as the basis for the contempt convictions, it was without authority to sentence the defendant to six months in jail, despite the fact that T.C.A. § 36-5-104 provides for a penalty of up to six months for failure to pay child support, because T.C.A. § 29-9-103 specifically limits circuit courts to a maximum of $50 fine and ten days in jail. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102(3) and (4), 29-9-103(a), and 39-16-507, evidence a clear public policy that a lawfully issued subpoena shall be honored both by the person against whom it is issued and others. Such a policy is in accord with society's self-evident goal of maintaining the integrity of its judicial system by insuring access to evidence necessary to the administration of justice; thus, a claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy lies in cases where a substantial factor in an employer's decision to terminate an employee is the fact that the employee honored a lawful subpoena. Willard v. Golden Gallon-TN, LLC, 154 S.W.3d 571, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

3. Criminal Courts.

The criminal courts are not limited to a fine of $10.00. McCarthy v. State, 89 Tenn. 543, 15 S.W. 736, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1890).

4. Burden of Proof.

The burden of proof is upon the alleged contemnor to show that, acting in good faith, and with an honest purpose to comply with the order of the court, he was unable to do so. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 23 Tenn. App. 359, 133 S.W.2d 617, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (1939).

Where the trial court's order finding a former husband in criminal contempt stated that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that he was able to pay child support but willfully refused to do so, as the record established beyond a reasonable doubt that he violated the trial court's orders, its reference to the wrong standard of proof was immaterial. Coffey v. Coffey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013).

Trial court held properly found a mother guilty of criminal contempt for two separate instances of disparaging remarks made about the father in the presence of their children because she received sufficient notice where the father identified the exact conduct and time by using the mother's own sworn statements, specifically set forth the number of the counts of contempt, and provided the exact amount of punishment, and once the mother testified in open court and under oath that her earlier statements–identifying the specific instances of contempt surrounding her disparaging comments and parental alienation discussions with the children–were accurate and voluntary, the standard requiring corroborating evidence did not apply. Nichols v. Crockett, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 609 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017).

5. Punishment.

Although domestic violence counseling is not authorized as a punishment for criminal contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-103, the trial court properly imposed such a requirement as part of a new order of protection. Cable v. Clemmons, 36 S.W.3d 39, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. 2001).

The portions of the criminal code that require the court to set a percentage of the sentence that must be served (T.C.A. § 40-35-302(d)) and that allow a misdemeanant to earn good conduct credits while serving time in a local jail (T.C.A. § 41-2-111(b)), do not apply to a defendant convicted of criminal contempt arising out of a civil matter; the possible punishment is already so limited (a $ 50 fine and/or ten days in jail, T.C.A. § 29-9-103(b)) that the legislature could hardly have intended to mandate a further reduction. State v. Wood, 91 S.W.3d 769, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2002 Tenn. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2002).

Where attorney was charged with criminal contempt in an underlying divorce suit, because an unfavorable ruling could have resulted in punishment by the assessment of a fine or imprisonment for less than a year, the charge was actually a misdemeanor charge. Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Because T.C.A. § 29-9-103 does not mandate that a sentence be imposed and because a trial court can suspend any sentence that is given, the trial court has the power to offset findings of criminal contempt. Cansler v. Cansler, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2010).

Trial court's power to punish contempt was limited to a fine and/or imprisonment as set forth in T.C.A. § 29-9-103, and the court committed error when it sentenced a litigant to err when it sentenced appellee mother to community service. Cansler v. Cansler, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2010).

Trial court erred in assessing a $1,830 judgment against a daughter for failing to return her mother to a nursing home in a timely way pursuant to a court order because although the daughter's actions led to additional costs, no legal basis for the judgment appeared in the record, and the trial court did not indicate that the judgment was a sanction for contempt; the daughter's failure to obey the trial court's order without further action by the conservator and the courts could factually support a finding of contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3), but no petition for contempt was filed, the procedures mandated by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42 were not followed, and the amount of the judgment did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-9-103. In re Conservatorship of Goldie Childs, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2011).

Although a corporation leased the real property that it owned, and upon which an injunction had been issued due to zoning violations, as it was aware that the lessee intended to, and in fact did, carry on the prohibited conduct on the property, the corporation was properly held in contempt under T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102 and 29-9-103 for violations of the injunction pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.02(2). Smith County Planning Comm'n v. Carver Trucking, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2012).

Despite the fact that a corporation was allegedly dissolved pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 48-24-202(c) and 48-24-105(b), as it still owned property upon which zoning violations continued despite a court-ordered injunction, the trial court had the power under T.C.A. §§ 29-9-102 and 29-9-103 to hold the corporation in criminal contempt for violations of the injunction. Smith County Planning Comm'n v. Carver Trucking, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2012).

As the trial court intended to give a former wife the power to suspend the former husband's sentence for criminal contempt, rather than waive it altogether, the trial court was not precluded from later imposing the suspended sentence due to the husband's continued violations of its orders. Coffey v. Coffey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013).

Trial court acted within its jurisdiction in revoking the prior suspension of a former husband's sentences for criminal contempt, as T.C.A. § 40-35-303(c)(1) did not apply to criminal contempt actions and therefore did not affect the trial court's ability to suspend its sentence imposed pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-103. Coffey v. Coffey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013).

In a divorce proceeding, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the mother was in criminal contempt based on her failing to ensure that the child completed his school work, failing to return a school book causing the father to purchase it again, failing to ensure that the child participated in scheduled speech therapy during her parenting time, failing to allow the child telephone contact with the father, and other failings. S. A. M. D. v. J. P. D., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2013), review denied and ordered not published, S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 177 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Trial court's imposition of a reduced sentence along with its articulated reasons clearly revealed that the trial court considered the relevant mitigating factors and enhancement factors in its sentencing determination. Reynolds v. Reynolds, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 809 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2014).

Alleged contemnor's five-day, consecutive, sentence was not an abuse of discretion because the incident for which the sentence was imposed was an especially egregious violation of a court order. In re A.J., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 167 (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2016).

Trial court erred in denying a mother's motion to alter or amend an order finding her guilty of criminal contempt for non-payment of child support because its failure to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order, together with its apparent failure to even consider the excessiveness of the sentence imposed, created an injustice or error of law sufficient to justify reconsideration. Burris v. Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016).

Trial court erred in denying a mother's motion to alter or amend an order finding her guilty of criminal contempt for non-payment of child support because nothing in the order indicated that it considered whether the mother's sentence would be served consecutively or concurrently, and it completely omitted any discussion of the sentencing factors; the order failed to even indicate the statutory provision relies upon in finding the mother in contempt and imposing the sentence of incarceration. Burris v. Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016).

T.C.A. § 36-5-104 is not a contempt statute, and as such, the trial court's power to punish under T.C.A. § 29-9-103 is unaffected by § 36-5-104; section 36-5-104 is instead a criminal offense, and the trial court is, therefore, not required to limit its sentence to merely six months in compliance with § 36-5-104, if it instead relies upon § 29-9-103. Burris v. Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing a husband for criminal contempt because the maximum jail time the husband could have received would have been 190 days, and he received less than half of that amount for his egregious behavior; there was nothing excessive in the sentence, and the husband never even articulated why or how the sentence was excessive. Trezevant v. Trezevant, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2018).

Trial court's sentence of 10 days in jail was not an excessive punishment because it did not impose the maximum punishment allowed as it did not impose a monetary fine in addition to the jail time. Kenyon v. Plump, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2020).

5.5. —Sanction Not Authorized.

Sanctions imposed, discharging the nonparty witness healthcare provider's fees and finding the provider in violation of chiropractic regulations, were not authorized by either the statute or the discovery rule; the trial court strayed beyond the framework of legal standards and that part of the order was vacated. Ramirez v. Schwartz, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2014).

6. —Contemnor's Ability to Perform.

Where decree in contempt proceedings brought by wife for husband's failure to pay alimony imposed punishment of fine and imprisonment although it did not state that defendant had means to pay alimony due nor decree that he be fined and imprisoned unless he pays alimony due defendant was in contempt for failure to pay alimony when he had money and punishment specified in decree was properly imposed. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 23 Tenn. App. 359, 133 S.W.2d 617, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (1939).

When a party has been found guilty of contempt for failure to comply with court order, it is only when he has the present ability to perform that he can be committed until he does perform, but if he is able to perform in part, he may be committed until he performs to that extent, and if he is wholly unable to perform, he can be punished only by fine not exceeding $50.00, or imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days, or both. Gossett v. Gossett, 34 Tenn. App. 654, 241 S.W.2d 934, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

A party who is in criminal contempt cannot be freed by eventual compliance. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

There was no basis upon which to find that the trial court abused its discretion in finding a county in civil contempt for its failure to comply with an agreed order; it was up to the county to comply with the agreed order, which it entered into voluntarily, thus purging the contempt. Jackson v. Jewell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2012).

Trial court did not err in finding a father in civil contempt for his failure to meet his financial obligations because the father's inability to pay, if any, was the result of his own intentional conduct; the father was willfully and voluntarily underemployed, and he lacked credibility and candor regarding his income and employment prospects. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Trial court erred in remanding a father to jail until he paid the mother because it found that the father was indigent, and thus, no further incarceration was warranted for the father's civil contempt in failing to pay the obligations he owed to the mother; the father's refusal or inability to pay would not be remedied by further jail time. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Evidence did not preponderate against a finding that the father had financial resources but consistently placed paying child support lower on the priority list than other obligations; he had the ability to pay and therefore willfully violated the agreed order, and he failed to prove that he did not have the ability to pay the contempt purge payment required by a later order, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in civil contempt of court and ordering the purge payment. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

7. —Fine to Be Worked Out.

Fines imposed for contempt may be required to be worked out in the county workhouse, if not paid, and the defendant will not be allowed to discharge the fine by taking the insolvent debtor's oath. Sinnott v. State, 79 Tenn. 281, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1883).

8. —Numerous Offenses in One Decree.

Imposition of fine of $550 and imprisonment of one hundred ten (110) days for violation of injunction prohibiting defendant from practicing dentistry did not violate this section where consent decree signed by defendant and his attorney stipulate that eleven (11) separate violations of injunction were involved and that defendant was fined $50.00 and sentenced ten (10) days for each violation thereof. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Talley, 185 Tenn. 83, 203 S.W.2d 364, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (1947).

In defendant's criminal contempt case, a court did not err in finding that defendant's conduct was properly counted as 21 separate violations instead of two where, over a two-day period, defendant, in his multiple telephone calls, threatened “graphic bodily mutilation” to the victim, to the parties' son, and to all members of the victim's family; there was no question that the trial court found each telephone call to be a separate and distinct act, as the calls on the 15th were made at ten-minute intervals “with enough intervening time to allow reflection” and that each call thus constituted “a separately matured offense.” Sliger v. Sliger, 181 S.W.3d 684, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1049 (Tenn. 2005).

As an attorney committed fifty acts of willful criminal contempt pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) where his actions violated an order of suspension from the practice of law, concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment were imposed on him pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-103(b); the attorney failed to cease practicing law, did not inform his clients of his suspension, and continued to accept new clients, and committed other actions that violated the suspension and constituted violations of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, 18.1, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, and 18.8. In re Sneed, 302 S.W.3d 825, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2010).

Trial court did not err in fining a mother $ 50 for failing to attend all the counseling sessions ordered in a decree of child support and child custody and in proceeding to decide the mother's motion for modification of a parenting plan and modification of child support despite her failure to comply with the counseling order. There was no harm shown to the children by the mother's failure to attend all the counseling sessions as ordered. Schreur v. Garner, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2011).

9. —Filing Answer.

A defendant in contempt of court, for violation of an injunction, cannot make defense to the bill, by motion or answer, until discharged of the contempt by the court, unless waived by the opposite party. The clerk has no authority to discharge the contempt or receive the answer. Gant v. Gant, 29 Tenn. 464, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1850).

10. —Mitigation.

See notes under heading “Procedure and Practice — Defenses,” § 29-9-101, Notes to Decisions.

11. Pardon.

A judgment imposing fine and imprisonment for contempt is a conviction within the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing the governor to grant pardons and reprieves after conviction. Sharp v. State, 102 Tenn. 9, 49 S.W. 752, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 72 Am. St. Rep. 851, 43 L.R.A. 788 (1899).

The governor has the right, in the lawful exercise of the pardoning power, to release the judgment for fine and imprisonment imposed for contempt of court. Sharp v. State, 102 Tenn. 9, 49 S.W. 752, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 72 Am. St. Rep. 851, 43 L.R.A. 788 (1899).

12. Appeal.

Person found guilty of criminal contempt pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-103, arising out of violation of injunction, was permitted to appeal because contempt order constituted a final appealable order, even if the underlying case had not been disposed of yet. Bailey v. Crum, 183 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 362 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1076 (Tenn. 2005).

Imposition of 14 ten-day sentences, each running consecutive to the others, for an effective sentence of 140 days in jail was excessive, and the sentences were reduced, where the record suggested that the trial court did not consider the statutory criteria of T.C.A. § 40-35-115 when determining whether defendant's multiple sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively, and the only statutory factor that applied to defendant was that he was sentenced for criminal contempt; even though defendant's actions were serious, withdraws from an equity line of credit and failing to pay real estate taxes and his wife's pendente lite support in violation of a marital dissolution agreement, they did not justify the imposition of the maximum sentence of 10 days for each count. Defendant's sentences for 12 of the counts were reduced to four days each, to run consecutive to each other, and the sentences for the two remaining counts were reduced to one day each, to run concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other 12 counts for an effective sentence of 49 days. Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2012).

Although a trial court properly held a husband in contempt, the trial court erred in sentencing the husband to 180 days of imprisonment because the husband was held in civil, not criminal contempt, and purged his contempt prior to a certain date by paying his child support and alimony obligations. Mays v. Mays, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012).

Although the record clearly established a father's guilt on five counts of criminal contempt for failing to pay court-ordered child support, and that incarceration with consecutive sentencing was appropriate under T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(7), imposition of the maximum sentence of ten days for each count of criminal contempt, T.C.A. § 29-9-103(b), was excessive because there was no pattern in the father's conduct and the father continued to make partial payments to the mother during the contempt period; the father's sentences were reduced from ten to five days each, to run consecutively. Rutledge v. Kelly, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012).

Where a trial court found a former husband in criminal contempt for failing to pay child support, it did not err in failing to make a specific finding as to the amount he owed because: (1) He could not purge himself of criminal contempt by paying what he owed; and (2) He could calculate the amount he owed from the orders in the record. Coffey v. Coffey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013).

12.5. Habeas Corpus.

Judgment granting a habeas corpus writ was reversed because the general sessions court, regardless of any legal error, had the authority to summarily hold defendant in contempt; under T.C.A. § 16-15-713, the general sessions court judge was authorized to impose a punishment of five days imprisonment upon finding defendant in contempt. Lambert v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2012), cert. denied, Lambert v. Tennessee, 184 L. Ed. 2d 740, 133 S. Ct. 950, 568 U.S. 1131, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 860 (U.S. 2013).

13. Judicial Immunity.

See note under heading “Procedure and Practice — Appeal,” § 29-9-101, Notes to Decisions.

Where a judge of a court of limited jurisdiction engages in judicial acts in deciding a case over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction, he is absolutely immune from suits for damages even if he exceeds his authority or his jurisdiction. King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20271 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S. Ct. 351, 88 L. Ed. 2d 320, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 4335 (1985).

14. Attorney's Fees.

Damages under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 may include attorney's fees. Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

After a former husband was found in criminal contempt for failing to pay child support, the trial court erred in awarding the former wife attorney's fees, because it did not afford the husband any opportunity to show that some portion of the fees claimed did not relate to the prosecution of the contempt petition or to child support. Coffey v. Coffey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013).

In the event that criminal contempt was at issue, the trial court was not permitted to award the wife attorney's fees in the criminal contempt proceeding. Parimore v. Parimore, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

15. Fine Excessive.

When a county sued to recover an unexecuted marriage license issued to Davy Crockett, and the license's possessor did not obey a court order to surrender the license, a contempt fine imposed on the possessor of $ 500 per day was excessive because T.C.A. § 29-9-103(b) limited contempt fines to $ 50. Jefferson County v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2011).

16. Civil Contempt.

Trial court did not reversibly err in failing to specify whether the contempt found was civil or criminal because the trial court's utilization of the remedy of incarceration to compel performance was civil contempt; because the trial court directed that the father could purge himself of contempt by making an arrearage payment, the trial court found him to be in civil contempt, not criminal contempt. State ex rel. Groesse v. Sumner, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2019).

Collateral References. 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 104, 105, 112.

17 C.J.S. Contempt §§ 90, 92, 99.

Refusal to answer questions before state grand jury as direct contempt of court. 69 A.L.R.3d 501.

Right of injured party to award of compensatory damages or fine in contempt proceedings. 85 A.L.R.3d 895.

Contempt 30.

29-9-104. Omission to perform act.

  1. If the contempt consists in an omission to perform an act which it is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until such person performs it.
  2. The person or if same be a corporation, then such person or corporation can be separately fined, as authorized by law, for each day it is in contempt until it performs the act or pays the damages ordered by the court.

Code 1858, § 4108; Shan., § 5920; Code 1932, § 10121; Acts 1979, ch. 113, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-904; Acts 2011, ch. 119, § 5.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 377.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667, 838.

Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 9.30.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, §§ 3, 13.

Law Reviews.

Criminal Contempt, Jury Trial, Private Prosecutors & Child Support, (Clarke Lee Shaw), 34 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 22 (1998).

Equity — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Thomas F. Green, Jr.), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1095.

Forms of Relief, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 400.

Power of Administrative Agencies to Compel Testimony in Tennessee (Seymour Samuels, Jr.), 16 Tenn. L. Rev. 928.

The Contempt Powers of Tennessee Courts (E. Michael Ellis), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 538.

Attorney General Opinions. Incarceration for wilful contempt for failure to pay support, OAG 89-104 (8/17/89).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Ability to Perform.

The resort to the extreme remedy under this section presupposes the exercise of a sound judicial discretion upon the question whether or not the act ordered to be performed is in fact within the party's power of performance, for if it be not, the power of imprisonment under the law does not exist. Cash v. Quenichett, 52 Tenn. 737, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (1871); State ex rel. Wright v. Upchurch, 194 Tenn. 657, 254 S.W.2d 748, 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (1953).

The burden of showing the extent of his inability to perform is on the party in contempt. Gossett v. Gossett, 34 Tenn. App. 654, 241 S.W.2d 934, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951); State ex rel. Wright v. Upchurch, 194 Tenn. 657, 254 S.W.2d 748, 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (1953).

Decree of contempt based on petition for failure to pay alimony was not void because it contained no finding that defendant was able to comply with the decree and willfully refused to pay the amount in arrears. Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (1960).

In contempt proceedings for failure to pay alimony, the burden of proof is on the divorced husband to show his inability to pay. Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (1960).

In civil contempt, the one in contempt has the “keys to the jail” and can purge the contempt by complying with the court's order. Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. 2000).

Appellate court affirmed an order of contempt imposed against the members of a compensation self-insured group pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-9-102 because the members were ordered by the court to make periodic payments, the members repeatedly failed to make the payments, and the members had notice of the contempt hearing and possible sanctions, and the members had the ability to purge the contempt order by failing the amounts in arrears. State ex rel. Flowers v. Tenn. Trucking Ass'n Self Ins. Group Trust, 209 S.W.3d 602, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, State ex rel. Flowers v. Tenn. Trucking Ass'n Self Ins. Group Trust & Trucking Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1010 (Tenn. 2006).

Judgment finding a parent in contempt for failure to pay child support, violating T.C.A. § 29-9-104(a), was improper, as the parent made a prima facia showing of the inability to pay; the parent was needed to care for the parent's other children, could not afford daycare, was unable to obtain employment because of a suspended driver's license, and had health issues. State ex. rel. Murphy v. Franks, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 307 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2010).

Trial court did not err in holding a father in civil contempt for wilfully violating a child support order because the father provided no medical or disability documentation to support his claim of an inability to work, and the father had provided monetary support to the mother when she asked him directly. State ex rel. Tucker v. Simmons, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011).

Trial court did not err in finding a father in civil contempt for failure to pay child support because the father's agreement of the amount contained in the final decree of divorce necessarily created a presumption that he was able to pay the amount of support ordered, and the evidence reflected that the father possessed the ability to pay the support during the relevant time period inasmuch as the father purchased a car and a cellular telephone for one child on the child's birthday, which was within the time the father failed to submit child support. State ex rel. Estes v. Estes, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012).

In a civil contempt proceeding regarding a father's failure to pay child support, a trial court did not err in incarcerating the father, pending his compliance with the court's order to pay the purge payment because the court found the father had the present ability to pay the purge payment of $ 500 before it incarcerated him and the father did not present any proof that he was unable to perform the act to secure his release. State ex rel. Estes v. Estes, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012).

Husband had income over and above his household expenses, and the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that he had the ability to either pay the premium for life insurance or $ 500 per month on the judgment. Dukes v. Dukes, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2015).

2. —Performance.

Dismissal of the husband's contempt motion against the wife after she fell behind in payments that she was to put in a trust account for their child's benefit was inappropriate because the husband was entitled to a hearing on the merits as to whether the wife's failure to comply was willful under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) and, if so, whether the husband was entitled to relief. The wife had already paid the $ 6,600 that she was behind, she could not be imprisoned for non-payment; however, that did not mean that the husband was not entitled to additional relief if the wife's conduct was contemptuous. Brumit v. Durham, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2010).

3. —Employee's Failure.

Where employee admitted that he was in possession of money on certain date and court ordered him to pay such money into office of clerk and master, and employee stated that he could not comply with court's order, it was held that decree of chancery court adjudging employee in contempt of that court and committing him to jail until he should comply with the order was correct. Higgins v. Lewis, 23 Tenn. App. 648, 137 S.W.2d 308, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Juvenile court had authority under T.C.A. § 29-9-104 to hold its court clerk in contempt of court and to incarcerate him to compel compliance with its lawful orders to produce court files to court referees. The finding that his noncompliance was willful under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) was supported by the evidence. In re Lineweaver, 343 S.W.3d 401, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

4. Appeal.

Where neither the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-9-105 nor T.C.A. § 29-9-102(3) requires that disobedience of a trial court's order be ongoing, the trial court erred in dismissing a company's petition for contempt against a union as moot because, although the union had willfully disobeyed the court's orders regulating the conduct of the parties during the strike, the court found that that activity had ended before the hearing on the petition for contempt and damages. Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2005).

5. —Review.

Defendant sentenced to jail by circuit court for failure to pay alimony to wife could not bring habeas corpus proceeding in chancery court based on inability to pay, since remedy was either by appeal from finding of contempt or by petition in circuit court to determine inability to pay. State ex rel. Wright v. Upchurch, 194 Tenn. 657, 254 S.W.2d 748, 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (1953).

In contempt proceedings for failure to pay alimony, the order cannot be attacked by the bringing of a habeas corpus proceeding based on the inability to comply with the order since the remedy where there is a holding of contempt is by appeal. Leonard v. Leonard, 207 Tenn. 609, 341 S.W.2d 740, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (1960).

6. —Punishment Pending Appeal.

An appeal from chancellor's decree for injunction does not prevent an indictment of defendant for public contempt for violation of the injunction and his punishment in a criminal court. McCormick v. Phillips, 140 Tenn. 268, 204 S.W. 636, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 1918F L.R.A. (n.s.) 791 (1918).

7. Relation to Other Statutes.

In contempt proceeding to enforce child support payments contained in divorce decree, court was not limited to fine and imprisonment in amount provided by § 29-9-103 but could commit defendant to enforce payment of arrears under authority of § 29-9-104. Black v. Black, 50 Tenn. App. 455, 362 S.W.2d 472, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1962).

Proceedings under §§ 29-9-103, 29-9-104 are not mutually exclusive since under § 29-9-103 the punishment is for criminal contumacy in resisting the authority of the court while § 29-9-104 confers upon the courts essential powers of coercion to enable them to enforce their judgments and decrees. Black v. Black, 50 Tenn. App. 455, 362 S.W.2d 472, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1962); Mowery v. Mowery, 50 Tenn. App. 648, 363 S.W.2d 405, 1962 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (1962).

8. Willfulness.

In light of the husband's acknowledgement that he was obligated to pay premiums on an insurance policy to be paid out to the wife, and his actions consistent with that understanding for years, he clearly understood what the order required of him, the order was not ambiguous, and the husband's decision to cancel the policy, and the actions taken to do so, were intentional and voluntary; the husband's failure to comply with the marital dissolution agreement was willful, and the order finding the husband to be in civil contempt was affirmed. Dukes v. Dukes, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding a father in civil contempt for his failure to meet his financial obligations because the father's inability to pay, if any, was the result of his own intentional conduct; the father was willfully and voluntarily underemployed, and he lacked credibility and candor regarding his income and employment prospects. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Trial court did not err in holding the lawyers in willful contempt for failure to turn over a server and awarding damages for that contempt because the fact that payment was made proved that the lawyers had the ability to pay; the lawyers filed a notice of payment under protest, stating that they had paid the damages awarded for contempt directly to the law firm. Boren v. Hill Boren, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2018).

Because a father willfully refused to pay his share of his children's medical expenses despite his ability to do so, the trial court did not err in holding the father in contempt based on his failure to pay the medical expenses. Brunetz v. Brunetz, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2019).

9. Reasonable Judgment.

Trial court wanted to ensure that the wife would receive $ 50,000 in the event the husband predeceased her in death, the result that would have obtained had the marital dissolution agreement been followed and the life insurance policy not cancelled; the $ 50,000 judgment did not constitute an award of damages but was designed to secure the husband's compliance with the final decree and was reasonable exercise of the trial court's contempt power. Dukes v. Dukes, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2015).

10. Incarceration.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imprisoning the father after he failed to demonstrate he was unable to pay a child support arrearage and the evidence demonstrated that the father was employed, owned his own home, and was able to meet other financial obligations. Cisneros v. Cisneros, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 938 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal dismissed, Cisneros v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2017).

Trial court erred in remanding a father to jail until he paid the mother because it found that the father was indigent, and thus, no further incarceration was warranted for the father's civil contempt in failing to pay the obligations he owed to the mother; the father's refusal or inability to pay would not be remedied by further jail time. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

11. Attorney's Fees.

Even assuming that an award of attorney's fees was available to a mother in a contempt proceeding, the court of appeals declined to award such damages because the trial court determined that a father was indigent. Hopwood v. Hopwood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2017).

Mother was forced to bring a contempt action in order for the father to comply with his previously agreed upon obligations and the father undisputedly had the ability to pay his obligations and the support at issue. As such, the trial court properly awarded the mother attorney fees. Brunetz v. Brunetz, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2019).

12. Notice.

Lawyers received proper notice of contempt because they received notice that contempt was being sought and were given an opportunity to respond, and that was what was required for civil contempt. Boren v. Hill Boren, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2018).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Ability to Perform.

When a party has been found guilty of contempt for failure to comply with court order, it is only when he has the present ability to perform that he can be committed until he does perform, but if he is able to perform in part, he may be committed until he performs to that extent, and if he is wholly unable to perform, he can be punished only by fine not exceeding $50.00, or imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days, or both. Gossett v. Gossett, 34 Tenn. App. 654, 241 S.W.2d 934, 1951 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1951).

Collateral References. 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 104, 105.

17 C.J.S. Contempt § 104.

Holding jurors in contempt under state law. 93 A.L.R.5th 493.

Power to base separate contempt prosecutions or punishments on successive refusals to respond to same or similar questions. 94 A.L.R.2d 1246.

Contempt 19-26.

29-9-105. Performance of forbidden act.

If the contempt consists in the performance of a forbidden act, the person may be imprisoned until the act is rectified by placing matters and person in status quo, or by the payment of damages.

Code 1858, § 4109; Shan., § 5921; Code 1932, § 10122; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-905.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 377, 603.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, §§ 13, 14.

Law Reviews.

Forms of Relief, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 400.

The Contempt Powers of Tennessee Courts (E. Michael Ellis), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 538.

Cited: McCormick v. Phillips, 140 Tenn. 268, 204 S.W. 636, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 40, 1918F L.R.A. (n.s.) 791 (1918); Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15991 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1980); State v. Winningham, 958 S.W.2d 740, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1997); In re Lineweaver, 343 S.W.3d 401, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010); Cansler v. Cansler, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2010); State v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Measure of Damages.

The damages to be assessed combine punishment, by way of vindicating the court, together with compensation to the party for the injury arising from the disobedience of the process of the court; and the actual injury thus sustained, in view of all the facts and circumstances, will constitute the measure of damages in each case. The court may enforce the return of property by imprisonment until the return is made. Robins v. Frazier, 52 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 241 (1871).

Damages under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 are compensatory in nature and the appropriate measure of damages is actual loss. Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Under the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-9-105, damages were available to a party injured by a contemnor's acts in violation of a court's order. When the contempt consisted of the performance of a forbidden act, the cessation of the contemptuous conduct after the entry of the order prohibiting that conduct did not preclude a finding of civil contempt and an award of damages. Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2005).

Under the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-9-105, damages are available to a party injured by a contemnor's acts in violation of a court's order. Overnite Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 S.W.3d 507, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 799 (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2005).

2. —Jury Trial.

While the facts to be passed on in assessing damages in such cases ought properly to be submitted to a jury, neither party demanding a jury, it was not error for the chancellor to refer the question to the clerk and master. Robins v. Frazier, 52 Tenn. 100, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 241 (1871).

3. Attorney's Fees.

Damages under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 may include attorney's fees. Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Trial court did not err in awarding $ 750 in attorney's fees to an owner against a county for the motion for contempt of an agreed order. Jackson v. Jewell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2012).

Trial court had authority to award the father attorney's fees as actual damages based on a finding of contempt. Cremeens v. Cremeens, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2015).

Assuming that civil contempt was at issue, the record was devoid of any order actually finding the husband's conduct to be willful or finding him in contempt, and in the absence of both an evidentiary hearing on the contempt petition and specific findings supporting the award of attorney's fees, this portion of the judgment was reversed. Parimore v. Parimore, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

While the trial court erred in holding a former spouse in contempt for refusing to cooperate with their ex-spouse and a lender between the date of the approval of the loan until the closing of the loan, the court appropriately held the spouse in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the ex-spouse in applying for a renewed passport for the parties'  child. Accordingly, remand of the case for a determination of attorney fees which the ex-spouse incurred only in pursuing a contempt petition as to the passport renewal was appropriate. Bradley v. Bradley, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 2018).

4. Damages Not Awarded.

Trial court's refusal to award petitioners damages under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 for respondent's civil contempt in his continued failure to remove junk and debris from petitioners'  property was not an abuse of discretion; the appellate court was not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in the choice of sanctions for contempt of the trial court's orders. Lowery v. McVey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013).

5. Contempt Not Found.

Denial of motion for civil contempt for respondent's destruction of a pole barn, several sheds, and a garage with an apartment in response to an order that he remove the junk and debris from the property was proper as the court's order could not be reasonably read to address respondent's conduct in removing and destroying buildings, structures, and fixtures on petitioners'  property; the trial court lacked authority under T.C.A. § 29-9-105 to award damages for respondent's acts. Lowery v. McVey, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013).

In a case in which a mother sought to have the father be held in contempt for his failure to pay child support, the appellate court concluded that civil contempt was inappropriate because the father had paid arrears balance down to zero and was still in compliance the day the mother filed the motion before the appellate court. Further, there was no indication the father performed any act forbidden by the court, such that the mother might be entitled to compensation for civil contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-105. State ex rel. Hurt v. Bulls, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2017).

6. Divorce.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding a father in civil contempt, T.C.A.§ 29-9-105, because he removed property from storage in violation of court order, and the trial court acted within its authority by ordering the father imprisoned until he rectified the situation by properly storing the furniture as it had been before he removed it in violation of the court's order. Beyer v. Beyer, 428 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 229 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2013).

7. Contempt Found.

Trial court did not err in finding that appellant's violation of court orders actually harmed the winning bidders of the company, because by depleting the company's inventory and recruiting employees for his own business, he diminished the value of business assets; because the trial court awarded $ 375,000 to compensate the bidders for breach of fiduciary duty, interference with business relations, and violation of court orders, it could not be determined if the evidence supported the amount awarded, and the award was vacated. Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018).

8. Notice.

Lawyers received proper notice of contempt because they received notice that contempt was being sought and were given an opportunity to respond, and that was what was required for civil contempt. Boren v. Hill Boren, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2018).

Collateral References. 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 104, 105.

17 C.J.S. Contempt §§ 94, 95.

Holding jurors in contempt under state law. 93 A.L.R.5th 493.

Right of injured party to award of compensatory damages or fine in contempt proceedings. 85 A.L.R.3d 895.

Contempt 3.

29-9-106. Bail.

  1. Upon an attachment to answer for a contempt, except in not performing a decree, the officer executing the process shall take bail from the defendant as in other cases.
    1. The court ordering the attachment shall specify the penalty of such appearance bond.
    2. If the penalty is not fixed by the court, it shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

Code 1858, §§ 4110, 4111 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 19, § 2); Shan., §§ 5922, 5923; Code 1932, §§ 10123, 10124; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-906.

Cross-References. Attachment for not performing decree, § 21-1-807.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 157, 376.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 317, 667, 838.

Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 9.30.

Law Reviews.

The Contempt Powers of Tennessee Courts (E. Michael Ellis), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 538.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Release upon Bail.

The general rule is that a person arrested upon an attachment to answer for a contempt is entitled to bail or to give a bond for his appearance; and it seems to be a practice to extend this rule to attachments for contempt in not paying alimony or support. But there is no authority for such a practice. The chancery rule is that an attachment for nonperformance of a decree, unlike other attachments for contempt, is not a bailable process; and the person attached for nonperformance must be committed to or detained in prison. Loy v. Loy, 32 Tenn. App. 470, 222 S.W.2d 873, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949).

Collateral References. Contempt 56.

29-9-107. Profanity in court of record.

Any person who profanely swears or curses in the presence of any court of record commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Code 1858, § 1727 (deriv. Acts 1741, ch. 14, § 4); Shan., § 3034; Code 1932, § 5256; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-907; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 24.15.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contempt, § 13; 21 Tenn. Juris., Profanity, § 1.

Cited: Stockton v. State, 155 Tenn. 11, 290 S.W. 7, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1927); Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2008).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Definition.

Words importing an imprecation of divine condemnation, so used as to become a public nuisance, would be profanity though the name of the Deity be not used. Gaines v. State, 75 Tenn. 410, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 134, 40 Am. Rep. 64 (1881).

2. Depositions.

One reason for the solemnity and formality surrounding the taking of depositions is the possibility that deposition testimony will be introduced into court. Dargi v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 23 S.W.3d 342, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Plaintiff should have been aware that profane outbursts made during a deposition could be presented to the court and that such conduct constituted criminal contempt under T.C.A. § 29-9-102(1). Dargi v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 23 S.W.3d 342, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Collateral References. 17 C.J.S. Contempt §§ 1, 25, 93.

Contempt 39.

29-9-108. Local violations — Failure to appear.

    1. The judges of courts exercising municipal jurisdiction in counties having a metropolitan form of government are empowered to punish any person for contempt who, having been cited to appear in such court for the violation of a city, municipal or metropolitan government law or ordinance, willfully fails to appear without just cause on the designated day and at the designated time. The punishment for contempt in each such case is limited to a fine of ten dollars ($10.00) and imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days for each violation.
    2. This section shall also apply to judges of courts of general sessions when such judges are exercising municipal jurisdiction by hearing violations of city, municipal or metropolitan government laws or ordinances.
    3. The power to punish for contempt conferred by this section may not be used to punish persons who fail to appear for parking violations.
    1. The judges of courts exercising municipal jurisdiction over environmental violations relating to health, housing, fire, building and zoning codes of the municipal code, in any county having a population of not less than seven hundred thousand (700,000) according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census, shall punish any person for contempt who, having been cited for failure to appear in such court for the violation of a municipal government law or ordinance involving any violation relating to health, housing, fire, building and zoning codes or municipal law:
      1. Willfully fails to appear without just cause on the designated day and at the designated time; or
      2. Willfully fails to obey the court's order to correct a violation of the municipal code relating to health, housing, fire, building and zoning codes, within the designated day and at the designated time as given by court order.
    2. The punishment for contempt in each such case is limited to a fine of ten dollars ($10.00) and imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days for each violation.
    3. The power to punish for contempt conferred by this section may not be used to punish persons who fail to appear for parking violations.

Acts 1985, ch. 438, § 2; 1990, ch. 712, § 1; 1998, ch. 682, §§ 7, 8.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Cross-References. Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, § 40-35-101.

Attorney General Opinions. A court has authority to enter a default judgment of contempt in a proceeding for civil contempt if the alleged contemnor fails to respond or appear, as long as the alleged contemnor has been provided with proper notice and the opportunity to respond. OAG 15-36, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 36  (4/21/15).

Cited: Cansler v. Cansler, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2010); Furlong v. Furlong, 370 S.W.3d 329, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011); Gilreath v. Peters, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2011); Slagle v. Slagle, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2012).

Chapter 10
Patent Infringement Actions

29-10-101. Chapter definitions.

In this chapter:

  1. “Affiliated person” means a person under common ownership or control of an intended recipient.
  2. “Intended recipient” means a person who purchases, rents, leases, or otherwise obtains a product or service in the commercial market that is not for resale in the ordinary business and that is, or later becomes, the subject of a patent infringement allegation.
  3. “Person” means any natural person, partnership, corporation, company, trust, business entity or association, and any agent, employee, partner, officer, director, member, associate, or trustee thereof.

Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For the Preamble to the act concerning bad faith patent infringement actions, please refer to Acts 2014, ch. 879.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 2. May 1, 2014.

Law Reviews.

The Patented Design, 83 Tenn. L. Rev. 161 (2015).

29-10-102. Frivolous or bad faith assertion of patent infringement — Activities not constituting violation — Exceptions to applicability of chapter.

  1. It is a violation of this chapter for a person, in connection with the assertion of a United States patent, to send, or cause any person to send, any written or electronic communication that states that the intended recipient or any affiliated person is infringing or has infringed a patent and bears liability or owes compensation to another person, if:
    1. The communication threatens litigation if compensation is not paid or the infringement issue is not otherwise resolved and there is a consistent pattern of such threats having been issued and no litigation having been filed;
    2. The communication falsely states that litigation has been filed against the intended recipient or any affiliated person; or
    3. The assertions contained in the communication lack a reasonable basis in fact or law because:
      1. The person asserting the patent is not a person, or does not represent a person, with the current right to license the patent to, or to enforce the patent against, the intended recipient or any affiliated person;
      2. The communication seeks compensation for a patent that has been held to be invalid or unenforceable in a final, unappealable or unappealed judicial or administrative decision;
      3. The communication seeks compensation on account of activities undertaken after the patent has expired; or
      4. The content of the communication fails to include such information necessary to inform an intended recipient or any affiliated person about the patent assertion by failing to include any one of the following:
        1. The identity of the person asserting a right to license the patent to or enforce the patent against the intended recipient or any affiliated person;
        2. The patent number issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office alleged to have been infringed; or
        3. The factual allegations concerning the specific areas in which the intended recipient or affiliated person's products, services, or technology infringed the patent or are covered by the claims in the patent.
  2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to be a violation of this chapter for any person who owns or has the right to license or enforce a patent to:
    1. Advise others of that ownership or right of license or enforcement;
    2. Communicate to others that a patent is available for license or sale; or
    3. Notify another of the infringement of the patent; or
    4. Seek compensation on account of past or present infringement, or for a license to the patent, provided that the person is not acting in bad faith.
  3. This chapter shall not apply to any written or electronic communication sent by:
    1. Any owner of a patent who is using the patent in connection with substantial research, development, production, manufacturing, processing or delivery of products or materials;
    2. Any institution of higher education as that term is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1963 (20 U.S.C. § 1001);
    3. Any technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technology developed by an institution of higher education; or
    4. Any person or business entity seeking a claim for relief arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).

Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For the Preamble to the act concerning bad faith patent infringement actions, please refer to Acts 2014, ch. 879.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 2. May 1, 2014.

29-10-103. Enforcement of chapter.

  1. The attorney general and reporter shall have the authority to enforce this chapter and conduct civil investigations and bring civil actions, as provided in § 8-6-109, title 8, chapter 6, part 4, and §§ 47-18-106 and 47-18-108.
  2. In an action brought by the attorney general under this chapter, the court may award or impose any relief available under § 29-10-104 or title 47, chapter 18.
  3. In addition to the relief provided for in § 29-10-104, upon a motion by the attorney general and reporter and a finding by the court that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person violated § 29-10-102, the court may require the person to post a bond in an amount equal to a good faith estimate of the costs to litigate a claim and amounts reasonably likely to be recovered if an action were to be brought pursuant to this section. A hearing shall be held if either party requests a hearing

Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For the Preamble to the act concerning bad faith patent infringement actions, please refer to Acts 2014, ch. 879.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 2. May 1, 2014.

29-10-104. Civil action — Available remedies and damages.

An intended recipient alleging a violation of this chapter may bring an action in any circuit or chancery court. A court shall award litigation costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought pursuant to this section. In addition, the court may award the following remedies to a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought pursuant to this chapter:

  1. Actual damages; and
  2. Punitive damages in an amount equal to three (3) times the actual damages.

Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For the Preamble to the act concerning bad faith patent infringement actions, please refer to Acts 2014, ch. 879.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 879, § 2. May 1, 2014.

Chapter 11
Contribution Among Tort-feasors

29-11-101. Short title.

This chapter may be cited as the “Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act.”

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3101.

Cross-References. Comparative fault, joinder of third party defendants, § 20-1-119.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8.03-16.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 147; 6 Tenn. Juris., Common Law, § 5; 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 12; 9 Tenn. Juris., Damages, § 49; 15 Tenn. Juris., Insurance, § 77.

Law Reviews.

A Pragmatic Approach to Improving Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2001).

A Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Accidental Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1225 (2001).

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Comparative Fault in Tennessee: Where Are We Going and Why Are We in this Handbasket? 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 765 (2000).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Negligence Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 893 (2001).

The Duty Concept in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2001).

Constitutional Law — Retroactive Application of a Statute Removing a Statute of Limitations Bar, 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 914.

Contribution and Indemnity in Products Liability (Jerry J. Phillips), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 85.

Contribution, Claim Reduction, and Individual Treble Damage Responsibility: Which Path to Reform of Antitrust Remedies? (Edward D. Cavanagh), 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1277 (1987).

Duty Rules, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 767 (2001).

Incremental Damages — An Economic Analysis of Contributory and Comparative Negligence, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 191 (1992).

Intent and Recklessness in Tort: The Practical Craft of Restating Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1133 (2001).

Interpretive Construction, Systematic Consistency, and Criterial Norms in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1157 (2001).

Legal Cause: Cause-In-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 941 (2001).

Liability and Contribution for Indivisible Injury, 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 129.

Mary Carter Agreements, Learn the Inside Deal (June F. Entman), 24 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 10 (1988).

McIntyre v. Balentine and the Activist Tennessee Supreme Court (Jerry J. Phillips), 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 33 (1992).

Moving to Comparative Negligence in an Era of Tort Reform: Decisions for Tennessee (Carol A. Mutter), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 199 (1990).

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 863 (2001).

On Determining Negligence Norms, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 813 (2001).

Once More Into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution, and the Extent of Legal Responsibility, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1071 (2001).

Purpose, Belief, and Recklessness: Pruning the Restatement's (Third) Definition of Intent, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1165 (2001).

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 751 (2001).

Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles and the Prescription of Masculine Order, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2001).

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1039 (2001).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm, 66 Tenn. L. Rev. 1127 (1999).

Tennessee's Contribution Among Tort-feasors Act (James M. May), 37 Tenn. L. Rev. 87.

Tennessee Survey of the Law — Indemnity in Tort, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 307.

The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as Well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Passing of Palsgraf?, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2001).

The Restatement of Torts and the Courts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1439 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (2001).

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1413 (2001).

The Trouble With Negligence, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1187 (2001).

The Unexpected Persistence of Negligence, 1980 - 2000, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1337 (2001).

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Torts — Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc.: Strictly Speaking, Comparative Negligence Principles Must Be Applied to Strict Liability Actions in Some States, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 209 (1992).

Torts — Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

Torts — Volz v. Ledes: The Tennessee Supreme Court Abolishes Joint and Several Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Multiple Tortfeasors Whose Separate Acts Cause Indivisible Injury, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1555 (1996).

Workers' Compensation Outline (Paul Campbell III), 18 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 11 (1982).

Comparative Legislation. Contribution among tort-feasors:

Ark.  Code § 16-61-201 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 412.010 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.060.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-34.

Cited: De Vore Brokerage Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 308 F. Supp. 279, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8902 (M.D. Tenn. 1969); Dawn v. Essex Conveyors, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 1342, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12024 (E.D. Tenn. 1973); Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Carey v. Jones, 546 S.W.2d 814, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Price v. McNabb & Wadsworth Trucking Co., 548 S.W.2d 316, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Cole v. Arnold, 545 S.W.2d 95, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 1977); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 707 (Tenn. 1983); Manning v. Ft. Deposit Bank, 619 F. Supp. 1327, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14962 (W.D. Tenn. 1985); Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Young v. Kittrell, 833 S.W.2d 505, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Olin Corp. v. Yeargin Inc., 146 F.3d 398, 1998 FED App. 185P, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12083 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1998); Smith v. Methodist Hosps. of Memphis, 995 S.W.2d 584, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 24, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legislative Intent.

One of the purposes of this chapter is to encourage extra-judicial settlements and promote judicial economy. Rosenbaum v. First American Nat'l Bank, 690 S.W.2d 873, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2700 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), overruled, Engstrom v. Mayfield, 195 Fed. Appx. 444, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21886 (6th Cir. 2006); Tutton v. Patterson, 714 S.W.2d 268, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. 1986).

The purpose of the Uniform Act is to establish a right of contribution where two or more persons are jointly or severally liable in tort and is not intended to operate so as to reduce the amount of damages required to fully compensate a claimant for his injuries and losses. Buckner v. Cocke County, 720 S.W.2d 472, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

2. Applicability.

This chapter plainly and clearly applies to negligence and tort cases where there is injury to person or property, including wrongful death. It is plain and clear that it applies exclusively to the right of contribution among individuals liable for such acts of negligence, and nowhere within its text is there any reference to the right of a claimant to pursue a cause of action against any others who may be liable for an injury he has sustained after having released one or more other tort-feasors of liability unless it can be found in § 29-11-105. Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. 1988).

By the supreme court's adoption of a system of comparative fault, so long as a plaintiff's negligence remains less than the defendant's negligence the plaintiff may recover; in such a case, plaintiff's damages are to be reduced in proportion to the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the plaintiff. Because a particular defendant will henceforth be liable only for the percentage of a plaintiff's damages occasioned by that defendant's negligence, situations where a defendant has paid more than his “share” of a judgment will no longer arise, and therefore this chapter will no longer determine the apportionment of liability between codefendants. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

3. Remote Contributory Negligence.

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

4. Joint and Several Liability.

The doctrine of joint and several liability is obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

5. Comparative Fault.

The court rejected the pure form of comparative fault. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

Actions for contribution that are to be tried or retried after May 4, 1992, are to be tried in accordance with the principles of comparative fault. Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, 891 S.W.2d 905, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. 1994).

In an action which arose before adoption of the comparative fault doctrine in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), fairness demanded that the defendant's claim against third-party tortfeasors for contribution based on allegations of negligence be apportioned according to the percentage of fault attributable to each of the tortfeasors. Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. 1996).

6. Jurisdiction.

The Tennessee claims commission does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against the state for contribution and indemnity. Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. 2000).

Collateral References. 18 Am. Jur. 2d Contribution.

18 C.J.S. Contribution.

Applicability of comparative negligence doctrine to actions based on negligent misrepresentation. 22 A.L.R.5th 464.

Applicability of comparative negligence principles to intentional torts. 18 A.L.R.5th 525.

Contribution or indemnity between joint tort-feasors on basis of relative fault. 53 A.L.R.3d 184.

Products liability: Contributory negligence or assumption of risk as defense under doctrine of strict liability in tort. 46 A.L.R.3d 240.

Propriety and effect of jury's apportionment of damages as between tort-feasors jointly and severally liable. 46 A.L.R.3d 801.

Validity and effect of “Mary Carter” or similar agreement setting maximum liability of one cotortfeasor and providing for reduction or extinguishment thereof relative to recovery against nonagreeing cotortfeasor. 22 A.L.R.5th 483.

29-11-102. Right of contribution among tort-feasors — Exceptions — Subrogation — Indemnity.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter where two (2) or more persons are jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property or for the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them; but no right of contribution shall exist where, by virtue of intrafamily immunity, immunity under the workers' compensation laws of the state of Tennessee, or like immunity, a claimant is barred from maintaining a tort action for injury or wrongful death against the party from whom contribution is sought.
  2. The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tort-feasor who has paid more than the proportionate share of the shared liability between two (2) or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, in accordance with the procedure set out in § 29-11-104, and the tort-feasor's total recovery is limited to the amount paid by the tort-feasor in excess of this proportionate share.
  3. There is no right of contribution in favor of any tort-feasor who has intentionally caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death.
  4. A tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution from another tort-feasor whose liability for the injury or wrongful death is not extinguished by the settlement nor in respect to any amount paid in a settlement which is in excess of what was reasonable.
  5. A liability insurer, who by payment has discharged in full or in part the liability of a tort-feasor and has thereby discharged in full its obligation as insurer, may be subrogated to the tort-feasor's right of contribution to the extent of the amount it has paid in excess of the tort-feasor's proportionate share of the shared liability between two (2) or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, in accordance with the procedure set out in § 29-11-103. This provision does not limit or impair any right of subrogation or assignment arising from any other relationship and causes of action for contribution or indemnity are fully assignable and transferable.
  6. This chapter does not impair any right of indemnity under existing law. Where one tort-feasor is entitled to indemnity from another, the right of the indemnity obligee is for indemnity and not contribution, and the indemnity obligor is not entitled to contribution from the obligee for any portion of tort-feasor's indemnity obligation.
  7. This chapter shall not apply to breaches of trust or of other fiduciary obligation.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 2; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A. § 23-3102; 1999, ch. 433, §§ 1, 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1999, ch. 433, § 4 provided that the amendments by that act govern the method by which the courts of Tennessee shall apportion contribution in all actions tried after June 17, 1999.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Insurance, § 150.

Law Reviews.

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comments on the Wright-Twerski Colloquy Concerning the Joint Liability Debate (Jerry J. Phillips), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 321 (1990).

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Contribution and Indemnity in Products Liability (Jerry L. Phillips), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 85.

Liability and Contribution for Indivisible Injury, 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 129.

Made whole? (John A. Day), 36 No.2 Tenn. B.J. 28 (2000).

Plaintiffs must bear cost of immunity (John A. Day), 36 No. 12 Tenn. B.J. 29 (2000).

Pleadings, Motions and Pre-Trial Procedure, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 219.

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, IV. Pretrial Procedure (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 308.

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Tennessee Survey of the Law — Indemnity in Tort, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 307.

The Exclusiveness of an Employee's Workers' Compensation Remedy Against His Employer (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 405 (1988).

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Torts — Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.: The Tennessee Supreme Court Rejects Use of Employer Negligence to Reduce Liability of Defendants in Post-McIntyre On-the-Job Tort Cases, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1533 (1996).

Torts — Volz v. Ledes: The Tennessee Supreme Court Abolishes Joint and Several Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Multiple Tortfeasors Whose Separate Acts Cause Indivisible Injury, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1555 (1996).

Tort-Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

Cited: Continental Ins. Co. v. Knoxville, 488 S.W.2d 50, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. 1972); Tibbs v. Ake, 505 S.W.2d 232, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. 1974); Manning v. Ft. Deposit Bank, 619 F. Supp. 1327, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14962 (W.D. Tenn. 1985); Smith v. Methodist Hosps. of Memphis, 995 S.W.2d 584, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Bass v. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc., 210 F.3d 577, 2000 FED App. 135P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6853 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000); Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 588, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Claims Before State Board.

While generally true that U.S. has the right to sue a state in a separate action, under Tennessee law U.S. which had settled claim in court action against it could not recover contribution from state of Tennessee as joint tort-feasor where only remedy claimant would have had against state, would have been claim before state board of claims. Hill v. United States, 453 F.2d 839, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11853, 15 A.L.R. Fed. 658 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1972).

2. Construction.

Subsection (g) is clear in its meaning. Buchbinder v. Register, 634 F.2d 327, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12597 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1980).

3. Conflicting Statute Controls.

As there is irreconcilable conflict between subsection (f) and § 29-11-104(f), applying a well-established rule of statutory construction, § 29-11-104(f), the one last mentioned in the statute, will control. Bible & Godwin Constr. Co. v. Faener Corp., 504 S.W.2d 370, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. 1974).

4. Indemnity.

When the right of full indemnity exists between persons liable in tort, no right of contribution exists; therefore, section providing that a covenant not to sue discharges covenantee from contribution and does not discharge any other tort-feasor has no application to the master or principal who has vicarious liability. Craven v. Lawson, 534 S.W.2d 653, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. 1976).

Where a third party is found liable for injuries to workman, the third party may not then seek indemnity from the workman's employer even though the employer himself is liable for the injuries under the workman's compensation law, although such a claim could be based on an otherwise valid express contract of indemnity. Rupe v. Durbin Durco, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 742, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Tennessee recognizes the substantive right of indemnification between joint tort-feasors in situations wherein a passive tort-feasor seeks indemnification from an active tort-feasor. Holt v. Utility Trailers Mfg. Co., 494 F. Supp. 510, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9481 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Although this section establishes a right of contribution among tort-feasors, the common law right of indemnity is left unimpaired. Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Price-Waterhouse, 811 S.W.2d 532, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

5. Indemnity and Contribution Distinguished.

In suit against physician arising out of accident between plaintiff's employee who had been certified by physician and third party who had recovered from plaintiff, if any of the employee's physical disabilities were a proximate cause of the accident, if the employer was not guilty of any direct negligence in failing to discover the physical disability, and if the physician was guilty of negligence, then the case was one of indemnity; but if the factual determination was that the physical disabilities were a proximate cause of the accident, that the employer was guilty of negligence in failing to discover the physical disabilities, and that the physician was also guilty of negligence, then the employer would be entitled to contribution under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. Wharton Transport Corp. v. Bridges, 606 S.W.2d 521, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 504, 24 A.L.R.4th 1295 (Tenn. 1980) (on petition to rehear).

6. Contribution.

A third-party complaint for contribution from jointly liable wrongdoers need not show that recovery is a certainty, but will be allowed to stand if, under some reasonable construction of the facts which might be advanced at trial, recovery would be possible. Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Rowe, 543 S.W.2d 337, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. 1976).

Where plaintiff would have been barred because of federal immunity from pursuing a tort action against the United States Post Office Department, under this section that immunity also barred a third-party action against the department for contribution. Wilson v. Knoxville Community Development Corp., 451 F. Supp. 1168, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

Since city could at one time have been sued by tort plaintiff, it can be sued for contribution by original defendant if the suit for contribution is brought within one year after satisfaction of judgment. Security Fire Protection Co. v. Ripley, 608 S.W.2d 874, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

7. —Immunities.

There is a vast difference between the blanket immunities listed in this section and the defense of the one-year statute of limitations provided in § 29-20-305. Security Fire Protection Co. v. Ripley, 608 S.W.2d 874, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort could not assert as an affirmative defense that plaintiff's employer caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries and damages notwithstanding that the injuries were sustained in the course and scope of plaintiff's employment. Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. 1996).

Defendant in tort claim based on auto accident was prohibited from attributing fault to non-party county where plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against the county by the limitations period applicable to governmental entities. Bumgardner v. Vonk, 995 F. Supp. 815, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2912 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).

8. —Insolvency.

All joint tort-feasors are presumed solvent, and are liable for their pro rata share of the contribution, unless they present adequate proof for the court to declare them judicially insolvent. Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

When faced with insolvent joint tort-feasors, it would be more equitable for the court to impose the risk of collectability upon the other solvent tort-feasors than upon the injured party. Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

9. —Remote Contributory Negligence.

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

10. Impleader.

The fact that contribution may not be obtained until the original defendant has been cast in judgment and has paid does not prevent impleader; the impleader judgment may be so fashioned as to protect the rights of other tort-feasors, so that defendant's judgment against them may not be enforced until the defendant has paid more than his proportionate share. Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Rowe, 543 S.W.2d 337, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. 1976).

11. Joint Liability.

Where defendant leased a truck from plaintiff and plaintiff's employee was driving the truck when it was involved in an accident, defendant did not have sufficient control over the truck to make the driver its loaned servant, and consequently defendant is not jointly liable for the injury caused by the accident. Price v. McNabb & Wadsworth Trucking Co., 548 S.W.2d 316, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

12. —Cause of Action Against Joint Tortfeasors.

When an indivisible injury has been caused by the concurrent, but independent, wrongful acts or omissions of two or more wrongdoers, whether the case be one of negligence or nuisance, all of the wrongdoers will be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damages and the injured party may proceed to judgment against any one separately or against all in one suit. Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Rowe, 543 S.W.2d 337, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. 1976).

13. —Uninsured Motorist.

Where passenger injured in car accident won a judgment against both the insured driver of the vehicle in which he was riding and the uninsured driver of the other vehicle, and where such judgment was satisfied by the insurance carriers of the one driver, those insurers have no privity of contract with the injured passenger and therefore have no standing to assert passenger's rights against his own insurance carrier in an attempt to force that company to contribute to the judgment by virtue of the “uninsured motorist” provision of its contract with passenger. Thaxton v. Travelers Indem. Co., 555 S.W.2d 718, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 1977).

Where passenger injured in car accident won a judgment against both the insured driver of the vehicle in which he was riding and the uninsured driver of the other vehicle, and where such judgment was wholly satisfied by the insurance carriers of the one driver, those insurance companies have a right of contribution only against the uninsured motorist himself and not against passenger's “uninsured motorist” insurance carrier, as “uninsured motorist” insurance as provided in § 56-7-1201 is meant to compensate the loss suffered by insured, not to insure the uninsured motorist against liability. Thaxton v. Travelers Indem. Co., 555 S.W.2d 718, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. 1977).

14. Standing to Challenge Codefendant's Dismissal.

This section gives a defendant a right to contribution from a codefendant, and since defendant's liability is therefore affected by a directed verdict in favor of codefendant, defendant may question codefendant's dismissal on appeal. Carey v. Jones, 546 S.W.2d 814, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Cole v. Arnold, 545 S.W.2d 95, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. 1977).

15. Conventional Subrogation.

Conventional subrogation, in which subrogation rights are detailed in the underlying contract, is governed by the same principles as subrogation arising by operation of law, insofar as the insured must be made whole before an insurer is entitled to subrogation against a tort-feasor. Wimberly v. American Casualty Co., 584 S.W.2d 200, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. 1979).

16. Insurer's Claim of Subrogation.

When insured settles to the detriment of insurer's claim of subrogation, the insured is responsible to the insurer's claim. Motors Ins. Corp. v. Blakemore, 584 S.W.2d 204, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

An insurer cannot be subrogated to a claim against a mortgagee who is covered by a loss payable clause in the policy. Miller v. Russell, 674 S.W.2d 290, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

No right of subrogation can arise in favor of an insurer against its own insured. Miller v. Russell, 674 S.W.2d 290, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

17. Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The Commissioner's Comments to the Uniform Act make it clear that it was not intended that the Tennessee Contribution Act apply to any liability which results from a breach of fiduciary duty. Buchbinder v. Register, 634 F.2d 327, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12597 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1980).

Even if an alleged illegal conversion is a separate basis for liability, if it nonetheless arises out of the breach of the fiduciary relationship, it cannot be a basis for recovery under the act. Buchbinder v. Register, 634 F.2d 327, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 12597 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1980).

The provisions of § 29-11-105, relative to the effect of a release or covenant not to sue upon the liability of other tort-feasors, take preeminence over the provisions of this section excluding breaches of trust or other fiduciary obligations from application of the chapter. Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. 1988).

18. Settlements.

19. —Good Faith Requirement.

Settlement agreement did not satisfy the good faith requirement where tort-feasor sought by it collusively to obtain contribution from the other putative tort-feasors to satisfy its guaranty obligation under the agreement, an object prohibited by subsection (d), unless the settlement complies with the provisions of § 29-11-104(d). In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

20. Comparative Fault.

On retrial of a case under this section, the jury should first be informed of the amount of the settlement, and then asked to determine if that settlement was reasonable according to the principles of comparative fault; if the jury finds the settlement amount reasonable, it shall proceed to determine the percentage of fault attributable to each of the defendants, and contribution will be ordered accordingly. If, however, the jury finds that the settlement was, according to the principles of comparative fault, “in excess of what was reasonable,” it will then determine the proper amount of damages, and may consider the fault of the plaintiff and the defendants in making this determination. Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, 891 S.W.2d 905, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. 1994).

Tortfeasor that paid more than its proportional share of the fault under a settlement is not entitled to contribution from the second tort-feasor because, under the McIntyre decision applicable at the time of settlement, the tort-feasor was only responsible for resolving claims attributable to its own fault, there is no evidence suggesting that the settlement resolved the claims against both tort-feasors and, even though the plaintiffs' claims against the second tort-feasor are extinguished by the statute of limitations, the plain language of this statute requires that claims be extinguished by settlement. Olin Corp. v. Yeargin Inc., 146 F.3d 398, 1998 FED App. 185P, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12083 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1998).

Where two children caused a fire at an apartment complex, and a mother and her child and an unrelated child were the defendants, no authority in Tennessee supported the unrelated child's argument that a non-settling defendant who was found 100 percent at fault (the unrelated child), was entitled to a credit or set-off for the amounts paid to a plaintiff by other settling defendants; to the contrary, under principles of comparative fault, a non-settling defendant was not entitled to a credit for amounts paid by a settling defendant because the non-settling defendant was required to pay damages based on his or her percentage of fault. Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. 2005).

21. Punitive Damages.

The legislature intended to deny contribution to a tort-feasor whose intentional conduct contributed to a common liability; however, punitive damages awarded for willful and wanton conduct — although they are a penalty — were not intended to be excluded from coverage. Dykes v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 801 F.2d 810, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 30524 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986), cert. denied, Dykes v. National Gypsum Co., 481 U.S. 1038, 107 S. Ct. 1975, 95 L. Ed. 2d 815, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1975 (1987).

An action under this section is for contribution and the jury may not consider punitive damages. Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, 891 S.W.2d 905, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. 1994).

22. Degree of Negligence.

Simple negligence does not bar contribution or indemnity among joint tort-feasors. Womack v. Gettelfinger, 808 F.2d 446, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36318 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S. Ct. 78, 98 L. Ed. 2d 41, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 3461 (1987).

Collateral References.

Contribution or indemnity between joint tort-feasors on basis of relative fault. 53 A.L.R.3d 184.

Judgment in action against codefendants for injury or death of person, or for damage to property, as res judicata in subsequent action between codefendants as to their liability inter se. 24 A.L.R.3d 318.

Tortfeasor's general release of cotort-feasor as affecting former's right to contribution against cotort-feasor. 34 A.L.R.3d 1374.

Validity and effect of “loan receipt” agreement between injured party and one tort-feasor, for a loan repayable to extent of injured party's recovery from cotort-feasor. 62 A.L.R.3d 1111.

Validity and effect of “Mary Carter” or similar agreement setting maximum liability of one cotort-feasor and providing for reduction or extinguishment thereof relative to recovery against nonagreeing cotort-feasor. 22 A.L.R.5th 483.

Contribution 5.

29-11-103. Determination of proportionate share of shared liability.

In determining the proportionate share of the shared liability between two (2) or more tort-feasors for the same injury or wrongful death, for purposes of pursuit of contribution among tort-feasors:

  1. The reasonable amount of the settlement and the relative degree of fault of the tort-feasors and the injured party or parties in bringing about the injury or wrongful death shall be compared, and the party seeking contribution shall be entitled to recover only to the extent that the party has paid more than the proportionate share of the common liability, with the proportionate share to be determined solely by comparison of the relative degrees of fault of the parties;
  2. If equity requires, the collective liability of some as a group shall constitute a single proportionate share; and
  3. Principles of equity applicable to contribution generally shall apply.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-3103; Acts 1999, ch. 433, § 3.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1999, ch. 433, § 4 provided that the amendments by that act govern the method by which the courts of Tennessee shall apportion contribution in all actions tried after June 17, 1999.

Law Reviews.

A Revisionist View of Remote Contributory Negligence (June F. Entman), 12 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 311 (1982).

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comments on the Wright-Twerski Colloquy Concerning the Joint Liability Debate (Jerry J. Phillips), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 321 (1990).

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Comparative Fault in Tennessee Tort Actions: Past, Present and Future (Wade, Crawford, and Ryder), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 423.

Contribution and Indemnity in Products Liability (Jerry J. Phillips), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 85.

Liability and Contribution for Indivisible Injury, 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 129.

Moving to Comparative Negligence in an Era of Tort Reform: Decisions for Tennessee (Carol A. Mutter), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 199 (1990).

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, IV. Pretrial Procedure (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 308.

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Torts — Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

Cited: Bible & Godwin Constr. Co. v. Faener Corp., 504 S.W.2d 370, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. 1974); In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 707 (Tenn. 1983); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Vicarious Liability.

Where two superiors are vicariously liable for the negligence of a servant over whom both superiors have the right of control, then the two superiors should equally share the loss. Terminal Transport Co. v. Cliffside Co., 608 S.W.2d 850, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

2. Credit for Settlement.

The amount of credit due other tort-feasors is not the amount of the total judgment or damages that a settlement agreement purports to settle, but the benefit, actual or potential, whichever is greater, received by the injured party. Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Price-Waterhouse, 811 S.W.2d 532, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

3. Insolvency.

All joint tort-feasors are presumed solvent, and are liable for their pro rata share of the contribution, unless they present adequate proof for the court to declare them judicially insolvent. Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

4. Remote Contributory Negligence.

When faced with insolvent joint tort-feasors, it would be more equitable for the court to impose the risk of collectability upon the other solvent tort-feasors, than upon the injured party. Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

Collateral References.

Contribution or indemnity between joint tort-feasors on basis of relative fault. 53 A.L.R.3d 184.

Contribution 5.

29-11-104. Enforcement of contribution — Procedure — Limitation.

  1. Whether or not judgment has been entered in an action against two (2) or more tortfeasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced by separate action in the circuit or chancery courts to be tried according to the forms of chancery.
  2. Where a judgment has been entered in an action against two (2) or more tortfeasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced in that action by judgment in favor of one against other judgment defendants by motion upon notice to all parties to the action; provided that, any issue as to indemnity may be determined at the hearing of such motion.
  3. If there is a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tortfeasor seeking contribution, any separate action by the tortfeasor to enforce contribution must be commenced within one (1) year after satisfaction of the judgment.
  4. If there is no judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tortfeasor seeking contribution, the tortfeasor's right of contribution is barred unless the tortfeasor has either:
    1. Discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable to claimant's right of action against the tortfeasor and has commenced tortfeasor's action for contribution within one (1) year after payment; or
    2. Agreed while action is pending against the tortfeasor to discharge the common liability and has within one (1) year after the agreement paid the liability and commenced tortfeasor's action for contribution within one (1) year of payment.
  5. The recovery of a judgment for an injury or wrongful death against one (1) tortfeasor does not of itself discharge the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the judgment is satisfied. The satisfaction of the judgment does not impair any right of contribution.
  6. The judgment of a court in determining the liability of the several defendants to a claimant for an injury or wrongful death after trial on the merits shall be binding among such defendants in determining their right to contribution or indemnity, except where a claimant commenced an action for injury or wrongful death prior to April 3, 1968.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-3104.

Cross-References. Limitation of actions, counterclaim or third party complaint, § 28-1-114.

Limitation of actions, personal tort claims, § 28-3-104.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 21.

Law Reviews.

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Contribution and Indemnity in Products Liability (Jerry J. Phillips), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 85.

Liability and Contribution for Indivisible Injury, 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 129.

Mary Carter Agreements, Learn the Inside Deal (June F. Entman), 24 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 10 (1988).

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Tennessee Survey of the Law — Indemnity in Tort, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 307.

The Nonparty Tortfeasor (June F. Entman), 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105 (1992).

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Torts — Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

Cited: Massey v. Sullivan County, 225 Tenn. 132, 464 S.W.2d 548, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (1971); Wharton Transport Corp. v. Bridges, 606 S.W.2d 521, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 504, 24 A.L.R.4th 1295 (Tenn. 1980); Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. 1988).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgments Under Old Law.

The exception in subsection (f) as to actions commenced prior to the effective date of the statute was applicable to motion under subsection (b) by one tortfeasor for contribution by second tortfeasor where judgment had been entered against both in personal injury action commenced prior to effective date of statute and first defendant had paid full amount of judgment, and such procedure was not available to moving party. Watts v. Memphis Transit Management Co., 224 Tenn. 721, 462 S.W.2d 495, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 266 (1971).

2. Limitation of Actions.

The failure of plaintiff to allege the date of defendant's action or failure to act is not relevant to the question of whether the defense of the statute of limitations may be imposed against the plaintiff in this cause of action. De Vore Brokerage Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 308 F. Supp. 279, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8902 (M.D. Tenn. 1969).

3. Statutory Construction.

As there is irreconcilable conflict between subsection (f) of this section and § 29-11-102(f), applying a well-established rule of statutory construction, this section, the one last mentioned, will control. Bible & Godwin Constr. Co. v. Faener Corp., 504 S.W.2d 370, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. 1974).

4. Judgment as a Bar.

Where the court found no liability of defendant in an earlier action on the merits in which plaintiff and defendant were codefendants, that judgment is now a bar to plaintiff's claim for indemnity based upon the theory of active-passive negligence inasmuch as this issue has already been litigated, but a claim based upon the contract relationship of the parties, an issue not litigated in the earlier proceeding, is not barred by the language of the section. Bible & Godwin Constr. Co. v. Faener Corp., 504 S.W.2d 370, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. 1974).

5. Settlement Agreements.

Settlement agreement did not satisfy the good faith requirement where tortfeasor sought by it collusively to obtain contribution from the other putative tortfeasors to satisfy its guaranty obligation under the agreement, an object prohibited by § 29-11-102(d), unless the settlement complies with the provisions of subsection (d) of this section. In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

Reference in this section to recovery of a judgment must be interpreted in light of statutory contemplation of adversary proceedings rather than compromise settlements. Wade v. Baybarz, 660 S.W.2d 493, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Order of the court, after approving and confirming the settlement, stated that it was made the judgment of this court; however, court did not conceive this to be a recovery of judgment, notwithstanding the language of former § 34-3-113 and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.01. Wade v. Baybarz, 660 S.W.2d 493, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

6. Allowance of Interest.

Appellate court declined to reverse allowance of interest from date of filing of suit for contribution upon basis of six-year hiatus of activity in suit since there was no evidence that the issue of delay had been presented to and decided by the chancellor. Terminal Transport Co. v. Cliffside Co., 608 S.W.2d 850, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Compromise settlement of a minor's personal injury claim which was approved by a court and satisfied by one joint tortfeasor did not bar a subsequent suit by the minor against another joint tortfeasor. Wade v. Baybarz, 660 S.W.2d 493, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

7. Suits Against Cities.

Since city could at one time have been sued by tort plaintiff, it can be sued for contribution by original defendant if the suit for contribution is brought within one year after satisfaction of judgment. Security Fire Protection Co. v. Ripley, 608 S.W.2d 874, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

8. Remote Contributory Negligence.

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

Collateral References.

What statute of limitations applies to action for contribution against joint tortfeasor. 57 A.L.R.3d 927.

When statute of limitations commences to run against claim for contribution or indemnity based on tort. 57 A.L.R.3d 867.

29-11-105. Effect of release or covenant not to sue upon liability of other tort-feasors.

  1. When a release or covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to one (1) of two (2) or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death:
    1. It does not discharge any of the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide; but it reduces the claim against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater; and
    2. It discharges the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other tort-feasor.
  2. No evidence of a release or covenant not to sue received by another tort-feasor or payment therefor may be introduced by a defendant at the trial of an action by a claimant for injury or wrongful death, but may be introduced upon motion after judgment to reduce a judgment by the amount stipulated by the release or the covenant or by the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is greater.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 5; T.C.A., § 23-3105.

Compiler's Notes. Compiler’s Notes. In Bass v. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. , 210 F.3d 577, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6853 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), citing McIntyre v. Balentine , 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), the court ruled that § 29-11-105 was rendered obsolete in 1992 by Tennessee's adoption of a system of comparative fault. The opinion goes on to say that the Tennessee Supreme Court retains the statutory remedy of contribution among tortfeasors for “cases in which prior to McIntyre  the cause of action arose, the suit was filed and the parties had made irrevocable litigation decisions based on pre-McIntyre  law.”

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 12; 21 Tenn. Juris., Release, § 5.

Tennessee Law of Evidence (2nd ed., Cohen, Paine and Sheppeard), Rule 408; § 408.2.

Law Reviews.

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Rule Reference. This section is referred to in the Advisory Commission Comments under Rule 408 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.

Law Reviews.

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Liability and Contribution for Indivisible Injury, 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 129.

Mary Carter Agreements, Learn the Inside Deal (June F. Entman), 24 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 10 (1988).

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Tennessee Survey of the Law — Indemnity in Tort, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 307.

Torts — Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

Cited: Massey v. Sullivan County, 225 Tenn. 132, 464 S.W.2d 548, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 286 (1971); Miller v. Sohns, 225 Tenn. 158, 464 S.W.2d 824, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (1971); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 776 F.2d 1565, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23925 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985); Womack v. Gettelfinger, 808 F.2d 446, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 36318 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986); Bass v. Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc., 210 F.3d 577, 2000 FED App. 135P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6853 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose of Chapter.

The purpose of the Uniform Act is to establish a right of contribution where two or more persons are jointly or severally liable in tort and is not intended to operate so as to reduce the amount of damages required to fully compensate a claimant for his injuries and losses. Buckner v. Cocke County, 720 S.W.2d 472, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

2. Construction.

The provisions of this section, relative to the effect of a release or covenant not to sue upon the ability of other tort-feasors, take preeminence over § 29-11-102(g) excluding breaches of trust or other fiduciary obligations from application of the chapter. Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. 1988).

3. Applicability.

This section applies to all tort-feasors and not just those jointly liable. Knox-Tenn Rental Co. v. Jenkins Ins., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 33, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. 1988).

T.C.A. § 29-11-105 was rendered obsolete in 1992 by Tennessee's adoption of a system of comparative fault. Instead, Tenn. R. Evid. 408, concerning compromise and offers of compromise, governs the admission of evidence of a settlement of a joint tortfeasor. Cullum v. Baptist Hosp. Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011).

4. Comparative Fault.

Following the adoption of comparative fault, this statute does not apply so as to entitle a nonsettling tort-feasor to a credit for amounts paid by other tort-feasors where the trier of fact has apportioned fault and the nonsettling tort-feasor is only being required to pay an amount corresponding with the determination of its fault. Varner v. Perryman, 969 S.W.2d 410, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 879 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), overruled, Engstrom v. Mayfield, 195 Fed. Appx. 444, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21886 (6th Cir. 2006).

5. Partial Relief.

Where only partial relief was afforded, the party was not estopped from later enforcing a right of indemnity. Continental Ins. Co. v. Knoxville, 488 S.W.2d 50, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. 1972).

6. Master-Servant Relationship.

In an action for personal injuries the release of one alleged joint tort-feasor does not release the other unless the master-servant relationship claimed did in fact exist at the time of the accident. Layhew v. Dixon, 527 S.W.2d 739, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. 1975).

When the right of full indemnity exists between persons liable in tort, no right of contribution exists; therefore, section providing that a covenant not to sue discharges covenantee from contribution and does not discharge any other tort-feasor has no application to the master or principal who has vicarious liability. Craven v. Lawson, 534 S.W.2d 653, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. 1976).

The commissioners on uniform state laws and legislature did not intend to embrace the derivative or vicarious liability of masters or principals within the scope of this section. Craven v. Lawson, 534 S.W.2d 653, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. 1976).

7. Validity of Release.

Where a release has been executed in writing without fraud, misrepresentation or duress and with every reasonable opportunity for consideration of its terms, it will be binding. Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

A false representation as to one of several matters which is material and which enters into the consideration in procuring a settlement is sufficient to render a release void. Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

8. Intention of Parties.

The scope and extent of a release depends on the intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument. Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Where there was evidence that plaintiffs were told by the insurance adjuster who filled out the release that it only operated to release one particular individual from responsibility, but the release as actually worded released defendants as well, a genuine issue of fact as to the intention of plaintiffs and the effect of the language of the release existed, and defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Since the 1968 enactment of this section, the law has been that the release of one co-tort-feasor does not release another co-tort-feasor unless it is the intent of the parties to release the co-tort-feasor who is not a party to the release. Kreutzmann v. Bauman, 609 S.W.2d 736, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

9. Joint Tort-feasorship Not Required.

Reduction of a judgment against one tort-feasor due to settlement by plaintiff with another tort-feasor need not be predicated upon joint tort-feasorship, as the statute does not require an activating relationship in tort between those liable. Yett v. Smoky Mountain Aviation, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 867, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

10. Delay of Execution of Release.

Where plaintiff has entered into a settlement with one tort-feasor, she cannot delay execution and delivery of a release or covenant in order to avoid a reduction in judgment against defendant pursuant to this section. Yett v. Smoky Mountain Aviation, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 867, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 295 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

11. Good Faith Requirement.

Under this statute, a settlement agreement will relieve the settling tort-feasor of his duty to make contribution to the other tortfeasors only if the agreement was entered into in good faith. In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

12. —Question of Fact.

Whether a settlement has been the product of good faith or bad faith is a question of fact to be determined in each case, but the decision should be made with reference to the purpose of the good faith clause to aid the twin statutory objectives of equitable sharing of the burden of compensating plaintiffs and of encouraging settlements. In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

13. —Requirement Not Satisfied.

Settlement agreement did not satisfy the requirement of good faith where it frustrated the statutory goal of encouraging settlements by requiring plaintiff to surrender a great measure of control over future settlement negotiations and actually had the effect of fomenting litigation. In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

Settlement agreement did not satisfy the good faith requirement where tort-feasor sought by it collusively to obtain contribution from the other putative tort-feasors to satisfy its guaranty obligation under the agreement, an object prohibited by § 29-11-102(d), unless the settlement complies with the provisions of § 29-11-104(d). In re Waverly Acci. of February 22-24, 1978, 502 F. Supp. 1, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11815 (M.D. Tenn. 1979).

14. Release of Codefendant.

The tort of negligent entrustment of an automobile by the owner to an incompetent driver does not rest on imputed negligence but is based on his own negligence in entrusting his automobile to the incompetent driver; the issue of the owner's negligence is therefore independent from the issue of the driver's negligence, so that plaintiffs' release of a defendant-driver did not operate to release the defendant-owner. Mathis v. Stacy, 606 S.W.2d 290, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Where a plaintiff charges several defendants with tort, and one of the defendants buys its way out of the suit and is given a release and covenant not to sue, the court will not go into the question of liability of such defendant. The test in such case is: Was the defendant sued as a tort-feasor? If so, any liability of the remaining defendants to the plaintiff must be reduced by the amount paid for such release or covenant not to sue by such defendant. Rosenbaum v. First American Nat'l Bank, 690 S.W.2d 873, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2700 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), overruled, Engstrom v. Mayfield, 195 Fed. Appx. 444, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21886 (6th Cir. 2006).

Subdivision (a)(1) does not establish a bar to the plaintiff's proceeding against the defendant governmental entity where plaintiff had been paid $125,000.00 by another defendant in the original action and the parties had stipulated the maximum potential liability of the remaining defendant was $40,000.00, as established by § 29-20-311. Buckner v. Cocke County, 720 S.W.2d 472, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

15. Consideration for Release or Covenant.

This section has no requirement that the consideration paid for the release or covenant not to sue must come from a “co-tort-feasor.” Holden v. Cities Service Co., 514 F. Supp. 662, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16682 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

16. Reduction of Claim Against Codefendant.

Where payment by insurer for a third-party defendant was made to settle the liability of the third-party defendant to a codefendant under an indemnity and hold-harmless agreement between the codefendant and the third-party defendant, and it was undisputed that this amount was a portion of the funds paid to the plaintiffs as consideration for their entering into a covenant not to sue and stipulation of dismissal as to the codefendant, a second codefendant was entitled to satisfaction of the judgment entered against him to the extent of the payments made by the insurer. Holden v. Cities Service Co., 514 F. Supp. 662, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16682 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

17. Credits for Settlements.

This section allows a credit for settlements of codefendants, who were sued as tort-feasors for the same injury, without requiring proof of actual liability in tort. Tutton v. Patterson, 714 S.W.2d 268, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. 1986).

Where plaintiff executed a settlement agreement with one tort-feasor, under which there was no present release of judgment but only an agreement not to execute judgment against the tort-feasor while not in default on settlement agreement terms, a second tort-feasor was not entitled to any credit for the amount of judgment against first tort-feasor until the judgment was actually released. Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Price-Waterhouse, 811 S.W.2d 532, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

18. Setoff Against Damages.

Settlement amount was applied as a setoff to award of compensatory damages but not to award of punitive damages in federal civil rights case. Goad v. Macon County, 730 F. Supp. 1425, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16290 (M.D. Tenn. 1989).

19. Remote Contributory Negligence.

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

Collateral References.

Release of one responsible for injury as affecting liability of physician or surgeon for negligent treatment of injury. 39 A.L.R.3d 260.

Validity and effect of “loan receipt” agreement between injured party and one tort-feasor, for a loan repayable to extent of injured party's recovery from co-tort-feasor. 62 A.L.R.3d 1111.

Voluntary payment into court of judgment against one joint tort-feasor as release of others. 40 A.L.R.3d 1181.

Release 7, 37.

29-11-106. Construction of chapter.

This chapter shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it.

Acts 1968, ch. 575, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-3106.

Law Reviews.

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comparative Fault—Banks v. Elks Club Pride: Preserving Fairness in Liability While Adhering to Strict Comparative Fault Principles (Anna Rudman-Santos), 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 637 (2011).

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, VII. Appellate Review of the Disposition (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 366.

Tort Law–Comparative Fault–Original Tortfeasor Rule in Tennessee (Dan Calvert), 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 259 (2010).

Torts — Vicarious Liability — Covenant Not to Sue Servant or Agent as Affecting Liability of Master or Principal (Darrell L. West), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (1) 188.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remote Contributory Negligence.

The doctrines of remote contributory negligence and last clear chance are obsolete. McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. June 1, 1992).

29-11-107. Liability for damages in civil action governed by comparative fault — When doctrine of joint and several liability applies — Doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior unaffected — Allocation of fault by trier of fact.

  1. If multiple defendants are found liable in a civil action governed by comparative fault, a defendant shall only be severally liable for the percentage of damages for which fault is attributed to such defendant by the trier of fact, and no defendant shall be held jointly liable for any damages.
  2. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the doctrine of joint and several liability remains in effect:
    1. To apportion financial responsibility in a civil conspiracy among two (2) or more at-fault defendants who, each having the intent and knowledge of the other's intent, accomplish by concert an unlawful purpose, or accomplish by concert a lawful purpose by unlawful means, which results in damage to the plaintiff; and
    2. Among manufacturers only in a product liability action as defined in § 29-28-102, but only if such action is based upon a theory of strict liability or breach of warranty. Nothing in this subsection (b) eliminates or affects the limitations on product liability actions found in § 29-28-106.
  3. Nothing in this section eliminates or affects the doctrines of vicarious liability or respondeat superior.
  4. Nothing in this section limits the ability of the trier of fact to allocate fault to a nonparty to the suit, including, but not limited to, an immune third party or a settling party, person, or entity. Allocations of fault to nonparties shall be used only to determine the liability of named parties and shall not subject nonparties to liability in the action in which the allocation occurred or in any other action.
  5. Nothing in this section eliminates or diminishes:
    1. The filing of cross-claims or counterclaims against any party or third party under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 13 and 14;
    2. The assertion by a party of rights to contribution or indemnity;
    3. The assertion by a party of comparative fault under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.03;
    4. The doctrine of superseding and independent intervening cause; or
    5. Any defenses or immunities that exist as of July 1, 2013.
  6. This section shall not prevent parties from entering into a legally enforceable contract that allocates fault in a civil action among the parties to the contract.

Acts 2013, ch. 317, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2013, ch. 317, § 2 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to all actions accruing on or after July 1, 2013.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 317, § 2. July 1, 2013.

Law Reviews.

Comparative Fault in Audit Malpractice Cases, 49 Tenn. B.J. 22 (2013).

Chapter 12
Creditors' Bills

29-12-101. Fraudulent conveyances and other devices.

Any creditor, without first having obtained a judgment at law, may file the bill in chancery for the creditor, or for the creditor and other creditors, to set aside fraudulent conveyances of property, or other devices resorted to for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors, and subject the property, by sale or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the debt.

Code 1858, § 4288 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6097; Code 1932, § 10358; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1001.

Cross-References. Chancery jurisdiction, § 16-11-105.

Conveyances held fraudulent, title 66, ch. 3, part 1.

Joinder of remedies, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 18.02.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 388, 447, 451.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 672.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, § 15; 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 25, 35, 62, 70, 77, 117, 119, 129; 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 17; 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 26; 13 Tenn. Juris., Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances, §§ 41-44; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 24; 21 Tenn. Juris., Recording Acts, § 6.

Law Reviews.

Certiorari to In re BFP: The Eve of Decision to a Dozen Years of Durett Conflict — Will Resolution of the Issue Solve the Real Problem?, 24 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 773 (1994).

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

Preferences, Priorities, and Powers of the State in the Collection of Delinquent Revenue: Tennessee's Tax Enforcement Procedures Act (Donald J. Serkin), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 707.

The Collection of Debts from Insolvent and Fully-Mortgaged Debtors (John A. Walker, Jr.), 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 399.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Comparative Legislation. Creditors' bills:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-180 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 18-2-20 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-31-1 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-440.3 et seq.

Va. Code § 55-80 et seq.

Cited: Shepard v. Lanier, 192 Tenn. 608, 241 S.W.2d 587, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 308 (1951); Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960); Hallack v. Hawkins, 409 F.2d 627, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12926 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1969); In re Bell, 55 B.R. 246, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 4923 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985); In re Ressler, 61 B.R. 403, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6099 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1986); McClure v. Stegall, 729 S.W.2d 263, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); Givler v. Givler, 964 S.W.2d 902, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. “Conveyances” — Scope of Term.

The word “conveyances” embraces not only what is strictly termed property, but also comprehends and embraces assignments of claims and every species of choses in action. Wilson v. Beadle, 39 Tenn. 510, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (1859); Lockhard v. Brodie, 1 Tenn. Ch. 384 (1873).

2. Construction with Other Acts.

3. —Registration of Deeds.

The rights between creditors of a grantor and bona fide purchaser from the grantor are not determined by § 64-2603 (now § 66-26-103), nor § 64-2604 (now § 66-26-104) pertaining to registration of instruments, but by this section. Bradley v. Boyd, 168 Tenn. 141, 76 S.W.2d 318, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

4. —Jurisdictional Amount.

The jurisdiction of the chancery court does not depend on the amount of the debt, for § 16-11-103 has no application to such ancillary jurisdiction. Tinsley v. Bryan, 148 Tenn. 256, 255 S.W. 49, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1923).

5. —Attachment by Surety or Endorser.

Under this section and § 29-6-103, a surety or endorser, before payment of the debt and even before judgment against him, is such a creditor that he may bring his principal and the creditor and his creditor's fraudulent conveyee into chancery, and obtain exoneration out of the property fraudulently conveyed by the principal, or its proceeds, in the hands of any one not a bona fide purchaser, without notice, by making him a party, so as to subject such fraudulently conveyed property to the payment of the debt on which he is surety. Greene v. Starnes, 48 Tenn. 582, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1870); R. W. McCrasly & Co. v. Hasslock, 63 Tenn. 1, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1874); Oneal v. Smith, 78 Tenn. 340, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1882); Howell v. Thompson, 95 Tenn. 396, 32 S.W. 309, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1895).

6. Jurisdiction.

Neither the circuit court nor the court of general sessions has jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. The chancery court has exclusive jurisdiction of such a bill. Marlin v. Merrill, 25 Tenn. App. 328, 156 S.W.2d 814, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941). See also Nelson v. Maiden, 402 F. Supp. 1307, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12131 (E.D. Tenn. 1975).

7. Accrual of claim.

A judgment creditor's fraudulent conveyance claim accrued when an allegedly fraudulent transfer was made by the debtor, not when the creditor's judgment against the creditor became final; thus, a transfer made more than three years before the creditor's fraudulent conveyance suit was barred. United Nat'l Real Estate v. Thompson, 941 S.W.2d 58, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

8. Procedure.

9. —Time for Filing Bill.

A bill may be filed before judgment, execution, and return of nulla bona, for the purpose of setting aside fraudulent conveyances or other devices to hinder and delay creditors, and for subjecting the property conveyed to the payment of debts. August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); Allum v. Stockbridge, 67 Tenn. 356, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1875); Armstrong v. Croft, 71 Tenn. 191, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1879); Brooks v. Gibson, 75 Tenn. 271, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1881); McBee v. Bearden, 75 Tenn. 731, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (1881); Nailer v. Young, 75 Tenn. 735, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1881); McKeldin v. Gouldy, 91 Tenn. 677, 20 S.W. 231, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1892); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901); Citizens' Nat'l Bank v. Watkins, 126 Tenn. 453, 150 S.W. 96, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1912).

A creditor may either file a bill in chancery without first obtaining judgment to set aside fraudulent conveyance of property or if he has a judgment with execution returned unsatisfied he may proceed to establish his lien. Bank of Delrose v. Mansfield, 4 Tenn. App. 488, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

10. —Denial of Fraud in Answer.

It is not necessary for the defendant to deny the fraud by plea. It is probable, even, that such defense could not be made at all in view of § 29-12-105. Tarbox v. Tonder, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1873).

The averment of fraud may be denied by the answer; but it is otherwise where the cause for original attachment alleged in the bill is a fraudulent disposition of property by the defendant. Nailer v. Young, 75 Tenn. 735, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1881); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

11. —Bill in Aid of Suit at Law.

Where a debtor is fraudulently disposing of his property, a creditor may maintain a creditor's bill in aid of a suit at law which he has instituted. Sweetwater Bank & Trust Co. v. Howard, 13 Tenn. App. 592, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 101 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

12. —Judgment or Decree — Necessity.

A creditor without judgment or decree may maintain a bill in chancery to subject the legal or equitable properties of his debtor, which the latter has conveyed to another for the purpose of hindering and defrauding his creditors. Harrison v. Hallum, 45 Tenn. 525, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1868).

By this section a creditor may file a bill in chancery for himself and others to set aside fraudulent conveyances without having obtained a judgment at law. A fortiori a judgment creditor would have an equal right to file a bill based upon his circuit court judgment provided the debtor had made fraudulent conveyances to dispose of his property to defeat this judgment. Shepard v. Lanier, 192 Tenn. 608, 241 S.W.2d 587, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 308 (1951).

13. —Several Creditors Joining in Bill.

Where a complainant in a bill joins with his own claim that of another, in order to bring his cause within the jurisdictional amount, the suit upon such acquired claim, not being for the use of its real owner, but in the name of the complainant, must fail as to both. Pierce v. Bowers, 67 Tenn. 353, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1875).

Any number of creditors of a common debtor may join in a bill under this section, instead of going through the form of filing it in the name of one for the use of himself and others, and afterwards coming in by petition. Buckner v. Abrahams, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 346 (1877).

14. —Separate Proceedings by Grantee.

Where creditor filed a creditor's bill in chancery proceeding to set aside an unregistered deed executed by debtor on the ground of fraud the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in overruling demurrer by creditor to separate bill filed by grantee where grantee was not a party to prior proceeding pending in chancery. Bradley v. Boyd, 168 Tenn. 141, 76 S.W.2d 318, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

15. Creditor's Lien.

16. —Time of Attachment.

A lien attaches upon the property fraudulently conveyed, upon the filing of a bill to set aside the conveyance, and the lien may be good as against the fraudulent vendor and vendee and creditors and purchasers, without an attachment. August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); House v. Swanson, 54 Tenn. 32, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (1871); Cowan, McClung & Co. v. Dunn, 69 Tenn. 68, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1878); Brooks v. Gibson, 75 Tenn. 271, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1881); Lookout Bank v. Susong, 90 Tenn. 590, 18 S.W. 389, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1891); Epperson v. Robertson, 91 Tenn. 407, 19 S.W. 230, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1892); Dillard & C. Co. v. Smith, 105 Tenn. 372, 59 S.W. 1010, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1900); Bryan v. Zarecor, 112 Tenn. 503, 81 S.W. 1252, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1904).

From the date of filing his bill to set aside his debtor's fraudulent conveyance, the creditor acquires a lien upon the property involved, although the bill may not have been sworn to, and does not seek attachment or injunction, or otherwise actually impound the property. Dillard & C. Co. v. Smith, 105 Tenn. 372, 59 S.W. 1010, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1900).

Creditor obtains a lien upon filing of creditor's bill to set aside fraudulent conveyance by debtor. Bradley v. Boyd, 168 Tenn. 141, 76 S.W.2d 318, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

The rule in equity is that when a bill is filed to reach specific property involving inherent or statutory jurisdiction of equity, a lien is fixed upon the property upon filing of the bill without attachment. Cannon Mills, Inc. v. Spivey, 208 Tenn. 419, 346 S.W.2d 266, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 301 (1961).

17. —Priority of Attachment.

The creditor first filing a bill in which the property is described has priority of satisfaction over one who later files a bill and has attachment levied upon the property. Brooks v. Gibson, 75 Tenn. 271, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1881).

Creditor's bill to set aside fraudulent conveyance by debtor takes priority over purchaser who fails to register deed providing validity of debt and attachment are proved. Bradley v. Boyd, 168 Tenn. 141, 76 S.W.2d 318, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

In a contest between an attaching creditor and the purchaser of land from the debtor, in which the purchaser seeks to abate the attachment and enjoin the attachment proceedings, the determinative issue is the validity of the debt and of the attachment. Bradley v. Boyd, 168 Tenn. 141, 76 S.W.2d 318, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1934).

18. Fraudulent Conveyances.

19. —Fraud on Face.

Where the deed of conveyance creates a trust of which the donor is the beneficiary, it is a fraud on its face as to creditors, who may subject in chancery the property conveyed to the payment of their claims, whether in judgment or not. Citizens' Nat'l Bank v. Watkins, 126 Tenn. 453, 150 S.W. 96, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1912).

20. —Setting Aside Satisfaction of Creditor's Judgment.

A judgment creditor, whose judgment has been satisfied by a purchase of land under a void sale, may have the same set aside, the judgment revived, and any property of the deceased debtor, fraudulently conveyed, subjected to the payment of his judgment. Puckett v. Richardson, 74 Tenn. 49, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1880).

21. —Decree against Vendee.

Where a corporate conveyance is fraudulent because its assets had become a trust fund, and vendee knew the condition of the corporation, it was error to decree against him for the contract price, and the proper decree is set forth. Brown v. Morristown Co-operative Stove Co., 42 S.W. 161, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 35 (1897).

22. —Gift.

Creditors insisting that a gift by the debtor was void as to them; that it was wholly without consideration and was a transfer or conveyance which rendered the donor insolvent and was fraudulent and void as to creditors of the donor, could have maintained a bill in equity to set aside the gift. Marlin v. Merrill, 25 Tenn. App. 328, 156 S.W.2d 814, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941).

23. —Land Bid in by Debtor at Execution Sale — Creditor's Rights in Surplus.

Where debtor bids in his land at execution sale for a sum greater than the amount of the execution and costs, the surplus which he is entitled to receive back is in the nature of an equitable asset which may be reached only by a bill based upon a nulla bona return, or some of the grounds allowed by law for attachment, or alleging a fraudulent transfer such as to authorize the creation of a lien by the filing of the bill, under this section. Carter v. Wyrick, 42 S.W. 159, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 34 (1897).

24. Attorney Fees.

Bill by certain creditors of estate in behalf of themselves and all other creditors for judgment on claims and to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyance by deceased to his son was a proceeding filed under this section and fees for attorney of complainants were properly deducted from fund realized on sale of real estate ordered by chancellor instead of out of surplus from sale after payment of judgments. Pennington v. Divney, 182 Tenn. 207, 185 S.W.2d 514, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1945).

Trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to an owner on her fraudulent conveyance claim because the statute at issue did not contain any provision for recovery of attorney's fees. Anderson v. Lowry, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1002 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. May 5, 2016), cert. denied, 196 L. Ed. 2d 217, 137 S. Ct. 303, — U.S. —, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 6231 (U.S. 2016).

25. Trustee in Bankruptcy.

In a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance made prior to bankruptcy by a bankrupt, a decree in complainants' favor vests title to the whole property in the trustee in bankruptcy, and is not confined to satisfaction of the debts of moving complainants. Therefore, expenses of the suit, including solicitor's fees, must be paid out of the estate, and not by the creditors. Watkins v. Sedberry, 261 U.S. 571, 43 S. Ct. 411, 67 L. Ed. 802, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2589 (1923).

After the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy, the trustee is the only person who can have a fraudulent conveyance set aside. Wills v. Murphy, 2 Tenn. App. 433, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

26. Jury Trial.

Right to trial by jury in suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Exum v. Griffis Newbern Co., 144 Tenn. 239, 230 S.W. 601, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1921).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditor's Bills §§ 32-36, 61; 37 Am. Jur. 2d Fraudulent Conveyances §§ 157-187.

21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits §§ 38, 41; 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances §§ 326-336.

Attachment, action by creditor to set aside fraudulent conveyance as one for money only. 76 A.L.R. 1449.

Attorney's compensation for services in creditors' suit, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 850, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Attorney's fee, allowance of, against property or fund increased or protected by attorney's services in creditors' suits. 49 A.L.R. 1166, 107 A.L.R. 749.

Conditions of creditor's bill or suit to avoid conveyance as a fraud on creditors where creditor has recovered foreign judgment. 129 A.L.R. 506.

Conditions of suit to avoid conveyance as a fraud on creditors where creditor has recovered foreign judgment. 129 A.L.R. 506.

Corporation, disregarding existence of, in case of conveyance of property to corporation to defraud creditors. 1 A.L.R. 611, 34 A.L.R. 597.

County, creditor's bill against, to reach money due from it to a third person. 60 A.L.R. 826.

Decedent, right of creditor of, before perfecting his claim or after loss of recourse against decedent's estate, to pursue remedy against property conveyed by decedent in fraud of creditor. 103 A.L.R. 555.

Evidence of good character of party for truth and honesty on issue of fraud in conveyance. 78 A.L.R. 647.

Executor's or administrator's right to benefit of successful attack by creditors on conveyance by deceased grantor. 91 A.L.R. 133.

Exhausting remedies against other judgment debtor as condition of right to bring suit to set aside conveyance as fraudulent. 22 A.L.R. 200.

Fine or penalty, judgment for, as supporting creditors' bill to avoid, as fraudulent, conveyance or transfer before its entry. 48 A.L.R. 605.

Joinder of grantees in different conveyances in suit to avoid them. 69 A.L.R. 229.

Jurisdiction and power of equity to subject legacy, devise, or distributive share in estate to claim of creditor of legatee, devisee, or distributee. 123 A.L.R. 1293.

Money demand which has not been reduced to judgment, jurisdiction of equity to sequester, seize, or otherwise provisionally secure assets for application upon. 116 A.L.R. 270.

Mortgage or other security for indebtedness to attacking creditor as affecting conditions of attack upon conveyance, mortgage or transfer as fraudulent as against creditors. 116 A.L.R. 1048.

Nonresidence or absence of debtor as obviating necessity of procuring judgment as condition of creditors' bill. 38 A.L.R. 269.

Railroad under federal control, creditors' bill to reach compensation payable from government to. 19 A.L.R. 679, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Receiver or liquidator, conditions of right of creditor after appointment of, to maintain suit to set aside conveyance or transfer by debtor in fraud of creditors. 119 A.L.R. 1344.

Reconveyance or retransfer of property to grantor, executed as part of, or as contemplated at time of, the fraudulent transaction, as affecting principle which denies relief to party who has conveyed or transferred property in fraud of his creditors. 89 A.L.R. 1166.

Right of creditor to recover damages for conspiracy to defraud him of claim. 11 A.L.R.4th 345.

Right of creditor to set aside transfer of property as fraudulent as affected by the fact that his claim is barred by statute of limitations. 14 A.L.R.2d 598.

Right of secured creditor to have set aside fraudulent transfer of other property by his debtor. 8 A.L.R.4th 1123.

Rule denying recovery of property to one who conveyed to defraud creditors as applicable where the claim which motivated the conveyance was never established. 6 A.L.R.4th 862.

Third person, execution on property conveyed by, to another third person, upon consideration furnished by debtor. 91 A.L.R. 741.

Fraudulent conveyances 205-238.

29-12-102. Attachment and injunction.

Upon filing the bill, writs of attachment and injunction may be granted, on complainants giving bond and security in such sums as the chancellor or judge may order, conditioned to comply with the orders and decrees of the court, and to pay such damages as may be awarded or recovered for wrongfully suing out such attachment or injunction.

Code 1858, § 4289 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6098; Code 1932, § 10359; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1002.

Cross-References. Injunctions, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.

Seizure of person or property, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 64.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 35, 71, 117; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, §§ 24, 39.

Law Reviews.

Enforcement of Judgments in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 873.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attachment — Necessity and Function.

An attachment is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction. It may be issued by the chancellor, in his discretion, at the beginning of the suit or during its progress, to impound and secure the property, pending the litigation. It takes the place of an injunction and the appointment of a receiver at common law, and it may be discharged as an injunction is dissolved or a receiver discharged. August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); Brooks v. Gibson, 75 Tenn. 271, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1881); Nailer v. Young, 75 Tenn. 735, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (1881); Dillard & C. Co. v. Smith, 105 Tenn. 372, 59 S.W. 1010, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1900); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

Attachment is superfluous if the lien is fixed independently. House v. Swanson, 54 Tenn. 32, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (1871).

2. —Order of Chancellor.

The clerk and master cannot issue the attachment writ without the fiat of a judge or chancellor. The power is alone conferred upon the judge or chancellor. August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); Lane v. Wood, 1 Shan. 648 (1876).

3. —Prerequisites to Attachment of Legacy or Distributive Share.

There can be no attachment of legacy or distributive share before qualification of personal representative, for, until his qualification, no suit by attachment or otherwise can be brought against him and the legatee or distributee, so to attach. Such suit would be premature. Ward v. Bowen, 34 Tenn. 58, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1854); Fay v. Reager, 34 Tenn. 200, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1854).

4. —Indefiniteness of Legatee's Interest Barring Attachment.

The interest of a legatee may be so uncertain, contingent, and indefinite that it is not susceptible of attachment. Sturm v. White, 67 Tenn. 197, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (1874).

5. Pleading — Necessary Allegation.

A bill in chancery seeking to subject a legacy or distributive share in the hands of a personal representative, which is equitable personal assets, to the payment of the debts of the legatee or distributee, will be dismissed on demurrer for want of jurisdiction, unless it shows either (1) A judgment, execution, and nulla bona; (2) Or one of the grounds on which an original attachment in chancery may issue, as prescribed by statute law; (3) Or a conveyance or device, made as to the properties sought to be subjected, to hinder and defraud creditors. Harrison v. Hallum, 45 Tenn. 525, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1868).

6. Bond.

7. —Conditions and Penalty.

This section prescribes the condition of the bond (attachment or injunction), but leaves the amount of the penalty to the discretion of the chancellor or judge. Pyott Land & Mining Co. v. Tarwater, 126 Tenn. 601, 150 S.W. 539, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1912).

8. —Failure to Increase Penalty.

The attachment ought not to be discharged in toto for the failure of complainant to increase the penalty of the bond, when required by the order of the court, but the levy should be reduced so as to be within the penalty of the bond. Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills §§ 89, 90.

7 C.J.S. Attachment § 20; 21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits §§ 1, 62.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-103. Intervention by other creditors.

If the bill is filed by one (1) creditor for the creditor and others, the other creditors may make themselves parties at any time before final decree, by petition and execution of prosecution bonds, or by agreeing to join in the bonds required in the case of the original complaint, and in a sufficient penalty, to pay their proportional part of the recovery on such bonds.

Code 1858, § 4290 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6099; mod. Code 1932, § 10360; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1003.

Cross-References. Intervention, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 8 Tenn. Juris., Covenants, § 7.

Law Reviews.

Parties and Claims, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 280.

Cited: Watkins v. Sedberry, 261 U.S. 571, 43 S. Ct. 411, 67 L. Ed. 802, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2589 (1923).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills § 72.

21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits § 58.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-104. Powers of court.

The court has the same power and jurisdiction in all respects to set aside fraudulent conveyances and other fraudulent devices, in the cases mentioned in §§ 29-12-10129-12-103, and to subject the property, by sale or otherwise, to the payment of debts, as if the creditor had obtained judgment, and execution thereon had been returned unsatisfied.

Code 1858, § 4291 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6100; Code 1932, § 10361; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1004.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, § 15; 13 Tenn. Juris., Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances, § 43.

Law Reviews.

Preferences, Priorities, and Powers of the State in the Collection of Delinquent Revenue: Tennessee's Tax Enforcement Procedures Act (Donald J. Serkin), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 707.

Cited: Exum v. Griffis Newbern Co., 144 Tenn. 239, 230 S.W. 601, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1921); In re Bell, 55 B.R. 246, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 4923 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgment and Nulla Bona Return Unnecessary.

Judgment and nulla bona return are not requisite. August & Bing v. Seeskind, 46 Tenn. 166, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1868); Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625, 65 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1901).

Collateral References. 21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits §§ 38, 41; 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances §§ 326-336.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-105. Judgment without fraud.

In case the complainant fails to establish the fraud, the court shall proceed to render judgment on the complainant's claim, ascertaining the amount, when disputed, by reference to the clerk and master, where deemed advisable, or by an issue to be tried by a jury; but the complainant shall pay all costs, except such as are incident to taking the judgment.

Code 1858, § 4292 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6101; mod. Code 1932, § 10362; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1005.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 120, 138.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application of Section.

Where a bill was filed to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent as against creditors, and this relief was refused, a personal judgment may be rendered against the debtor defendant for the amount of the debt, and all costs, except that accruing as incident to the charge of fraud, as far as separable from the general costs. Moore v. Tate, 3 Shan. 402 (1875).

2. Prerequisites.

3. —Defendant's Service or Appearance.

No judgment for the debt can be rendered, except where process has been served on the defendant personally, or where he has entered his personal appearance to the merits. Kruger v. Stayton, 58 Tenn. 726, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1872).

4. —Attempt to Set Aside Conveyance.

Where there was no effort to set aside the conveyance for fraud, and the object was to reach, by attachment, a lot of ground which the defendant intended to convey, but which complainant alleges was not conveyed by reason of the vagueness of the description, the complainant is not entitled to a judgment for the debt, upon the dismissal of his attachment. Seifred v. People's Bank, 60 Tenn. 200, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (1873); Younger v. Younger, 90 Tenn. 25, 16 S.W. 78, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1890).

5. Suit Transferred to Chancery Court.

Where action on note in justice's (now general sessions) court was transferred to chancery court for equitable relief, judgment on the claim may be entered in chancery court though the equitable relief was refused. Gordonsville Milling Co. v. Jones, 57 S.W. 630, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 45 (1900).

6. Participation in Fraud Barring Relief.

Where the complainant is repelled on account of participation in the fraud, he is not entitled to his judgment against defendant under the statute. Waterfield v. Ellis, 2 Shan. 642 (1878).

7. Denial of Fraud.

Upon bill to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, it is probable that the defendant could not deny the fraud by plea, since, by this section, the complainant is entitled to his judgment if he fails to show fraud, and the plea, therefore, would not go to the whole bill. Tarbox v. Tonder, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1873).

Collateral References. 21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits §§ 75, 76.

Liability insurer's potential liability for failure to settle claim against insured as subject to garnishment by insured's judgment creditors. 60 A.L.R.3d 1190.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-106. Limitation of actions.

In no case shall the limitation of actions be held to commence running in favor of a fraudulent or voluntary possessor, until the creditor, to be affected by the fraudulent or voluntary conveyance, has a right of action to test the validity of such conveyance.

Code 1858, § 4293 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 365, § 10); Shan., § 6102; Code 1932, § 10363; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances, §§ 44, 47.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Commencement of Running of Limitation.

The limitation runs in favor of fraudulent vendee or donee as against creditors of the vendor or donor, when the creditor recovers judgment. Jones v. Read, 20 Tenn. 335, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1839); Marr v. Rucker, 20 Tenn. 348, 1839 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1839).

The limitation of actions begins to run from the time when the creditor has a right of action to test the validity of the conveyance. Ramsey v. Quillen, 73 Tenn. 184, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1880).

To contend that the statute of limitations did not commence to run until the grantee under deed of trust, which was the alleged conveyance to defraud creditors, had conveyed to an innocent purchaser, conflicts with this section, in that the statute commences to run when the creditor has the right to test the validity of the conveyance. Hallack v. Hawkins, 409 F.2d 627, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12926 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1969).

2. Connecting Successive Possessions.

Seven years' adverse possession under a conveyance, first by a son to whom land was conveyed, then by husband and wife under a deed from the son to the wife (his mother), and then by another son, to whom the wife conveyed, after the rights of the creditor accrued to enforce his debt, is a bar to his recovery. Ramsey v. Quillen, 73 Tenn. 184, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1880).

3. Surety — Limitation in Favor Of.

The limitation of actions runs in favor of surety as against the creditor's right to set aside his principal's conveyance, when. Howell v. Thompson, 95 Tenn. 396, 32 S.W. 309, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1895); Boro v. Hidell, 122 Tenn. 80, 120 S.W. 961, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 4, 135 Am. St. Rep. 857 (1909).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills § 67.

21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits § 52.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-107. Corporate property.

The creditors of a corporation may also, without first having obtained a judgment at law, file a bill in the court of chancery, to attach the property of the corporation, and subject the same, by sale or otherwise, to the satisfaction of their debts, when the corporate franchises are not used, or have been granted to others in whole or in part.

Code 1858, § 4294 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 172, § 1); Shan., § 6103; Code 1932, § 10364; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1007.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 7.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 115; 21 Tenn. Juris., Receivers, § 7.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Cited: Connor v. Tennessee C. R. Co., 109 F. 931, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4260 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1901).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Insolvent Corporation — Creditors Sharing Ratably.

Since this section, creditors share ratably the assets of an insolvent corporation, without reference to diligence, except where otherwise provided by valid statutes. Marr v. Bank of West Tennessee, 44 Tenn. 471, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1867); Moseby v. Williamson, 52 Tenn. 278, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 264 (1871); Pennebaker v. Tomlinson, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 111 (1873); Hadley v. Freedman's Sav. & Trust Co., 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 122 (1874); State v. President & Directors of Bank, 64 Tenn. 1, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1875); Leipold v. Marony, 75 Tenn. 128, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1881); Baxter v. Nashville & Hillsboro Tpk. Co., 78 Tenn. 488, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 212 (1882); Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Knoxville Car-Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634, 32 S.W. 1097, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 49 Am. St. Rep. 943, 31 L.R.A. 593 (1895); McClaren v. Union Roller Mills & Elevator Co., 95 Tenn. 696, 35 S.W. 88, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1895); Memphis Barrel Co. v. Ward, 99 Tenn. 172, 42 S.W. 13, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 63 Am. St. Rep. 825 (1897); Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910).

2. Distinct Character of Remedy.

This section and § 29-12-108 were not intended merely to extend the remedy given by § 26-4-101 to creditors generally, but to create a separate and distinct remedy against corporations found in a given condition, and in no way incompatible with the remedy given in favor of any creditor in § 26-4-101. Marr v. Bank of West Tennessee, 44 Tenn. 471, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1867).

3. Suit by Stockholder.

Stockholder is not entitled to maintain action for receiver under this section since remedy is restricted to creditors. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

4. Answer Admitting Insolvency.

Where a general creditor's bill seeking a pro rata distribution among all the creditors of the proceeds of the sale of an insolvent corporation's property is brought, and the corporation answers admitting the insolvency and that it is indebted to plaintiffs in the sums alleged, intervening stockholders cannot thereafter raise objection that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the court of equity, because plaintiffs are mere contract creditors. American Nat'l Bank v. Tinsley Millinery Co., 20 Tenn. App. 459, 100 S.W.2d 665, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills §§ 61, 62.

19 C.J.S. Corporations § 1438; 21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits § 38.

29-12-108. Receiver for corporate property.

In such cases the court may appoint a receiver, take an account of the affairs of the corporation, and apply the property and effects to the payment of debts pro rata, and divide the surplus, if any, among the stockholders.

Code 1858, § 4295 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 172, § 1); Shan., § 6104; Code 1932, § 10365; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1008.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Receivers, § 7.

Law Reviews.

Preferences, Priorities, and Powers of the State in the Collection of Delinquent Revenue: Tennessee's Tax Enforcement Procedures Act (Donald J. Serkin), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 707.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Action.

2. —Corporation as Party.

This section is not applicable to a suit to which the corporation is not a party. Bickford v. McComb, 88 F. 428, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1898).

3. Stockholders' Rights.

This section recognizes the right of the stockholders to realize on the corporate assets, even if the corporation cannot itself sue. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724, 69 S.W. 345, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 91 Am. St. Rep. 769, 58 L.R.A. 694 (1902).

Stockholder's right is dependent on his establishing right to maintain suit to wind up the corporation in equity. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

4. —Division of Surplus.

Preferred stockholders who paid their share of judgment recovered by receiver of insolvent corporation based on fraudulent conspiracy were entitled to share surplus in receivership with other preferred stockholders. Standard Oil Co. v. Apex Oil Corp., 190 Tenn. 376, 229 S.W.2d 775, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 496 (1950).

5. Insolvency.

A corporation which has suspended business on account of its inability to meet its obligations as they fell due, and has, after such suspension, conveyed its entire property by trust deeds, and turned the same over to the trustees, is insolvent, so as to constitute its assets a fixed trust fund for pro rata distribution among its creditors, and to invalidate the preferences made by such trust deeds; and any creditor, without judgment, may file a general creditor's bill to wind up the affairs of such corporation. Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Knoxville Car-Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634, 32 S.W. 1097, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 49 Am. St. Rep. 943, 31 L.R.A. 593 (1895); Smith v. Bradt Printing Co., 97 Tenn. 351, 37 S.W. 10, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 149 (1896); Memphis Barrel Co. v. Ward, 99 Tenn. 172, 42 S.W. 13, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 63 Am. St. Rep. 825 (1897); Rawlings v. New Memphis Gaslight Co., 105 Tenn. 268, 60 S.W. 206, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 76, 80 Am. St. Rep. 880 (1900); Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910).

6. —Disposal of Land.

Where a foreign corporation, chartered to acquire land and the stock of other corporations owning land or doing business in Tennessee, sells all its land so acquired, receiving the shares of such other corporations in part payment, and is not insolvent, complainant stockholders are not entitled to a dissolution of the corporation, under § 29-35-103, as the holding of such stocks is within its charter powers. Adams v. Chattanooga Co., 128 Tenn. 505, 161 S.W. 1131, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1913).

7. Receiver Appointment.

8. —Caution Exercised.

Power of appointment should be cautiously exercised, and only in extreme cases or extraordinary circumstances; and to be refused where ground is wasteful and extravagant management when the chancellor bases refusal on his sound discretion. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

On stockholder's application the presumption was indulged that displacement of experienced men in management would be hurtful. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

9. —Persons Entitled to Apply.

A receiver may be appointed on application of a creditor or stockholder, when the corporate franchises are not used by it, or have been granted to others in whole or in part, and this regardless of solvency. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

10. —Ancillary to Suit.

Appointment of a receiver is a procedure in the nature of extraordinary process ancillary to a pending suit. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills § 90.

21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits § 63.

Debtor and creditor 11.

29-12-109. Bill where legal remedies insufficient.

In all cases where personal service of process cannot be made at law, and where no original attachment at law will lie, and no judgment at law can be obtained, and also in cases where the demand is purely of an equitable nature, the court of chancery has jurisdiction to subject legal and equitable interests in every kind of property, with the exception stated in § 26-4-101, the lien to commence from the filing of the bill (but as to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers from registration) if the facts are verified by affidavit, and injunction is granted.

Code 1858, § 4287 (deriv. Acts 1832, ch. 11, § 4); Shan., § 6096; mod. Code 1932, § 10357; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1009.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 332, 443, 454.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 116, 117, 119; 8 Tenn. Juris., Covenants, § 4; 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 23; 13 Tenn. Juris., Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances, § 41.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remedy at Law Available — Section Inapplicable.

This section does not, by its terms, apply to cases where an attachment at law would lie, and an attachment in chancery, upon the grounds upon which an attachment at law would lie, is equivalent simply to an attachment at law. The attachment lien is not acquired by the filing of the bill, but only by the levy of the attachment. Gilliland v. Cullum, 74 Tenn. 521, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1880); King v. Patterson, 129 Tenn. 1, 164 S.W. 1191, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1914).

Chancery has no jurisdiction to aid a creditor at large, holding a legal demand, without judgment where judgment at law may be had, to subject the debtor's equitable interest in land, upon the ground of the debtor's insolvency, where there is no trust, no fraud, or no lien. McKeldin v. Gouldy, 91 Tenn. 677, 20 S.W. 231, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1892); Bryan v. Zarecor, 112 Tenn. 503, 81 S.W. 1252, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1904); Citizens' Nat'l Bank v. Watkins, 126 Tenn. 453, 150 S.W. 96, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1912).

2. Bills to Subject.

The rule in equity is that when a bill is filed to reach specific property involving inherent or statutory jurisdiction of equity, a lien is fixed upon the property upon filing of the bill without attachment. Cannon Mills, Inc. v. Spivey, 208 Tenn. 419, 346 S.W.2d 266, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 301 (1961).

3. —Equity of Redemption.

A general creditor of a nonresident debtor, not in a legal condition to redeem under the statute, may, by bill in chancery, attach the interest of his debtor in land sold by judicial sale with the right of redemption, and subject the equity of redemption to the satisfaction of his debt. Herndon v. Pickard, 73 Tenn. 702, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1880).

If the judgment creditor be in a legal condition to redeem, he cannot by such bill subject the debtor's right of redemption to the satisfaction of his judgment. Weakley v. Cockrill, 74 Tenn. 270, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (1880).

4. —Insurer's Deposits with State Comptroller.

A bill against nonresident insurance companies, upon policies on a stock of goods destroyed by fire, and to subject their bonds deposited with the state comptroller, under statute, for the security of such policyholders, is maintainable under this section, because no attachment at law would lie against such bonds, and the complainant could not sue at law. Northman v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 319 (1873).

5. Nonresident Creditor Without Judgment.

Nonresident creditors are not entitled to file bill in equity to subject property of nonresident debtor to their claims where no judgment has been secured or personal service obtained against nonresident debtors. Gasget & Co. v. Scott, 17 Tenn. 244, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1836).

6. Debt of Equitable Nature Owing.

Debt of an equitable nature alone is not sufficient to authorize the impounding of defendant's property. Graham v. Merrill, 45 Tenn. 622, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1868).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Creditors' Bills §§ 3-6.

21 C.J.S. Creditors' Suits § 41.

Power of equity court to reach, for seizure and sale, beneficial equitable interests in corporate stock shares. 42 A.L.R.2d 920.

Debtor and creditor 11.

Chapter 13
Criminal Injuries Compensation

Part 1
General Provisions

29-13-101. Short title.

This chapter and § 40-24-107 shall be known and may be cited as the “Criminal Injuries Compensation Act of 1976.”

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 23-3501, 23-35-101; Acts 1992, ch. 761, § 1.

Cross-References. Compensation for crime victims from inmate wages in restitution industries program, § 41-6-206.

Criminal injuries compensation fund, § 40-24-107.

Jurisdiction for claims under Criminal Injuries Compensation Act transferred to claims commission for all claims filed on or after January 1, 1987, § 9-8-307.

Victim's compensation where death or injury caused by motor vehicle operator's intoxication, § 40-24-107.

Victims of crime assistance fund, § 9-4-205.

Victims of drunk drivers compensation fund, § 40-24-107.

Law Reviews.

Compensating Violent Crime Victims in the State of Tennessee (Keith Jordan), 20 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 9 (1984).

Criminal Injuries Compensation (Richard W. Rucker), 24 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 28 (1989).

Criminal Injuries Compensation: A Primer (Richard W. Rucker), 23 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 32 (1987).

Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986).

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1986, 54 Tenn. L. Rev. 457 (1987).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Hospital liens on criminal injuries compensation awards, OAG 88-29 (2/10/88).

Comparative Legislation. Criminal injuries compensation:

Ala.  Code § 41-9-80 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-90-701 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 17-14-30 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 346.020 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 99-37-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.255 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15B-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 19.2-368.1 et seq.

Cited: Hawkins v. Case Mgmt., Inc., 165 S.W.3d 296, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Payments by Parolees.

Provisions of § 40-28-201, requiring parolees under certain situations to pay five dollars per month towards the cost of his or her supervision and rehabilitation and $30 per month into the criminal injuries compensation fund were taxes under state law for Tax Injunction Act purposes prohibiting federal courts from interfering with the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under state law where an efficient remedy to challenge such tax would be obtained in the courts of the state. Wright v. McClain, 835 F.2d 143, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16357 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1987).

2. Waiver.

On appeal from defendant's conviction for carjacking, defendant argued that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine the victim about her claim for criminal victim's injury compensation under T.C.A. § 29-13-101, et. seq. However, defendant did not respond to the state's objection nor object to the trial court's ruling, and he responded “that's fine” and did not make an offer of proof with regard to the excluded evidence; instead, defendant abandoned the line of questioning when the victim's cross-examination was resumed and thus, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Moore, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2010).

Collateral References. 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law §§ 25.1-25.8.

81A C.J.S. States § 195.

29-13-102. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter and § 40-24-107, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Child” means any individual, adopted or natural born, entitled to take as a child under the laws of this state by intestate succession from the parent whose relationship is involved and also includes a stepchild;
  2. “Claimant” means any person or persons filing a claim for compensation under this chapter on such person's or persons' own behalf, the guardian of a victim if the victim is a minor, the legal representative of the estate of a deceased victim, or the dependents of the victim;
  3. “Commission” means the Tennessee claims commission created pursuant to § 9-8-301;
  4. “Court” means the circuit courts of the state of Tennessee, for the purposes of filing a claim, and any court of the state which has the jurisdiction to try a crime against person or property, for the purpose of assessing the costs provided for in § 40-24-107, except general sessions courts or municipal courts may not impose such costs;
  5. “Dependents” means such relatives of a deceased victim as were receiving substantial support or needed services from the victim at the time of the victim's death, and includes the child of such victim born after such victim's death;
  6. “Division” means the division of claims and risk management created pursuant to § 9-8-401;
  7. “Family,” when used with reference to a person, includes:
    1. Any person related to such person within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
    2. Any person living in the same household as such person;
  8. “Guardian” or “legal guardian” means a person having the legal authority to provide for the care, supervision, and control of a minor child as established by law or court order;
  9. “Minor” means any person who has not attained the age of eighteen (18) years;
  10. “Offender” means a person who has or is alleged to have committed a crime;
  11. “Out of pocket expenses” means unreimbursed or unreimbursable expenditures or indebtedness reasonably incurred for medical care or other services reasonably necessary as a result of the personal injury or death upon which a claim is based;
  12. “Relative” means a spouse, parent, grandparent, stepparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half brother, half sister and a spouse's parents or stepparents; and
  13. “Victim” means a person who suffers personal injury or death as a direct and proximate result of any act of a person which is within the description of any of the offenses specified in § 29-13-104.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 2; 1977, ch. 427, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. §§ 23-3502, 23-35-102; Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 1; 1993, ch. 494, §§ 14-16; 2017, ch. 271, § 1; 2019, ch. 311, § 1.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “division of claims and risk management” for “division of claims administration” in the definition of “division”.

The 2019 amendment added the definition of “‘guardian’ or ‘legal guardian’”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 271, § 3. May 4, 2017.

Acts 2019, ch. 311, § 2. May 8, 2019.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. If a court awards the Department of Children's Services (DCS) custody of a child, DCS may be considered the guardian of the child for the purpose of filing a criminal Injuries compensation claim on behalf of the child pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-13-102(2), OAG 05-185 (12/28/05).

Cited: Gillespie v. State, 619 S.W.2d 128, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

29-13-103. Burden of proof — Documentation.

  1. The claimant has the burden of presenting to the division all facts necessary in determining whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under this part. No claimant shall be entitled to compensation unless the claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence every requirement under this part for entitlement to compensation, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. The occurrence of an offense as defined in § 29-13-104;
    2. The offense proximately caused personal injury to or death of the victim;
    3. The claimant is eligible for compensation pursuant to § 29-13-105;
    4. The claimant has fully cooperated with the police and the district attorney general in the investigation and prosecution of the offender;
    5. The amount of losses or expenses incurred by the claimant that are eligible for reimbursement pursuant to §§ 29-13-106 and 29-13-107;
    6. If the claim is based upon the death of the victim and an award in excess of funeral and burial expenses is being sought, that the claimant was a dependent of the victim within the meaning of § 29-13-102(5); and
    7. The victim or a member of the victim's family reported the offense to the proper law enforcement authorities within the time prescribed in § 29-13-108(a).
  2. The claimant must present written documentation to establish the facts required by subsection (a). Such documentation shall include, where appropriate, all medical and funeral bills, lost wage verifications, W-2 forms, death and birth certificates, and the incident report from the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 4.

Cross-References. Jurisdiction for claims under Criminal Injuries Compensation Act transferred to Tennessee claims commission for all claims filed on or after January 1, 1987, § 9-8-307.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 17 Tenn. Juris., Jurisdiction, § 22.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

29-13-104. Offenses to which compensation applies.

Payment of compensation shall be made to the claimant in accordance with this chapter for personal injury to or death of the victim which resulted from:

  1. An act committed in this state, which, if committed by a mentally competent, criminally responsible adult, would constitute a crime under state or federal law; provided, that an injury or death inflicted through the use of a motor vehicle or watercraft shall be eligible for compensation under this chapter only under the following circumstances:
    1. Evidence submitted clearly shows that the operator of the motor vehicle or watercraft directly causing the death or injury was acting with criminal intent to intentionally inflict injury or death;
    2. The operator of the motor vehicle or watercraft directly causing the death or injury was operating the motor vehicle or watercraft as is prohibited by § 55-10-401; provided, that claims for any personal injury or loss alleged to have been incurred as a result of the personal injury or death of a passenger in such a motor vehicle or watercraft shall be subject to § 29-13-119; or
    3. The crime involved the failure to stop at the scene of an accident in violation of § 55-10-101, which directly resulted in serious bodily injury or death to the victim; and the evidence shows that the operator of the motor vehicle knew or reasonably should have known that death or serious bodily injury had occurred.
  2. An attempt to prevent or the actual prevention of a crime or an attempted crime under state or federal law in this state which the victim reasonably believed had occurred or was about to occur;
  3. The apprehending of an individual who had committed a felony in the presence of the victim, if, under the circumstances, the victim could have reasonably believed that a felony had occurred; or
  4. Any of the foregoing acts committed or taken in another state if the victim was a resident of this state at the time the crime or act occurred and the claimant's request for compensation from the state in which the crime or act occurred is not honored.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 4; T.C.A., §§ 23-3504, 23-35-104; Acts 1985, ch. 278, §§ 2, 3; 1985, ch. 403, § 1; 1986, ch. 834, § 9; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1987, ch. 110, § 1; 1989, ch. 129, §§ 2, 3; 1990, ch. 755, §§ 1-3; 1992, ch. 761, § 2; 1997, ch. 302, §§ 2, 3; 2001, ch. 445, § 1; 2007, ch. 211, § 1; 2008, ch. 1043, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Although Acts 2001, ch. 445, § 3 provided that the act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after July 1, 2001, the apparent legislative intent was that the act shall apply to all claims filed on or after the effective date of that act, August 27, 2001.

Acts 2008, ch 1043, § 8 provided that the act shall apply to all claims arising from criminal acts committed on or after July 1, 2008.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Disallowing payment on court order awarding compensation, OAG 85-162 (5/16/85).

29-13-105. Persons eligible for compensation.

  1. Except as otherwise provided, the following person or persons shall be eligible for compensation pursuant to this chapter:
    1. A victim of a crime;
    2. In the case of the death of the victim, a dependent of the victim;
    3. In case of the death of a victim, where the compensation is for unreimbursed or unreimbursable mental health counseling or treatment made necessary by the death of the victim, a relative of the victim;
    4. In the case of the death of the victim, where the compensation is for unreimbursed or unreimbursable funeral or burial expenses, to the legal representative of the estate of the victim, or if no estate of the victim is opened, to a relative of the victim as defined in § 29-13-102;
    5. In the case of the personal injury of the victim, where the compensation is for expenses incurred by any person responsible for the maintenance of that victim, to that person;
    6. In the case of a sexually-oriented crime committed against a victim who is under eighteen (18) years of age, where the compensation is for unreimbursed or unreimbursable mental health counseling or treatment made necessary by the sexually-oriented crime, any sibling or non-offending custodial parent of the victim, or both; or
    7. In the case of domestic assault committed against the victim, where the compensation is for unreimbursed or unreimbursable mental health counseling or treatment made necessary by the crime, any child of the victim who witnesses the crime and who is under eighteen (18) years of age.
  2. A person who is criminally responsible for the crime upon which a claim is based, or an accomplice of such person, or anyone who has contributed to the crime in any respect, shall not be eligible to receive an award with respect to a claim under this chapter.
  3. No compensation shall be awarded a victim who was, at the time of the personal injury or death, a member of the offender's family, if it is determined that any benefit would accrue, either directly or indirectly, to the offender. This subsection (c) shall not be construed to automatically disqualify a victim who was a member of the offender's family at the time of the injury or death.
  4. A person who has been convicted of an offense under federal law with respect to any time period during which the person is delinquent in paying a fine, other monetary penalty, or restitution imposed for the offense shall not be eligible to receive an award with respect to a claim under this chapter. This subsection (d) shall not apply until the date on which the United States attorney general, in consultation with the director of the administrative office of the United States courts, issues a written determination that a cost-effective, readily available criminal debt payment tracking system operated by the agency responsible for the collection of criminal debt has established cost-effective, readily available communications links with entities that administer federal victim compensation programs that are sufficient to ensure that victim compensation is not denied to any person except as authorized by law.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 5; T.C.A., §§ 23-3505, 23-35-105; Acts 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1989, ch. 129, § 4; 1990, ch. 755, §§ 4, 5; 1997, ch. 302, § 4; 2004, ch. 918, §§ 1-3; 2008, ch. 1043, § 3.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 2004, ch. 918, § 5 provided that the amendment by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after July 1, 2004.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Nonresident claimant, OAG 83-182 (5/31/83).

Disbursements to nondependent legal representatives of estate, OAG 85-250 (9/26/85).

29-13-106. Losses or expenses reimbursable.

  1. Payment of compensation under this chapter shall be ordered for losses or expenses as defined in this section only upon submission of written documentation which clearly shows that such losses and expenses were actually and reasonably incurred by the claimant. The burden of proof of losses and expenses shall be upon the claimant. The payment of compensation under this chapter shall be awarded for:
    1. Expenses actually and reasonably incurred as a result of the personal injury or death of the victim, including, but not limited to, actual expenditures of moneys for or indebtedness resulting from medical services, hospital services, funeral and burial expenses;
    2. “Permanent partial disability” or “permanent total disability” as defined in § 29-13-107;
    3. Expenses actually and reasonably incurred as the result of the claimant traveling to and from the trial of the defendant or defendants alleged to have committed an offense as defined in § 29-13-104, regardless of whether the claimant is called as a witness, and expenses actually and reasonably incurred as the result of the claimant traveling to and from appellate, post-conviction or habeas corpus proceedings resulting from the trial of a defendant or defendants alleged to have committed a compensable offense as defined in § 29-13-104. Any award made under the preceding sentence to a claimant shall not exceed a cumulative total of one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($1,250) for all such travel. For the purposes of subdivision (a)(3) “claimant” means the victim, the guardian of a victim if the victim is a minor, the legal representative of the estate of a deceased victim, or relative of the victim as defined in § 29-13-102. As used in the preceding sentence, “legal representative of the estate of a deceased victim” shall not be construed or implemented to include any attorney who, for a fee, serves as legal representative of the estate of such victim. In no case shall compensation be awarded under this subdivision (a)(3) to more than four (4) claimants as a result of the “same criminal act” as defined in subsection (e). Further, no award shall be made to a claimant under this subdivision (a)(3) if the claimant is otherwise eligible for the payment of travel expenses by the state or any county of this state as a result of the claimant attending the trial as a witness;
    4. Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred for cleaning supplies, equipment rental and labor needed to clean the scene of a homicide, sexual assault or aggravated assault, if the scene was the residence of the victim or a relative of the victim as defined in § 29-13-102. “Cleaning the scene” means to remove, or attempt to remove, from the crime scene blood, dirt, stains or other debris caused by the crime or the processing of the crime scene;
    5. Pecuniary loss to the dependents of a deceased victim;
    6. Any other pecuniary loss, including lost wages, as defined in § 29-13-107, resulting from the personal injury or death of the victim that is determined to be reasonable;
    7. The victim's reasonable moving expenses, storage fees and fees for transfer of utility service if the move is a direct result of an assault committed upon such victim at the victim's residence, provided that the victim shall not receive compensation for more than two (2) moves resulting from the assault; and
    8. Reasonable costs of cleaning, repairing or replacing eyeglasses and hearing aids owned by the victim that were damaged or destroyed by the crime or the processing of the crime scene, and the reasonable costs of repairing or replacing personal property owned by the victim or a relative of the victim as defined in § 29-13-102 that was damaged or destroyed in processing the scene of a homicide, sexual assault or aggravated assault if the scene was the residence of the victim or the relative of the victim who owned the property.
  2. In no case will any compensation be awarded for any damage to real or personal property, except as provided in subdivision (a)(8). For the purpose of this section, “dental devices”, “artificial prosthetic devices” and “medically related devices” are not considered personal property.
  3. No compensation shall be awarded for any personal injury or loss alleged to have been incurred as a result of pain and suffering, except for victims of the crime of rape and victims of crime involving sexual deviancy, including minors who are victims of the crimes contained in §§ 39-13-502 — 39-13-505, 39-12-101, 39-13-522, 39-15-302, 39-17-902, and 39-17-1003 — 39-17-1005, and/or any attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit such offenses.
  4. Except as provided in subdivision (a)(3), no award shall be made unless the claimant has incurred a minimum out of pocket loss of one hundred dollars ($100) or has lost at least two (2) continuous weeks earnings or support, unless it is determined that the interest of justice would not be served by such a limitation.
  5. No compensation shall be awarded on account of the same criminal act in an amount in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), except as provided in subsection (h). All awards granted under subsection (a) shall be aggregated in determining this amount. For the purposes of this chapter, where a victim is injured as a result of two (2) or more criminal acts that occur:
    1. Sequentially, but involve the same criminal or group of criminals, and the same victim or group of victims; and
    2. The victim or victims remain in the presence or under the control of the criminal or criminals, then the injuries shall be deemed to have resulted from a single criminal act. For the purposes of this chapter, where a minor is the victim of crimes listed in subsection (c), and there are multiple occurrences of one (1) or more of these listed crimes by a single criminal over a period of time, then such injuries shall be deemed to have resulted from a single criminal act.
    1. Any award shall be reduced by the amounts of payment already received or any amounts which claimant is legally entitled to receive as a result of the injury:
      1. From or on behalf of the offender;
      2. From any other public or private source; or
      3. As an emergency award pursuant to § 29-13-114.
    2. It is the intent of this subsection (f) to prohibit double recoveries by criminal victims, but it shall not be construed to prohibit recovery of compensation under this chapter if the recovery from the sources set forth in subdivisions (f)(1)(A) and (B) is insufficient to reimburse the victim for total compensable injuries as set forth in this chapter. Recoveries under subdivisions (f)(1)(A) and (B) shall be considered as primary indemnification, and recoveries under subsection (a) shall be limited to compensating for injuries over and above any recoveries under subdivisions (f)(1)(A) and (B). In claims involving the death of a victim, the proceeds from any life insurance contracts payable to the victim's dependent or dependents making the claim for compensation shall not be considered a source of reimbursement.
  6. If two (2) or more persons are entitled to compensation as a result of the death of the victim, amounts shall be apportioned among claimants in proportion to their loss.
  7. It is the intent of the general assembly that the maximum award pursuant to subsection (e) equal no less than one hundred five percent (105%) of the national average of the maximum compensation award provided by the fifty (50) states within the United States, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. No later than October 1 of each year, the treasurer shall compare the maximum award limit for this program with the average of the maximum award limits of the other states; provided, however, that the other states have a maximum award limit which is ascertainable or set in a manner similar to that of Tennessee. In the event that any of the states or territories do not have an overall maximum award, the treasurer shall eliminate that state or territory from comparison. If the treasurer determines that the maximum is less than one hundred five percent (105%) of the national average, the treasurer shall adjust the maximum award to an amount equal to one hundred five percent (105%) of the national average; provided, however, that the maximum award shall be rounded up to the nearest one hundred dollars ($100). Any adjustment made pursuant to this provision shall be effective on July 1 of the next fiscal year and shall apply to claims filed for crimes occurring on or after such date. The treasurer shall make any adjustment to the maximum award by rule promulgated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 6; T.C.A., §§ 23-3506, 23-35-106; Acts 1981, ch. 163, § 4; 1984, ch. 752, §§ 1, 3, 8; 1985, ch. 278, §§ 4, 12; 1985, ch. 478, § 23; 1986, ch. 834, §§ 1, 2, 5, 8; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1988, ch. 776, §§ 1, 2, 5, 6; 1989, ch. 129, §§ 5-9; 1990, ch. 755, §§ 6-8; 1993, ch. 494, §§ 17, 18; 1996, ch. 675, § 13; 1997, ch. 302, §§ 1, 5; 1997, ch. 509, § 1, 2, 4; 1998, ch. 785, § 19; 1998, ch. 1037, § 1; 1999, ch. 271, §§ 1-3; 2000, ch. 975, §§ 1, 2; 2002, ch. 869, §§ 1, 2, 6-9.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1988, ch. 776, § 9 provided that it was the legislative intent that the amendment by that act be effective only for claims filed that arise from criminal acts committed on and after July 1, 1989.

Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 1990, ch. 755, § 16 provided that the amendment by that act applies to claims arising from crimes committed on or after July 1, 1990.

Acts 1997, ch. 302, § 7 provides that the amendment by that act shall apply to persons who are victims of criminal offenses occurring on or after July 1, 1997.

Acts 1997, ch. 509, § 5 provides that the amendments by that act shall apply to all compensable offenses committed on or after July 1, 1997.

Acts 1999, ch. 271, § 8, provided that the amendments by that act apply to all compensable offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999.

Acts 2002, ch. 869, § 12 provided that the provisions of that act shall apply to criminal acts committed on or after August 1, 2002.

Cross-References. Applicability of criminal injuries compensation fund to motor vehicle laws, § 40-24-107.

Child sexual abuse generally, title 37, ch. 1, part 6.

Law Reviews.

Criminal Injuries Compensation (Richard W. Rucker), 24 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 28 (1989).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Subrogation rights of state, OAG 86-10 (1/17/86).

29-13-107. Standards for determining amount of compensation — Uniform application of chapter.

For purposes of determining the amount of compensation to be awarded under § 29-13-106, the following standards shall be utilized in order to ensure the uniform application of this chapter:

  1. Any award made for permanent partial or permanent total disabilities proximately caused by a violent crime is to be based upon those schedules of compensation allowable by the workers' compensation statutes, found in § 50-6-207, in effect at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to such claim, for disabilities of a similar nature; provided, however, that the sixty-six and two-thirds percent (662/3%) rate prescribed in the workers' compensation statutes shall not be used in determining the amount of any award hereunder. Instead, such rate shall be eighty-five percent (85%) of the claimant's average weekly wage. Any award made for lost wages proximately caused by a violent crime is to be based upon those schedules of compensation for temporary total disability allowable by the workers' compensation statutes, found in § 50-6-207, in effect at the time of the commission of the crime giving rise to such claim; provided, however, that the sixty-six and two-thirds percent (662/3%) rate prescribed in the workers' compensation statutes shall not be used in determining the amount of any award hereunder. Instead, such rate shall be eighty-five percent (85%) of the claimant's average weekly wage. The board of claims is authorized to adopt such other standard as is required by federal law or regulation in order to qualify for matching federal funds under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, compiled generally in 42 U.S.C. § 10601 et seq., if the board of claims determines that the federally required standard is both reasonable and in the financial interest of the criminal injuries program;
  2. Excepting claims for disabilities, death, or pain and suffering where the commission of a sexually-oriented crime is involved, awards are to be payable only for those pecuniary losses actually and reasonably incurred as the result of personal injuries received through the commission of a violent crime;
  3. Any award based on the pain and suffering experienced by a claimant victimized by a sexually-oriented crime is to be made in an amount deemed necessary and appropriate, not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), taking into account the particular circumstances involved in such crime;
  4. Any award made for funeral and burial expenses shall not exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000);
  5. Any award made for expenses under § 29-13-106(a)(4) shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000);
  6. Any award made for mental health counseling or treatment pursuant to § 29-13-105(a)(3), (a)(6) or (a)(7) shall be made in an amount deemed necessary and appropriate, not to exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500); and
  7. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (6), any award made for medical or medical-related expenses, including, but not limited to, dental, chiropractic, hospital, physical therapy and nursing services, shall be made in an amount of seventy-five percent (75%) of the billed charges if there exists a sufficient amount left in the maximum award rate stipulated in § 29-13-106(e). If an insufficient amount exists in the maximum award rate to pay seventy-five percent (75%) of the billed charges, the billed charges shall be reduced to the amount remaining to bring the total compensation awarded on account of the criminal act to the maximum rate specified in § 29-13-106(e). Any medical provider or hospital that accepts payment under this part for medical or medical-related expenses or services shall accept the payment as payment in full and shall not bill any balance of those expenses to the victim or the claimant if the total payments made under this part to any such provider or hospital equal seventy-five percent (75%) of the billed charges. This subdivision (7) does not prohibit the medical provider or hospital from seeking reimbursement from the victim or the claimant for the difference, if any, between seventy-five percent (75%) of the billed charges and the amount paid by the division under this subdivision (7). This subdivision (7) does not apply to reimbursements for forensic medical examinations provided under § 29-13-118. Reimbursements for forensic medical examinations are governed by § 29-13-118.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 7; 1979, ch. 331, § 2; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 23-3507, 23-35-107; Acts 1981, ch. 163, § 5; 1984, ch. 752, § 2; 1985, ch. 278, § 5; 1986, ch. 834, § 3; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1988, ch. 776, § 4; 1989, ch. 129, § 10; 1990, ch. 755, §§ 9, 10; 1999, ch. 271, §§ 4-6; 2002, ch. 869, §§ 10, 11; 2004, ch. 918, § 4; 2008, ch. 1043, § 4.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1988, ch. 776, § 9 provided that it is the legislative intent that the amendment by that act be effective only for claims filed that arise from criminal acts committed on and after July 1, 1988.

Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 1990, ch. 755, § 16 provided that the amendment by that act applies to claims arising from crimes committed on or after July 1, 1990.

Acts 1999, ch. 271, § 8, provided that the amendments by that act apply to all compensable offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999.

Acts 2002, ch. 869, § 12 provided that the provisions of that act shall apply to criminal acts committed on or after August 1, 2002.

Acts 2004, ch. 918, § 5 provided that the amendment by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after July 1, 2004.

Acts 2008, ch 1043, § 8 provided that the act, which added subdivision (7), shall apply to all claims arising from criminal acts committed on or after July 1, 2008.

Law Reviews.

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1986, 54 Tenn. L. Rev. 457 (1987).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

29-13-108. Claims for compensation — Procedure.

  1. A claim for compensation shall be filed not later than one (1) year after the occurrence of the crime upon which the claim is based or one (1) year after the death of the victim or one (1) year after any mental or physical manifestation or injury is diagnosed as a result of an act committed against a minor that would constitute a criminal offense under §§ 39-12-101, 39-13-502 — 39-13-505, 39-13-522, 39-15-302, 39-17-902, and 39-17-1003 — 39-17-1005, and/or any attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit such offenses; provided, that upon good cause shown, the time period for filing such claim may be extended either before or after the expiration of the filing period. No claim shall be filed until the crime upon which the claim is based shall have been reported by the victim, or a member of the victim's family, to the proper authorities; and in no case may an award be made where the law enforcement records show that such report was made more than forty-eight (48) hours after the occurrence of such crime unless, for good cause shown, it is found that the delay was justified. Failure of the victim to report a crime because:
    1. The victim is physically unable;
    2. The victim is a victim of sexual assault; or
    3. The victim is a victim of domestic abuse;

      may all constitute good cause.

  2. Each claim shall be filed with the division, in person or by mail. The division is authorized to prescribe and distribute forms for the filing of claims for compensation. The claim shall set forth the name of the victim and that of the claimant, if different than that of the victim, the address of the victim and/or claimant, the county wherein the crime is alleged to have occurred, the name, if known, of the alleged offender, a brief statement of the alleged crime, the date and time the alleged crime was reported to the police, the nature of compensation claimed and the race, sex, national origin and disability, if any, of the victim, and any other information required by the board of claims in order to satisfy federal regulations issued under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
  3. Within ten (10) days after receipt of the claim, the division shall notify the district attorney general. If a prosecution is pending or imminent for an offense arising out of the crime upon which the claim is based, the division or commission, whichever is applicable, shall suspend all action on the claim upon application of the district attorney general. In such event, the district attorney general shall notify the division or commission, whichever is applicable, within ten (10) days after completion of any such prosecution. Proceedings may further be suspended in the interest of justice if a civil action arising from such offense is pending or imminent. The division or commission, whichever is applicable, shall notify the claimant of any suspension under this subsection (c). A district attorney general who fails to supply the division with the report required in subsection (d) within one hundred eighty (180) days of the division's receipt of the claim shall be deemed to have waived the right to apply for a suspension under this section, unless good cause is shown for such failure.
  4. Unless the claim is suspended under subsection (c), the division shall investigate every claim for compensation and shall make every effort to honor or deny each claim within ninety (90) days of receipt of the claim. In investigating the claim, the division shall request from the appropriate district attorney general a report which shall present any information the district attorney general may have in support of or in opposition to the claim. If the claim is denied, the division shall so notify the claimant and inform the claimant of the reasons therefor and of such claimant's right to file the claim with the claims commission within ninety (90) days of the date of the denial notice. If the claim is honored, the division shall so notify the claimant and inform the claimant of the conditions of the settlement offer and of such claimant's right to file the claim with the claims commission within ninety (90) days of the date of the settlement notice if the conditions of the settlement offer are unacceptable. If the division fails to honor or deny the claim within the ninety-day settlement period, the division shall so notify the claimant and shall automatically transfer the claim to the administrative clerk of the commission; however, if the division has not received the report of appropriate district attorney general within the ninety-day settlement period, the division may, in its discretion, suspend action on the claim for an additional period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The division shall notify the claimant of any such suspension. Unless the claim is suspended under subsection (c), the division is authorized to transfer any claim filed under this chapter to the commission prior to the expiration of the ninety-day settlement period. The appropriate district attorney general shall be notified of the action of the division on each claim.
    1. Upon filing or transferring a claim for compensation to the commission, the claim shall be considered, determined and subject to appeal in the manner set forth in § 9-8-403. If a claimant consents to having the claimant's claim proceed upon affidavits filed with the commission without a hearing, the state shall be deemed to have waived a hearing on the claim unless the district attorney general requests a hearing within sixty (60) days after the claim is filed with, or transferred to, the claims commission. The district attorney general shall investigate the claim prior to the opening of formal commission proceedings and shall present any information such district attorney general may have in support of or in opposition to the claim. The report of the district attorney general and any police or offense reports attached thereto shall be sufficient compliance therewith; provided, such reports are accompanied by an affidavit of the district attorney general or law enforcement officer, where applicable, verifying the contents of the reports. Notwithstanding the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, the affidavit and report of the district attorney general and the affidavit and report of the law enforcement officer shall be made a part of the record before the commission to the same extent as though the district attorney general or the appropriate law enforcement officer had been present and testified to the matters stated therein. The matters stated in such reports shall be presumed true in the absence of a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary. The personal attendance of the district attorney general and the law enforcement officer may be commanded only if personal attendance is necessary to resolve a good faith dispute concerning the accuracy of information furnished by the district attorney general or law enforcement officer. Where personal attendance is required, the claimant shall serve the appropriate district attorney general and the appropriate law enforcement officer with a subpoena at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing which shall contain a clause which reads: “The procedure authorized pursuant to § 29-13-108(e) will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.” Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, if the district attorney general attends the proceeding, the district attorney general may present into evidence any police or offense reports and any other reports generated through the district attorney general's investigation of the claim.
    2. The claimant may present evidence and testimony on such claimant's own behalf, or the claimant may retain counsel. Any hearing held by the commission pursuant to this chapter which involves a claim based upon a sexually oriented offense shall, upon request of the claimant or counsel, be held in chambers unless good cause exists to the contrary. With the consent of the commission, the district attorney general may stipulate the circumstances of the claimant's victimization in lieu of direct testimony by the claimant.
  5. Upon filing or transferring a claim for compensation to the commission, the division shall attach to the claim all documentation presented by the claimant in support of the claim, evidence received or considered, proposed findings, staff recommendations, memoranda, investigative reports and data submitted to the division. The documents shall be accompanied by an affidavit of an employee of the division, stating in substance that the affiant is a duly authorized custodian of the documents and has authority to certify the documents, and that the documents are true copies of all documents described in this subsection (f). Notwithstanding the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, the affidavit and the documents submitted to the commission by the division shall constitute a part of the record of the commission and shall be considered in adjudicative proceedings under this part, including judicial review thereof.
  6. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, if the division denies a claim on the basis that the claimant does not meet the eligibility requirements for compensation under this part and the claimant appeals the denial to the commission, or if the division transfers the claim to the commission as a result of its inability to honor or deny the claim within the ninety-day settlement period, the commission shall consider the claim for the sole purpose of determining whether the claimant meets such eligibility requirements. Such eligibility requirements may include a determination as to whether the claimant has shown good cause for failing to file the claim within the one-year period as prescribed in subsection (a). Such eligibility requirements may include a determination as to whether the claimant has shown good cause for failing to file the claim. If the commission determines the claimant meets the eligibility requirements to receive compensation under this part, the commission shall enter an appropriate order reflecting such determination and remand the claim to the division of claims and risk management for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled and the manner in which such compensation shall be paid pursuant to § 29-13-111. Such order shall include the findings of fact enumerated in § 29-13-109(b)(2)(A)-(H) and in § 29-13-109(b)(2)(L)-(O).
  7. Notwithstanding § 9-8-406 or any provision of this part to the contrary, the department of treasury may, at its sole discretion, submit a report to the commission which explains the department's action on the claim. Any such report shall be filed within the time allowed for the filing of a responsive brief by a party. The department shall serve copies of the report upon the claimant and the district attorney general. Any such report shall be considered by the commission without oral argument by the department.
  8. The commission shall attach to its decision all documentation presented in support of a claim for which compensation is awarded, as well as an executed subrogation agreement. The administrative clerk of the commission shall, within five (5) days of receipt of the order, notify the claimant in writing of the decision and forward to the division a certified copy of the decision.
  9. The commission may, at any time, on its own motion or on the application of the claimant, vary any award for the payment of compensation made under this chapter in such manner as the commission deems appropriate, whether as to the terms of the order or by increasing the amount of the award, or otherwise.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 8; T.C.A., §§ 23-3508, 23-35-108; modified; Acts 1985, ch. 278, § 13; 1985, ch. 478, § 24; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1988, ch. 776, § 7; 1989, ch. 129, §§ 11-13; 1993, ch. 494, §§ 5-7, 19; 1996, ch. 675, § 14; 1998, ch. 785, §§ 20-26; 2000, ch. 573, § 3; 2003, ch. 188, § 1; 2007, ch. 211, § 3; 2011, ch. 47, § 20; 2017, ch. 182, § 1; 2017, ch. 271, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 2000, ch. 573, § 5, provided that the amendment to this section by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation arising from offenses occurring on or after July 1, 1999.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 107 provided that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the eligibility for services or the rights or responsibilities of individuals covered by the provision on the day before the date of enactment of this legislation, which was July 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 108 provided that the provisions of the act are declared to be remedial in nature and all provisions of the act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

Acts 2017, ch. 182, § 2 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall apply to all applicable claims for compensation filed on or after July 1, 2017.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment by ch. 182, in (c), deleted “and the alleged offender or offenders, if described in the claim” at the end of the first sentence, and substituted “application of the district attorney general” for “application of either the district attorney general or the alleged offender” at the end of the second sentence.

The 2017 amendment by ch. 271 substituted “division of claims and risk management” for “division of claims administration” in the next to last sentence of (g).

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 182, § 2. July 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, ch. 271, § 3. May 4, 2017.

Cross-References. Child sexual abuse generally, title 37, ch. 1, part 6.

Victims bill of rights, title 40, ch. 38.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Notice to deceased offender's estate, OAG 83-007 (1/7/83).

29-13-109. Claims — Requirements — Judicial determination — Awards.

  1. No award may be made under this section unless the claimant shall have shown, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
    1. Such an act did occur; and
    2. The injury or death proximately resulted from such act.
    1. All decisions granting an award under this chapter shall be in writing and shall set forth the findings of fact and the decision whether compensation is due under this chapter.
    2. Except as provided in § 29-13-108(g), the findings of fact shall include, but not be limited to, those enumerated in this subdivision (b)(2). The findings of fact shall include:
      1. The name and address of the victim;
      2. The name and address of the claimant, if different than the victim;
      3. Whether the claimant is eligible for compensation pursuant to § 29-13-105;
      4. The date, place and nature of the offense giving rise to the claim, including a finding that the offense is within the meaning of § 29-13-104;
      5. A statement of the injuries suffered by the victim;
      6. Whether the victim contributed to the crime in any respect;
      7. The name and address of the offender or, if not known, a statement to that effect;
      8. Whether the claimant has fully cooperated with the police and the district attorney general in the investigation and prosecution of the offender;
      9. Whether the claimant has received or is eligible to receive any benefits, payments or awards from any other source;
      10. Whether the award includes payment of expenses for mental health counseling;
      11. A statement of the losses or expenses incurred by the claimant that are eligible for reimbursement pursuant to §§ 29-13-106 and 29-13-107 which have been supported by evidence presented, with such documentation attached;
      12. Whether the claimant has executed a subrogation agreement;
      13. If compensation for pain and suffering is being made, a finding that the offense was sexually oriented and the victim did experience pain and suffering as a result of commission of the offense;
      14. If the offense giving rise to the claim involved use of a motor vehicle or watercraft, a finding that the operator of the motor vehicle or watercraft was acting with criminal intent to intentionally inflict injury or death, or was operating the motor vehicle or watercraft as is prohibited by § 55-10-401;
      15. If the claim is based upon the death of the victim and an award in excess of funeral and burial expenses is being sought, a finding that the claimant was a dependent of the decedent;
      16. Whether compensation is due to the claimant under this chapter, including the amount and manner of payment;
      17. The name and address of each person to whom compensation is being paid, including the amount to be paid; and
      18. If the claimant is a minor or is incompetent, a plan for the disbursement of all funds for the benefit of the claimant pursuant to § 29-13-111.
  2. In determining whether to make an award under this section, or the amount of the award, any circumstances reasonably relevant to the criminal act may be considered, including the behavior of the victim which directly or indirectly contributed to the victim's injury or death, unless such injury or death resulted from the victim's attempt to prevent the commission of a crime or an attempted crime or to apprehend or attempt to apprehend an offender, as set forth in § 29-13-104(2) and (3).
  3. For the purposes of this chapter, a person is deemed to have intended an act, notwithstanding that by reason of age, insanity, drunkenness, or otherwise, such person was legally incapable of forming a criminal intent.
  4. No award of compensation shall be made until a subrogation agreement is executed by the claimant to the effect that the criminal injuries compensation fund will be reimbursed to the full amount expended by the fund less an award for attorney's fees should the claimant recover damages in a civil action for that injury or death. No part of the recovery due the criminal injuries compensation fund shall be diminished by any collection fees or for any other reason whatsoever.
  5. An award may be made under this section whether or not any person is prosecuted or convicted or acquitted, except as required by § 29-13-111, of any offense arising out of such act, or if such act is the subject of any other legal action. Furthermore, the apprehension of an offender is not a condition of award. However, no award shall be made unless the claimant fully cooperates with the police and district attorney general in any prosecution of the offender, which prosecution occurs either before or after the payment of such compensation. Awards may be amended under § 29-13-108(j) in furtherance of this policy.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 9; T.C.A., §§ 23-3509, 23-35-109; modified; Acts 1984, ch. 752, § 7; 1985, ch. 278, §§ 6, 14; 1986, ch. 834, §§ 4, 6, 7; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1987, ch. 110, §§ 3, 4; 1988, ch. 776, § 3; 1989, ch. 129, § 14; 1992, ch. 761, § 3; 1993, ch. 494, §§ 8-10, 20; 1998, ch. 785, §§ 27-29; 2002, ch. 869, § 3.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1988, ch. 776, § 9 provided that it was the legislative intent that the amendment by that act be effective only for claims filed that arise from criminal acts committed on and after July 1, 1988.

Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 2002, ch. 869, § 12 provided that the provisions of that act shall apply to criminal acts committed on or after August 1, 2002.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Davis v. Davis, 924 S.W.2d 351, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Bush, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 18, 2011).

29-13-110. Medical reports.

  1. In the filing of a claim, the claimant shall provide sufficient medical reports from physicians, surgeons, hospitals and other health care facilities to fully describe the injury suffered, the treatments rendered and the percentage of disability incurred, if disability benefits are requested by the claimant. At the time of final adjudication of the claim, medical reports submitted by the claimant may be returned to the claimant.
  2. If an examination of the victim and a report thereon, or a report on the cause of death of the victim, would be of material aid, a duly qualified impartial physician may be appointed to make such an examination or report, with due regard to the religious tenets of the claimant.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 10; T.C.A., §§ 23-3510, 23-35-110; Acts 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1988, ch. 776, § 8; 1989, ch. 129, §§ 15, 16.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Law Reviews.

Criminal Injuries Compensation (Richard W. Rucker), 24 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 28 (1989).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

29-13-111. Manner of payment — Exemption from execution or attachment.

  1. Upon acceptance of a settlement offer by a claimant or receipt of an order by the commission, the division shall, without further authorization, and subject to available funds, pay the claimant the amount, and in the manner determined appropriate. Such payment shall be made from the fund as set forth in § 29-13-116.
  2. All payments shall be made in a lump sum, except for those claims involving death or protracted disability, for which periodic payment of compensation may be awarded for the loss of earnings or support.
  3. If the claimant is a minor, or is incompetent, payment shall be ordered to a relative or legal guardian. In such situations, the payee shall submit a plan for the disbursement of all funds for the benefit of the claimant as will best promote the interest of the claimant. Such plan shall be submitted at the time a claim for compensation is filed. Thereafter, should the payee choose to alter or amend the terms of the plan, the payee shall file a petition with the division setting out the nature of the proposed amendment or alteration and the reasons therefor. If the division determines that the requested amendment or alteration is in the best interest of the claimant, the division is authorized to approve such amendment or alteration. If the division is unable to make such a determination, the petition shall be submitted to the commission for its consideration. In the event the payee attempts to alter or amend the terms of the plan without filing such petition, the payee is liable for all amounts expended contrary to the approved plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the division or the commission has the discretion to turn over compensation awarded to a minor to the juvenile court pursuant to part 3 of this chapter, to be placed in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the minor.
    1. Notwithstanding any provision of this part to the contrary, if the claimant has outstanding health care, funeral or burial expenses resulting from the injury or death which was the basis of the claim and if any compensation remains after making provision for the payment of all other eligible losses and expenses to the claimant, the division or commission may, in their discretion, make the remaining compensation payable to the health care or funeral provider.
    2. Where multiple health care or funeral providers exist and the remaining compensation is inadequate to pay the entire indebtedness, the division or commission may divide the remaining compensation equally among the providers or, in the division or commission's discretion, apportion the remaining compensation among the providers in accordance with the claimant's instructions.
    3. Nothing in this subsection (d) shall be construed to increase the maximum amount that may otherwise be awarded under § 29-13-107(7).
    1. Except as provided in subdivisions (e)(2) and (3), no award pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to execution or attachment other than for expenses resulting from the injury or death which is the basis of the claim.
    2. If any claimant is entitled to direct compensation pursuant to this chapter and is in arrears with regard to child support payments, the department of human services shall, without further order by the court, attach a lien to any award of compensation such child support obligor receives from the criminal injuries compensation funds in order to satisfy such arrearage; however, a lien shall not apply to awards made by the division directly to service providers pursuant to subsection (d). The division shall periodically notify the department of human services of claims that have been filed. Upon notice from the division, it shall be the department of human services' responsibility to then notify the division of a lien attaching to a claim for payment of child support arrearage. This subsection (e) shall be effective for decisions made on or after July 1, 2012.
    3. If any minor claimant is entitled to direct compensation pursuant to this chapter and a trust fund has been established for the minor claimant in accordance with part 3 of this chapter, the juvenile court clerk may, without further order of the court, withhold any funds within the trust for the purpose of paying court costs, fines, fees, or restitutions resulting from the minor beneficiary's actions pending in juvenile court.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 11; T.C.A., §§ 23-3511, 23-35-111; Acts 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1987, ch. 110, § 2; 1989, ch. 129, §§ 17-19; 1993, ch. 494, §§ 11, 21; 1995, ch. 490, § 1; 2008, ch. 1043, § 5; 2012, ch. 894, § 1; 2013, ch. 324, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment, in (e),  added “Except as provided in subdivision (e)(2),” to the beginning of (1), and added (2).

The 2013 amendment, in (e), substituted “subdivisions (e)(2) and (3)” for “subdivision (e)(2)” near the beginning of (1), and added (3).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 894, § 2. July 1, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 324, § 4. May 13, 2013.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Criminal injuries compensation awards are not subject to hospital liens arising under T.C.A. § 29-22-101. OAG 00-139 (9/1/00).

29-13-112. Attorney's fees.

    1. In addition to the amount of compensation awarded under this chapter, reasonable attorney's fees shall be determined and allowed to the attorney representing the claimant; provided, that no attorney's fees shall exceed the lesser of the following:
      1. Fifteen percent (15%) of the first two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) of compensation awarded, plus ten percent (10%) of any compensation awarded over two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500); or
      2. Three hundred seventy-five dollars ($375) for claims resulting from the death of the victim or five hundred dollars ($500) for all other claims.
    2. Notwithstanding subdivision (a)(1), an attorney who is aggrieved by the amount of attorney's fees allowed may petition the commission for a review thereof. In determining whether to grant the petition for review, the commission shall take into account the complexity of the claim, the amount of time the attorney spent in representing the claimant, and such other matters as the commission deems appropriate. The petition must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the settlement notice, or if the claim was heard by the commission, within thirty (30) days of the date of the commission's order. The petition shall set forth with specificity the reasons the commission should grant the review. If the commission grants the petition, the commission may increase the amount of attorney's fees allowed.
    3. Provided, that in no case may the total fees granted under subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) exceed a maximum of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
    1. There shall be no compensation to an attorney whose fees are paid for under any federally funded legal services program, or any such program funded by the state.
    2. However, compensation shall be determined and allowed in accordance with subsection (a) to an attorney employed in a privately or publicly funded nonprofit public interest law firm or corporation if the following conditions are met:
      1. The attorney filed the claim on behalf of the claimant as part of the attorney's ongoing representation of the claimant in a civil action arising from the injury or death which was the basis of the claim; and
      2. Neither the attorney, the law firm nor the corporation received, or is entitled to receive, compensation for filing the claim on behalf of the claimant under any federal or state statute or rule.
  1. It is unlawful for any attorney to ask for, contract for or receive any larger sum than the amount so allowed under this section.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 12; T.C.A., §§ 23-3512, 23-35-112; Acts 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1989, ch. 129, § 20; 1993, ch. 494, § 12; 1994, ch. 808, § 3.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 129, § 23 provided that the 1989 amendments by that act shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after January 1, 1990.

Acts 1994, ch. 808, § 5 provided that this section shall apply to all claims filed on or after July 1, 1994.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Conflicts of interest of attorneys who are also legislators, OAG 88-105 (5/25/88).

An attorney, including a Title 37 guardian ad litem, who files a criminal injuries compensation claim on behalf of a child at the request of the Department of Children's Services is eligible for attorney's fees, OAG 05-185 (12/28/05).

29-13-113. Subrogation.

  1. Whenever any person is convicted of an offense and an order for the payment of compensation is or has been made under this chapter for a personal injury or death resulting from the act constituting such offense, the state of Tennessee may institute an action against such person for the recovery of the whole or any specified part of the compensation in the circuit courts of the state of Tennessee in any county, in a state, or in a federal court of any other state or district in which such person resides.
  2. An order for the payment of compensation under this chapter shall not affect the right of any person to recover damages from any other person by a civil action for the injury or death.
  3. As a condition for the receipt of a criminal injuries compensation award, the recipient of an award shall agree, by such form as the board of claims may direct, to cooperate fully with appropriate officials of the state should the state proceed to institute an action against the criminal offender to recover the whole or any specified part of the compensation awarded.
  4. Should any person receiving an award for criminal injuries compensation choose to exercise such person's right to recover damages in civil court for injury or death, such person shall notify the district attorney general and the division of the institution of such a lawsuit by serving the district attorney general and the division through the United States mail with a copy of the complaint, all subsequent pleadings and a copy of the final judgment in order to give the state notice of the existence of such an action so that the state may pursue its subrogated interest.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 13; Acts 1980, ch. 628, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 23-3513, 23-35-113; Acts 1984, ch. 752, § 9; 1993, ch. 494, § 13.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Attorney General Opinions. Effect of failure to give notice of claim, OAG 83-007 (1/7/83).

Subrogation rights of state for reimbursement, OAG 86-10 (1/17/86).

29-13-114. Emergency award.

  1. If it appears to the claims commission, prior to any hearing on a claim, that:
    1. Such claim is one with respect to which an award will probably be made; and
    2. Undue hardship will result to the claimant if immediate payment is not made;

      the claims commission may make an emergency award to the claimant pending a final decision in the case.

  2. The amount of such emergency award shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
  3. The amount of such emergency award shall be deducted from any final award made to the claimant. The excess of the amount of such emergency award over the final award, or the full amount of the emergency award if no final award is made, shall be repaid by the claimant to the state.
  4. No emergency award shall be made pursuant to this section unless the board of claims certifies that there is sufficient money in the fund to pay all awards that have been made pursuant to this chapter.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 14; T.C.A., §§ 23-3514, 23-35-114; Acts 1985, ch. 278, § 7; 1986, ch. 911, § 3.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

29-13-115. Penalty.

Any person who asserts a false claim under this chapter, knowing such claim to be false, commits a Class C misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall forfeit any benefit received and shall reimburse and repay the state for payments received or paid on such person's behalf pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 15; T.C.A., §§ 23-3515, 23-35-115; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

29-13-116. Use of state and federal funds — Expenses — Grants.

  1. Funds available from the criminal injuries compensation fund, created under § 40-24-107, shall be expended to effectuate this chapter, including all expenses to administer this chapter.
  2. Use of available federal funds shall be specifically permitted to fund this program. In the event federal funds are made available to the state, the division of claims and risk management is hereby authorized to comply with any additional requirements imposed by the federal government so long as compliance with such provisions is not prohibited by, or contrary to, this chapter.
  3. The treasurer is authorized to award an annual grant to the district attorneys general conference for domestic violence and drug enforcement program operations in an amount not to exceed that specified in the general appropriations act each fiscal year. The treasurer is also authorized to provide an annual sponsorship for a remembrance event for homicide victims in an amount not to exceed eight hundred fifty dollars ($850).
  4. In the event that the moneys in the criminal injuries compensation fund are inadequate to support subsections (a)-(c), there is hereby appropriated a sum sufficient to support those expenditures.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 16(e); 1979, ch. 319, § 2; T.C.A., §§ 23-3516, 23-35-116; Acts 1985, ch. 278, § 8; 1992, ch. 761, § 4; 2000, ch. 983, § 2; 2002, ch. 869, § 5; 2003, ch. 235, § 1; 2004, ch. 693, §§ 1, 2; 2008, ch. 1077, § 1; 2014, ch. 1004, § 1; 2017, ch. 271, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2002, ch. 869, § 12 provided that the provisions of that act shall apply to criminal acts committed on or after August 1, 2002.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment added the last sentence in (c).

The 2017 amendment substituted “division of claims and risk management” for “division of claims administration” in the second sentence of (b).

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 1004, § 2. May 22, 2014.

Acts 2017, ch. 271, § 3. May 4, 2017.

Cross-References. Criminal injuries compensation fund, § 40-24-107.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

29-13-117. Statistical reports.

The state treasurer shall include in the annual report of the state treasurer, such financial, statistical or other relevant information to accurately report the financial condition of the criminal injuries compensation fund and the operation of this chapter.

Acts 1976, ch. 736, § 17; T.C.A., §§ 23-3517, 23-35-117; Acts 1985, ch. 278, § 11.

29-13-118. Forensic medical examinations in sexual assault cases.

  1. For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “forensic medical examination” means an examination provided to a victim of a sexually-oriented crime by any health care provider who gathers evidence of a sexual assault in a manner suitable for use in a court of law.
    1. A victim of a sexually-oriented crime, defined as a violation of §§ 39-13-502 – 39-13-506, 39-13-522, 39-13-527, 39-13-531, and 39-13-532, shall be entitled to forensic medical examinations without charge to the victim. No bill for the examination shall be submitted to the victim, nor shall the medical facility hold the victim responsible for payment. All claims for forensic medical examinations are eligible for payment from the criminal injuries compensation fund, created under § 40-24-107.
    2. Notwithstanding any provision of this part to the contrary, the victims shall not be required to report the incident to law enforcement officers or to cooperate in the prosecution of the crime in order to be eligible for payment of forensic medical examinations.
  2. A claim for compensation under this section shall be filed no later than one (1) year after the date of the examination by the health care provider that performed the examination, including a hospital, physician, SANE program, Child Advocacy Center, or other medical facility. The claim shall be filed with the division, in person or by mail. The division is authorized to prescribe and distribute forms for the filing of claims for compensation. The claim shall set forth the name and address of the victim, and any other information required by the division in order to satisfy federal regulations issued under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, compiled generally in 42 U.S.C. § 10601 et seq. The claim shall be accompanied by an itemized copy of the bill from the health care provider that conducted the examination. The bill shall, at a minimum, set forth the name of the victim, the date the examination was performed, the amount of the bill, the amount of any payments made on the bill, and the name and address of the health care provider that performed the examination.
  3. The amount of compensation that may be awarded under this section shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), and shall constitute full compensation to the health care provider that provided the service. No provider receiving compensation pursuant to this section shall bill the victim for any additional cost related to the forensic medical examination. The compensation shall be made pursuant to this subsection (d) no later than ninety (90) days after receiving the documentation required under subsection (c).
  4. Payment to a health care provider under this section does not prohibit the victim from receiving other payments for which the victim may be eligible under this part or any other law.

Acts 2007, ch. 511, § 1; 2008, ch. 1043, § 6; 2016, ch. 905, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-13-118 (Acts 1984, ch. 997, § 2; 1985, ch. 278, § 9; 1986, ch. 911, § 3; 1989, ch. 129, § 21), concerning payment and priority of awards, was repealed by Acts 2002, ch. 869, § 4, effective August 1, 2002.

Acts 2007, ch. 511, § 2 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to the specified sexually-oriented crimes committed on or after July 1, 2007.

Acts 2016, ch. 905, § 2 provided that  the act, which amended this section, shall apply to all claims for compensation filed pursuant to this section for forensic medical examinations performed on or after July 1, 2016.

Amendments. The 2016 amendment substituted “one thousand dollars ($1,000)” for “seven hundred fifty dollars ($750)” in the first sentence of (d).

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 905, § 2. July 1, 2016.

29-13-119. Claims by passengers in motor vehicles or watercraft.

  1. Claims for compensation brought under § 29-13-104(1)(B) shall be barred if the victim knew or reasonably should have known that the operator of the motor vehicle or watercraft was legally intoxicated or under the influence of a drug of abuse or both as proscribed by title 55. For purposes of this section, “a drug of abuse” shall mean any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug that produces stimulating effects on the central nervous system.
  2. For purposes of this section and § 29-13-104(1)(B), a rebuttable presumption shall exist that the victim knew or reasonably should have known that the driver was legally intoxicated or under the influence of a drug of abuse or both as proscribed by title 55. The fact that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or both shall not mitigate, excuse or justify the victim's failure to have reasonably known that the operator of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse or both.
  3. The rebuttable presumption provisions shall not apply if on the date of the offense the victim was under fourteen (14) years of age, or was at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than eighteen (18) years of age and was riding with a parent, guardian or other person exercising parental control over the victim.

Acts 2001, ch. 445, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-13-119 (Acts 1996, ch. 984, § 1), concerning statewide public awareness program for the fund, was repealed by Acts 1996, ch. 984, § 2, effective June 30, 1998.

Although Acts 2001, ch. 445, § 3 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to all claims for compensation filed on or after July 1, 2001, the apparent legislative intent was that the act shall apply to all claims filed on or after the effective date of that act, August 27, 2001.

Part 2
[Reserved]

Part 3
Trust Fund for Awards to Minors

29-13-301. Part definitions.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Commission” means the Tennessee claims commission created pursuant to § 9-8-301;
  2. “Criminal injuries compensation award” means the compensation awarded pursuant to part 1 of this chapter;
  3. “Division” means the division of claims and risk management created pursuant to § 9-8-401;
  4. “Guardian ad litem” means a responsible adult appointed by the juvenile court to protect the rights and interests of the minor;
  5. “Juvenile court” means the court having juvenile court jurisdiction in the county where the minor resides; and
  6. “Minor” means any person who has not attained eighteen (18) years of age and who has not been otherwise emancipated.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 1; 2017, ch. 271, § 1.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “division of claims and risk management” for “division of claims administration” in the definition of “division”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 271, § 3. May 4, 2017.

29-13-302. Establishment of trust.

The commission or the division may, in such manner as it deems appropriate, turn over criminal injury compensation awards made to a minor to the juvenile court clerk to be placed in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the minor. The award shall be accompanied with a petition and order directing the clerk to set up a fund for the minor.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 1.

29-13-303. Basis for encroachment of funds.

Encroachment on the funds shall be allowed for any injury related expenses specifically contemplated by the commission or the division in granting the compensation award. Encroachment on the funds may also be allowed for unusual medical expenses, including, but not limited to, eyeglasses or braces, or for unusual educational opportunities, such as school field trips, or, with good cause shown, other need of the minor, provided such need is not for normal living expenses. Encroachment on the funds shall not be allowed if the minor is legally entitled to receive payment for such expenses from any other public or private source including, but not limited to, insurance, TennCare or medicaid.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

T.C.A. § 29-34-105, rather than T.C.A. § 29-13-303, applied to the father's encroachment request where the source of the child's funds was a tort settlement. Smith v. Childlife, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

29-13-304. Procedure for encroachment.

  1. In order to obtain encroachment on the funds, a motion must be filed with the juvenile court by the custodian or other appropriate individuals.
  2. The motion shall state the minor's name, the amount of money being currently held in the clerk's office for the benefit of the minor, the particular need or expense for which disbursement is sought, and the amount sought.
  3. At the hearing, the custodian or other appropriate individual petitioning the court to encroach shall be placed under oath and shall testify as to the minor's need.
  4. In the event the court grants the motion, an order shall be filled out stating the date, the amount of the disbursement, and to whom the check or checks are to be made payable.
  5. In the event that the check is to be made payable to a health care provider or to the school or other appropriate person, the clerk's office shall be charged with the responsibility of obtaining the address of the health care provider, the school or other appropriate person or agency and forwarding the check directly to them.
  6. In the event the sum is made payable to the custodian or other appropriate individual, that person shall be responsible for making an accounting to the court thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing as to how the money was spent. In these situations, the court shall direct a probation officer to monitor the file and issue a show cause hearing in the event the custodian or other appropriate individual does not make the accounting to the court in the time prescribed by the court.
  7. In unusual circumstances, a guardian ad litem may be appointed to determine whether or not disbursing the funds is in the best interest of the minor.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 1.

29-13-305. Forms.

The clerk's office shall provide forms which may be necessary to seek an encroachment order under this part. These forms shall be limited to use in causes filed under this part and they shall be made available to all who request assistance in filing a petition. The petitioner is not limited to the use of these forms and may present to the court any legally sufficient petition in whatever form. The office of the clerk shall also assist a person who is not represented by counsel by filling in the name of the court on the petition, by indicating where the petitioner's name shall be filled in, by reading through the petition form with the petitioner, and by rendering any other such assistance as is necessary for the filing of the petition.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1.

29-13-306. Clerk's fee.

To defray the expenses of administering a criminal injury compensation award under this part, the juvenile court clerk shall be entitled to receive a flat fee not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total amount tendered into the court. The fee shall be deducted by the clerk from the compensation award.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 1.

29-13-307. Residence change.

  1. If the minor becomes a resident of another county in this state or becomes a resident of another state, the court may request the juvenile court of the county of the state in which the child has become a resident to accept jurisdiction of the trust and to continue the terms of the trust as set forth herein.
  2. Upon receipt and filing of an acceptance, the court shall transfer the funds and interest income of the trust to the accepting court. It shall also provide that court with certified copies of the petition and order setting up the trust, motions and orders to encroach, and any other information it considers of assistance to the accepting court in administering the trust.
  3. Upon compliance with subsection (b), the jurisdiction of the transferring court over the trust is terminated.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 1.

29-13-308. Termination of trust.

Upon attaining eighteen (18) years of age, the minor may terminate the trust by submitting a written request therefor with the court clerk. The court clerk shall deliver to the minor all funds and interest income remaining in the trust less any outstanding fees, court costs, fines, or restitutions resulting from the minor beneficiary's actions pending in juvenile court within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the request.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 2013, ch. 324, § 1.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment inserted “less any outstanding fees, court costs, fines, or restitutions resulting from the minor beneficiary's actions pending in juvenile court” in the last sentence.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 324, § 4. May 13, 2013.

29-13-309. Denial of petition to establish trust — Transfer of fund to juvenile court.

The juvenile court may deny a petition to establish a trust for the benefit of a minor as provided in this part; provided, that the court issues an order to that effect within fourteen (14) business days after receipt of the petition. The juvenile court clerk shall return the award to the division accompanied with the order. Upon receipt of the order, the division shall turn the award over to the clerk of the court having probate jurisdiction in the county where the minor resides. The award shall be accompanied with a petition and order directing the clerk to set up a fund for the minor as provided herein. The court shall accept jurisdiction of the trust and shall have all of the rights, duties and obligations as a juvenile court is required or authorized to perform under this part.

Acts 1993, ch. 494, § 1; 1994, ch. 808, § 2.

Part 4
Victims' Compensation from the Proceeds of Crime

29-13-401. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Victim Compensation from the Proceeds of the Crime Act of 1994.”

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 1.

Attorney General Opinions. Constitutionality, OAG 94-026 (3/10/94).

29-13-402. Part definitions.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Attorney general and reporter” means the Tennessee attorney general and reporter;
  2. “Crime” means an offense under the laws of this state resulting in a specific physical, mental, or pecuniary injury, or death, to another person, and includes multiple crimes committed by a defendant;
  3. “Defendant” means a person who:
    1. Is convicted of a crime in this state;
    2. Is judged not guilty by reason of insanity;
    3. Pleads nolo contendere to a specific criminal charge; or
    4. Has been formally charged with a crime but is still awaiting trial; and
  4. “Victim” means:
    1. A person, not an accomplice of the defendant, who suffers a specific physical, mental, or pecuniary injury as a direct result of a crime; or
    2. The estate of a person who dies as a direct result of a crime.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 2.

29-13-403. Defendant's income — Collection — Deposit.

    1. The attorney general and reporter shall collect all income, from whatever source derived, which is owing to the defendant, or representative or assignee of the defendant, after the date of the crime.
    2. If the district attorney general of the district in which a defendant's conviction occurred, or any district attorney general, has or becomes aware of any information concerning income that is in such defendant's possession or is owing to such defendant, it shall be the duty of such district attorney general to notify the attorney general and reporter of such information.
    3. Any such district attorney general who has or becomes aware of information concerning a defendant's income as described in subdivision (a)(2) shall also assist and work with the attorney general and reporter in locating and collecting such income.
  1. The attorney general and reporter shall deposit the moneys collected in an interest-bearing escrow account in the name of the defendant. The moneys shall be payable to the victim or victims of the crime committed by the defendant. The moneys shall only be payable if the victim, or legal representative of the victim's estate, brings a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for money damages against the defendant within three (3) years from the date of the crime, subject to § 29-13-404.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 3; 1995, ch. 506, § 1.

29-13-404. Limitations period.

Notwithstanding any inconsistent law with respect to survival of civil actions, the three-year period for filing a civil action as provided by § 29-13-403(b) does not begin to run until:

  1. All moneys owing to the defendant under the terms of the contract have been paid to the attorney general and reporter; and
  2. An escrow account has been established for the benefit of the defendant's victims.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 4.

29-13-405. Notice to victims.

After establishing an escrow account, the attorney general and reporter shall notify victims of the existence of the account in the following manner:

  1. By direct notification, if direct notice to a victim is possible and not unreasonable under the circumstances, as frequently as provided by subdivision (2), that moneys are available to satisfy a civil judgment pursuant to this part; and
  2. If direct notice is not possible, by publication of a legal notice in a newspaper in the county in which the crime was committed and in counties contiguous to that county. The notice shall advise the victim that escrow moneys are available to satisfy a money judgment pursuant to this part. The notice shall be published once every three (3) months for three (3) years after the date the escrow account is established. The attorney general and reporter may provide for additional notice as deemed necessary.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 5.

29-13-406. Apportionment of funds among victims.

  1. If more than one (1) victim may claim funds from an escrow account, no victim may be compensated until all claims against the defendant have been adjudicated.
  2. If more than one (1) victim recovers a judgment for money damages, and funds from the escrow account are insufficient to satisfy fully all judgments, money shall be apportioned to each victim on a prorated basis.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 6.

29-13-407. Return of funds to defendant.

  1. The attorney general and reporter immediately shall pay over to the defendant all of the funds in the escrow account:
    1. Upon a showing by the defendant, or representative of the defendant, that three (3) years have elapsed from the date the escrow account has been established, and no civil actions are pending against the defendant; or
    2. Upon disposition of the criminal charges favorable to the defendant.
  2. If the defendant fails to make a showing under subdivision (a)(1) to the attorney general and reporter that the limitations period has expired, within six (6) months after the expiration of the period, the attorney general and reporter shall turn over all moneys in the escrow account to the criminal injuries compensation fund of this state.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 7.

29-13-408. Use of funds for legal representation.

Upon a showing by the defendant to the attorney general and reporter or the court in which the defendant's case on appeal is pending, that legal representation would not be otherwise affordable, the defendant shall be entitled to use funds from the escrow account to obtain legal representation at any stage of the criminal proceedings, including the appeals process. The defendant's use of such funds shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total amount of the funds paid into the escrow account.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 8.

29-13-409. Failure by defendant to establish claim for return of funds.

Upon a showing by the defendant that three (3) years have passed since the date the escrow account was established, and that all civil judgments against the defendant have been satisfied, all remaining funds from the escrow account shall be paid to the defendant. If the defendant fails to make such a showing within six (6) months after the expiration of the limitation period, the attorney general and reporter shall turn over the remaining moneys in the escrow account to the criminal injuries compensation fund established by § 29-13-101.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 9.

29-13-410. Violation of part — Penalty.

An entity violating this part commits a Class A misdemeanor. If an entity contracts and makes payment to a defendant in violation of this part, the entity is liable to a victim of crime for three (3) times the amount that victim would be entitled to receive, plus the costs of collection including attorney's fees.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 10.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class A misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

29-13-411. Acts in derogation of part.

Any action taken by the defendant, whether by way of execution of a power of attorney, creation of corporate identity or otherwise, to defeat the purpose of this part is void as against the public policy of the state.

Acts 1994, ch. 1003, § 11.

Chapter 14
Declaratory Judgments

29-14-101. Definition of person.

“Person,” wherever used in this chapter, is construed to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated association, or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 13; Shan. Supp., § 4726a13; Code 1932, § 8847; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1101; 2012, ch. 886, § 3.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment inserted “trust,”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 886, § 13. May 9, 2012.

Cross-References. Declaratory judgments, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 57.

Rule Reference. This section is referred to in the text and Advisory Commission Comments of Rule 57 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 546.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), Nos. 1-57-1, 4-1508.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 94; 21 Tenn. Juris., Public Service Commissions, § 3.

Law Reviews.

An examination of the Tennessee Law of Administrative Procedure (George Street Boone), 1 Vand. L. Rev. 339.

Attorney vs. Client: Lien Rights and Remedies in Tennessee (Margret H. Tucker), 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 435.

Civil Procedure and Evidence — Tennessee Survey 1970 (Jerry J. Phillips), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 127.

Constitutional Law — Campbell v. Sundquist: Tennessee's Homosexual Practices Act Violates the Right to Privacy, 28 U. Mem. L. Rev. 311 (1997).

Death and Dying in Tennessee (Edward J. McKenney, Jr.), 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 503.

Declaratory Judgments in Tennessee, 4 Tenn. L. Rev. 104.

Judgments and Appeal, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 373.

Judgments — Future Contingency as Basis for Declaratory Judgment, 15 Tenn. L. Rev. 400.

Judicial Review under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act — An Update (Ben H. Cantrell), 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 589 (1984).

Justiciability in Tennessee, Part Three: Timing (Barbara Kritchevsky), 16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 177 (1986).

Justiciability of Suits for Declaratory Judgments — Federal Rule, 11 Tenn. L. Rev. 294.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

1985 Tennessee Survey: Selected Developments in Tennessee Law, 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 389 (1986).

Taxation — Exemption of Housing Authority, 15 Tenn. L. Rev. 829.

The Calling of a Limited Constitutional Convention, 21 Tenn. L. Rev. 249.

The Limited Constitutional Convention, 21 Tenn. L. Rev. 867.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act Adopted in Tennessee, 1 Tenn. L. Rev. 38.

Attorney General Opinions. Standing to contest city annexation ordinance, OAG 99-076 (4/5/99).

Comparative Legislation. Declaratory judgments:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-220 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-111-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 418.040 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 527.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-253 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-184 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Shelby County board of commissioners was such a person as to be entitled to maintain declaratory judgment suit for declaration of powers and duties in controversy with quarterly county court. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

The Declaratory Judgments Act, codified in this section, imposes stricter requirements than those imposed generally by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19.01 and 19.02; while joinder may not be required under rules 19.01 and 19.02, it is clearly required in a suit for declaratory relief pursuant to § 29-14-107(a). Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Because of the nature of declaratory relief, the Declaratory Judgments Act, this section, makes it incumbent that every person having an affected interest be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before declaratory relief may be granted. Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

2. Jurisdiction.

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not give trial courts jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments against the commissioner of revenue. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991).

This act does not authorize suits against state entities such as the Tennessee board of paroles (now board of probation and parole) or the Tennessee department of correction, and the chancery court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a suit. Watson v. Tennessee Dep't of Correction, 970 S.W.2d 494, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Inmate was not entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that because of his medical condition he should be drug tested by patch rather than urine sample when the Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., does not permit the filing of a suit against the state to construe statutes; the chancery court lacked the jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action against the Department of Correction and T.C.A. §§ 4-5-223 and 4-5-225 did not apply to the internal management of state government if the policy did not affect the private rights, privileges, or procedures available to the public pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, T.C.A. § 4-5-102(10)(A) (now § 4-5-102(12)(A)). Fuller v. Campbell, 109 S.W.3d 737, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 533 (Tenn. May 27, 2003), appeal denied, —S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. 2003).

Trial court was acting within its jurisdiction and within the confines of due process where a case arising from a denial of a zoning application was treated as an original action; city council could have been found in contempt for violating the trial court's order where the judgment stated that the trial court was considering the case as a declaratory action, exhibits were introduced, the trial court's order contained several findings of fact, additional testimony was heard, and findings were made that a city council's decision was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. Flautt & Mann v. Council of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2008).

3. Application.

In a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff city councilor asserted a violation of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. § 8-44-101 et seq., the trial court erred in awarding the councilor attorney's fees and costs because the councilor was not a prevailing party as asserted by the trial court, and—even if he was—neither the Tennessee Open Meetings Act or the Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., provided for an award of attorney's fees to a successful litigant. Fannon v. City of Lafollette, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2010), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, LaFollette, 329 S.W.3d 418, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 1207 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2010).

In a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Voter Identification Act (the Act), T.C.A. § 2-7-112(a)(1)(B), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the photo identification (ID) requirement is a logical method of protecting the integrity of elections by combating voter fraud and that requiring a person to provide government-issued photo ID is a practical, narrowly tailored means for the State to guard against the risk of voter impersonation. City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 779 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1101 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013).

Chancery court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus compelling a board of education to hear an appeal of the termination of a non-teaching employee because there was no testimony or other evidence introduced as to what, if any, policy the board had developed with respect to the dismissal of employees as required by the Education Improvement Act of 1991; a declaratory judgment proceeding was the more appropriate procedure since the board's answer denied salient allegation of the petition. State ex rel. Aina-Labinjo v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013).

Trial court erred in dismissing homeowners'  declaratory judgment action challenging an ordinance because the enactment of the ordinance that rezoned the homeowners'  property and amended the zoning ordinance was a legislative act and was subject to judicial scrutiny through an action for declaratory judgment; the ordinance was a re-zoning ordinance, amended the existing zoning ordinance, and required changes in the official zoning map, and thus, it qualified as a legislative action. Brown v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2013).

Could not proceed under the Declaratory Judgment Act because an allegation against the Tennessee State Election Commission (TSEC) pertaining to an unconstitutional statute was a threshold requirement to remove or waive immunity, and the candidate did not make such an allegation but sought a declaration as to the TSEC's duty to educate voters; accordingly, the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to hear his suit for declaratory judgment under the Act. Johnston v. Tenn. State Election Comm'n, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

4. Justiciability.

Trial court properly dismissed appellant's action for a declaratory judgment that an opponent for city council was not a qualified candidate and to enjoin a county election commission from including the opponent's name on the ballot because the case was moot; the opponent had received nearly 80 percent of the votes cast in the election and had been inaugurated into the position. Hatcher v. Chairman, Shelby County Election Comm'n, 341 S.W.3d 258, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 856 (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009).

Tenant's assignee was a necessary party under T.C.A. §§ 29-14-103 and 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19.01 and 19.02 in a suit filed under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., as the dispute between the buyer and the seller included their purchase contract and a rooftop agreement between the seller and a tenant, as assigned to the assignee; the holding that the rooftop agreement created a lease, and not an easement, determined the legal property interest created in the tenant and assigned to the assignee, and implicitly determined that the relationship of the parties to the rooftop agreement was one of landlord-tenant. Adler v. Double Eagle Props. Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011).

Individual citizens who sought to vote by using municipal library photographic identification cards, but not the city which sought to enforce the citizens right to vote, demonstrated standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Voter Identification Act, T.C.A. § 2-7-112. City of Memphis v. Hargett, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1101 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013).

29-14-102. General power of courts.

  1. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions have the power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.
  2. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for.
  3. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 4726a1; Code 1932, § 8835; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1102.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 21.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law — Bemis Pentecostal Church v. State: The Validity of Tennessee's Campaign Disclosure Act, 18 Mem. St. U. L. Rev. 324 (1989).

Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Single-automobile Accident, 33 Tenn. L. Rev. 238.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This statute does not violate Tenn. Const., art. VI, § 1, relating to judicial power. Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924).

2. Jurisdiction.

Although federal courts were without jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments, in a proper case the supreme court could review such judgments of a state court. Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Grannis, 273 U.S. 70, 47 S. Ct. 282, 71 L. Ed. 541, 1927 U.S. LEXIS 682 (1927).

Where the court is without jurisdiction, a decree under this statute would not be conclusive. Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 241 (1928).

A declaratory judgment is proper in chancery but only if chancery could have originally entertained a suit of the same subject-matter. Zirkle v. Kingston, 217 Tenn. 210, 396 S.W.2d 356, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 535 (1965).

Suit by circuit court clerk questioning authority of clerk and master of Roane County to act as clerk of general sessions court under private act and asserting authority of circuit court clerk to act in that capacity under general statute could not be brought as declaratory judgment action but was required to be brought as action in nature of quo warranto. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

Suit for declaratory judgment to have constitutional amendment proposed by constitutional convention adjudged void and to enjoin submitting such proposal to the electorate for ratification was premature where convention had not yet adjourned and could convene again and alter its proposal. Southern R. Co. v. Dunn, 483 S.W.2d 101, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (Tenn. 1972).

State courts have no jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgment action against commissioner of revenue. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Taylor, 781 S.W.2d 837, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 526 (Tenn. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 905, 110 S. Ct. 2587, 110 L. Ed. 2d 268, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2907 (1990).

In addition to case law, the exclusivity provision of § 67-1-1804 establishes an independent basis for holding that the chancery court should not have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to this section in an action involving state revenue. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. 1991).

Declaratory judgment entered under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-102 et seq., was proper as there was a justiciable controversy between parties with adverse interests and subject matter jurisdiction was properly exercised since appellants alleged that they were the decedent's heirs, that the decedent's revocable trust failed to provide for the final disposition of the residue of a trust for the decedent's son, and that the remaining assets in the son's trust passed to appellants under the intestate succession laws, and appellees denied that appellants were entitled to the relief sought. Morrow v. SunTrust Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011).

Because an inmate's territorial jurisdiction claims under T.C.A. § 29-14-101 and Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9, had been determined in the inmate's previous habeas corpus proceeding, the inmate could not seek, under the guise of a T.C.A. § 29-14-102 declaratory judgment, to relitigate the issue. Ritchie v. Haslam, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2011).

Chancery court did not err in denying the state's motion to dismiss petitioner's declaratory judgment action pursuant to Tenn., R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) because the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint for declaratory relief concerning the constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(B) as applied to him; at least in some cases and with some limitations, the chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction to rule upon declaratory judgment actions as they pertain to the application of criminal sanctions to petitioners. Blackwell v. Haslam, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

In an action in which a husband's children from a prior marriage contended that a wife's last will was invalid because it breached a contract in which the wife and the husband agreed to make mutual wills, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because T.C.A. § 16-16-201(a) provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to probate wills, T.C.A. § 32-4-109 provided the court with jurisdiction to hear will contests, T.C.A. § 29-14-102 provided the court with jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgment actions, and T.C.A. §§ 16-11-101 and 16-11-102(a) provided the court with jurisdiction to hear actions for breach of oral or written contracts. In re Estate of Brown, 402 S.W.3d 193, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 308 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2013).

Chancery court had jurisdiction over litigation brought by the intestate heirs of the beneficiary of a trust challenging the validity of and distribution of assets from the trust. Moreover, the dismissal of the challenges related only to the pleadings before the court. Goza v. SunTrust Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2015), appeal denied, Goza v. SunTrust Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2016).

Chancery court erred in exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a bail bond company's action for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment declaring proposed Local Rules of Practice and Procedure for Bail Bond Companies unenforceable, unconstitutional, and in violation of the law because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action for declaratory or injunctive relief regarding the validity of local rules of the criminal court. Memphis Bonding Co. v. Crim. Court of Tenn. 30th Dist., 490 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2016).

Because a bail bond company's underlying claim for injunctive relief regarding Local Rules of Practice and Procedure for Bail Bond Companies could not be brought in chancery court, the chancery court could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment aspect of the case either; the courts should not assume that subject matter jurisdiction existed based on the fact that the issue was not addressed. Memphis Bonding Co. v. Crim. Court of Tenn. 30th Dist., 490 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2016).

Chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding, brought by ministers and citizens, for a declaratory judgment to determine the continuing validity of laws relating to the issuance of marriage licenses because the ministers and the citizens were seeking a declaration of their respective rights. However, dismissal was appropriate because the parties lacked standing. Grant v. Anderson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2018).

3. Construction and Interpretation.

4. —Purpose.

The primal purpose of the statute is the construction of definitely stated rights, status, and other legal relations, commonly expressed in written instruments, although not confined thereto, and, while the determination of an issue of fact is authorized by the act, the settlement of disputed facts at issue between the parties will ordinarily be relegated to the proper jurisdictional forums otherwise provided. Hinchman v. City Water Co., 179 Tenn. 545, 167 S.W.2d 986, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1943).

The Declaratory Judgment Act deals only with present rights that have accrued under presently existing facts, and gives the courts no power to determine future rights or possible controversies in anticipation of events that may or may not occur, nor does it enable the courts to give advisory opinions upon what the law would be upon a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts. Third Nat'l Bank v. Carver, 31 Tenn. App. 520, 218 S.W.2d 66, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

The primary purpose of this chapter is the construction of definitely stated rights, status and other legal relations commonly expressed in written instruments though not confined thereto. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

The Declaratory Judgment Act gives courts no power to determine future rights or controversies in anticipation of events that have not occurred or to give advisory opinions upon a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts. Glasgow v. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 383 S.W.2d 9, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 518, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 519 (1964).

The purpose of the statute is to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to right, status and other legal relations. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

5. —Liberal Construction.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee is committed to a liberal interpretation of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Hodges v. Hamblen County, 152 Tenn. 395, 277 S.W. 901, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1925); Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Hannah, 157 Tenn. 582, 12 S.W.2d 372, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1928); Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 253 S.W.2d 725, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1952).

This chapter should be liberally construed in favor of the person seeking relief in a proper case to the end that rights and interests be expeditiously determined. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

6. —Final Determination of Rights.

Under this section the declaration must be a final determination of rights and will not be given in aid of another proceeding. Ball v. Cooter, 185 Tenn. 631, 207 S.W.2d 340, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 503 (1948).

Refusal of trial court to declare ultimate rights and interests of parties to declaratory judgment in property involved in such action was error. Bunns v. Walkem Development Co., 53 Tenn. App. 680, 385 S.W.2d 917, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

7. Construction with Other Acts.

The supreme court has repeatedly made use of the authority conferred by the statutory provisions of this section and § 29-14-103, to declare rights, but recognition of such procedure could not be given in cases expressly covered by the terms of § 67-2303 et seq. (now title 67, ch. 1, part 9), as to recovery of taxes, without a showing of compliance with the condition precedent therein stipulated. American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491, 193 S.W.2d 86, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1946).

8. Parties.

The general rule is that a party having only such interest as the public generally has, cannot maintain an action for a declaratory judgment. Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 201 S.W.2d 686, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1947).

9. —Personal Representative of Intestate.

A declaration cannot be made establishing the identity of the distributees of an intestate unless the personal representative of the intestate is made a party to the suit. Where he was not made a party, the supreme court may remand the cause, upon motion, with permission to complainants to amend by making the local administrator a party. Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1931).

10. —Foreign Executor Not Bound.

Since a declaration under this statute has the force and effect of a final judgment or decree, there can be no declaration as to the identity of the distributees of an intestate which will bind a foreign administrator who is accountable for distribution only to the courts of the jurisdiction which appointed him. Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1931).

11. —State Officers.

Where the secretary of state sought a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of a statute requiring him to expend public funds to hold a special election, the attorney general and comptroller of state were proper parties to the suit. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

The courts of Tennessee are prohibited from entertaining an action for declaratory judgment against a state officer. Carter v. McWherter, 859 S.W.2d 343, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

12. Discretion.

Discretion in rendering decrees under the authority of this chapter should be exercised with the utmost caution. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Askew, 183 Tenn. 209, 191 S.W.2d 533, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 204 (1946).

The making or refusing of a declaratory judgment is discretionary and making of declarations under the statutes should be exercised with the utmost caution. Ball v. Cooter, 185 Tenn. 631, 207 S.W.2d 340, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 503 (1948).

Court can exercise its discretion in taking jurisdiction of action for declaratory judgment. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

The court has a discretion in exercising power to adjudge in declaratory judgment cases. Hill v. Beeler, 199 Tenn. 325, 286 S.W.2d 868, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1956); Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283, 292 S.W.2d 177, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1956); Southern R. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 209 Tenn. 177, 352 S.W.2d 217, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1961).

Courts have a wide discretion under this chapter which should be exercised with utmost caution and a declaratory judgment may be properly refused if it can be made only after a judicial investigation of disputed facts. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

The court should not act arbitrarily in refusing to entertain a suit under this chapter. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

The discretion of the trial court as to whether it will render a declaratory judgment is very wide and the action of such court in refusing a declaration will not be disturbed on appeal unless such refusal is arbitrary. Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283, 292 S.W.2d 177, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1956); Southern R. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 209 Tenn. 177, 352 S.W.2d 217, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1961); Standard Acci. Ins. Co. v. Carvin, 217 Tenn. 662, 400 S.W.2d 235, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 619 (1966).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to entertain declaratory judgment suit where disputed contract between railroads contained arbitration provision and disputed facts were of a nature that could be more readily decided by arbitrators with particular knowledge of the type of situation involved. Southern R. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 209 Tenn. 177, 352 S.W.2d 217, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1961).

Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to entertain declaratory judgment suit by insurer to determine which of three persons was driving automobile where entertainment of suit would have delayed pending suit. Standard Acci. Ins. Co. v. Carvin, 217 Tenn. 662, 400 S.W.2d 235, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 619 (1966).

Whether or not a trial judge entertains an action for declaratory judgment is largely discretionary with him. East Sevier County Utility Dist. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 570 S.W.2d 850, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 635 (Tenn. 1978).

The matter of granting or denying a declaratory judgment is largely discretionary with the chancellor. Love v. Cave, 622 S.W.2d 52, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Although plaintiffs' complaint was incorrectly designated as a suit for declaratory judgment, the court could treat the complaint as a petition for a common law writ of certiorari. McCallen v. Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. 1990).

While there is a statutory, procedural distinction between common law certiorari and declaratory judgment, there is no sound logic to maintain different standards of substantive review. Whether the action by the local governmental body is legislative or administrative in nature, the court should refrain from substituting its judgment for the broad discretionary authority of the local governmental body. An invalidation of the action should take place only when the decision is clearly illegal, arbitrary, or capricious. McCallen v. Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. 1990).

13. Requisites.

14. —Generally.

The only requirements for a controversy such as will invoke the action of the court and have it declare rights under this chapter are that the question must be real, and not theoretical; the person raising it must have a real interest, and there must be someone having a real interest in the question who may oppose the declaration sought. It is not necessary that any breach should be first committed, any right invaded, or any wrong done. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949); Williams v. American Plan Corp., 216 Tenn. 435, 392 S.W.2d 920, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (1965).

15. —Bona Fide Controversy.

A controversy to determine the validity of a statute must have before the court parties really interested to affirm and to deny. Goetz v. Smith, 152 Tenn. 451, 278 S.W. 417, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1925); Erwin Billiard Parlor v. Buckner, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W. 565, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1927); Perry v. Elizabethton, 160 Tenn. 102, 22 S.W.2d 359, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1929).

In order to obtain a declaration as to future rights of parties involved, a bona fide controversy must exist. Some real interest of the parties must be in dispute. Goetz v. Smith, 152 Tenn. 451, 278 S.W. 417, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1925); General Sec. Co. v. Williams, 161 Tenn. 50, 29 S.W.2d 662, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1930).

Parties are not entitled to a declaratory judgment on remote and incidental questions or to aid them in another transaction. There must be a real and not merely theoretical question in which there is a proper contradicter who has a true and existing interest to oppose the declaration. Hodges v. Hamblen County, 152 Tenn. 395, 277 S.W. 901, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1925); Nashville Trust Co. v. Dake, 162 Tenn. 356, 36 S.W.2d 905, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (Dec. 1930).

In order for a suit for declaratory judgment to lie the question must be real and not theoretical and the parties involved must have a real interest therein. McClung v. Elizabethton, 171 Tenn. 455, 105 S.W.2d 95, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1937).

Future, remote, uncertain probabilities for a controversy or claim against city for pensions would not support or justify a declaratory judgment. Woodroof v. Nashville, 29 Tenn. App. 426, 197 S.W.2d 4, 1946 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1946).

In quo warranto and declaratory judgment action arising out of reappraisal of property where quo warranto portion of suit would not lie against public officials because there was no allegation that public officials were usurping an office or had committed any act which would work a forfeiture of office, allegations which were justiciable controversies in a declaratory judgment action could be treated as though they were pleaded as part of the declaratory judgment action. State by Webster v. Word, 508 S.W.2d 539, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. 1974).

There are circumstances where a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of a declaratory action is appropriate, for example, when the complaint fails to establish that a justiciable controversy exists, and if that is the case, dismissal is appropriate; if not, the trial court should delve into the merits of the declaratory judgment action and determine whether it is or is not more appropriate to issue a declaratory judgment on the controverted issue, even if the declaration of rights is adverse to the plaintiff, for the end result is that a controversy is put to rest. Blackwell v. Haslam, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to a common-law writ of certiorari because the inmate did not pursue either of the available remedies during the time in which they were available, and the inmate had served the sentences for which the inmate sought declaratory relief under T.C.A. § 29-14-102. Teal v. Crim. Court of Shelby County, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 390 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 13, 2012).

Tennessee's Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., was not applicable because there was no dispute between parties with real and adverse interests in that the intended parents filed a joint petition along with the surrogate mother and her spouse as they all agreed that the intended parent was the mother of the children borne by the surrogate mother. Simply put, there was no bona fide disagreement to resolve, nor was there a right for the intended parents to vindicate. In re Amadi A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

16. —Commission of Wrong No Prerequisite.

It is not necessary that any breach of obligation be first committed, any right invaded or wrong done to invoke the action of the court under the declaratory judgments statute. Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924); Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

17. —Defendant Not Required to Defend.

The Declaratory Judgment Act is not a must statute in so far as the defendant is concerned, but it is a must statute in so far as the complainant is concerned, as he must make the proper parties defendant; but after this is done there is no absolute requirement that this defendant must defend. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

18. —Process or Execution — Award Not Requisite.

An award of process or execution to enforce such a judgment is not an indispensable adjunct to the exercise of the judicial function. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 53 S. Ct. 345, 77 L. Ed. 730, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 37, 87 A.L.R. 1191 (1933).

19. Character of Cases Entertained.

Cases entertained regarding constitutionality of legislative action, including municipal ordinances. Pettit v. White County, 152 Tenn. 660, 280 S.W. 688, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1926); Lindsey v. Drane, 154 Tenn. 458, 285 S.W. 705, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1926); Erwin Billiard Parlor v. Buckner, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W. 565, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1927).

Declaratory judgment has been used to determine whether state comptroller should pay salary of temporary judge appointed to serve during election contest. Graham v. England, 154 Tenn. 435, 288 S.W. 728, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 140 (1926).

There may be a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs were not general contractors under privilege tax statute. Parmer v. Lindsey, 157 Tenn. 29, 3 S.W.2d 657, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1928).

Declaratory judgment action used to determine reasonableness of rules established as to rates to be fixed by utility commission. Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Hannah, 157 Tenn. 582, 12 S.W.2d 372, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1928).

Declaratory judgment action was proper in construction of instruments, such as a deed. Guy v. Culberson, 164 Tenn. 509, 51 S.W.2d 500, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1932).

Declaratory judgment proceeding for review of action under claim of statutory power of state dental board as to who may practice dentistry under supervision of college instructors. Powers v. Vinsant, 165 Tenn. 390, 54 S.W.2d 938, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1932).

In proceedings to determine constitutionality of an act exempting person from obtaining a license to hunt, fish or trap, etc., it was held that since director of game was interested in having the act stricken down, and defendants were interested in having it upheld, the parties were entitled to a ruling under the declaratory judgment statute. Buntin v. Crowder, 173 Tenn. 388, 118 S.W.2d 221, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1938).

Proper in construction of will. Sternberger v. Glenn, 175 Tenn. 644, 137 S.W.2d 269, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1940).

Bill primarily seeking injunction relief against an assessment under an ordinance imposing a privilege tax on motor vehicles might well be considered as a bill seeking a declaratory judgment upon the validity of the ordinance. Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Knoxville, 181 Tenn. 622, 184 S.W.2d 4, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 284 (1944).

Suit to establish town as municipality with power to license liquor stores is proper case for declaratory judgment. Crabtree v. Stephens, 198 Tenn. 149, 278 S.W.2d 672, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 355 (1955).

Declaratory judgment suit would properly lie to declare duties and powers as between board of county commissioners and quarterly county court (now county legislative body). Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

Suit by city to ascertain its authority to appoint member to board of trustees of hospital corporation could be maintained as declaratory judgment action and was not the sort of suit required to be maintained as quo warranto action. Rockwood v. Chamberlain Memorial Hospital, 221 Tenn. 468, 427 S.W.2d 829, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (1968).

While the authority of various officers over the administration of local matters may be adjudicated in a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, where the issue is made that a defendant unlawfully holds an office a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto must be resorted to. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

An action for declaratory judgment, as provided by title 29, ch. 14, rather than a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to be employed by one who seeks to invalidate an ordinance, resolution or other legislative action of county, city or other municipal legislative authority enacting or amending zoning legislation; however, where the plaintiff mistakenly employs the remedy of certiorari the court may treat the action as one for declaratory judgment and proceed accordingly, rather than dismiss the action. Nance v. Council of Memphis, 672 S.W.2d 208, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Chancery court properly reformed a deed and declared a release was null and void on a motion for summary judgment because an indenture trustee submitted clear and convincing evidence to establish that a mutual mistake had occurred and that the parties to a transaction had intended to encumber a different tract of land rather than the tract of land described in the deed. This evidence, along with the indenture trustee's assertion that the debt remained due and had been released in error, was un-rebutted following the hearing. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ingram, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019).

20. —Instructions for Executor.

The chancery court had jurisdiction to advise and instruct the executor of a will and to make declaration and decrees with reference thereto under the provisions of this act. Commerce Union Bank v. Gillespie, 178 Tenn. 179, 156 S.W.2d 425, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1940).

21. —Tax Ordinance.

Bill primarily seeking injunction relief against an assessment under a tax ordinance alleged to be void might well be considered as a bill seeking a declaratory judgment upon the validity of the ordinance. Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Knoxville, 181 Tenn. 622, 184 S.W.2d 4, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 284 (1944).

21.5. —Declaratory judgment.

Judgment for a seller on a buyer's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment under T.C.A. § 29-14-102 that the termination letters were not disclosed to the buyer, that the letters were delivered in an untimely and surreptitious manner, and that the seller in effect informed the buyer that there were no termination letters in a package was proper as the counterclaim did not state a claim since the trial court found that the seller provided the termination letters to the buyer and did not misrepresent their existence, even though the trial court did not separately rule on the declaratory relief request. Laundries, Inc. v. Coinmach Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2012).

22. —Validity of Act Calling Special Election.

A justiciable controversy was presented under the Declaratory Judgment Act where it was shown that the legislature had passed an act submitting the question of holding a constitutional convention to the people at a special election which would require the secretary of state to expend large sums of money in carrying out the mandate of the legislature, and that the attorney general had published an opinion stating that the act was invalid. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

23. —Corporate Existence of Municipality.

A proceeding was brought under this section by the citizens of Lawrenceburg to question the integrity of that city's charter. Smith v. Lawrenceburg, 167 Tenn. 447, 71 S.W.2d 214, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1934).

24. —Existence of Public Street.

Where plaintiff's action against a city claimed that a passageway was a public street and sought damages for failure of the city to pave the street which abutted property owned by plaintiff and for refusing to issue a building permit, the trial court properly held that this was a declaratory judgment suit existence. Paduch v. City of Johnson City, 896 S.W.2d 767, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. 1995).

25. —Gasoline Tax Fund Expenditure.

Suit for declaratory judgment brought by a committee appointed by the quarterly court of Crockett County to bring such suit and by certain citizens and taxpayers of the county on behalf of themselves and the county against state commissioner of highways, comptroller, and attorney general and against the county judge, trustee and highway commissioners in which it was alleged that the quarterly court had passed a resolution directing Crockett County's pro rata share of the gasoline tax fund be expended by the state highway department on highways of Crockett County under Public Acts 1931, ch. 45 and that the county judge and other county officials denied authority of such resolution taking the position that Public Acts 1931, ch. 45 had been repealed by implication by Private Acts 1933, ch. 26 which created a highway commission for Crockett County and that under the provisions of such private act the county authorities alone had the right to expend this fund was properly maintainable under this section as there were real parties on either side and real controversies between them and the fact that some of the parties named both as complainants and defendants appeared to be unnecessary was not material. Crockett County v. Walters, 170 Tenn. 337, 95 S.W.2d 305, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1936).

26. —Postal Savings Bank Deposits.

In bill by judgment creditor seeking to reach deposit of judgment debtor in United States postal savings depository system chancellor has jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff. Bell-Dowlen Mills v. Draper, 169 Tenn. 112, 83 S.W.2d 247, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1935), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 633, 56 S. Ct. 156, 80 L. Ed. 450, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 951 (1935).

27. —Contract with TVA.

Where county allowed TVA to flood area by virtue of which a road and bridge had to be abandoned and thereafter TVA entered into a contract with county under which TVA agreed to stand expense of constructing alternate roads to take place of road abandoned and to indemnify county against damages recovered by property owners against county, property owners were entitled to file a bill for a declaratory judgment to determine rights of property owners under contract and court was entitled to enter such orders and decrees necessary to affect a final settlement between property owners and defendants, to wit the county and TVA. Stewart v. Sullivan County, 196 Tenn. 49, 264 S.W.2d 217, 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 405 (1953).

28. —Constitutionality of Act.

Where Private Acts 1937, ch. 747 which was applicable to Lincoln County alone exempted persons of such county from the general ing provisions of the state with reference to hunting, fishing and trapping and the buying and selling of furs, a proceeding under this section by the game and fish director against certain fur dealers in such county to test the constitutionality of such act was proper. Buntin v. Crowder, 173 Tenn. 388, 118 S.W.2d 221, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1938).

Chancery court erred by granting the state's motion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) to dismiss petitioner's declaratory judgment action without an expressed declaration of the parties'  respective rights because petitioner alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that an actual controversy concerning the application of T.C.A. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(B) to him existed. Blackwell v. Haslam, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 263 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

29. Relief Denied.

On disputed facts relief usually denied. Newsum v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W. 56, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1925).

Relief denied where taxpayer may have proper relief in suit brought by state commissioner to collect the tax in question. McFarland v. Crenshaw, 160 Tenn. 170, 22 S.W.2d 229, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1929).

Declaratory judgment could not be had to cancel a life insurance policy for misrepresentation. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bellos, 158 Tenn. 554, 13 S.W.2d 795, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 186 (1929).

Party cannot obtain declaratory judgment as to constitutionality of tax statute where it was not known what would be the policy of the fiscal officers of the state with respect to such law and therefore there was no real controversy between the parties. General Sec. Co. v. Williams, 161 Tenn. 50, 29 S.W.2d 662, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1930).

Declaratory judgment could not be had to construe a statute as to power of a municipality where rights of property owner may be protected in a condemnation proceeding. Georgia Industrial Realty Co. v. Chattanooga, 163 Tenn. 435, 43 S.W.2d 490, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1931).

Where there is no controversy between interested parties, bill will not be sustained. Holly v. Elizabethton, 193 Tenn. 46, 241 S.W.2d 1001, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 331 (1951).

A bill to force the mayor of a municipality to issue a retail liquor license was not a proper matter for a declaratory judgment. Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (1949).

Where suit for declaratory judgment by automobile liability company anticipated that tort action would be instituted against it by insured based on alleged lack of good faith of company in negotiating settlement to insured's damage and by seeking such judgment company would force insured into a forum of company's own choosing, chancellor properly dismissed company's bill. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

There was no such privity of estate or contractual relationship between purchaser of realty and sublessee holding sublease at the time of the purchase as would justify court in rendering declaratory judgment as to validity of lease. Sherman v. Southern Advertising Co., 200 Tenn. 262, 292 S.W.2d 36, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 404 (1956).

Where purchaser of realty had actual notice of sublease agreement as to such realty and of sublessee's equities and sublessee was not in default as to its agreement, purchaser was not entitled to declaratory judgment declaring the sublease invalid. Sherman v. Southern Advertising Co., 200 Tenn. 262, 292 S.W.2d 36, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 404 (1956).

Trial court's refusal to entertain suit for declaratory judgment as to insurance company's duty to defend tort action against insured was not arbitrary where insurance company could have defended the tort action without waiving its right to deny liability to the insured by giving notice that it did not intend to waive such defense. Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Cooper, 200 Tenn. 283, 292 S.W.2d 177, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1956).

Executrix's petition under Declaratory Judgments Act for writs of error and certiorari to county court to bring claims filed in county court against estate to circuit court for trial by jury was properly dismissed since executrix had plain, speedy and adequate remedy under §§ 30-517, 30-518 (now §§ 30-2-314, 30-2-315) by filing exceptions prior to payment of claim. Trice v. Cheatham, 208 Tenn. 130, 344 S.W.2d 358, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 404 (1961).

In an action by a utility against defendants who owned lots or held mortgages in a subdivision, for judgments for accrued water and sewage charges and for a declaratory judgment with respect to the priority of its asserted liens over liens of deeds of trust on the lots involved, in view of the very voluminous testimony which was offered at the hearing, much of it in the form of masses of records, the trial judge had discretion not to undertake a detailed delineation of priorities between liens asserted by the petitioner and those arising under the various deeds of trust, but the suit should have been dismissed without prejudice. East Sevier County Utility Dist. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 570 S.W.2d 850, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 635 (Tenn. 1978).

Defendant was not entitled to a declaratory judgment that T.C.A. § 40-23-116 was unconstitutional as applied due to defendant's intellectual disability because the intellectual disability issue had no effect on the statute's constitutionality, so sovereign immunity barred the claim. Suttles v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 25, 2014), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 730 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 8, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1013 (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2014).

30. —Advisory Opinions.

The Declaratory Judgments Act does not give the courts jurisdiction to render advisory opinions to assist the parties or to allay their fears as to what may occur in the future. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

31. —Abstract Questions.

Complainant named as executor and trustee under will was not in position to file bill under this section in the capacity of trustee for instructions since administration of the estate by complainant in capacity of executor had not proceeded to a point where the transfer from executor to trustee would become effective. Commerce Union Bank v. Gillespie, 178 Tenn. 179, 156 S.W.2d 425, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1940).

Court will not give declaratory relief if question submitted is based upon a contingency that may never arise. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Askew, 183 Tenn. 209, 191 S.W.2d 533, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 204 (1946).

Where will bequeathed income from estate to wife for her lifetime providing she did not remarry, and if she remarried the estate income was to be divided between wife and the three children, but if she remained unmarried until her death the income was to be divided equally between the children, a petition to construe will filed while wife who had not remarried was still living was premature. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Askew, 183 Tenn. 209, 191 S.W.2d 533, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 204 (1946).

Future and contingent rights, and remote possibilities, are not properly the subject of a declaration. Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 201 S.W.2d 686, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1947).

The court will not anticipate the rights of the parties in deciding future contingent interests. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956); West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 367, 370 S.W.2d 469, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (1963), dismissed, 378 U.S. 557, 84 S. Ct. 1908, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1034, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 843 (1964).

The courts may not render advisory opinions upon what the law would be upon a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts. West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 367, 370 S.W.2d 469, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (1963), dismissed, 378 U.S. 557, 84 S. Ct. 1908, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1034, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 843 (1964).

The Declaratory Judgments Law deals only with present rights that have accrued under presently existing facts and gives the court no power to determine future rights or possible controversies in anticipation of events that may not occur. West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 367, 370 S.W.2d 469, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (1963), dismissed, 378 U.S. 557, 84 S. Ct. 1908, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1034, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 843 (1964); Story v. Walker, 218 Tenn. 605, 404 S.W.2d 803, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 591 (1966).

Bill seeking declaration as to whether restrictive covenants in deeds would prevent construction of shopping center was premature where zoning ordinances prohibited use of land for other than residential purposes. Story v. Walker, 218 Tenn. 605, 404 S.W.2d 803, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 591 (1966).

Lawsuit challenging amendment to Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 12, did not present a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act where amendment was not self-executing but required legislative action to affect any rights of the plaintiffs, thereby rendering the controversy theoretical and contingent. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

A controversy which depends upon a future or contingent event or involves a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts is not justiciable under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

32. —Action Pending.

Chancellor did not have jurisdiction of action for construction of will where petitioner was unable to file certified copy of will or copy of letters testamentary issued to petitioner, as contest devisavit vel non was pending in circuit court. Ball v. Cooter, 185 Tenn. 631, 207 S.W.2d 340, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 503 (1948).

Chancery court did not have jurisdiction to determine suit for a declaratory judgment on constitutionality of a city ordinance where proceeding against petitioner for violation of ordinance was pending in circuit court. Johnson City v. Caplan, 194 Tenn. 496, 253 S.W.2d 725, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1952).

The dismissal, at the motion of the trial court, of a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer against its insured to determine the validity of the policy was within the discretion of the trial court when there was an action against the insured for which the insurer would have to defend. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mahan, 223 Tenn. 496, 448 S.W.2d 392, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (1969).

33. —Duties Under Law.

Where an act (Acts 1937 (3rd Ex. Sess.), ch. 13, since repealed) created a crime commission to examine crime situation, including detection, trial procedure, punishment, pardon, and parole, with authority to examine witnesses, and required public officers to cooperate with commission; sheriff, district attorney, grand jury foreman, and witnesses were not entitled to a decree under this section defining their duties and obligations under the act. Joyner v. Priest, 173 Tenn. 320, 117 S.W.2d 9, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1938).

County officials, district attorney general, foreman of grand jury, taxpayers of county and even state officials are not entitled to a declaratory judgment of their rights and duties where no other rights are involved. Joyner v. Priest, 173 Tenn. 320, 117 S.W.2d 9, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1938).

34. —Enjoining State Officer.

Though constitutionality of penal statute may be tested under this statute, complainant may not have injunction against officer of state charged with the enforcement of penal laws. Erwin Billiard Parlor v. Buckner, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W. 565, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1927).

The court would have been without jurisdiction under this section to enjoin law-enforcing officers from proceeding under a penal statute where pinball machines could have been gaming devices. Earhart v. Young, 174 Tenn. 198, 124 S.W.2d 693, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1939).

35. —Political Questions.

A declaration will be denied which is sought to determine rights not of persons nor property, but of a purely political character. Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 201 S.W.2d 686, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1947).

36. —Questioning Existence of Public Corporation.

There is no reason to question the existence of a public corporation until it attempts to do some act through at least a de facto organization. It can only act through its officers and agents who act for it. It therefore appears that there is really no “justiciable” issue in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the act creating a public corporation, where no officers or agents have assumed to act for the corporation. Bradley v. Rock Gardens Utility Dist., 186 Tenn. 665, 212 S.W.2d 657, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 596 (1948).

37. —Assessment of Lands for Taxes.

Holders of municipal bonds were not entitled to a declaratory judgment with reference to future assessment of certain untaxed property within the city on the grounds that city might default as to the bonds since this was a mere contingency and not a bona fide controversy. McClung v. Elizabethton, 171 Tenn. 455, 105 S.W.2d 95, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1937).

38. —Rights and Obligations Under Small Loan Act.

In an action by lender seeking a declaratory decree as to the rights and obligations of parties under the Small Loan Act, the court cannot make a declaratory decree as to those questions involved which are remote and incidental and determinative of no controversy between the complainant and defendant. Family Loan Co. v. Hickerson, 168 Tenn. 36, 73 S.W.2d 694, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 81, 94 A.L.R. 664 (1934).

39. —Accrued Rights — Prosecution.

It is contrary to the statute to delay one in the prosecution of an accrued cause of action. McFarland v. Crenshaw, 160 Tenn. 170, 22 S.W.2d 229, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1929).

40. —Tax Case Against State.

Taxpayer was not entitled to relief by declaratory judgment as to liability for taxes where it had failed to pay same, since Declaratory Judgment Act does not apply to state. American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491, 193 S.W.2d 86, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1946).

Where taxpayer refused to pay tax on demand of commissioner, and taxpayer filed suit against commissioner for a declaratory judgment as to whether it was required to pay tax, and state for the first time filed a demurrer, prior cases allowing relief to taxpayer in declaratory judgment actions did not apply, and since sole remedy of taxpayer was to pay tax under protest and sue commissioner for recovery of amount paid, the court did not have jurisdiction of declaratory action proceeding. American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491, 193 S.W.2d 86, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1946).

41. —Claims Against State.

Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit for declaratory judgment to construe provisions of § 9-8-207 (repealed) dealing with jurisdiction of board of claims to entertain claims against state. Hill v. Beeler, 199 Tenn. 325, 286 S.W.2d 868, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1956). See also Schoenly v. Nashville Speedways, Inc., 208 Tenn. 107, 344 S.W.2d 349, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (1961).

This chapter does not permit the filing of a suit against the state to construe statutes and § 20-13-102 expressly forbids such an action. Hill v. Beeler, 199 Tenn. 325, 286 S.W.2d 868, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1956).

42. Procedure.

Suit seeking declaration of various duties of board of county commissioners and quarterly county court was not subject to demurrer on ground that it was multifarious where all of the issues arose out of that controversy and were not independent. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

A declaratory judgment action cannot be maintained in any court where the question sought to be adjudicated can properly be made an issue in a suit that is then pending. Becton v. State, 506 S.W.2d 137, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. 1974).

43. —Suit in Nature of Quo Warranto.

Suit by petitioner to have declaratory judgment that office of justice of peace in specified town was vacant on the ground that certificate of election was void for fraud was subject to dismissal, since suit should have been filed by attorney general for the district or county, as it was in nature of a quo warranto proceeding. Weaver v. Maxwell, 189 Tenn. 183, 224 S.W.2d 832, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (1949).

Declaratory Judgment Law does not dispense with requirement that quo warranto proceedings must be filed in name of state by district attorney general. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

Suit by justices of quarterly court under Declaratory Judgment Law for construction of statute relative to number of votes required to elect chairman of county quarterly court was a suit in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding for the purpose of determining whether successful candidate was unlawfully holding office, hence since suit was not filed in name of state by district attorney general the suit was subject to dismissal. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

In suit to declare rights as between board of county commissioners and quarterly county court where there was no attempt to remove any person from office but merely to determine respective rights and duties the suit was not subject to objection on grounds that it was in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

Suit by taxpayers seeking declaration that mayor was not qualified to hold office because of failure to comply with provisions of city charter requiring publication of election expenses was in the nature of quo warranto and would be dismissed where not brought in name of state by district attorney general. Country Clubs, Inc. v. Knoxville, 217 Tenn. 104, 395 S.W.2d 789, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (1965).

A suit questioning the authority by which an incumbent officeholder performs his duty cannot be properly filed as a proceeding for a declaratory judgment but must be brought as an action in the nature of quo warranto. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

44. —Relief to Defendant.

Where relief invoked is denied complainant, instead of dismissing the proceeding, the court will render a declaration in favor of the contention of the defendant. Frazier v. Chattanooga, 156 Tenn. 346, 1 S.W.2d 786, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1928).

45. —Decree Against Bill.

Where object is to have a statute construed, and a demurrer is filed, the decree defining rights of parties should be entered, even though such decree be adverse to the contention of the bill. Frazier v. Chattanooga, 156 Tenn. 346, 1 S.W.2d 786, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1928).

In suit seeking declaratory judgment to effect Acts 1968, ch. 421, providing for constitutional convention upon approval of voters was unconstitutional, declaratory judgment that statute was constitutional would be entered rather than merely dismissing suit where constitutionality of statute was upheld. Illustration Design Group, Inc. v. McCanless, 224 Tenn. 284, 454 S.W.2d 115, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1970), overruled in part, Snow v. Memphis, 527 S.W.2d 55, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 631, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1975).

46. Costs.

Where complainants are entitled to no more relief than a declaration of their rights and status for their own protection, the costs should be paid by them. Erwin Billiard Parlor v. Buckner, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W. 565, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1927).

47. Appeal — Federal Review.

Under the rulings of the state court respecting the validity of such a judgment, a “case” or “controversy” is presented for review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 53 S. Ct. 345, 77 L. Ed. 730, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 37, 87 A.L.R. 1191 (1933).

48. Zoning Legislation.

An action for declaratory judgment rather than a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to be employed by one who seeks to invalidate an ordinance, resolution or other legislative action of county, city or other municipal legislative authority enacting or amending zoning legislation. Fallin v. Knox County Bd. of Comm'rs, 656 S.W.2d 338, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 792 (Tenn. 1983).

The remedy of certiorari provided by T.C.A. §§ 27-8-101, 27-9-101–27-9-113, rather than a declaratory judgment action, T.C.A. §§ 29-14-101 through 29-14-113, will continue to be the proper remedy for one who seeks to overturn the determination of a Board of Zoning Appeals as provided by T.C.A. § 13-7-106 et seq. and T.C.A. § 13-7-205 et seq.Steppach v. Thomas, 346 S.W.3d 488, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 736 (Tenn. July 15, 2011).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 20-73.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

“Actual controversy” under declaratory judgment statute in building restriction cases. 174 A.L.R. 853.

Availability and scope of declaratory judgment actions in determining rights of parties, or powers and exercise thereof by arbitrators, under arbitration agreements. 12 A.L.R.3d 854.

Availability of declaratory judgment to determine validity of lease of real property. 60 A.L.R.2d 400.

Coercive or executory relief as combinable with declaratory relief. 155 A.L.R. 501.

Contingent or defeasible future interest, right of owner of, to maintain action for declaratory judgment. 144 A.L.R. 806.

Custody of child as proper subject of declaratory action. 170 A.L.R. 521.

Declaration of rights or declaratory judgments. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Declaratory Judgment Act, actions under, as subject to limitations or conditions of jurisdiction imposed by other statutes. 149 A.L.R. 1103.

Declaratory judgment, during lifetime of spouses, as to construction of antenuptial agreement dealing with property rights of survivor. 80 A.L.R.2d 941.

Declaratory judgments, practice and procedure. 87 A.L.R. 1243.

Declaratory relief from expulsion from professional association. 20 A.L.R.2d 531.

Declaratory relief from expulsion from social club or similar society. 20 A.L.R.2d 344.

Declaratory relief from suspension or expulsion from a church or religious society. 20 A.L.R.2d 421.

Defense of laches, mitigation of damages, or other equitable defenses in subsequent suit against him as affected by original availability to wrongdoer of remedy under Declaratory Judgment Act. 131 A.L.R. 791.

Determination of seniority rights of employee as proper subject of declaratory suit. 172 A.L.R. 1247.

Discretion of court as to declaratory relief respecting future interest. 174 A.L.R. 880.

Disputed question of fact. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Divorce decree, action under Declaratory Judgment Act to test validity or effect of. 124 A.L.R. 1336.

Existence of other remedy. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Extent to which principles of res judicata are applicable to judgments in actions for declaratory relief. 10 A.L.R.2d 782.

Former judgment or decree, validity and effect of, as proper subject for consideration in declaratory action. 154 A.L.R. 740.

Future or contingent event. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

In pari delicto, applicability of doctrine of, to suit for declaratory relief. 141 A.L.R. 1427.

Issue of negligence as a proper subject of declaratory judgment action. 28 A.L.R.2d 957.

Jurisdiction of declaratory action as affected by pendency of another action or proceeding. 135 A.L.R. 934.

Labor dispute as proper subject of declaratory action. 170 A.L.R. 421.

Massachusetts or business trust, action by trustees of. 88 A.L.R.3d 704.

Military draft board, method of review of action of. 147 A.L.R. 1327.

Necessity of bona fide controversy as to which judgment will be res judicata. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Partnership or joint venture matters as subject of declaratory judgment. 32 A.L.R.2d 970.

Public authorities, declaratory judgment as to. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Public officers, questions or controversy between, as within contemplation of Declaratory Judgment Acts. 103 A.L.R. 1094.

Quieting title to, or removing cloud on title to, personal property, under Declaratory Judgment Act. 105 A.L.R. 291.

Relief against covenant restricting right to engage in business or profession as subject of declaratory judgment. 10 A.L.R.2d 743.

Relief other than by dissolution in case of intracorporate deadlock or dissension. 34 A.L.R.4th 13.

Remedy for refusal of corporation or its agent to register or effectuate transfer of stock. 22 A.L.R.2d 12.

Remedy or procedure to make effective rights established by declaratory judgment. 101 A.L.R. 689.

Scope of relief in declaratory judgment action with respect to unemployment compensation. 14 A.L.R.2d 826.

Statute or ordinance, interest necessary to maintenance of declaratory determination of validity of. 174 A.L.R. 549.

Taxation, declaratory judgments as to. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Tax questions as proper subject of action for declaratory judgment. 132 A.L.R. 1108, 11 A.L.R.2d 359.

Validity, construction, and application of criminal statutes or ordinances as proper subject for declaratory judgment. 10 A.L.R.3d 727.

Declaratory judgment 3.

29-14-103. Construction of statutes and written instruments.

Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 2; Shan. Supp., § 4726a2; Code 1932, § 8836; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1103.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Law Reviews.

A Critical Survey of Developments in Tennessee Family Law in 1976-77, IV. Divorce (Neil P. Cohen), 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 433.

Plaintiff's Standing to Collaterally Attack a City Zoning Ordinance, 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 726.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Interpretation.

While T.C.A. § 29-14-103 provides a court with the power to determine the validity of a statute, it does not grant jurisdiction over the property affected by the statute to a court of equity; the supreme court has declined to recognize an equity court's jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of a penal statute or ordinance that may affect a plaintiff's property rights when the plaintiff also has sought a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance. Clinton Books, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 197 S.W.3d 749, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 313 (Tenn. 2006), rehearing denied, 197 S.W.3d 749, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 642 (Tenn. 2006).

2. —Liberal Interpretation.

The Supreme Court is committed to a liberal interpretation of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

Construing T.C.A. § 29-14-103 liberally, it is broad enough to include lawsuits to construe written gift agreements, to determine the validity and application of the conditions in gift agreements, and to ascertain the parties' rights and obligations under gift agreements. Tenn. Div. of the United Daughters of the Confederacy v. Vanderbilt Univ., 174 S.W.3d 98, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

3. —Scope Generally.

Complainant, who filed suit in capacity of “citizen, taxpayer and qualified voter” of county for a declaratory judgment to determine whether defendant, as campaign manager of certain successful candidates, who had filed financial statement in behalf of several candidates, had complied with statutory requirements for such filing and to determine effect of statute restricting expenditures of candidates was not entitled to relief since: (1) complainant had no special interest in matter; (2) there was no justiciable controversy between the parties; and (3) candidates who defendant represented were not made parties to the action. Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 201 S.W.2d 686, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1947).

This act does not enable the courts to give advisory opinions upon what the law would be upon a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts. Nor does it enable the courts to give an opinion to help the parties in another transaction, or to make a declaration with regard to a claim which complainant merely fears the defendant may assert in the future. The act deals only with present rights that have accrued under presently existing facts. It gives the courts no power to determine future rights or possible controversies in anticipation of events that may or may not occur. Third Nat'l Bank v. Carver, 31 Tenn. App. 520, 218 S.W.2d 66, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

Parties are not entitled to an expression of opinion to help them in another transaction. A declaration should not be made on an abstract question, nor on remote and incidental questions. Combustion Engineering Co. v. Thompson, 191 Tenn. 98, 231 S.W.2d 580, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (1950).

County election commission could maintain action for a declaratory judgment for purpose of determining whether county or city was liable for expenses incurred by commission in holding special referendum election on amendment of city charter under private acts. Abercrombie v. Chattanooga, 203 Tenn. 357, 313 S.W.2d 256, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 311 (1958).

In order to invoke action by a court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the person seeking the declaratory judgment must allege facts which show that he has a real, as contrasted with a theoretical, interest in the question to be decided and that he is seeking to vindicate an existing right under the presently existing facts. Burkett v. Ashley, 535 S.W.2d 332, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. 1976).

A declaration of rights under the Declaratory Judgment Act must be a final determination of rights and a declaration will not be given in aid of another proceeding then pending. Burkett v. Ashley, 535 S.W.2d 332, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. 1976).

The Declaratory Judgments Act does not give the courts jurisdiction to render advisory opinions to assist the parties or to allay their fears as to what may occur in the future. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

A controversy which depends upon a future or contingent event or involves a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts is not justiciable under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

This section granted subject matter jurisdiction to the Davidson County chancery court to address the constitutional issue presented by a company which did not seek money damages or refund of paid taxes, but instead sought a declaration of unconstitutionality; chancery court could issue declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their individual capacity, so long as court's judgment was tailored to prevent the implementation of unconstitutional legislation and did not reach the state, its treasury, funds, or property. Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 2008).

Attorney was not entitled to a declaratory judgment because the attorney failed to establish that an actual case or controversy existed, that the attorney had a real interest in the question to be decided, or that the attorney was seeking to vindicate an existing right under then existing facts. Johnston v. Swing, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 476 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2013).

Tennessee Department of Transportation did not have an affirmative duty to commence a declaratory judgment action to resolve an alleged zoning controversy before it could lawfully deny an application for a permit to build outdoor advertising billboards. Thomas v. Tenn. DOT, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2013).

Tennessee's Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., was not applicable because there was no dispute between parties with real and adverse interests in that the intended parents filed a joint petition along with the surrogate mother and her spouse as they all agreed that the intended parent was the mother of the children borne by the surrogate mother. Simply put, there was no bona fide disagreement to resolve, nor was there a right for the intended parents to vindicate. In re Amadi A., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Chancery court erred in exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a bail bond company's action for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment declaring proposed Local Rules of Practice and Procedure for Bail Bond Companies unenforceable, unconstitutional, and in violation of the law because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action for declaratory or injunctive relief regarding the validity of local rules of the criminal court. Memphis Bonding Co. v. Crim. Court of Tenn. 30th Dist., 490 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2016).

Because a bail bond company's underlying claim for injunctive relief regarding Local Rules of Practice and Procedure for Bail Bond Companies could not be brought in chancery court, the chancery court could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment aspect of the case either; the courts should not assume that subject matter jurisdiction existed based on the fact that the issue was not addressed. Memphis Bonding Co. v. Crim. Court of Tenn. 30th Dist., 490 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2016).

4. Construction with Other Acts — Lien Limitations.

Where the bill is one to construe language in a deed and pass upon the rights of the parties thereunder, and not to reform one, the limitation of § 28-2-111 would not apply. Clarke v. Walker, 25 Tenn. App. 78, 150 S.W.2d 1082, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941).

5. Parties.

The attorney general was a proper party to a suit under the declaratory judgment statute to have the validity of a law determined. Peters v. O'Brien, 152 Tenn. 466, 278 S.W. 660, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1925).

Where lawsuit was brought under the provisions of the Public Meetings Act and the relief sought was as allowed by that statute, the plaintiff's right to sue was determined under the provisions of that enactment, and the court treated averment of complaint that lawsuit was brought under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act as mere surplusage, so that the definition of who may sue under that statute had no bearing. Curve Elementary School Parent & Teacher's Organization v. Lauderdale County School Board, 608 S.W.2d 855, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Plaintiff was “interested party” so as to be entitled to a declaratory judgment on certain matters concerning partnership agreements. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 868 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that an easement for highway purposes was not a highway right-of-way and that the state had no authority to require removal of the landowners' signs because of a claimed encroachment, was a suit against the state under T.C.A. § 20-13-102 and was barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity as it sought to affect a property interest of the state. Williams v. Nicely, 230 S.W.3d 385, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. June 25, 2007).

Plaintiff city councilor was entitled to seek review under T.C.A. § 29-14-103 of the Declaratory Judgment Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., challenging a closed meeting to deliberate the budget for defendant city, as well as expending revenue for salary increases; his status as a city councilman was not a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to demonstrate standing but he did have standing as a taxpayer. Fannon v. City of Lafollette, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2010), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, LaFollette, 329 S.W.3d 418, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 1207 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2010).

Plaintiffs subjected to holds by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) had standing to seek a declaration that an agreement deputizing local officers under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) violated a city charter as the threat of repeated ICE holds of both plaintiffs presented the actual case or controversy required by T.C.A. 29-14-103. Renteria-Villegas v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 796 F. Supp. 2d 900, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66081 (M.D. Tenn. June 21, 2011).

Tenant's assignee was a necessary party under T.C.A. §§ 29-14-103 and 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19.01 and 19.02 in a suit filed under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., as the dispute between the buyer and the seller included their purchase contract and a rooftop agreement between the seller and a tenant, as assigned to the assignee; the holding that the rooftop agreement created a lease, and not an easement, determined the legal property interest created in the tenant and assigned to the assignee, and implicitly determined that the relationship of the parties to the rooftop agreement was one of landlord-tenant. Adler v. Double Eagle Props. Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011).

Individual citizens who sought to vote by using municipal library photographic identification cards, but not the city which sought to enforce the citizens right to vote, demonstrated standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Voter Identification Act, T.C.A. § 2-7-112. City of Memphis v. Hargett, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1101 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013).

Residents lacked standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a lease between the State and an applicant which was granted a variance to operate an outdoor shooting range; the residents'  injury would not be redressed by a determination of the lease's validity because the residents were not parties to the lease and the residents were not third-party beneficiaries under the lease. Kruger v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2013).

Organization had standing to challenge the validity of a resolution renaming an historic public park because the allegations in the complaint regarding the city's close involvement with the organization in the design and installation of a park name marker led to a reasonable inference that the city conferred on the organization a special interest in the park name; the renaming of a park by resolution rather than ordinance could have deprived the organization of the opportunity to oppose it. Hayes v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Organization did not have standing to challenge the validity of a resolution renaming historic public parks because the city did not take any action to encourage the organization's efforts that could be construed as conferring a special interest in preservation of the park names; because the general public was invited to comment during the meetings, the organization did not suffer any specialized injury not common to all other citizens by its participation in the meetings. Hayes v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Organization did not have standing to challenge on behalf of individuals or its other members the validity of a resolution renaming historic public parks because the complaint did not allege a distinct and palpable injury. Hayes v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Organization did not have standing to challenge the validity of a resolution renaming historic public parks because the alleged injuries were not sufficient to constitute a distinct and palpable injury; the complaint did not allege that the organization contributed to the purchase and installation of a park name marker. Hayes v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Descendants did not have standing to challenge the validity of a resolution renaming historic public parks because the descendants had not alleged any concrete injury as a result of a park's renaming or the city's method for doing so. there was no injury inherent in the renaming of a park dedicated to an individual's relative. Hayes v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for lack of standing was appropriate because property owners and attorneys who represented property owners in forfeiture proceedings lacked standing to bring a claim for declaratory relief partially centered on a footnote to an order entered on a petition for reconsideration in a civil forfeiture case as they were not parties to the forfeiture proceeding in which the order was entered. Heredia v. Gibbons, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2019).

6. Character of Cases Entertained.

The only requirement for a controversy such as will invoke the action of the court and have it declare rights under this chapter are that the question must be real and not theoretical, the person raising it must have a real interest and there must be someone having a real interest in the question who may oppose the declaration sought. It is not necessary that any breach should first be committed, any right invaded or any wrong done. Williams v. American Plan Corp., 216 Tenn. 435, 392 S.W.2d 920, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (1965).

Where defendant was elected to office of alderman while serving under contract as assistant superintendent of education, suit for declaratory judgment would lie to determine liability of city to pay defendant salaries of such offices and quo warranto was not sole available remedy. Kingsport v. Lay, 62 Tenn. App. 145, 459 S.W.2d 786, 1970 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970).

Requests for declaratory and mandamus relief were proper ways for plaintiffs to challenge the judge's refusal, under the local rule, to release the requested recordings, but for either form of relief to be appropriate, the local rule had to conflict with the statute; the judge's decision did not violate the statute and the claims were properly dismissed. Reguli v. Guffee, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 810 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017).

7. —Constitutionality of a Law.

It was proper to bring an action under this section to question the constitutionality of an act providing for an election to determine whether school should operate under the acting trustees or under the county board of education. Buena Vista Special School Dist. v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 173 Tenn. 198, 116 S.W.2d 1008, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1938).

Where complainant is interested in having an act declared unconstitutional and the defendants are interested in having the act upheld, the parties are entitled to a ruling under this section. Buntin v. Crowder, 173 Tenn. 388, 118 S.W.2d 221, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1938).

Where complainants, members of the county board of education, were seeking an adjudication of the validity of a new act which allowed them to remain as members of a new board, the county superintendent demurred to their bill, alleging that they had no authority to bring such an action, since the acts creating the old and new boards respectively were both unconstitutional, and hence the complainants were not members so as to be affected by new act. It was held that the complainants were affected, and that they clearly came within the provisions of this section and were authorized to maintain a bill for the purpose of ascertaining the constitutionality of the new act. Phillips v. West, 187 Tenn. 57, 213 S.W.2d 3, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 410 (1948).

Plaintiff, complaining that the alimony statutes were unconstitutional on grounds that they discriminate against husbands as a class was not entitled to seek a declaratory judgment since there was no allegation in the complaint that he requested alimony be awarded to him in the divorce action or that he was denied alimony under circumstances which would have entitled him to alimony if he were a female. Burkett v. Ashley, 535 S.W.2d 332, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. 1976).

Action by a high school principal against a legal organization seeking to enjoin the organization from making threats to file lawsuits on the issue of school prayer, to have the court declare § 49-6-1004 constitutional under the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions, and to have the court declare that student-initiated voluntary prayers be protected as constitutional free speech was properly dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy. Oldham v. American Civil Liberties Union Found., 910 S.W.2d 431, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), rehearing denied, Oldham v. ACLU Found., — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 1995).

The constitutionality of a law can be determined by a declaratory action. Thompson v. Department of Codes Admin., 20 S.W.3d 654, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 1999).

8. —Wills.

Executors may implead the heirs and a devisee under a will with respect to which among them is entitled to the testator's estate. Tarwater v. Baptist Orphans' Home, 173 Tenn. 409, 119 S.W.2d 919, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1938).

9. —Rights Under Deed.

A decree may be rendered declaring rights of complainant under a deed, notwithstanding fact that no other relief could be claimed. Guy v. Culberson, 164 Tenn. 509, 51 S.W.2d 500, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1932).

10. —Private Act.

Under the Declaratory Judgment Law, Acts 1935, ch. 6, § 1, was declared discriminatory and void. Wiseman v. Smith, 170 Tenn. 293, 95 S.W.2d 42, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1936).

11. —Construction of Law.

Where company establishing new subdivision which was within the boundaries of a utility district found that it could obtain water service under more advantageous terms under a tentative agreement with adjoining city than it could from utility district, it was proper to bring declaratory judgment proceedings to determine if it could legally contract with city instead of utility district. Chandler Inv. Co. v. Whitehaven Utility Dist., 44 Tenn. App. 1, 311 S.W.2d 603, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

Dispute between city and county as to whether statute creating general sessions court for county divested municipal court of right to exercise power and authority of justice of the peace with respect to violations of state laws within the city could be properly entertained in action for declaratory judgment as there was a bona fide controversy between parties who had a real interest beyond that of the public generally and the rights of the parties depended on the construction of the involved statutes. Elizabethton v. Carter County, 204 Tenn. 452, 321 S.W.2d 822, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (1958).

Suit to determine respective powers and duties of board of county commissioners and quarterly county court under Tennessee Code and private acts was a proper subject of declaratory judgment. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

12. —Ordinances.

Validity of amendment of zoning ordinance which did not comply with mandatory requirements of §§ 13-7-203, 13-7-204 could be tested under Declaratory Judgments Act and certiorari was not sole remedy. Holdredge v. Cleveland, 218 Tenn. 239, 402 S.W.2d 709, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 561 (1966).

The validity of an annexation ordinance alleged to exceed the authority delegated by the legislature is subject to declaratory judgment review. State ex rel. Earhart v. City of Bristol, 970 S.W.2d 948, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. 1998).

Record did not indicate that the deputy police chief had authority to determine the “good standing” issue of the retired police officers seeking retirement benefits, and nothing indicated that the officers could have administratively appealed the deputy's act; on remand, the trial court had to adjudicate the declaratory judgment. Bernard v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 237 S.W.3d 658, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 173 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2007), appeal denied, Bernard v. Metro Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 872 (Tenn. Sept. 24, 2007).

13. —Written Contracts.

Plaintiff lot owners were third party beneficiaries to a contractual obligation assumed by the developers and their rights under the written agreement were justiciable issues under the declaratory judgment law. Foley v. Hamilton, 603 S.W.2d 151, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Trial court properly found that a justiciable issue existed and granted a declaratory judgment because a city was entitled to have an agreed order enforced as any other contract, and its seeking a declaratory judgment regarding interpretation and enforcement of the order was entirely proper; pursuant to the express terms of the parties' agreed order, they waived any rights to further appeal or administrative remedy before the city board of appeals and adjustments. City of Gatlinburg v. Kaplow, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 886 (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2014).

Trial court did not issue an advisory opinion in determining the extent of an insurer's duties under an insurance policy where although the underlying suit against the insured was not final, the insured's liability under the TCPA had been determined and the only remaining issues was damage. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaigler & Assocs., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2017).

14. Relief Denied.

Dismissal of the voter's suit filed under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act, asserting that the legislation authorizing the use of electronic voting machines in some jurisdictions violated Tenn. Const. art. I, § 5 and Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1, was affirmed because even if the appellate court were to concede that paperless voting could disenfranchise voters under certain circumstances, there was no indication in the complaint that voters were presently being disenfranchised by the current voting system. Mills v. Shelby County Election Comm'n, 218 S.W.3d 33, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1184 (Tenn. Dec. 18, 2006).

15. —Constitutional Amendments.

Lawsuit challenging amendment to Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 12, did not present a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act where amendment was not self-executing but required legislative action to affect any rights of the plaintiffs, thereby rendering the controversy theoretical and contingent. Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2019, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 1852 (1981).

16. —Accrued Rights.

Employer who discharged employee for failure to pay union dues pursuant to contract between union and employer prior to enactment of Acts 1947, ch. 6 providing for open shop was not entitled to declaratory judgment as to rights under old contract where new contract had been entered into between employer and union providing for open shop merely because seniority of discharged employee was involved. Combustion Engineering Co. v. Thompson, 191 Tenn. 98, 231 S.W.2d 580, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (1950).

17. —Tax Case Against State.

The court has repeatedly made use of the authority conferred by this section to declare the rights of the parties, but will not do so to defeat and destroy or delay the collection by the state of its essential revenues. American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491, 193 S.W.2d 86, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 229 (1946).

18. —Bill Premature.

Bill seeking declaration as to whether restrictive covenants in deeds would prevent construction of shopping center was premature where zoning ordinances prohibited use of land for other than residential purposes. Story v. Walker, 218 Tenn. 605, 404 S.W.2d 803, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 591 (1966).

19. —Declaratory Judgment Action Against State.

Former employee's declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to hold that a state department head was without authority to impose a voluntary resignation on him was barred by § 20-13-102. Spencer v. Cardwell, 937 S.W.2d 422, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Even if the inmates had sufficiently alleged that the protocol was unconstitutional as applied to one or more of them or that one or more individuals may cause the protocol to be carried out in an unconstitutional manner in the future, the claims were hypothetical and speculative and did not constitute a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act. West v. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Mar. 10, 2015).

20. Zoning Administrator's Decision.

A declaratory judgment is not the proper means for reviewing a zoning administrator's decision for arbitrariness or capriciousness; however, there is authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether the division and sale of certain property constitutes a subdivision under the Tennessee Code. Thompson v. Department of Codes Admin., 20 S.W.3d 654, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 1999).

21. Union Dues.

Considering the instant case under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the trial court erred when it dismissed a suit by a teacher and a collective bargaining agent member, against the teacher's union for failure to state a claim, where, although the complaint that part of his union dues were being used in violation of his rights to free speech, free assembly and petition, and freedom of religion, was premised on state constitutional violations, when viewed under the Education Professional Negotiations Act (EPNA), former T.C.A. § 49-5-601 — T.C.A. § 49-5-613 now in the Appendix at the end of title 49), the complaint could also have been construed to have alleged other wrongs upon which relief could have been granted. The EPNA could have been interpreted to mean that a voluntary donation of a portion of the dues collected from the teachers exceeded the authority granted to the collective bargaining agent. Esquinance v. Polk County Educ. Ass'n, 195 S.W.3d 35, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. 2006) .

22. Pleadings And Procedure.

Dismissal of a complaint by a borrower, who sought to enjoin several banks and a corporation from pursuing any further judicial or non-judicial foreclosure action against the borrower, was appropriate because the borrower failed to adequately plead a claim for declaratory relief as there was no justiciable controversy over the parties'  statutory rights and obligations. Moreover, absent an allegation by the borrower of actual damages, a declaratory judgment would have been purely theoretical. Crockett v. Mut. of Omaha, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015).

When ministers and citizens brought a proceeding for a declaratory judgment to determine the continuing validity of laws relating to the issuance of marriage licenses, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate because the ministers and citizens lacked standing as the ministers had no real interest for purposes of standing, in that their challenge stemmed from a hypothetical scenario pertaining to the issuance of marriage licenses, while the citizens'  alleged injuries were shared by the public at large. Grant v. Anderson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2018).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 9, 14, 21-30, 39-48, 54, 58, 62-66, 83.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

“Actual controversy” under declaratory judgment statute in zoning and statutory building restriction cases. 174 A.L.R. 853.

Administrative officer, justiciable controversy within Declaratory Judgment Act as predicable upon advice, opinion, or ruling of. 149 A.L.R. 349.

Agricultural Adjustment Act, declaratory judgment as to controversy arising under. 98 A.L.R. 1200, 102 A.L.R. 937, 114 A.L.R. 136.

Construction and validity of statutes and ordinances, declaratory judgment as to. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Contracts or alleged contracts, application of Declaratory Judgment Acts to questions in respect of. 162 A.L.R. 756.

Criminal statutes and ordinances, validity, construction and application of, as proper subject for declaratory judgment. 10 A.L.R.3d 727.

Declaratory judgment as to construction and validity of contract. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Declaratory judgments, illustrative cases. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Declaratory or advisory relief respecting future interest. 174 A.L.R. 880.

Declaratory relief with respect to unemployment compensation. 14 A.L.R.2d 826.

Insurance questions, declaratory judgments on. 142 A.L.R. 8.

Quieting title to, or removing cloud on title to, personal property, under Declaratory Judgment Act. 105 A.L.R. 291.

Release as proper subject of action for declaratory judgment. 167 A.L.R. 433.

Relief against covenant restricting right to engage in business or profession as subject of declaratory judgment. 10 A.L.R.2d 743.

Specific performance as combinable with coercive or executory relief. 155 A.L.R. 520.

Declaratory judgment 141-189.

29-14-104. Construction of contract before or after breach.

A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 3; Shan. Supp., § 4726a3; Code 1932, § 8837; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1104.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 21, 22, 58, 62, 66.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

Declaratory judgment 144.

29-14-105. Fiduciary powers and duties.

Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, conservator or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, person adjudicated incompetent, or insolvent may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto to:

  1. Ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or others;
  2. Direct the executors, administrators, or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or
  3. Determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 4; Shan. Supp., § 4726a4; Code 1932, § 8838; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1105; Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 21.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 107 provided that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the eligibility for services or the rights or responsibilities of individuals covered by the provision on the day before the date of enactment of this legislation, which was July 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, ch. 47, § 108 provided that the provisions of the act are declared to be remedial in nature and all provisions of the act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 4-1508.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 12 Tenn. Juris., Executors and Administrators, § 50.

Attorney General Opinions. Surplus campaign funds of deceased candidate for state or local office, OAG 99-118 (5/14/99).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Parties.

The widow of testator, also his executrix and his adult children, have such interest in his will as to entitle them to have settled the right of the executrix to sell land for support of herself and children, where minor child is properly made defendant contradicter. Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924).

In order to obtain a declaration of the interests of distributees in the estate of a decedent, the personal representative and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration should be made parties. Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1931).

Upon a controversial matter a testamentary trustee is not entitled to a declaratory judgment until he is charged with the responsibility as donee of a trust power. This duty to act on the part of the trustee may be upon the death of the decedent or later, depending on the facts of the case. If the trustee has not been charged with the duty of acting, then the suit for a declaratory judgment is properly brought by the executor. Third Nat'l Co. v. Commerce Union Bank, 181 Tenn. 509, 181 S.W.2d 759, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 271 (1944).

An appeal from a declaratory judgment concerning rights in the estate of a decedent will not be dismissed on the ground that the appeal should have been taken by the executor rather than by certain of the distributees and legatees since such persons have a right to seek a declaratory judgment. Victory v. Victory, 55 Tenn. App. 264, 399 S.W.2d 332, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

2. Abstract Questions Not Decided.

While statute authorizes suit to declare rights arising in the construction of wills and other instruments, the court will not entertain it to decide contingent interests that may never arise. Nashville Trust Co. v. Lebeck, 197 Tenn. 164, 270 S.W.2d 470, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 467 (1954).

3. Will Construction.

4. —Estoppel to Contest.

Sound practice would not permit parties to prosecute to a final adjudication a suit to construe a will and declare the rights of the parties thereunder, assuming it to be valid, and then institute a proceeding to have the will declared void for fraud and undue influence, perhaps, rendering useless the work of the court in the first proceeding. Hodges v. Hale, 20 Tenn. App. 233, 97 S.W.2d 454, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

5. —Parol Evidence.

In construing the contract, parol evidence of the circumstances surrounding the parties may be considered for aid, but not for the purpose of contradicting the writing. Weatherly v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 16 Tenn. App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

6. Corporate Acts.

The trial court properly dismissed a declaratory action brought by a shareholder on behalf of the estate seeking rescission of a stock sale since there were no rights to be declared with respect to the ownership or devise of the shares. Christiansen v. Rolich Corp., 909 S.W.2d 823, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 1995).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 48, 49.

1 C.J.S. Action § 18.

Declaratory judgment as to matters relating to estates and trusts.

Declaratory or advisory relief respecting future interest. 174 A.L.R. 880.

Inheritance or other rights in respect of another's estate after death, questions regarding, as proper subject of declaratory action before latter's death. 139 A.L.R. 1239.

Declaratory judgment 243, 253.

29-14-106. Enumeration of powers not a restriction.

The enumeration in §§ 29-14-10329-14-105 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in § 29-14-102, in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 5; Shan. Supp., § 4726a5; Code 1932, § 8839; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1106.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Pleadings And Procedure.

Dismissal of a complaint by a borrower, who sought to enjoin several banks and a corporation from pursuing any further judicial or non-judicial foreclosure action against the borrower, was appropriate because the borrower failed to adequately plead a claim for declaratory relief as there was no justiciable controversy over the parties'  statutory rights and obligations. Moreover, absent an allegation by the borrower of actual damages, a declaratory judgment would have been purely theoretical. Crockett v. Mut. of Omaha, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015).

Collateral References.

Construction, application and effect of § 11 of Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act that all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration shall be made parties. 71 A.L.R.2d 723.

29-14-107. Parties to proceedings.

  1. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings.
  2. In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, such municipality shall be made a party, and shall be entitled to be heard, and if the statute, ordinance, or franchise is of statewide effect and is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general and reporter shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 11; Shan. Supp., § 4726a11; Code 1932, § 8845; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 8845; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1107.

Cross-References. Notice to attorney general when statute, rule or regulation is questioned, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.04.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 549, 553.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 95.

Law Reviews.

Actions — Necessary Parties for Declaratory Judgment, 16 Tenn. L. Rev. 877.

A Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, IV. Pretrial Procedure (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 308.

Disqualification of Clergy for Civil Office (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 555.

The Procedural Details of the Proposed Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, VI. Hearing of Appeals (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 86.

Cited: Buena Vista Special School Dist. v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 173 Tenn. 198, 116 S.W.2d 1008, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1938); Hastings v. United States, 133 F.2d 218, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3792 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1943); Ketner v. Clabo, 189 Tenn. 260, 225 S.W.2d 54, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 423 (1949); Campbell v. Unicoi County, 209 Tenn. 689, 356 S.W.2d 264, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 405 (1962); Engert v. Peerless Ins. Co., 53 Tenn. App. 310, 382 S.W.2d 541, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964); Hyden v. Baker, 286 F. Supp. 475, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11542 (M.D. Tenn. 1968); Paty v. McDaniel, 547 S.W.2d 897, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 568 (Tenn. 1977); Bucksnort Oil Co. v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 883, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18085 (M.D. Tenn. 1984); State v. Chastain, 871 S.W.2d 661, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. 1994); Oldham v. American Civil Liberties Union Found., 910 S.W.2d 431, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Bowden Bldg. Corp. v. Tennessee Real Estate Comm'n, 15 S.W.3d 434, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); In re Adoption of E.N.R., 42 S.W.3d 26, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (Tenn. 2001); Miltier v. Bank of Am., N.A., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessity.

Trial court erred in denying a lessee's motion to intervene and that it was a necessary party because, although the trial court denied the lessee's motion on the basis of prior suit pending and the intervention rules, it did not address the lessee's argument that it was a necessary party, and, until the trial court ruled on the lessee's argument, that issue was not ripe for review. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Medley, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2019).

2. —Generally.

All persons should be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1931).

Any declaratory judgment entered would not be binding upon parties in interest not having been made parties to the action. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Transit Co., 177 Tenn. 51, 146 S.W.2d 135, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1941).

While non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal on the question of a justiciable issue this does not mean that it is necessary to join all persons who might be remotely affected. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

Declaratory judgment action could lie against bank as representative of holders of bonds issued under Industrial Building Revenue Bond Act of 1951 (title 7, ch. 37) and Industrial Building Bond Act of 1955 (title 7, ch. 55) where bank was trustee under mortgage and deed of trust document and in such capacity represented interests of bondholders in the suit. Jack's Cookie Corp. v. Giles County, 219 Tenn. 131, 407 S.W.2d 446, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (1966).

Where the parties, either plaintiffs or defendants, who would be affected by a judgment are so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the court, the provisions of this section will not preclude the bringing of a declaratory judgment as a class action in which the parties appear by representation. Jack's Cookie Corp. v. Giles County, 219 Tenn. 131, 407 S.W.2d 446, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (1966).

In suit for declaratory judgment to effect that oil and gas lease had expired by its own terms for failure to produce oil or gas on the land subject to the lease, it was necessary to join original lessees and party to whom lease was assigned by one of the original lessees but it was not necessary to join each of some 522 individuals or entities who may have had some sort of subordinate interest because of assignments or subassignments of interests under the lease. David v. Coal Creek Mining & Mfg. Co., 224 Tenn. 636, 461 S.W.2d 29, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 366 (1970).

Defendant county was an interested party within the meaning of this section, since according to the record it was standard practice for the county to accept the responsibility for maintenance when the developers bring a road up to standards set by the planning commission, as evidenced by the commission's approval. Foley v. Hamilton, 603 S.W.2d 151, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The Declaratory Judgments Act imposes stricter requirements than those imposed generally by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19.01 and 19.02; while joinder may not be required under rules 19.01 and 19.02, it is clearly required in a suit for declaratory relief pursuant to subsection (a). Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Under subsection (a), a court of equity is vested with discretion to determine who should be made a party to proceedings for declaratory judgment. Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Mandatory nature of liability insurance or other proof of financial responsibility renders the interest of an injured motorist sufficiently direct so as to make that motorist a necessary party to a declaratory judgment action on the issue of coverage between a defendant tortfeasor and the tortfeasor's insurer. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Debruce, 586 S.W.3d 901, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018), rev'd, Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeBruce, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2019).

Tennessee's Declaratory Judgments Act requires the joinder of all parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration; this is a qualification independent from whether a party has material evidence to contribute. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Debruce, 586 S.W.3d 901, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018), rev'd, Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeBruce, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2019).

3. —Attorney General as Party.

In suit to test validity of a law, attorney general was properly made a party. Peters v. O'Brien, 152 Tenn. 466, 278 S.W. 660, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1925).

Provision for service of copy on attorney general is mandatory. Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 241 (1928).

In a proceeding for a declaratory judgment where the constitutionality of an act is involved the attorney general of the state should be made a party to the proceedings. Buena Vista Special School Dist. v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 173 Tenn. 198, 116 S.W.2d 1008, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1938).

This section requires the attorney general to be a party defendant in any declaratory judgment proceeding where the constitutionality of an act of the legislature is before the court. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

In suit to declare rights as between board of county commissioners and quarterly county court where it was not sought to test constitutionality of any of the statutes involved, attorney general and comptroller were not necessary parties. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

The attorney general was an indispensable party to an action by certain voters of a county to obtain equitable relief from alleged malapportionment of members of the county board of school commissioners by the general assembly and the quarterly county court. Dodd v. Barnes, 279 F. Supp. 291, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8054 (E.D. Tenn. 1967).

Defendant waived his claim that the statute was unconstitutional because he failed to properly mount a constitutional challenge; defendant was not subjected to additional criminal penalties without a hearing because the registry requirement was nonpunitive, and he had sufficient time to notify the Attorney General of a constitutional challenge and properly present it to the trial court, yet he failed to do so. State v. James, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 688 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 915 (Tenn. Oct. 29, 2014).

Trial court did not err in requiring a father to post a $2,500 bond because he waived the issues presented on appeal, including his constitutional challenge to the bond statute by failing to present them to the trial court, the challenged statute was not so obviously unconstitutional on its face as to obviate the necessity for any discussion, and the father failed to notify the Tennessee Attorney General of his challenge. Lee v. Eskridge, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2016).

Tennessee Attorney General was not a necessary party to a declaratory action to quiet title filed in chancery court because despite clear knowledge of the litigation in probate court the attorney general apparently decided not to move to intervene in that action directly involving the unnamed trust, the chancery court action did not involve a charitable gift or a discretionary charitable gift, as it was an action among neighboring landowners and neither the unnamed trust nor the trustee was a party to the action. Bakersouth, LLC v. Green Hills Mall Trg, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

If a former patient intended to challenge the constitutionality of the pre-suit notice requirement for a health care liability action, the patient was required to serve the Tennessee Attorney General with a copy of the patient's petition. Because the record indicated that the patient did not give the Attorney General of Tennessee a copy of the petition, the patient was precluded from challenging the constitutionality of the pre-suit notice statute on appeal. Cobble v. Erlanger Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 201 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020).

4. —State Officials.

In proceeding for a declaratory judgment to determine constitutionality of Public Acts 1949, ch. 49 providing for special election on calling of constitutional convention which act had been publicly declared unconstitutional by the attorney general the latter and the comptroller were necessary parties since act required spending of public funds. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

Although the Attorney General of Tennessee did not move for dismissal when a county clerk brought a motion to dismiss the complaint by ministers and citizens, it was also appropriate for the appellate court to dismiss any claims against the Attorney General because the Attorney General was not a necessary party to the action. Grant v. Anderson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2018).

5. —City Officials.

Complainant, a property owner and taxpayer, who filed bill for a declaratory judgment to have charter and franchise of defendant utility held invalid as far as selling natural gas was concerned could not maintain bill where he failed to join representatives of city as defendants to bill. Wright v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 183 Tenn. 594, 194 S.W.2d 459, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (1946).

6. —Foreign Administrator.

A declaration as to identity of distributees of an intestate cannot be made so as to bind a foreign administrator not a party. Sadler v. Mitchell, 162 Tenn. 363, 36 S.W.2d 891, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1931).

7. —Public Corporation.

Attempted service on defendant utility district created by private act by means of service on secretary of state and by publication in a proceeding for a declaratory judgment that private act was unconstitutional was invalid where no commissioner or officer for utility district existed. Bradley v. Rock Gardens Utility Dist., 186 Tenn. 665, 212 S.W.2d 657, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 596 (1948).

Customers and bondholders were necessary parties. In a declaratory judgment action, attacking the constitutionality of legislation of local application changing the method of filling vacancies on the board of commissioners of a utility district contrary to a bond covenant, which did not join as parties any customer of the utility district or any of its bondholders. Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

8. —Trustee.

Trustee holding title to property and the pledgee of notes secured by a trust deed are necessary parties to a declaration respecting the validity of the conveyance. Harrell v. American Home Mortg. Co., 161 Tenn. 646, 32 S.W.2d 1023, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1930), rehearing denied, 162 Tenn. 371, 36 S.W.2d 888, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1931).

9. —County Officials.

In suit to declare rights as between board of county commissioners and quarterly county court it was not necessary to join county employees who would only be incidentally affected. Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

10. Nonjoinder.

Nonjoinder of necessary parties is fatal on the question of “justiciability” which, in a suit for a declaratory judgment, is a necessary condition of judicial relief. Wright v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 183 Tenn. 594, 194 S.W.2d 459, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (1946); Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 201 S.W.2d 686, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1947).

Tenant's assignee was a necessary party under T.C.A. §§ 29-14-103 and 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19.01 and 19.02 in a suit filed under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act, T.C.A. § 29-14-101 et seq., as the dispute between the buyer and the seller included their purchase contract and a rooftop agreement between the seller and a tenant, as assigned to the assignee; the holding that the rooftop agreement created a lease, and not an easement, determined the legal property interest created in the tenant and assigned to the assignee, and implicitly determined that the relationship of the parties to the rooftop agreement was one of landlord-tenant. Adler v. Double Eagle Props. Holdings, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011).

Trial court did not err by determining that the other landowners holding title to real property annexed by the challenged ordinances were indispensable parties, and therefore it did not err by dismissing the landowner's declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to non-joinder of indispensable parties, because the omission of other affected landowners would expose the city to repeated lawsuits with risk of inconsistent obligations. Largen v. City of Harriman, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2018).

Driver, as an injured plaintiff, had a sufficiently direct interest in a declaratory judgment action between an insurer and an insureds so as to render her an indispensable party under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and thus, the trial court maintained no subject matter jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment in her absence; the driver's impact on the outcome of the action was irrelevant as to whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction when the suit was initially filed. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Debruce, 586 S.W.3d 901, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018), rev'd, Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeBruce, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2019).

Because the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment in a driver's absence, it also did not have subject matter jurisdiction to subsequently rule on her petition to set aside the judgment entered against an insured. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Debruce, 586 S.W.3d 901, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018), rev'd, Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeBruce, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2019).

Trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a landowner's contest of an ordinance abandoning an alley adjacent to the landowner's property because, whether the suit was properly a declaratory judgment action or a petition for a writ of certiorari, (1) no abuse of discretion was shown, and (2) the landowner failed to join indispensable parties by not joining owners of land adjacent to the alley, as invalidating the ordinance affected these landowners, and the landowner's claim that the ordinance was void or that the other landowners'  interests were represented by a party did not excuse joinder. Little v. City of Chattanooga, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).

11. Defendant — Duty to Defend.

If proper parties are before the court in proceeding for a declaratory judgment the defendants are not required to defend, as it is the duty of the court to declare the rights of the parties if the proper parties are before the court. Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 411 (1949).

12. Relief Granted.

13. —Private Act Validity.

An election commissioner is entitled to a declaratory judgment as to validity of a private act regulating election hours. Wallace v. Lewallen, 186 Tenn. 411, 210 S.W.2d 684, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 564 (1948).

14. —Dental Practice.

Suit is maintainable by board of dental examiners to ascertain the right of dental students to practice under the supervision of their instructors and to charge for their services. Powers v. Vinsant, 165 Tenn. 390, 54 S.W.2d 938, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1932).

15. —Utility Rates.

One may maintain a suit in chancery for a judgment against the public utilities commission, where it was attempting to enforce rates claimed to deprive of property rights. Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Hannah, 157 Tenn. 582, 12 S.W.2d 372, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1928).

16. Complainant's Interest.

Suit by taxpayer to test constitutionality of an act amending the charter of the city of Elizabethton was properly dismissed for want of averment that the city government under the amended act would impose an additional tax upon complainant. Perry v. Elizabethton, 160 Tenn. 102, 22 S.W.2d 359, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1929).

Bill by taxpayer and property owner for a declaratory judgment that public utility could not sell natural gas under its charter and franchise could not be maintained where bill failed to show that he had a special interest involved and that enjoining of sale of natural gas would be a benefit to property owners or taxpayers of the city. Wright v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 183 Tenn. 594, 194 S.W.2d 459, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (1946).

17. Judicial Discretion.

In a declaratory judgment case concerning the settlement proceeds of a personal injury case in which the surviving children of the deceased argued that the trial court should have dismissed the case on the procedural issue of non joinder of necessary parties and the failure to present a justiciable issue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not dismissing the case. The court believed that the more proper method, the more fair method would be to give the deceased's grandson leave to amend his complaint and to continue to consider the surviving children's claim with regard to dismissing it on the substantive issues. Timmins v. Lindsey, 310 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2010).

18. Notification.

Father's constitutional challenge to the application of T.C.A. § 36-6-106(a) was waived for consideration on appeal, because the issue was not presented to or decided by the juvenile court and the Office of the Attorney General was not notified. In re Cannon H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017); In re Piper H., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 750 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).

Constitutional validity of the statutes creating the Workers'  Compensation Appeals Board was not drawn in question until the claimant had the opportunity to present his constitutional challenge before a judicial court because the Appeals Board, as an administrative tribunal, did not have the authority to determine the facial constitutionality of a statute; thus, the claimant satisfied the notice requirement for his constitutional challenges, and did not waive his right to bring those constitutional challenges. Pope v. Nebco of Cleveland, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Jan. 16, 2018).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 65, 79-86.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

Massachusetts or business trust, action by trustees of. 88 A.L.R.3d 704.

Parties defendant. 87 A.L.R. 1244.

Parties plaintiff. 87 A.L.R. 1243.

Statute or ordinance, interest necessary to maintenance of declaratory determination of validity of. 174 A.L.R. 549.

Declaratory judgment 291-306.

29-14-108. Issues of fact.

When a proceeding under this chapter involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 9; Shan. Supp., § 4726a9; Code 1932, § 8843; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1108.

Cross-References. Trial by jury allowed, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 57.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Law Reviews.

Ancillary Rights of the Insured Against His Liability Insurer (Robert E. Keeton), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 837.

Cited: Metropolitan Dev. & Housing Agency v. Brown Stove Works, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 876, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Wunderlich v. Fortas, 776 S.W.2d 953, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); McCallen v. Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. 1990); MC Props., Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 994 S.W.2d 132, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Disputed Facts on Jurisdiction.

While determination of an issue of fact is authorized by the statute the settlement of disputed facts at issue between the parties will ordinarily be relegated to the proper jurisdictional forums otherwise provided. Hinchman v. City Water Co., 179 Tenn. 545, 167 S.W.2d 986, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1943); Southern R. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 209 Tenn. 177, 352 S.W.2d 217, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1961); Standard Acci. Ins. Co. v. Carvin, 217 Tenn. 662, 400 S.W.2d 235, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 619 (1966).

Whether or not a court should exercise its discretion to entertain a declaratory judgment suit where a complicated question of fact exists is itself a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts of the particular case. Southern R. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 209 Tenn. 177, 352 S.W.2d 217, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1961); Standard Acci. Ins. Co. v. Carvin, 217 Tenn. 662, 400 S.W.2d 235, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 619 (1966).

2. Pleading.

Proceedings under the Declaratory Judgment Act are governed by applicable established rules of pleading. Newsum v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W. 56, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1925).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments § 19.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

Disputed question of fact. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Declaratory judgment 10.

29-14-109. Refusal to render judgment.

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceedings.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 6; Shan. Supp., § 4726a6; Code 1932, § 8840; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1109.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 555.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 94.

Cited: Griswold v. Income Properties, II, 880 S.W.2d 672, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 786 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The court may refuse to decree where same if rendered would terminate in uncertainty. Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924); Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Transit Co., 177 Tenn. 51, 146 S.W.2d 135, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1941).

2. Discretion.

Grant of relief is discretionary. Harrell v. American Home Mortg. Co., 162 Tenn. 371, 36 S.W.2d 888, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1931).

The courts have a very wide discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which should be exercised with the utmost caution. Hinchman v. City Water Co., 179 Tenn. 545, 167 S.W.2d 986, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1943); Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 330, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 331 (1949).

Whether to grant or deny a declaratory judgment is largely discretionary with the chancellor and the action of the chancellor in refusing to make such a declaration should not be disturbed on appeal unless such refusal is arbitrary. Huntsville Utility Dist. of Scott County v. General Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

The trial court abused its discretion in declining to issue a declaratory judgment concerning an allegedly void municipal annexation where such judgment would have terminated a significant controversy, and where the question did not concern disputed facts or the delay of another cause of action. State ex rel. Earhart v. City of Bristol, 970 S.W.2d 948, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. 1998).

3. Disputed Facts.

Declaratory judgment may properly be refused if judicial investigation of disputed facts is first necessary. Newsum v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W. 56, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1925); Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942 (1949).

Chancellor did not err in dismissing suit for declaratory judgment relative to action of mayor in dismissing application of plaintiff for license and change of address where determination could only be made by examination of disputed facts. Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 331 (1949).

4. Present Controversy — Necessity.

A bill of complaint alleging no present controversy as to the amount of indebtedness claimed to be guaranteed by defendant, nor as to the validity or scope of the guaranty agreement, and no wrong or omission making it necessary for the guarantor to be made a party for the protection of complainant's interests, is not sustainable as a bill for declaratory relief. Hill State Bank & Trust Co. v. Chew, 167 Tenn. 71, 66 S.W.2d 989, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1934).

Where a declaration would not terminate any controversy, nor determine present rights of either party, the dismissal of the bill and refusal of the declaration was proper. Nicholson v. Cummings, 188 Tenn. 201, 217 S.W.2d 942, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (1949).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 9, 13, 22, 31.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

Declaration of rights or declaratory judgments, relief as discretionary. 12 A.L.R. 52, 19 A.L.R. 1124, 50 A.L.R. 42, 68 A.L.R. 110, 87 A.L.R. 1205, 114 A.L.R. 1361, 142 A.L.R. 8.

Discretion of court as to declaratory relief respecting future interest. 174 A.L.R. 880.

Declaratory judgment 382.

29-14-110. Additional relief.

  1. Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper.
  2. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief.
  3. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 8; Shan. Supp., § 4726a8; Code 1932, § 8842; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1110.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Cited: Darty v. Darty, 33 Tenn. App. 321, 232 S.W.2d 59, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949); Bedford County Hospital v. County of Bedford, 42 Tenn. App. 569, 304 S.W.2d 697, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957); Paduch v. City of Johnson City, 896 S.W.2d 767, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. 1995).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

Although the complaint was one for declaratory relief, further relief could be granted as necessary or proper pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-110; furthermore, by addressing the claim for damages in their answer, defendants put the question at issue. R & D Marina, Inc. v. Roane County, 44 S.W.3d 33, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 638 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 311 (Tenn. Apr. 9, 2001).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments §§ 99, 100.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 18.

Declaratory judgment 43.

29-14-111. Costs.

In any proceeding under this chapter, the court may make such award of cost as may seem equitable and just.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 10; Shan. Supp., § 4726a10; Code 1932, § 8844; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1111.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 96.

Cited: Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 2008); Doe v. Gwyn, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2011); Williamson County Election Comm'n v. Webb, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Costs Paid by Plaintiff.

Where complainants are entitled to no more relief than a declaration of their rights and status for their own protection, they should pay costs. Erwin Billiard Parlor v. Buckner, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W. 565, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1927).

Where plaintiffs brought a successful action for a declaratory judgment granting them the authority to order that a comatose patient be removed from a life-sustaining respirator, and where patient's physician was joined as a necessary defendant, the court held that the equities of the case required that all costs, including the guardian ad litem's fee, be paid by the plaintiffs who initiated the action, rather than by the physician. Dockery v. Dockery, 559 S.W.2d 952, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 309 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments § 101.

20 C.J.S. Costs §§ 8, 71.

Costs 221.

29-14-112. Review.

All orders, judgments, and decrees under this chapter may be reviewed as other orders, judgments, and decrees.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 7; Shan. Supp., § 4726a7; Code 1932, § 8841; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1112.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Federal Review.

United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction of appeal from state court in proceeding under Tennessee Declaratory Judgments Act, against state official alleged to have decided to enforce demand for tax, to obtain judgment declaring tax invalid under federal Constitution. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 53 S. Ct. 345, 77 L. Ed. 730, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 37, 87 A.L.R. 1191 (1933).

Collateral References. 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appeal and Error § 119.

Appeal and error 392-395.

29-14-113. Liberal construction.

This chapter is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.

Acts 1923, ch. 29, § 12; Shan. Supp., § 4726a12; Code 1932, § 8846; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1113.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 548.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 385, 696.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Judgments and Decrees, § 94.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Liberal Construction.

The purpose of the declaratory judgments statute is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered. Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924).

This chapter should be liberally construed in favor of the person seeking relief in a proper case to the end that rights and interests be expeditiously determined. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 200 Tenn. 106, 290 S.W.2d 860, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1956).

Declaratory judgment law must be liberally construed to effect its purpose, that is, to finally decree the rights of the parties and to give them the relief to which they are entitled. Bedford County Hospital v. County of Bedford, 42 Tenn. App. 569, 304 S.W.2d 697, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957); Shelby County Board of Comm'rs v. Shelby County Quarterly Court, 216 Tenn. 470, 392 S.W.2d 935, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 592 (1965).

While this section requires that the declaratory judgment statutes be construed liberally, the courts will grant declaratory relief only to parties who have a real interest in the litigation, and when the case involves present rights that have accrued under presently existing facts. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 868 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Although T.C.A. § 29-14-113 is to be liberally construed and administered, certain limitations must be placed upon its operation. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000), rehearing denied, State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. May 24, 2000).

2. Limitations.

A declaratory judgment cannot be used by a court to decide a theoretical question, render an advisory opinion which may help a party in another transaction, or allay fears as to what may occur in the future. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000), rehearing denied, State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. May 24, 2000).

Where an insurer's product liability suit was transferred from federal court in Connecticut to federal court in Tennessee, Tennessee's statute of repose did not bar the product liability claims, because Connecticut's choice-of-law rules applied under the Van Dusen  rule; the manufacturer's assertion that it would reinstate its declaratory judgment action was not a sufficient reason to disregard the Van Dusen  rule. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Broan Nutone, LLC, 348 F. Supp. 2d 934, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26324 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

3. Justiciable Controversy.

In order to maintain an action for a declaratory judgment, a justiciable controversy must exist. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000), rehearing denied, State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. May 24, 2000).

For a controversy to be justiciable, a real question rather than a theoretical one must be presented and a legally protectable interest must be at stake. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000), rehearing denied, State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. May 24, 2000).

If the controversy depends upon a future or contingent event, or involves a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts, the controversy is not justiciable. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (Tenn. 2000), rehearing denied, State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. May 24, 2000).

Dismissal of the voter's suit filed under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act, asserting that the legislation authorizing the use of electronic voting machines in some jurisdictions violated Tenn. Const. art. I, § 5 and Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1, was affirmed because even if the appellate court were to concede that paperless voting could disenfranchise voters under certain circumstances, there was no indication in the complaint that voters were presently being disenfranchised by the current voting system. Mills v. Shelby County Election Comm'n, 218 S.W.3d 33, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1184 (Tenn. Dec. 18, 2006).

Because the doctor did not commit an anticipatory repudiation of her employment agreement with the employer and thus no justiciable controversy was ever before the trial court pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-113, she was entitled to summary judgment. UT Med. Group v. Vogt, 235 S.W.3d 110, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2007).

Trial court properly found that a justiciable issue existed and granted a declaratory judgment because a city was entitled to have an agreed order enforced as any other contract, and its seeking a declaratory judgment regarding interpretation and enforcement of the order was entirely proper; pursuant to the express terms of the parties' agreed order, they waived any rights to further appeal or administrative remedy before the city board of appeals and adjustments. City of Gatlinburg v. Kaplow, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 886 (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2014).

Even if the inmates had sufficiently alleged that the protocol was unconstitutional as applied to one or more of them or that one or more individuals may cause the protocol to be carried out in an unconstitutional manner in the future, the claims were hypothetical and speculative and did not constitute a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act. West v. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Mar. 10, 2015).

4. Jurisdiction.

Trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a landowner's contest of an ordinance abandoning an alley adjacent to the landowner's property because, whether the suit was properly a declaratory judgment action or a petition for a writ of certiorari, (1) no abuse of discretion was shown, and (2) the landowner failed to join indispensable parties by not joining owners of land adjacent to the alley, as invalidating the ordinance affected these landowners, and the landowner's claim that the ordinance was void or that the other landowners'  interests were represented by a party did not excuse joinder. Little v. City of Chattanooga, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).

Collateral References. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments § 8.

Chapter 15
Ejectment

29-15-101. Alternative actions.

Where the action is to recover real property, ejectment, or forcible or unlawful entry or detainer may be brought.

Code 1858, § 2750; Shan., § 4441; Code 1932, § 8567; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1301.

Cross-References. Assignment in interest in lease or rent, § 66-26-116.

Dispossession of tenant from rented dwelling for filing complaint prohibited, § 68-111-105.

Forcible entry and detainer, title 29, ch. 18.

Injunction pending litigation, § 29-1-102.

One form of action, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 2.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, §§ 2, 11.

Law Reviews.

An Exegesis of the Ejectment Statutes of Tennessee (R.D. Cox), 18 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 581 (1988).

An Overview of the Tennessee Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 109.

Pleading — General Issue — Scope in Tennessee, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 256.

Tennessee and the Installment Land Contract: A Viable Alternative to the Deed of Trust, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 551 (1991).

Comparative Legislation. Ejectment:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-280 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-201 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 44-11-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 383.200 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-19-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 524.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-26 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-131 et seq.

Cited: Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992); Roach v. Renfro, 989 S.W.2d 335, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Trust Deed Grantor in Possession.

Where a mortgage in trust deed form provided for retention of possession and right to rent by the grantor until default, after which the trustee or beneficiary should be entitled to rents, the latter, bringing action for unlawful detainer upon default, could maintain an action at law to recover possession. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 167 Tenn. 620, 72 S.W.2d 1050, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1934).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 1-16, 57; 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 1-8.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 2, 3.

Action to recover property of church or religious society. 20 A.L.R.2d 421.

Mineral in situ. 35 A.L.R. 234.

Right of landlord legally entitled to possession to dispossess tenant without legal process. 6 A.L.R.3d 177.

Ejectment 5.

29-15-102. Right to ejectment.

Any person having a valid subsisting legal interest in real property, and a right to the immediate possession thereof, may recover the same by an action of ejectment.

Code 1858, § 3229; Shan., § 4970; Code 1932, § 9118; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1302.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 81, 479.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 198; 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, §§ 4, 10, 14, 30.

Law Reviews.

Mortgages — Taxation of Mortgagor's and Mortgagee's Interest, 20 Tenn. L. Rev. 280.

Tennessee and the Installment Land Contract: A Viable Alternative to the Deed of Trust, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 551 (1991).

Cited: Pan-Am Southern Corp. v. Cummins, 156 F. Supp. 673, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2844 (D. Tenn. 1957); In re Twinton Properties Partnership, 44 B.R. 426, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4720 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984); Johnson v. Mt. Pleasant, 713 S.W.2d 659, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3299 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction.

By the general provisions of this chapter, the circuit court has jurisdiction in all cases of ejectment; and by § 16-11-102, the chancery court has the same jurisdiction as the circuit court in all cases of ejectment, notwithstanding the land may be of less value than $50.00. Frazier v. Browning, 79 Tenn. 253, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1883).

An ejectment suit is a legal remedy over which the circuit and chancery courts have concurrent jurisdiction and the circuit court did not err in refusing to transfer case to chancery court. Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955).

2. —Chancery.

The circuit court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the title of the property in a forcible entry and detainer suit; but the chancery court has jurisdiction under an ejectment bill to inquire into and settle the title, and having done so it might decree that the owner is entitled to the immediate possession of same. Branstetter v. Poynter, 32 Tenn. App. 189, 222 S.W.2d 214, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949).

3. Nature of Action.

Ejectment is purely a legal action with the only question being one of legal title and the right to possession in connection with the title. Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955).

Property owner was not required to bring an action for ejectment in order to obtain the relief of a judgment declaring who owned the disputed property; there was nothing in the jurisprudence that required the owner to file her lawsuit as an ejectment action rather than an action to quiet title and/or remove a cloud from her title. Dunegan v. Griffith, 253 S.W.3d 164, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 175 (Tenn. Mar. 10, 2008).

4. —Real Action.

In Tennessee ejectment is, by this section, distinctively a real action. Bertha v. Smith, 26 Tenn. App. 619, 175 S.W.2d 41, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1943).

5. —Equivalent Action.

A bill to enjoin the execution of a writ of possession issued under a confirmation of sale is the equivalent of an action in ejectment. Demarcus v. Campbell, 17 Tenn. App. 56, 65 S.W.2d 876, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

6. Essential Elements.

7. —Generally.

The plaintiff in ejectment must, to succeed, show both the legal title and the right to immediate possession in himself; and one who has executed a deed of trust to secure a debt, retaining the right or possession until default, may not maintain ejectment, without joining the trustee or mortgagee, for he has not the legal title. Brier Hill Collieries v. Gernt, 131 Tenn. 542, 175 S.W. 560, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1915).

In an action of ejectment, plaintiff must have either a title to the property with a present right of continued possession or have had actual bona fide possession of the property with a right to maintain a continued possession when ousted by defendant and a present right to the possession when the action was begun. Bertha v. Smith, 26 Tenn. App. 619, 175 S.W.2d 41, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1943).

8. —Legal Title.

Legal title is indispensable to maintain ejectment, and outstanding title must be a legal title to be available as a defense in ejectment. Crutsinger v. Catron, 29 Tenn. 24, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1848), overruled in part, Heirs of Marr v. Gilliam, 41 Tenn. 488, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1860); Langford v. Love, 35 Tenn. 308, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1855); Campbell v. Campbell, 40 Tenn. 325, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1859); Garrett v. Belmont Land Co., 94 Tenn. 459, 29 S.W. 726, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1895); King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561, 40 S.W. 1082, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1897); Hubbard v. Godfrey, 100 Tenn. 150, 47 S.W. 81, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1898).

For dispossession of plaintiff by defendant, the plaintiff might maintain an action of unlawful entry and detainer, but not ejectment, when he has not the legal title. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 F. 812, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4728 (6th Cir. 1902).

Where petitioner filed a bill to reform a deed previously issued to him as guardian on the ground that he had personally contributed the funds for purchase of the land and defendants filed cross bill in which they alleged that they were entitled to recover from petitioner on the ground that land was purchased with their funds it was not an ejectment proceeding since parties claimed only equitable interests in the land. Murphy v. Sullivan, 124 Tenn. 429, 136 S.W. 996, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1911).

The complainant in an ejectment suit may establish his legal title by deraigning title from the estate, or by seven years' adverse possession under a registered color of title, where the land had been granted by the state of Tennessee, or by 20 years' actual adverse possession when a legal title will be presumed, or by deraigning title to a common source, but he cannot recover, even against a naked trespasser, without proof of a perfect title. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 23 Tenn. App. 269, 130 S.W.2d 157, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

9. —Strength of Title.

In ejectment, the complainant or plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title. The weakness of his adversary's title will not avail. Outstanding title in third person will defeat plaintiff's recovery. Evans v. Belmont Land Co., 92 Tenn. 348, 21 S.W. 670, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1893); Hubbard v. Godfrey, 100 Tenn. 150, 47 S.W. 81, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1898); Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tenn. 590, 195 S.W. 173, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1917); Keel v. Sutton, 142 Tenn. 341, 219 S.W. 351, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 63 (1919); Hilton v. Anderson, 149 Tenn. 622, 261 S.W. 984, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1923).

In ejectment, the plaintiff cannot recover, even against a naked trespasser, without proof of a perfect title, either by deraignment from the state or by adverse possession for seven years under the required color of title. He cannot recover upon proof of registered color of title and adverse possession thereunder accompanied by payment of taxes on the land, for a period of less than seven years. Hubbard v. Godfrey, 100 Tenn. 150, 47 S.W. 81, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1898); Lowry v. Whitehead, 103 Tenn. 396, 53 S.W. 731, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1899).

The plaintiff in ejectment must show a perfect title to recover even against the defendant who has no title or is a naked trespasser. He cannot recover upon comparison of titles with the defendant. Hubbard v. Godfrey, 100 Tenn. 150, 47 S.W. 81, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1898); Lowry v. Whitehead, 103 Tenn. 396, 53 S.W. 731, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 120 (1899).

To recover in ejectment complainant must rely on the strength of his own title, not the weakness of his adversary's. Demarcus v. Campbell, 17 Tenn. App. 56, 65 S.W.2d 876, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 23 Tenn. App. 269, 130 S.W.2d 157, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939); Bertha v. Smith, 26 Tenn. App. 619, 175 S.W.2d 41, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1943); Tipton v. Smith, 593 S.W.2d 298, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

Where plaintiff purchased land under a trust deed and brought ejectment against defendants who had defaulted on note secured by such trust deed so that the land in dispute was sold such defendants could not use the defense of lack of consideration of such note since ejectment looks only to the legal title and here there was no evidence of fraud in the execution of the deed so that defendants' only remedy would be in a court of equity in a suit to avoid the deed. Patterson v. Robertson, 171 Tenn. 520, 106 S.W.2d 215, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1937).

Where complainant gave his brother a deed to land which was left in possession of wife and children of brother when latter obtained divorce, although divorce decree made no disposition of same, and complainant asserted title to land when brother redelivered same deed to him in lieu of $50.00 balance on purchase price, no other deed having been executed by brother back to complainant, it was held on petition for rehearing that assuming brother's wife claimed title by parol gift or deed, or that she did not claim under anybody, her possession was good as against everybody but the true owner. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 23 Tenn. App. 269, 130 S.W.2d 157, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Where complainant in ejectment action against divorced husband and wife contended that husband was estopped to assert title under deed which he had surrendered, but did not show that wife claimed title under husband, wife who was merely relying on complainant's failure to establish his own title was not estopped. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 23 Tenn. App. 269, 130 S.W.2d 157, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

In ejectment action plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not because of the weakness or want of title of the defendant. Davidson v. Foley, 57 Tenn. App. 22, 414 S.W.2d 123, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966); Hall v. Lane, 60 Tenn. App. 38, 444 S.W.2d 156, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

In ejectment action plaintiff must show a perfect title to recover even against a defendant who has no title or is a naked trespasser. Davidson v. Foley, 57 Tenn. App. 22, 414 S.W.2d 123, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

10. Source of Title.

11. —Legal Title.

Bill in ejectment suit was dismissed for want of legal title in complainant where his testimony showed that his claim to title in land depended upon unrecorded deed which was surrendered or redelivered to him by third person. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 23 Tenn. App. 269, 130 S.W.2d 157, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

In an ejectment suit, the complainant may establish his legal title by deraignment from the state, or by seven years adverse possession under a registered color of title by grant from the state or by 20 years actual adverse possession or by deraigning title to a common source. Tipton v. Smith, 593 S.W.2d 298, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

12. —Common Source of Title.

Deraignment of title by plaintiff in ejectment beyond the common source under which both parties claim is not required. Moss v. Union Bank, 66 Tenn. 216, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1874); Allen v. Moss, 2 Shan. 317 (1877); Hyder v. Butler, 103 Tenn. 289, 52 S.W. 876, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1899); Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tenn. 590, 195 S.W. 173, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 170 (1917); Campbell v. Tennessee C., I. & R. Co., 150 Tenn. 423, 265 S.W. 674, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1924).

The reason underlying the rule forbidding either party to deny the common source of title is that one cannot dispute the title by or under which he claims. Scales v. James, 9 Tenn. App. 306, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

In proof to establish title in ejectment by the one claiming the property it is necessary that they deraign title to a common source under which both parties claim, or by deraignment from the state, or by requisite color of title. Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955); Davidson v. Foley, 57 Tenn. App. 22, 414 S.W.2d 123, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

13. —Grant After Suit.

A grant issued after the commencement of the ejectment suit, but based upon an entry made prior thereto, is sufficient to support the action, because such grant relates to the date of the entry. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 F. 812, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4728 (6th Cir. 1902).

14. —Tax Sale.

Defendant in ejectment, who was in possession of the property, was presumed to have a possessory title, and had the right, in protecting this possessory title, to show an outstanding title in the state by reason of a sale of the property for taxes. Bertha v. Smith, 26 Tenn. App. 619, 175 S.W.2d 41, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1943).

15. —Subsequent Grantee Without Prior Caveat Proceedings.

Where the holder of a subsequent grant based upon a special entry did not file a caveat to test the validity of an earlier grant which was not based upon a special entry, the holder of such subsequent grant is not precluded from making a later attack, and the question of title to the land under such a state of facts may be tried in ejectment, without reference to any prior caveat proceedings. Sequatchie & S. P. Coal & Iron Co. v. Tennessee C. I. & R. Co., 131 Tenn. 221, 174 S.W. 1122, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1915).

16. —Judicial Sales as Source of Title.

The general rule is that, in ejectment by the purchaser at execution sale against the execution debtor in actual possession at the date of the levy, the plaintiff is not required to deraign title further back than the sheriff's deed to him, and the same rule applies to other judicial sales and conveyances. Tillery's Lessee v. Wilson, 1 Tenn. 236, 1807 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1807); Fine's Lessee v. Pitner, 1 Tenn. 299, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1808); Kimbrough v. Benton, 22 Tenn. 129, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1842); Siglar v. Malone, 22 Tenn. 16, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1842); Keaton v. Thomasson's Lessee, 32 Tenn. 138, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1852); Pratt v. Phillips, 33 Tenn. 543, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1853); Hamilton v. Jack, 33 Tenn. 81, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1853); Christian v. Mynatt, 79 Tenn. 615, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1883).

17. Parties.

18. —Noncomplying Foreign Corporation Suing.

A noncomplying foreign corporation may sue in ejectment without complying with statute by registering its charter. Bouldin v. Taylor, 152 Tenn. 97, 275 S.W. 340, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924).

19. —Joinder.

Tenants in common may join in an action of ejectment, and some or all recover, and recover some or all of the premises sued for, according as their respective titles may appear; and the bar of the statute of limitations as to some will not operate to bar the others. Barrow's Lessee v. Nave, 10 Tenn. 227, 1828 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1828); Poole v. Lessee of Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 1837 U.S. LEXIS 174 (1837); Belote v. White, 39 Tenn. 703, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (1859); Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Williams v. Coal Creek Min. & Mfg. Co., 115 Tenn. 578, 93 S.W. 572, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1906); Ferguson v. Prince, 136 Tenn. 543, 190 S.W. 548, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1916).

Where ejectment was in name of three, one having no title, the other two having the title will recover. Roberts v. Pharis' Lessee, 16 Tenn. 447, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1835).

The effect of the bar of the statute cannot be obviated by a partition and allotment to one not barred of that part of the land as to which the others were barred. Wade v. Johnson, 24 Tenn. 117, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1844).

The recovery by a tenant in common, in an action of ejectment against a defendant in possession, without right, will be confined, both in right and possession, to his undivided interest in the property, and he is not entitled to recover the possession of the whole tract of land, to be held by himself and his cotenants. Williams v. Coal Creek Min. & Mfg. Co., 115 Tenn. 578, 93 S.W. 572, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1906).

20. Accretions — Requisites for Suit Therefor.

Plaintiff must have the legal title to the lateral lands, in order to maintain an action of ejectment to recover the accretions to such lands. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 F. 812, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4728 (6th Cir. 1902).

21. Adverse Possession.

Where occupants of land were in actual adverse possession of land at the time that deed was made from record owner to complainant in ejectment action, deed was champertous and void as to portion of land adversely held. Davidson v. Foley, 57 Tenn. App. 22, 414 S.W.2d 123, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

Where a party bases his title or right to possession of property upon adverse possession the burden is upon him to sustain that contention. Tipton v. Smith, 593 S.W.2d 298, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

22. —Equitable Title as Evidence.

A covenant which passes only an equitable interest in lands is admissible, on the trial of the action of ejectment, as evidence to establish a possession of the land sued for but not as a title to support the action. Lafferty v. Whitesides, 31 Tenn. 123, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1851).

23. —Quieting Possession.

A plaintiff who has perfected his title by adverse possession for 20 years may maintain a bill in the nature of an ejectment bill to quiet his title and possession to the property in question and to enjoin defendants from interfering with complainant's possession notwithstanding plaintiff is in possession and defendants have only a naked adverse claim. Scruggs v. Baugh, 3 Tenn. App. 256, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

24. Incidental Relief.

25. —Removal of Cloud.

Where the original bill made a case of ejectment, its character is not changed by an amendment seeking to remove the defendant's claim as a cloud, because such relief is merely incidental to that sought in the original bill, and the court of civil appeals has no appellate jurisdiction. Reeves v. Haynie, 128 Tenn. 717, 164 S.W. 780, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1914).

In action to remove cloud from title, possession is decreed as incidental relief. Bouldin v. Taylor, 152 Tenn. 97, 275 S.W. 340, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1924).

26. —Injunction.

Where the chancery court had jurisdiction to settle the rights of the parties as to title and consequent right of possession in certain land it also had jurisdiction to enjoin further proceedings in the circuit court between the same parties in a forcible entry and detainer action since jurisdiction for one purpose gave jurisdiction for all purposes. Mathis v. Campbell, 22 Tenn. App. 40, 117 S.W.2d 764, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

27. Reformation of Deed in Ejectment.

In ejectment no reformation of a deed is permissible where the grantors are not parties. Brier Hill Collieries v. Gernt, 131 Tenn. 542, 175 S.W. 560, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1915).

28. Burden of Proof.

The burden of proof is upon complainant, in an action of ejectment, to establish his title and his right of possession. Where it is shown the title is in a third person the burden is upon complainant to overcome this by competent proof. Bertha v. Smith, 26 Tenn. App. 619, 175 S.W.2d 41, 1943 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1943).

29. —Variance.

Where first part of bill stated that complainants took land as heirs of William Chilton Sr., but exhibit attached showed that last deed was to William Chilton Jr., and the proof showed that complainants took land as heirs of William Chilton Jr., a decree in favor of complainants was not erroneous on the ground of fatal variance since bill taken as a whole indicated that complainants intended to claim land as heirs of William Chilton Jr. Hale v. Morgan, 63 S.W. 506, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 178 (1900).

30. Judgment for Plaintiffs — Part of Whom are Dead.

A judgment in ejectment in favor of several plaintiffs, some of whom are then dead, is void as to the plaintiffs and the heirs of plaintiffs then dead, but is good as to the living plaintiffs. Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881).

31. Defenses.

Equitable pleas are not proper defenses in ejectment actions. Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 17-45.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 10, 24.

Action of expelled member to recover property of a church or religious society. 20 A.L.R.2d 421.

Attorney's compensation for services in ejectment action, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 830, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Ejectment as remedy of tenant against stranger wrongfully interfering with his possession. 12 A.L.R.2d 1192.

Estoppel of tenant never in possession under lease to dispute landlord's title in action of ejectment. 98 A.L.R. 546.

Jurisdiction of justice of the peace (or similar court) of ejectment action. 115 A.L.R. 514.

Mineral in situ, right of owner of interest in, to maintain ejectment. 35 A.L.R. 234.

Mortgage foreclosure proceedings which are imperfect or irregular, ejectment by, or against, purchaser under. 73 A.L.R. 640.

Nonresidence or absence of defendant from state as suspending statute of limitations where relief is sought, or could have been sought, by action for recovery of land within state. 119 A.L.R. 365.

Pretermitted child's remedy by ejectment action. 123 A.L.R. 1091.

Right-of-way, ejectment as remedy for interference with. 47 A.L.R. 554.

Right to use force to obtain possession of real property to which one is entitled. 141 A.L.R. 272.

Rule that in general inhibits foreign corporation which has failed to comply with conditions of doing or continuing business in state, or domestic corporation which has forfeited its charter, from maintaining action, as applicable to action of ejectment. 136 A.L.R. 1168.

Rule that plaintiff in ejectment need not trace title back to common source. 5 A.L.R.3d 375.

Rule that plaintiff may recover on proof of better title from common source as applicable where plaintiff's evidence shows that common source title is bad. 5 A.L.R.3d 375.

Taxes, right or owner who has in fact paid taxes in question to maintain ejectment against purchaser at tax sale. 26 A.L.R. 631.

Vendor in contract for sale or exchange of real property, right of, to bring suit for forfeiture or to recover possession without first giving notice or making demand for possession. 94 A.L.R. 1250.

War legislation in nature of moratory statute, restrictions under, on actions of ejectment. 137 A.L.R. 1380, 147 A.L.R. 1311.

Wife's right to exclude husband from possession, use, or enjoyment of family residence or homestead owned by her. 21 A.L.R. 745.

Ejectment 33.

29-15-103. Parties defendant.

  1. The action is brought against the actual occupant, if any, and, if no such occupant, then against any person claiming an interest therein, or exercising acts of ownership at the commencement of the suit.
  2. When the suit is against a tenant by a party claiming adversely to the title of the tenant's landlord, the landlord may appear and be made a defendant with, or in the place of, the tenant.

Code 1858, §§ 3231, 3232 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 4972, 4973; Code 1932, §§ 9120, 9121; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1303.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 81, 479.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Adverse Possession, § 5; 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, §§ 18, 30.

Law Reviews.

Champerty as We Know It (R. D. Cox), 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Actions.

An ejectment suit may be properly brought against the occupants of the land or of any of the persons or people claiming an interest therein. Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955).

2. —Against Occupant.

Under this section, ejectment is maintainable against the actual occupant, though the mere unknown servant of the adverse claimant, and such suit prevents the bar of the statute of limitations in favor of such adverse claimant made a party defendant by amendment; and complainant will not be required, at his peril, to know whether the actual occupant is a tenant or a mere servant, for the claimant may maintain ejectment against the occupant ostensibly controlling the land regardless of his relation to others. De Garmo v. Prater, 125 Tenn. 497, 146 S.W. 144, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1911).

3. —One Out of Possession.

The statute so modified the common law as to allow ejectment against a party not in actual possession, upon the ground of his naked adverse claim. Langford v. Love, 35 Tenn. 308, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1855); Smith v. Lee, 41 Tenn. 549, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1860); Peck v. Ayers & Lord Tie Co., 116 F. 273, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4328 (6th Cir. 1902); Collier v. Goessling, 160 F. 604, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4227 (6th Cir. 1908), cert. denied, 215 U.S. 596, 30 S. Ct. 399, 54 L. Ed. 342, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1979 (1909); American Asso. v. Williams, 166 F. 17, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1908).

4. —Equitable Jurisdiction.

This section does not give the equitable remedy to remove a cloud from the title of one not actually in possession, but it does not oust the original jurisdiction of equity to reform grants, deeds, and instruments, which through accident, fraud, or mistake, do not carry out or express the real intent of the parties. American Asso. v. Williams, 166 F. 17, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1908).

5. Intervention of Landlord.

Where the landlord's tenant is made a defendant in an action of ejectment, the landlord may intervene and become a defendant with or in the place of the tenant. Den v. Huff, 1 Shan. 8 (1847).

6. —Landlord Against Tenant.

The landlord's active participation in the conduct of the defense in the ejectment suit against his tenant will not estop him to sue the plaintiff in that action for the land after the recovery, if he was not an actual party of record to former suit against his tenant. Boles v. Smith, 37 Tenn. 105, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1857).

7. —Notice to Landlord.

The ejectment suit may be brought against the tenant, but the law will not allow the tenant, by collusion with the plaintiff, or neglect to notify the landlord, to subject the landlord to the loss of possession, without notice. Collins v. Legg, 69 Tenn. 120, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1878).

8. Severance of Causes — Taxation of Costs.

Where different questions are involved between different parties upon different titles, it is proper in ejectment to sever the causes; and where there is such a severance, all the costs in each case should be charged and taxed separately to its own case. Den v. Huff, 1 Shan. 8 (1847).

9. Statute of Limitations Unaffected.

This statute has no bearing upon the statute of limitations, which will not run except where there is an actual and adverse possession. Smith v. Lee, 41 Tenn. 549, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1860); Copeland v. Murphey, 42 Tenn. 64, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1865).

10. Writ of Error by Joint Defendants.

Defendants jointly sued must jointly sue out writ of error, though the defendants severally pleaded title in themselves by distinct titles, and plaintiffs had a judgment in terms against the defendants severally, which operated as a joint judgment, where the record does not show that the nonjoining defendant was invited to join and refused, though he was barred from suing out the writ before objection for his nonjoinder was raised; and objection for such nonjoinder may be made at any time before judgment is rendered thereon, and may be raised by the court on its own motion. Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 105 F. 737, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4040 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1900), dismissed, 187 U.S. 585, 23 S. Ct. 196, 47 L. Ed. 314, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1675 (1903).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 66-71, 121.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 52.

Ejectment 33, 35, 40-51.

29-15-104. Contents of declaration.

It is sufficient for the plaintiff to allege in plaintiff's declaration that plaintiff was possessed of the premises sued for at the time specified, which should be after plaintiff's title accrued, and, being so possessed thereof, the defendant afterwards, on a day stated, entered thereon, and unlawfully withholds the same, to the plaintiff's damage, naming the sum. The plaintiff's declaration shall specify the quantity of plaintiff's estate and the extent of plaintiff's interest, according to the truth, and describe the premises, with convenient certainty, by metes and bounds, or other appropriate description.

Code 1858, §§ 3234, 3235 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 4975, 4976; Code 1932, §§ 9123, 9124; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1305.

Cross-References. Civil actions commenced by filing complaint, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 477.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 198; 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 17.

Cited: Owens v. Owens, 21 Tenn. App. 104, 106 S.W.2d 227, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Sufficient Pleadings — Examples.

The pleadings in ejectment are sufficient, where title is averred upon one hand and denied upon the other, without the plaintiff's pleading immunity from the statute of limitations and without the defendant's pleading and relying upon the statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiff's action. Jones v. Coal Creek Mining & Mfg. Co., 133 Tenn. 159, 180 S.W. 179, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1915).

Pleadings are sufficient without specially pleading the invalidity of deed. Pope v. Craft, 1 Tenn. App. 356, — S.W. —, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1925).

To successfully maintain an ejectment action, the plaintiff must establish both the legal title and the right to immediate possession in himself. Nelson v. Walls Properties, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 409, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. 1981).

2. —Estate Claimed — Sufficiency of Averment.

Where the declaration avers that the plaintiff “was possessed of the premises, claiming in fee,” the estate claimed is sufficiently set forth. Smith v. Cox, 53 Tenn. 462, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 384 (1871).

3. —Defendant's Title or Claim.

The declaration need not set forth the title or claim under which the defendant entered upon the land or holds possession of it. It is sufficient for the declaration to charge that the defendant entered thereon, and unlawfully withholds the same, to plaintiff's damage. Smith v. Cox, 53 Tenn. 462, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 384 (1871).

The plaintiff may establish his legal title by deraignment from the state, from a common source, or by adverse possession. Nelson v. Walls Properties, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 409, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. 1981).

4. —Description of Premises — Sufficiency.

The declaration must describe the land with substantial accuracy, but a description by general boundaries is sufficient, without giving the courses and distances. Giving adjoining lands, county, and civil district is sufficient. Smith v. Cox, 53 Tenn. 462, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 384 (1871); Pyatt v. Gallaher, 71 Tenn. 289, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1879).

5. —Correction of Description by Jury.

A plaintiff cannot sue for one tract of land, and, upon proof, recover a different tract. The jury cannot correct the description in the declaration, upon the proof. Pyatt v. Gallaher, 71 Tenn. 289, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1879).

6. Denying Source of Title.

Where plaintiff and defendant claim title through and under the same person, they are forbidden to deny that person's title, for one cannot dispute the title by which he claims. Scales v. James, 9 Tenn. App. 306, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 79-82.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 61-65.

Ejectment 62-67.

29-15-105. Joinder of counts and parties.

  1. The declaration may contain several counts, and several parties may be named as plaintiffs, jointly in one (1) count and separately in others, but not without the consent of the party in person, or by a duly authorized agent, unless the party in person be tenant in common with the party commencing the suit.
  2. If the name of a person be used as a plaintiff contrary to this provision, the suit shall be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, on motion of the defendant and the proof of want of authority.

Code 1858, § 3236 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 63, §§ 1, 2; 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 4977; Code 1932, § 9125; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1306.

Cross-References. Joinder of claims and remedies, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 18.

Joinder of parties, Tenn R. Civ. P. 19.

Law Reviews.

Champerty as We Know It (R. D. Cox), 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (1983).

Cited: Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 285 S.W.2d 108, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (1955).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Bill by Champertous Vendor.

Where the ejectment bill is prosecuted in the name of the champertous vendor as complainant, without showing the champerty or the fact that the suit is being prosecuted for the use of the champertous vendee, but such is made to appear by the defense, the bill may be maintained. Key v. Snow, 90 Tenn. 663, 18 S.W. 251, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1891).

2. —Amendment in Grantor's Name.

The plaintiff whose deed is void for champerty may add a count in the name of his grantor, in order to have the benefit of the title which he has bought. If there be privity, as in the case of grantor and grantee, where the deed is void for champerty, such amendment will relate to the commencement of the suit, and place the rights of the parties on the same ground as if the additional count had been originally incorporated in the writ and declaration, so as to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations against the new count. Wilson & Wheeler v. Nance & Collins, 30 Tenn. 189, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1850); Cole v. Stewart's Heirs, 49 Tenn. 510, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1871); Fowler v. Nixon, 54 Tenn. 719, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1872); Key v. Snow, 90 Tenn. 663, 18 S.W. 251, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1891); Green v. Cumberland Coal & Coke Co., 110 Tenn. 35, 72 S.W. 459, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1903).

3. —Joint Bill.

Where the declaration contains a single count to recover in ejectment, in the joint names of the grantor and grantee in a deed void for champerty, the champertous contract affects the interest of both, and is fatal to the whole suit. Cole v. Stewart's Heirs, 49 Tenn. 510, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1871); Lenoir v. Mining Co., 88 Tenn. 168, 14 S.W. 378, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1889).

Joint ejectment bill of vendor and vendee showing champerty will be dismissed in chancery, though it seeks to recover the land in the name of the vendor for the use and benefit of the vendee. Lenoir v. Mining Co., 88 Tenn. 168, 14 S.W. 378, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1889).

4. Joinder of Counts and Parties.

Where the declaration contained one count claiming the land as belonging to two plaintiffs in fee, another count as being in one plaintiff in fee, and a third in name of other plaintiff as having estate for life, and plaintiffs conceded on the trial that they could not recover part of the land, the jury was properly instructed that if they found for plaintiffs they must ascertain his or their title and in verdict describe boundaries. McColgan v. Langford, 74 Tenn. 108, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (1880).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 65, 79.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 51, 52, 61.

Ejectment 43, 47.

29-15-106. Death of parties.

  1. The death of either party does not abate the action, but it may be revived in favor of the heirs or devisees of the plaintiff, and against the heirs and terre-tenants of the defendant.
  2. If the heirs are nonresident, the court may order publication to be made for them, as in the case of other nonresident defendants; and, if they fail to appear and defend, judgment by default may be taken, subject to the rules and regulations of this Code touching judgments against nonresident defendants.
  3. If any of the heirs of a deceased defendant are infants, either resident or nonresident, without regular guardian in this state, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for such infants after suit has been revived against them by service of process or publication, as aforementioned. Should such nonresident heirs appear, the court may, at any time before the trial, upon satisfactory ground shown, change the guardians, and appoint others to defend in behalf of such defendants.

Code 1858, §§ 3255-3258 (deriv. Acts 1819, ch. 16, §§ 4-6; 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 5003-5006; Code 1932, §§ 9151-9154; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1311.

Cross-References. Substitution of parties, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Abatement, Survival and Revival, § 27; 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 11.

Cited: Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 F. 650, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 1925 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1881); Seals v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Jan. 15, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgment for Deceased Plaintiffs.

A judgment in favor of several plaintiffs, some of whom are then dead, is void as to plaintiffs and heirs of plaintiffs then dead, but good as to living plaintiffs. Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881).

2. Intervening Defendant Dying Pending Suit.

Where the tenant in possession is a party by service of process and so continues, although the landlord appears, gives security for costs, and enters into the consent rule, and thereafter dies, his death leaves the case as it stood before he became a party, the tenant in possession being still a party entitled to come in and defend, but if he does not do so, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment by default, and is not required to revive the case against the heirs or devisees of deceased landlord. Huff v. Lake, 28 Tenn. 137, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1848); Wallen v. Huff, 35 Tenn. 82, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1855).

3. Service of Copy of Declaration and Notice — Waiver by Guardian Ad Litem.

A guardian ad litem for infant defendants in an action commenced against the ancestor and revived by scire facias against his infant heirs may waive service of a copy of the declaration and the notice required by statute, and agree that the suit shall be revived at the term at which the suggestion of death was made, when it is manifest that such course is obviously to the advantage of such infant defendants, but he cannot submit the cause to arbitration. Hannum's Heirs v. Wallace, 28 Tenn. 129, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1848); Frazier v. Pankey, 31 Tenn. 75, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Sep. 1851).

Collateral References. 28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 29, 67, 100.

Ejectment 30.

29-15-107. Facts to be proved.

  1. Upon the trial, the plaintiff need not prove an actual entry on or possession of the premises demanded, or receipt of any profits thereof, nor any lease, entry, or ouster, except as herein provided, but it is sufficient for plaintiff to show a right to the possession of the premises at the commencement of the suit.
  2. If the action be brought by one (1) or more tenants in common, copartners, or joint owners, against their cotenants, the plaintiff shall prove actual ouster or some other act by the defendant amounting to a denial of the plaintiff's right as cotenant.

Code 1858, §§ 3242, 3243 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 4983, 4984; Code 1932, §§ 9131, 9132; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1313.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Possession Requisite.

The right to possession is essential to the action, and, it appearing that the entire beneficial interest with right to possession was vested in another, complainant cannot recover. Dreher v. Hill, 5 Tenn. App. 10, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

2. Assignment in Bankruptcy as Proof of Title.

The assignment in bankruptcy is, in effect, a conveyance of all the property of the bankrupt to the assignee, and where it recites upon its face that it was duly executed in a bankruptcy proceeding in a certain bankruptcy court, and it was duly certified to have been executed in such cause, it is made a muniment of title by law, and there is no reason why it should not be received as evidence, as any other deed executed by an officer or clerk of a court, without bringing with it the entire record of the cause in which it was authorized. Strong v. Baird, 84 Tenn. 600, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 147 (1886).

3. Remand for Proof of Complainant's Interest.

Where it appears from the record that more satisfactory evidence can probably be presented as to quantum of interest of complainant, the cause may be remanded for additional proof. Beaty v. Owens, 6 Tenn. App. 154, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 125 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 45, 103, 104, 113.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 77.

Larceny: Cotenant taking cotenancy property. 17 A.L.R.3d 1394.

Ejectment 86.

29-15-108. Title bonds as evidence.

On trials of actions of ejectment between vendor and vendee, title bonds, properly proved and registered, may be read in evidence, and shall have the same force and effect as a deed between the same parties.

Acts 1867-1868, ch. 59, § 1; Shan., § 4985; Code 1932, § 9133; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1314.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee and the Installment Land Contract: A Viable Alternative to the Deed of Trust, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 551 (1991).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 107, 108.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 79.

Ejectment 86(3), 90, 95.

29-15-109. Parties involved in verdict.

When there are more defendants than one (1), the jury may find the defendants jointly or severally guilty of detaining all or any distinct parcels of the premises, and plaintiff may have judgment against any or all defendants, according to the facts of the case. The verdict may be for plaintiffs, or such of them as appear to have right to the possession of the premises, or any part thereof, and against such of the defendants as were in possession thereof or claimed title thereto at the commencement of the action.

Code 1858, §§ 3244, 3246 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 4986, 4988; Code 1932, §§ 9134, 9136; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1315.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 81.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 198.

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 119-121.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 109.

Ejectment 111, 137, 149.

29-15-110. Land described in verdict.

  1. The plaintiff may recover any specific part or share of the premises embraced in the declaration, though less than plaintiff claims.
  2. The verdict may specify the extent and quality of the plaintiff's estate, and the premises to which plaintiff is entitled, with reasonable certainty, by metes and bounds, or other sufficient description, according to the facts as proved.

Code 1858, §§ 3245, 3247 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., §§ 4987, 4989; Code 1932, §§ 9135, 9137; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1316.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 24.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Verdict for Part of Land — Description.

If the verdict is for only part of the land described in the declaration, it must contain such description of that part as will make for easy delivery of possession; otherwise, it is a nullity. Loard v. Philips, 36 Tenn. 566, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1857); Brogan v. Savage, 37 Tenn. 689, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1858); Smith v. Cox, 53 Tenn. 462, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 384 (1871); Rivier v. Pugh, 54 Tenn. 715, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1872); McColgan v. Langford, 74 Tenn. 108, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 215 (1880).

2. —Sufficient Description Not in Evidence.

Where the jury find that the plaintiff is entitled to only part of the land, and that the evidence is inadequate to enable them to give a sufficient description of the premises so found, the proper practice and the duty of the court is to delay the cause until a survey can be made, or additional proof can be introduced, by which the proper description of such part may be given. Loard v. Philips, 36 Tenn. 566, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1857); Brogan v. Savage, 37 Tenn. 689, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1858); Rivier v. Pugh, 54 Tenn. 715, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1872); Arnold v. Jones, 77 Tenn. 545, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1882).

3. Sufficient Description of Part.

The verdict is specific in finding as to the several tracts, where it designates them by their numbers as laid down on the plat which is made a part of the record, with the numbers of the grants and the number of acres in each. Fowler v. Nixon, 54 Tenn. 719, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1872).

4. Insufficient Description of Part.

The verdict is fatally defective where it finds that plaintiff is entitled to possession of the land “except in one hundred acres claimed by W. A. on the west side.” Rivier v. Pugh, 54 Tenn. 715, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1872).

5. Excessive Verdict — Waiver Curing Error.

Where the jury erroneously found for the plaintiffs as to several tracts included within the boundaries of their grant, but held by superior outstanding titles, the error may be cured by plaintiffs' waiver of all claim to such tracts, made in the appellate court. Fowler v. Nixon, 54 Tenn. 719, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1872).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 119, 120.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 109.

Ejectment 111(3).

29-15-111. Expiration of plaintiff's right.

If the right of the plaintiff expire after the commencement of the suit and before trial, the verdict shall be according to the facts, and judgment shall be entered for damages for the withholding of the premises by the defendant; and as to the premises, the judgment shall be that the defendant go hence without delay.

Code 1858, § 3248 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 4990; Code 1932, § 9138; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1317.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Proof by Defendant as to Plaintiff's Present Title.

The defendant may show that the plaintiff's right has expired or that he had no title when the suit was brought, notwithstanding the fact that both parties claim title under a common source. Moss v. Union Bank, 66 Tenn. 216, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1874).

Collateral References. 28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 16, 40.

Ejectment 17.

29-15-112. General verdict for plaintiff.

A general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, without such specifications, entitles the plaintiff to the quantity of interest, or estate, and the premises, as set forth and described in the declaration.

Code 1858, § 3249; Shan., § 4991; Code 1932, § 9139; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1318.

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 119-121.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 109.

Ejectment 111(5, 6).

29-15-113. Judgment conforming to verdict or declaration.

The judgment for the plaintiff is that plaintiff recover the possession of the premises according to the verdict, or, if by default or on demurrer, according to the description in the declaration.

Code 1858, § 3250 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 4992; Code 1932, § 9140; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1319.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 18.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Pleading Over — Defendant's Right.

This section does not preclude the defendant from pleading over upon the overruling of his demurrer. The provision only means that, where the defendant fails to make any further defense, judgment final may be entered. Martin v. Nance, 40 Tenn. 649, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 191 (1859).

2. Revision of Judgment on Appeal.

Where verdict was for plaintiff, but by record the judgment was only for costs, the appellate court will render the proper judgment. Nolen v. Wilson, 37 Tenn. 332, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1858).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment § 123.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 112; 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 55.

Judgment 252.

29-15-114. Writ of possession.

The judgment is executed by a writ of possession, issued to the sheriff, and directing the sheriff to put the plaintiff in possession of the premises.

Code 1858, § 3251 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 4993; Code 1932, § 9141; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1320.

Cross-References. Issuance of writ of possession, § 26-1-101.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Possession, Writ of, § 1.

Law Reviews.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee: A Section 1983 Trap (Jack Jones and J. Michael Ivens), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 279 (1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Excessive Writ of Possession — Restitution Rights.

Where the plaintiff, under the writ of possession, is put in possession of more land than he was entitled to by his verdict and judgment, although embraced in the lines described in the declaration, the court will, upon petition of the party aggrieved, restore him to possession by writ of restitution. Blair v. Pathkiller's Lessee, 13 Tenn. 230, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 148 (1833); Hickman's Lessee v. Dale, 15 Tenn. 148, 15 Tenn. 149, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1834).

2. Occupants at Time of Suit Not Joined.

A writ of possession does not embrace one not specially named therein who, being in possession when the suit in which the writ issued was brought, was not made a party thereto; but the presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is that all occupants became such pending the suit, in which case they would be proper subjects for removal under the writ. Thomasson v. White, 65 Tenn. 148, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1873); Brier Hill Collieries v. Pile, 9 Tenn. App. 16, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 209 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

3. Persons Entering Pending Suit.

Tenants coming upon the land, after ejectment suit has been brought, are subject to the operation of the writ of possession; and, when removed under it, they are not entitled to the writ of restitution. Hickman's Lessee v. Dale, 15 Tenn. 148, 15 Tenn. 149, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1834); Wallen v. Huff, 35 Tenn. 82, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1855).

All persons who enter upon land pending an action of ejectment for its recovery are subject to be removed by the final process of writ of possession. Wallen v. Huff, 35 Tenn. 82, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1855); Thomasson v. White, 65 Tenn. 148, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1873).

4. Tenants Not Joined — Defendant Landlord's Rights.

Where ejectment suit was brought for an entire tract of land by metes and bounds, occupied by several tenants, in different parcels, under the same landlord, but notice was served on only one of the tenants, and the landlord was admitted to defend. He defended for the whole tract, fully tried the merits of his title with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff recovered judgment for the whole land, and was put in possession of the whole land by writ of possession, the defendant was not entitled, upon petition, to be restored to the possession of so much of the land as was not occupied, at the commencement of the action, by the tenant alone served with notice. Hickman's Lessee v. Dale, 15 Tenn. 148, 15 Tenn. 149, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1834).

5. Homestead Rights of Defendant — Setting Apart.

Where the plaintiff in ejectment recovers land subject to the homestead right of the defendant therein, the writ of possession cannot be awarded until the homestead is set apart, by metes and bounds, under direction of the court. Arnold v. Jones, 77 Tenn. 545, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (1882); Burnett v. Austin, 78 Tenn. 564, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1882); Galyon v. Gilmore, 93 Tenn. 671, 28 S.W. 301, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1894); Delk v. Yelton, 103 Tenn. 476, 53 S.W. 729, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1899).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment § 134.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 120-124.

Ejectment 120.

29-15-115 — 29-15-119. [Reserved.]

Any such judgment is conclusive upon the party against whom it is recovered, not under disability at the time of the recovery, and all persons claiming under the party by title accruing after the commencement of the action.

Code 1858, § 3252 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 5000; Code 1932, § 9148; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1326.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 28.

Law Reviews.

Champerty as We Know It (R. D. Cox), 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (1983).

Cited: Brier Hill Collieries v. Pile, 4 Tenn. App. 468, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Parties to Render Judgment Conclusive — Examples.

Judgment in ejectment against a purchaser at a trustee's sale was not binding on the trustee. Gordon v. Weaver, 53 S.W. 740, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 78 (1899).

To be conclusive in a subsequent action, a former judgment in ejectment must have been rendered in a suit in which all the parties to the subsequent suit were parties, and in the same capacity. Chandler v. White Oak Creek Lumber Co., 131 Tenn. 47, 173 S.W. 449, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1915).

If party was before the court in his several capacities, he is absolutely bound. Chandler v. White Oak Creek Lumber Co., 131 Tenn. 47, 173 S.W. 449, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1915).

A prior grantee of a defendant in ejectment, under a deed executed before the institution of the suit, was not bound by the judgment, although he was present and was allowed to control the defense as fully as if he and not his grantor had been the defendant. Taylor v. Blackwell, 141 Tenn. 184, 207 S.W. 738, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1918).

2. —When Landlord Not Actually a Party.

Action of plaintiff in ejectment was not barred by former judgment in favor of defendants against plaintiff's renter though plaintiff appeared and conducted defense, since legally he was not a party to the proceeding and judgment was not taken as against him. Boles v. Smith, 37 Tenn. 105, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1857).

3. Decision Against Plaintiff — What Adjudged.

Judgment in ejectment against plaintiff adjudges that he had no title at the date of the institution of his suit, but does not adjudge that defendant has title. Bird v. Cross, 123 Tenn. 419, 131 S.W. 974, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1910).

When a plaintiff had previously failed to prove his title to certain lands in an ejectment proceeding, he was collaterally estopped from bringing an action on the boundary lines of that same property. Nelson v. Walls Properties, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 409, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. 1981).

4. Subsequent Suit by Plaintiff After His Grantor Acquires Title.

A judgment against the plaintiff in ejectment, on the ground that his deed is void because his grantor had no title, is no bar to a subsequent suit, instituted after his grantor acquired the title. Bird v. Cross, 123 Tenn. 419, 131 S.W. 974, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1910).

5. Forcible Entry and Detainer After Ejectment.

A judgment in ejectment is not a bar to action of forcible entry and detainer. But an adjudication in ejectment that grant to complainant was void is conclusive in such action. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 125, 127-129, 131.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 170; 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 739.

Judgment 747(1).

29-15-121. Mesne profits — Improvements.

This chapter does not deprive the plaintiff of a right to an action for mesne profits after verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor, or the defendant of the right to file a bill in equity for the value of defendant's improvements, but those rights are subject to the general provisions of this Code regulating actions.

Code 1858, § 3259 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 152, § 2); Shan., § 5007; Code 1932, § 9155; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1328.

Cited: Mounger v. Mounger, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Acts 1813, ch. 24 providing for recovery of value of improvements by persons holding possession of land under color of title and for recovery of mesne profits by owner out of possession did not change prior law providing relief in equity, hence Acts 1813, ch. 24 did not violate constitutional provision against impairment of contracts. Bristoe v. Evans, 2 Tenn. 341, 1815 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1815).

2. Accrual of Action for Mesne Profits.

The action for mesne profits does not accrue until the determination of ejectment suit in favor of the plaintiff. Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859); Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908).

3. Personal Representative — Recovery of Mesne Profits.

The personal representative of the deceased plaintiff recovering in ejectment cannot maintain an action for the mesne profits; but, by waiving the tort, he may maintain a suit for the recovery thereof, upon the promise implied by law to pay the same. Brown v. McCloud, 40 Tenn. 280, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1859); Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908).

4. Respective Theories of Ejectment and Mesne Profit Actions.

The action of ejectment establishes the right to the land adversely held, and regains the possession wrongfully retained, and the action for mesne profits recovers the damages for the use of the land. Recovery in the latter case is for profits from date of demise until date of surrender of possession. Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859); Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908).

5. Limitation of Actions.

The statute of limitations does not begin to run against the action for mesne profits until the final judgment of recovery in ejectment. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the rents and profits from the date of the demise laid in the declaration until the possession is surrendered, if his suit is brought within the limitations period after the termination of the ejectment suit. Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859); Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908).

An action for the value of rents for use and occupation, waiving the tort, instead of an action for mesne profits after recovery in the ejectment, limits the recovery for rents to a period of six years next before such suit for rents was brought. Rhodes v. Crutchfield, 75 Tenn. 518, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1881); Whitaker v. Poston, 120 Tenn. 207, 110 S.W. 1019, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1908).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 148-158.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 143, 154.

Betterment or occupying claimant acts as available to plaintiff seeking affirmative relief. 137 A.L.R. 1078.

Measure and items of recovery for improvements mistakenly placed or made on land of another. 24 A.L.R.2d 11.

Mesne profits, right to, as compensation for crops grown by one wrongfully in possession. 39 A.L.R. 962, 57 A.L.R. 584.

Remainderman, right as against, to allowance under statute for improvements made during continuance of life estate by one in possession under mistaken claim of title to fee. 89 A.L.R. 635.

Ejectment 134.

29-15-122. Tenant's liability for rents.

A tenant in possession in good faith, under a lease or license from another, is not liable beyond the rent in arrear at the time of suit brought for the recovery of the land, and that which may afterwards accrue during the continuance of the tenant's possession.

Code 1858, § 3260; Shan., § 5008; Code 1932, § 9156; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1329.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Lessee of Claimant Under Decree — Protection upon Reversal.

The owner cannot maintain an action for mesne profits against the lessee of a party who had been put in possession of the land under a decree of court, although the decree was afterwards reversed for want of jurisdiction in the court rendering it, for, until the reversal, the lessee is protected by the decree of the court, where the owner was a party to the suit. Waller v. Condray, 10 Tenn. 171, 1826 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1826).

2. Section Inapplicable.

This section was not applicable in a suit to enforce redemption of land in the possession of the assignees of a purchaser at a void tax sale. Hunt v. Liles, 35 Tenn. App. 173, 243 S.W.2d 149, 1950 Tenn. App. LEXIS 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950).

Collateral References. 28 C.J.S. Ejectment §§ 144, 146.

Ejectment 133, 135.

29-15-123. Improvements setoff.

Persons holding possession in good faith, under color of title, are entitled to have the value of their permanent improvements setoff against the rents and profits which the plaintiff may recover.

Code 1858, § 3261 (deriv. Acts 1813, ch. 24, §§ 1, 2; 1827, ch. 46); Shan., § 5009; Code 1932, § 9157; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1330.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Ejectment, § 34.

Law Reviews.

Improvements — Mistake as to Boundary, 17 Tenn. L. Rev. 878.

The Law of Fixtures in Tennessee — A Consideration of the Common Law and Fixture — Related Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (Jack E. Gervin, Jr.), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 354.

Cited: Collins v. Michigan Commercial Underwriters, 6 Tenn. App. 528, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928); Hunt v. Liles, 35 Tenn. App. 173, 243 S.W.2d 149, 1950 Tenn. App. LEXIS 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Improvements Covered — Extent of Recovery.

The value of the improvements to be allowed must be those permanently enhancing the value of the land, not to exceed the amount of the rents and profits. Bristoe v. Evans, 2 Tenn. 341, 1815 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1815); Nelson v. Allen, 9 Tenn. 360, 1830 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1830); Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 18 Tenn. 59, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (1836); McKinly v. Holliday, 18 Tenn. 477, 1837 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1837), questioned, Bass v. Ardery, Edwards & Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. App. 682 (1913); Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859); Howard v. Massengale, 81 Tenn. 577, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1884).

Persons holding possession in good faith and under color of title are entitled to compensation for permanent improvements to the extent that they enhance the value of the land, not exceeding the rents and profits. Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859).

Where the owner of real estate puts a relative into possession of the real estate, for the purpose of cultivating and improving the same, under the promise of a future gift, and the occupier, influenced by such expectation, makes lasting and valuable improvements upon the premises, with the knowledge of the owner, such occupier will be entitled to the full value of the improvements, although they may exceed the amount of the rents and profits. Rogers v. Davis, 150 S.W.3d 158, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 943 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

If an owner of an estate stands by and allows another, acting in good faith and without notice to the title, to place improvements on the real estate, which add permanent value to the estate, such improvements will constitute a lien on the real estate. Rogers v. Davis, 150 S.W.3d 158, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 943 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

Where plaintiff's brother and his wife constructed a log home on their parents' property that plaintiff later inherited, plaintiff was entitled to recover rents and take possession of the property; plaintiff's brother and his wife were entitled to recover the value of their improvements offset by the rent. Rogers v. Davis, 150 S.W.3d 158, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 943 (Tenn. Nov. 8, 2004).

2. Value of Improvements — Measurement.

The statute means the value to the true owner. Bristoe v. Evans, 2 Tenn. 341, 1815 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1815).

The value of the improvements is to be measured by the enhancement of the value of the land, by reason of the improvements as they exist at the time the possession of the land is surrendered by the purchaser. Treece v. Treece, 73 Tenn. 221, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1880).

3. Enforcement of Right to Compensation — Modes.

Persons holding possession in good faith and under color of title may assert their claim for compensation for improvements by bill in equity or by way of setoff against the rents and profits sued for. Avent v. Hord, 40 Tenn. 458, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1859).

4. —Enjoining Possession Until Compensation Paid.

Equity will enjoin the taking of possession until the possessor is compensated. Townsend v. Shipp's Heirs, 3 Tenn. 293, 3 Tenn. 294, 1 Cooke 293, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1813), superseded by statute as stated in, Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

5. Improvements After Notice.

Compensation for improvements, made after the improver had notice, will not be allowed. Townsend v. Shipp's Heirs, 3 Tenn. 293, 3 Tenn. 294, 1 Cooke 293, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1813), superseded by statute as stated in, Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Aiken v. Suttle, 72 Tenn. 103, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1879).

6. Burned Improvements.

No compensation for improvements made by the possessor and burned while in his possession. Greenlaw v. Williams, 70 Tenn. 533, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (1879).

7. Taxes.

Defendant was allowed taxes paid and interest thereon. Strother v. Reilly, 105 Tenn. 48, 58 S.W. 332, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1900).

8. Land Not Owned by Successful Plaintiff When Improved.

In ejectment, where the complainant prevailed, the defendant was not entitled to credit by way of improvements for a railroad track built on a right-of-way previously donated by the complainant to a railroad company, for such right-of-way was not the complainant's property when the improvement was made. Staub v. Sewanee Coal, Coke & Land Co., 140 Tenn. 505, 205 S.W. 320, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (1918).

9. Possession in Bad Faith — Effect on Rights.

Persons not holding possession in good faith are not entitled to compensation for permanent improvements, though they will be allowed to recover for taxes paid and for improvements made under authority of an interlocutory decree. Schink v. Haynie, 2 Tenn. Ch. App. 571 (1902).

10. Lessee Under Void Lease Improving.

There can be no recovery by a lessee under a void lease for improvements made on a railroad. State v. McMinnville & M. R.R. Co., 74 Tenn. 369, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 260 (1880).

11. Improvements by Person Not in Possession.

Defendant was not in possession of land, but was merely permitted to live in house as a member of the decedent's family, during the period when she claims to have made expenditures for improvements. No charge was made against her for use and occupation or for rents and profits. It was held that the chancellor properly declined to allow her a lien on the property for the alleged expenditures. Mercy v. Miller, 25 Tenn. App. 621, 166 S.W.2d 628, 1942 Tenn. App. LEXIS 25 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1942).

12. Color of Title Defined.

Color of title has been defined as a legal title in form or appearance by grant, or its equivalent, deed, will, inheritance in descent, or other means by which a legal title may be, and is supposed to be passed to the claimant. Uhlhorn v. Keltner, 723 S.W.2d 131, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment § 159.

28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 154.

Taxes or public improvement assessments, right of purchaser at invalid sale for, to reimbursement from owner in action of ejectment, and provisions of judgment as to relief. 86 A.L.R. 1222.

Ejectment 143.

29-15-124. Disposition of contents on execution.

  1. In executing a writ of possession after judgment in an action of ejectment, the option of having personal property removed to a local warehouse for storage or having it removed from the property as has been the procedure of sheriffs prior to March 28, 1976 shall be with the person being ejected.
  2. All storage fees and transportation costs incurred are to be paid by the owner of the stored property.

Acts 1976, ch. 722, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1331.

29-15-125. Rebuttable presumption of legal title.

In order to establish a rebuttable presumption of legal title to real property for the purpose of bringing an action of ejectment, it shall be sufficient for a person claiming legal title to establish the chain of title to the property for the preceding fifty (50) years in any instance where the property title records of the county have been destroyed so as to make it impossible to trace the title of the property to the earliest sale or grant.

Acts 1991, ch. 392, § 1.

29-15-120. Conclusiveness of judgment.

Chapter 16
Eminent Domain

Part 1
General Provisions

29-16-101. Power for internal improvements.

Any person or corporation authorized by law to construct any railroad, turnpike, canal, toll bridge, road, causeway, or other work of internal improvement to which the like privilege is conceded, may take the real estate of individuals, not exceeding the amount prescribed by law, or by the charter under which the person or corporation acts, in the manner and upon the terms herein provided.

Code 1858, § 1325; Shan., § 1844; Code 1932, § 3109; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1401.

Cross-References. Applicability of chapter to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Blighted or deteriorated vacant property, eminent domain proceedings, § 13-21-206.

Costs of trial, § 29-17-912.

Emergency powers of governor, § 58-2-114.

Notice of eminent domain proceedings, § 6-54-122.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

State power to acquire and reclaim mining land, § 59-8-324.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Canals, § 1; 5 Tenn. Juris., Cemeteries, § 4; 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 2, 6, 47, 53, 72; 13 Tenn. Juris., Gas Companies, § 8; 24 Tenn. Juris., Turnpikes and Tollroads, § 3.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law (Paul H. Sanders), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1159.

“Just Compensation” For Lessor And Lessee (John D. Johnston, Jr.), 22 Vand. L. Rev. 293.

Procedure and Evidence — 1959 Tennessee Survey (Edmund M. Morgan), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1281.

Property Law — Buhl v. US Sprint Communications Co.: Ascertaining the Rights of Fee Owners On Whose Land A Railroad Easement Exists, 22 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 843 (1992).

Real Property — 1956 Tennessee Survey (Herman L. Trautman), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 1089.

Real Property — Zoning Ordinances — Validity, 39 Tenn. L. Rev. 542.

The Institution and Prosecution of Condemnation Proceedings (Will Allen Wilkerson), 26 Tenn. L. Rev. 325.

Attorney General Opinions. Condemnation for railroad spur benefiting a private business, OAG 92-32 (4/13/92).

A pipeline corporation has the right to condemn an easement for pipelines that will be used for the transportation and distribution of liquid petroleum products such as gasoline, kerosene, home heating oil, or jet fuel, OAG 01-171 (12/12/01).

Comparative Legislation. Eminent domain:

Ala.  Code § 18-1A-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-15-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 22-2-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 416.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-27-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 523.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 25.1-100 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

2. —Jurisdiction.

In an inverse condemnation action filed in state court wherein plaintiffs also alleged denial of civil rights, and defendants removed the case to federal court, remand to state court was appropriate once federal claims were dismissed on plaintiffs'  motion to nonsuit those claims. B & B Enters. of Wilson County, LLC v. City of Lebanon, 422 F. Supp. 2d 903, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16692 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).

3. —Compensation Necessary.

In order to render legislation for the taking of private property for public use valid, there must be provision made for compensation and for ascertaining the amount of the same. Watauga Water Co. v. Scott, 111 Tenn. 321, 76 S.W. 888, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1903).

4. —Legislative Discretion.

Selection of particular property by the legislative act is a political power. State v. Oliver, 162 Tenn. 100, 35 S.W.2d 396, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1931).

5. Construction and Interpretation.

The power of eminent domain is independent of the Constitution, but the power is dormant and it requires legislative action declaring the objects to which and the mode and agency through which the power shall be exercised. Trustees of New Pulaski Cemetery v. Ballentine, 151 Tenn. 622, 271 S.W. 38, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1925).

In a case arising out of the alleged wrongful seizure of plaintiff's personal property, mainly cars and trailers, which were removed from his residence, plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim failed as a matter of law because the eminent domain and inverse condemnation statutory schemes only provide a remedy for the taking of real property. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

6. —Definitions.

The empowered condemner is one who “may take the real estate of individuals” as a “party seeking to appropriate such land”; and the terms “condemner” and “appropriator” necessarily include, as parts of their meaning, one who subjects the lands of another as such; that is, in recognition that the lands are those of another than the condemner, and that there is need that such lands be taken from such other and vested, as by way of compulsory sale, in the appropriator. Southern R. Co. v. Jennings, 130 Tenn. 450, 171 S.W. 82, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1914).

Statutory provisions reviewed in ruling as to meaning of word “damages” as used in Municipal Condemnation Act. Faulkner v. Nashville, 154 Tenn. 145, 285 S.W. 39, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1926).

“Taking,” defined in County of Obion v. Edwards, 159 Tenn. 491, 19 S.W.2d 236, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1929).

7. —Scope of Statute.

The provisions of this chapter have no application to works designed alone for private enterprises, it matters not how much they may be a convenience to the public. Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 44 Tenn. 419, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1867); Alfred Phosphate Co. v. Duck River Phosphate Co., 120 Tenn. 260, 113 S.W. 410, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 47, 22 L.R.A. (n.s.) 701 (1907); Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913).

Law is presumed to be made for the subject or citizen only, and the sovereign is not reached by statute, unless named therein, or unless by necessary implication. State Highway Dep't v. Mitchell's Heirs, 142 Tenn. 58, 216 S.W. 336, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1919).

The statutes were intended primarily to regulate the taking of property by persons or corporations to whom the right of eminent domain had been delegated; but in suits to condemn property, the sovereign should proceed in the same way, unless the legislature otherwise directs. State Highway Dep't v. Mitchell's Heirs, 142 Tenn. 58, 216 S.W. 336, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1919).

Title 29, ch. 16's provisions apply to every legislative enactment granting such condemnation powers, whether the enactment consists of a public statute or a private act. Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

By referring to “the power of such condemnation,” rather than simply “the power of condemnation,” T.C.A. § 29-16-102 limits its application to the type of condemnation actions set forth in T.C.A. § 29-16-101. Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

8. —Strict Construction.

The power of eminent domain is strictly construed, and the procedure prescribed by statute must be followed. Chattanooga v. State, 151 Tenn. 691, 272 S.W. 432, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1925).

9. —Nature of Power.

The power of eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty, inhering in every independent state, which cannot be surrendered, and, if attempted to be contracted away, it may be resumed at will. Georgia v. Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, 44 S. Ct. 369, 68 L. Ed. 796, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2529 (1924).

The power of eminent domain is independent of the Constitution, but the power is dormant and it requires legislative action declaring the objects to which and the mode and agency through which the power shall be exercised. Trustees of New Pulaski Cemetery v. Ballentine, 151 Tenn. 622, 271 S.W. 38, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1925)

The power of eminent domain being a grant of sovereign power and in derogation of private property rights will not pass by implication but is limited both as to the exercise of the power and quantum of the property or estate acquired by the express terms or clear implication of the statute. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

10. —Public and Private Use Distinguished.

The fact that an enterprise will result in some convenience to the public, conferring incidental benefits upon the public by affording additional facilities for trade or manufacture, will not make the character of the use public. It must in some way enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, promote the productive power of, or afford increased facilities for, the rapid exchange of thought or trade, or otherwise answer the growing needs of the community as such, before the use becomes public and the agency controlling passes under governmental control. Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899).

An enterprise impressed with a public use, and organized to meet a public demand, is not reduced from a public to a private enterprise, because the parties instituting it have private profit primarily in view. Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899); Memphis S. L. R. Co. v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 400, 94 S.W. 69, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1906).

The fact that the statute on which the charter rests fixes no rates to be charged by the corporation for the use of its property does not make it a private enterprise. The corporation and its property being affected by public use will be under governmental control. Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899); Memphis S. L. R. Co. v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 400, 94 S.W. 69, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1906); Great Falls Power Co. v. Webb, 123 Tenn. 584, 133 S.W. 1105, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1911).

11. —Ingress and Egress Taken.

Landowner's right of ingress and egress taken, impaired or incumbered, is a “taking” to be compensated for; as by sloping fills beyond street limits. “Taking” and “trespass” distinguished. Central Realty Co. v. Chattanooga, 169 Tenn. 525, 89 S.W.2d 346, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1936).

The right of access to and from a public highway is one of the incidents of ownership or occupancy of the land abutting thereon of which the owner cannot be deprived without compensation whether the fee is in the public or the abutter. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Stokely v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 271, 418 S.W.2d 255, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Where a city's construction project temporarily interrupted ingress and egress to a leaseholder's business, award of damages for inverse condemnation was not warranted under T.C.A. § 29-16-101 et seq.Frank v. Gov't of Morristown, 294 S.W.3d 566, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008), appeal denied, Frank v. Gov't of City of Morristown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Jan. 20, 2009).

12. —Taking of Fee.

This section neither expressly nor by implication authorizes the taking of the fee in the land condemned. Tennessee Power Co. v. Rust, 8 Tenn. Civ. App. 368 (1918).

City obtained only easement and not the fee where ordinance authorized city attorney to condemn pursuant to provisions this section for the purpose of widening, opening, and extending street and decree stated that property obtained was to be used “for the purposes for which it was condemned.” Clouse v. Garfinkle, 190 Tenn. 677, 231 S.W.2d 345, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 534, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 535 (1950).

13. —Right of Entry.

This section and § 29-16-104 regulating the taking of private property for public uses do not authorize an entry and occupation without consent of the owner until his compensation has been ascertained and either paid or secured, unless perhaps, for the purpose of making a survey. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

14. —Owner Under Disabilities.

The right to take land under the power of eminent domain for a public use is not restricted by any disabilities of the owner. Such owner is entitled to demand and receive the value of the property, a right which the court should protect; and when the fund is paid into court, the court should protect the same. Applicants for compensation must show title to be in themselves. East T. & V. R. Co. v. Love, 40 Tenn. 63, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1859).

15. Estate Condemned.

Condemner of land takes dominant estate, reducing that of the owner to a servient estate. Hydro Electric Corp. v. Shanks, 156 Tenn. 91, 299 S.W. 809, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1927).

The condemner is not entitled to condemn fee where it already has an easement which is sufficient for its purposes. Madisonville v. Cagle, 159 Tenn. 600, 21 S.W.2d 385, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1929).

The condemner can take no greater interest in the land condemned than is necessary for the proposed use. A. L. Kornman Co. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 216 Tenn. 205, 391 S.W.2d 633, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 572 (1965).

16. Purpose for Which Land May Be Condemned.

Gristmills. Harding v. Goodlett, 11 Tenn. 40, 11 Tenn. 41, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1832).

Ferry landing for a county bridge. Moses v. Sanford, 79 Tenn. 731, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1883); Hydes Ferry Tpk. Co. v. Davidson County, 91 Tenn. 291, 18 S.W. 626, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1891); Vaulx v. Tennessee Cent. R.R., 120 Tenn. 316, 108 S.W. 1142, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1907), superseded by statute as stated in, Gardner v. Steinforth, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 1994).

Turnpikes by counties. Knox County v. Kennedy, 92 Tenn. 1, 20 S.W. 311, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1892); Lebanon & Nashville Tpk. Co. v. Creveling, 159 Tenn. 147, 17 S.W.2d 22, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 72, 65 A.L.R. 440 (1929).

Telegraph line over railroad company's right of way. RAILROAD v. TELEGRAPH CO., 101 Tenn. 62, 46 S.W. 571, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1898).

Parks, park purposes, and parkways within or without a city's limits. Memphis v. Hastings, 113 Tenn. 142, 86 S.W. 609, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 10, 69 L.R.A. 750 (1904); Southern R. Co. v. Memphis, 126 Tenn. 267, 148 S.W. 662, 41 L.R.A. (n.s.) 828, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1912). See also State v. Oliver, 162 Tenn. 100, 35 S.W.2d 396, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1931).

Flume company, down flume of which lumber and bark are floated for a small number of persons. Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913).

A city may condemn land, for street purposes, under ch. 16 of this title. Chattanooga v. State, 151 Tenn. 691, 272 S.W. 432, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1925); Madisonville v. Cagle, 159 Tenn. 600, 21 S.W.2d 385, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1929).

Municipal corporation authorized by its charter or subsequent legislative acts to operate system of waterworks for benefit of its citizens, is empowered to take land necessary and suitable upon which to locate standpipe. Beadle v. Crossville, 157 Tenn. 249, 7 S.W.2d 992, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1928).

The fact that the property so acquired is to be turned over to the general government for a park, or that another state is to be served also does not bar the state's right to condemn. State v. Oliver, 162 Tenn. 100, 35 S.W.2d 396, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1931).

Installation of a pipeline from water main of the city to a subdivision was a work of internal improvement so that corporation engaged in such installation had the right of eminent domain under this section. Shinkle v. Nashville Improv. Co., 172 Tenn. 555, 113 S.W.2d 404, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1938).

Under this section land could be condemned for construction of radio microwave relay towers. Brannan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 210 Tenn. 697, 362 S.W.2d 236, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (1962).

17. Purposes for Which Land May Not be Condemned.

Sawmills and paper mills in connection with gristmills. Harding v. Goodlett, 11 Tenn. 40, 11 Tenn. 41, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1832).

Private way. Clack v. White, 32 Tenn. 540, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1852); Rice v. Alley, 33 Tenn. 51, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1853); Carson v. Moore, 2 Shan. 500 (1877); Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899); Alfred Phosphate Co. v. Duck River Phosphate Co., 120 Tenn. 260, 113 S.W. 410, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 47, 22 L.R.A. (n.s.) 701 (1907); Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913).

Private schoolhouses and churches. Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 44 Tenn. 419, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1867).

This section and §§ 29-16-10429-16-126 do not provide for the condemnation of water rights and assessment of damages for such rights. Watauga Water Co. v. Scott, 111 Tenn. 321, 76 S.W. 888, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1903).

Land for right of way for a phosphate mining corporation cannot be condemned. Alfred Phosphate Co. v. Duck River Phosphate Co., 120 Tenn. 260, 113 S.W. 410, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 47, 22 L.R.A. (n.s.) 701 (1907).

Private Acts 1923, ch. 244, conferred eminent domain on cemeteries, and being limited in its scope, under a population standard, to cemeteries in Giles County, which renders it applicable to a resident cemetery corporation organized under Acts 1855-1856, ch. 192, § 15, to the exclusion of cemetery corporations situated in other counties, is not valid as an exercise of police power, for a cemetery corporation is a private corporation, and no matter of public health is involved. Trustees of New Pulaski Cemetery v. Ballentine, 151 Tenn. 622, 271 S.W. 38, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1925).

18. Railroads.

19. —Extent of Right to Condemn.

Railroad approaches and depot. Nashville & C. Railroad v. Cowardin, 30 Tenn. 348, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1850); Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899); State v. Union R. Co., 129 Tenn. 705, 168 S.W. 575, 1915D Am. Ann. Cas. 1240, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (1914).

Railway to river or depot for elevator or hotel company. Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 44 Tenn. 419, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1867); Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899); Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

A railroad is not entitled to condemn and take private property lying outside the limits prescribed and allowed by statute, for any purpose or on any account. White v. Railroad, 101 Tenn. 95, 45 S.W. 1073, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1898).

A railroad terminal corporation is charged with a public use, and may be authorized by statute to condemn such private property as is absolutely necessary to enable it to accomplish the purposes of its organization. Ryan v. Louisville & N. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1899).

Only such railroad corporations as are chartered under our general incorporation statutes are, in the absence of special authorization, authorized to condemn property for their purposes. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

For topographical reasons, deviations in the construction of a railroad from the route designated in its charter are permissible according to the necessities of the road, such as the prevention of the destruction of mill property, the making of proper grade crossings, the minimization of impediment to travel; and condemnation proceedings for a right of way along the deviated route may be maintained. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

A railroad encircling a city, usually called a belt line railroad, the charter of which provides for the construction of a railroad similar to all other commercial railroads, and obligates it to do a general railroad business, is entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904); Great Falls Power Co. v. Webb, 123 Tenn. 584, 133 S.W. 1105, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1911); State v. Union R. Co., 129 Tenn. 705, 168 S.W. 575, 1915D Am. Ann. Cas. 1240, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (1914).

Lands of a cemetery corporation acquired for cemetery purposes cannot be condemned for a railroad right of way. Memphis S. L. R. Co. v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 400, 94 S.W. 69, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1906).

The amount of land for a railroad right-of-way to be taken in a condemnation proceeding is left, by the court, to the determination of the jury, even if the court could not itself determine the amount to be taken within the legal charter limits. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

Public railroad company's right of way cannot be condemned for a private railroad, when. Alfred Phosphate Co. v. Duck River Phosphate Co., 120 Tenn. 260, 113 S.W. 410, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 47, 22 L.R.A. (n.s.) 701 (1907).

Where the deed conveying to a railroad company a right-of-way for a “railroad according to the provisions of the charter” left blank the width of the right-of-way, the deed conveyed the right-of-way of the width as determined by the company's charter. Southern R. Co. v. Vann, 142 Tenn. 76, 216 S.W. 727, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1919).

Statutory provisions reviewed in holding foreign and domestic railroad corporations authorized to acquire private property for a branch road of public nature to connect with important industries, either by purchase or condemnation, notwithstanding contemplated road had no connection with main line of domestic railroad corporation. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

A railroad company, in condemnation proceedings, is not limited to the amount of land actually needed at the time but may take such land as, in the exercise of good faith, it reasonably thinks it will need in the future within a reasonable time. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

20. —Liability to Abutting Lot Owners.

Where the deed of the abutting lot owner merely calls for the highway or street, it carries title to the center thereof, and makes him the owner of the ultimate fee therein; but where his deed calls for the side, edge, or margin of the highway, street, or alley, it does not convey the ultimate fee to the center of the street. Spaine v. Tennessee & A.R.R., 1 Shan. 181 (1865); Iron M. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S.W. 705, 4 L.R.A. 622 (1889); East E. S. R. Co. v. Doyle, 88 Tenn. 747, 13 S.W. 936, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 14, 17 Am. St. Rep. 933, 9 L.R.A. 100 (1890); Reeves v. Allen, 101 Tenn. 412, 47 S.W. 495, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1898); Brumit v. Railroad, 106 Tenn. 124, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 60 S.W. 505 (Tenn. 1900); Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn. 651, 102 S.W. 355, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1907).

A railroad company is liable to abutting lot owners who do not own the fee in the street, for grading or occupying the street under a contract with the city, in the same manner and to the same extent as the city itself would have been liable, if it had done the work itself. Iron M. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S.W. 705, 4 L.R.A. 622 (1889); Brumit v. Railroad, 106 Tenn. 124, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 60 S.W. 505 (Tenn. 1900); Wilkins v. Chicago, St. L. & N.O.R.R., 110 Tenn. 422, 75 S.W. 1026, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1903); Louisville & N. Terminal Co. v. Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368, 85 S.W. 881, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 93, 1 L.R.A. (n.s.) 49 (1904); Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn. 651, 102 S.W. 355, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1907).

A railroad company is not liable to the abutting lot owners who do not own the ultimate fee in the streets, for injuries which merely result from the lawful and reasonable use of public streets by the railroad company, under permission of the city, which leaves their right of egress and ingress reasonably sufficient. Iron M. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S.W. 705, 4 L.R.A. 622 (1889); East E. S. R. Co. v. Doyle, 88 Tenn. 747, 13 S.W. 936, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 14, 17 Am. St. Rep. 933, 9 L.R.A. 100 (1890); Hamilton County v. Rape, 101 Tenn. 222, 47 S.W. 416, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1898); Brumit v. Railroad, 106 Tenn. 124, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 60 S.W. 505 (Tenn. 1900); Acker v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn. 224, 96 S.W. 973, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1906); Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn. 651, 102 S.W. 355, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1907).

21. —Estate Condemnable.

A railroad company acquires the fee, under a condemnation for a railroad right-of-way under a charter or statute so authorizing it. Woodfolk v. Nashville & C. R. Co., 32 Tenn. 422, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1852); Burnett v. Nashville & C.R.R., 36 Tenn. 528, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1857); East T. & V. R. Co. v. Love, 40 Tenn. 63, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1859).

Where the statute authorizing the taking of private lands for railroad purposes does not clearly authorize the condemnation of the fee, the easement alone should be condemned; and the fee simple estate in the land, or its exclusive possession, will not be condemned for public use where a mere easement in the land, on a conjoint occupation of it, will suffice to meet the necessities of the public. Railway Co. V. Telford's Ex'rs, 89 Tenn. 293, 14 S.W. 776, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 51, 10 L.R.A. 855 (1890); RAILROAD v. TELEGRAPH CO., 101 Tenn. 62, 46 S.W. 571, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1898).

A deed by the owner of the fee to a railroad company for right-of-way for railroad purposes conveys only an easement of way in the land. Southern R. Co. v. Vann, 142 Tenn. 76, 216 S.W. 727, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1919). But deed, construed as a whole, may convey fee Nashville, C. & S. L. R. Co. v. Bell, 162 Tenn. 661, 39 S.W.2d 1026, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1931).

22. Utility Office Building.

Knoxville utilities board in charge of operation for city of electric, water, and gas systems could condemn private property for use as an office building for utility system under this section, since acquisition was for a public use and was permissible under Private Acts 1923, ch. 412, granting city the right to condemn land for “public structures, buildings.” Knoxville v. Heth, 186 Tenn. 321, 210 S.W.2d 326, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 553 (1948).

23. Highways.

The provisions of this law would govern the condemnation of right-of-way for highways except as modified by special acts. Department of Highways & Public Works v. Gamble, 18 Tenn. App. 95, 73 S.W.2d 175, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

County was not obligated to proceed under ch. 17, part 8 of this title in highway condemnation suit but could proceed under this chapter. Williams v. McMinn County, 209 Tenn. 236, 352 S.W.2d 430, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 372 (1961).

24. Rights Between States.

A state may open roads and streets across land within its limits which had theretofore been acquired by another state for railroad purposes. Georgia v. Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, 44 S. Ct. 369, 68 L. Ed. 796, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2529 (1924).

The state of Georgia, holding land within Tennessee, holds as any other corporation or quasi public corporation, and such land may be taken by city for street purposes, by eminent domain proceedings. Chattanooga v. State, 151 Tenn. 691, 272 S.W. 432, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1925).

25. Other Remedies.

Since under facts the taking by the railroad and resulting damage was not under the statute creating the right of action the limitation of the remedy was not “a limitation of the right.” East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. v. Gouge, 30 Tenn. App. 40, 203 S.W.2d 170, 1947 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947).

The state of Tennessee and its agencies are given the option of condemning property under the procedure set forth in this chapter which provides for a jury of view to fix the compensation due landowner before possession can be decreed to the condemner, or under ch. 17, parts 7 and 8 of this title which provide that the condemner shall determine the amount of compensation due the property owner and deposit the amount in court at the time of filing the petition after which possession can be decreed the condemner. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

26. Statute of Limitations.

In an action by landowners against the state, the department of highways and public works, and a county, for land taken for public highway purposes, the plea by the state of the statute of limitation did not have the effect to relieve the state of its liability to the county. Stubblefield v. Warren County, 170 Tenn. 211, 93 S.W.2d 1269, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1936).

27. Nonsuit.

Statutes relating to voluntary nonsuits applied to proceedings under the laws of eminent domain. Williams v. McMinn County, 209 Tenn. 236, 352 S.W.2d 430, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 372 (1961).

28. Failure to Use for Public Purpose.

In taking of land under eminent domain there is implied a condition that the land will be devoted to public use and where it is not being so used for an unreasonably long period of time there may be a presumption of abandonment and the burden is cast upon the condemner to disprove an intention to abandon. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Easement taken by eminent domain proceedings may be abandoned the same as one held by a private party. A. L. Kornman Co. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 216 Tenn. 205, 391 S.W.2d 633, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 572 (1965).

Where decree of condemnation did not take fee but only easement, decree was not bar, upon plea of res judicata, to suit for second alleged unlawful taking where abandonment allegedly occurred after original decree. A. L. Kornman Co. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 216 Tenn. 205, 391 S.W.2d 633, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 572 (1965).

29. Method of Trial.

In condemnation proceedings by state under ch. 17, part 8, court was not authorized to appoint a jury of view under this chapter but was required to proceed under provisions of the specific statute requiring trial before petit jury. State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

30. Costs of Trial.

Section 29-17-912 relating to costs of trial is applicable to condemnation proceedings instituted under this chapter. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

31. Airspace.

The taking of airspace above one's property creates a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Osborne Enterprises, Inc. v. Chattanooga, 561 S.W.2d 160, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Collateral References. 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 10-72.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 24, 32-36.

Airport authority, constitutionality of power conferred on, to take over existing public airports. 161 A.L.R. 733.

Airport, exercise of eminent domain for purposes of. 135 A.L.R. 755.

Applicability of zoning regulations to projects of nongovernmental public utility as affected by utility's power of eminent domain. 87 A.L.R.3d 1265.

Attorney's compensation for services in eminent domain, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 824, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Award of, or pending proceedings for, compensation for property condemned as precluding action for damages arising for prior trespasses upon it. 33 A.L.R.3d 1132.

Building line along street, power to establish, under eminent domain. 28 A.L.R. 315, 44 A.L.R. 1377, 53 A.L.R. 1222.

Building or other fixture, retention by, of its character as real property, for purposes of statute authorizing condemnation of real property, notwithstanding agreement treating it as personalty. 151 A.L.R. 1429.

Building restrictions, imposing, in exercise of power of eminent domain. 8 A.L.R. 594.

Cemetery purposes, right to take property already devoted to. 109 A.L.R. 1502.

“Civil action” or “civil proceeding,” condemnation proceeding as, within statutes relating to disqualification of judge or change of venue. 102 A.L.R. 399.

Condemnation by de facto corporation. 44 A.L.R. 542.

Condemnation of public utility property for public utility purposes. 173 A.L.R. 1362.

Consolidation or merger of public utility corporations, constitutionality of statute providing for. 66 A.L.R. 1568.

Constitutionality of statute conferring power of eminent domain on private corporation, for educational, religious or recreational purpose. 50 A.L.R. 1530.

Construction and application of rule requiring public use for which property is condemned to be “more necessary” or “higher use” than public use to which property is already appropriated — State takings. 49 A.L.R.5th 769.

Corporation performing assessment and condemnation services as engaged in practice of law. 73 A.L.R. 1333, 105 A.L.R. 1364, 157 A.L.R. 282.

De facto corporation, right of landowner to question corporate existence of. 44 A.L.R. 550.

Domestic corporation's right to exercise power of eminent domain as affected by benefit to foreign corporation. 65 A.L.R. 1457.

Eminent domain, combination of public or private uses or purposes. 53 A.L.R. 9.

Exercise of eminent domain for property to be exchanged for other property required for public purpose or use. 20 A.L.R.3d 862.

Federal control, condemnation proceedings by corporation during. 4 A.L.R. 1711, 8 A.L.R. 969, 10 A.L.R. 956, 11 A.L.R. 1450, 14 A.L.R. 234, 19 A.L.R. 678, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Furnishing electricity for telegraph or telephone system as a public use. 44 A.L.R. 752, 58 A.L.R. 787.

Furnishing electricity to public as public use or purpose for which power of eminent domain may be exercised. 44 A.L.R. 735, 58 A.L.R. 787.

Increasing right of interest which petitioner already owns. 108 A.L.R. 1522.

Injunction against exercise of power of eminent domain. 93 A.L.R.2d 465.

Injunction against taking by eminent domain of property already devoted to public use. 133 A.L.R. 31, 93 A.L.R.2d 465.

Interstate character of use to which property taken is to be devoted as affecting power of eminent domain. 90 A.L.R. 1032.

Lease or other privilege on railroad right-of-way, requiring railroad company to grant or renew, as a taking of private property for private use. 47 A.L.R. 109.

Liability, upon abandonment of eminent domain proceedings, for loss or expenses incurred by property owner, or for interest on award or judgment. 92 A.L.R.2d 355.

Logging road, exercise of eminent domain for purpose of. 86 A.L.R. 552.

Logs or other material, constitutionality of statute authorizing hauling or floating of, through private property. 51 A.L.R. 1199.

Material or mineral within right-of-way, right of railroad company in respect of. 21 A.L.R. 1131.

“Owner,” scope and import of term in statutes relating to condemnation proceedings. 2 A.L.R. 785, 95 A.L.R. 1085.

Park lands, condemnation for uses inconsistent with purpose of their dedication. 18 A.L.R. 1271, 63 A.L.R. 484, 144 A.L.R. 486.

Power of eminent domain as between state and subdivision or agency thereof, or as between different subdivisions or agencies themselves. 35 A.L.R.3d 1293.

Private owner, exercise of eminent domain for purpose of irrigating land of. 9 A.L.R. 583, 27 A.L.R. 519.

Promissory statements of condemner as to character of use or undertakings to be performed by it, extent of rights acquired by taking, as affected by. 7 A.L.R.2d 364.

Public benefit or convenience as distinguished from use by public as ground for exercise of power of eminent domain. 54 A.L.R. 7.

Public utility, power to condemn capital stock of. 81 A.L.R. 1071.

Railroad purposes, who entitled to condemn land upon its abandonment for, where railroad's interest or title was less than fee simple absolute. 136 A.L.R. 320.

Relief of property or petitioner from some burden or obligation in respect of property. 108 A.L.R. 1522.

Right to condemn property in excess of needs for a particular public purpose. 6 A.L.R.3d 297.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

Right to condemn property previously condemned or purchased for public use, but not actually so used. 12 A.L.R. 1502.

Rights and liabilities of parties to executory contract for sale of land taken by eminent domain. 27 A.L.R.3d 572.

Street or highway, right to use or permit use for private telegraph or telephone line. 34 A.L.R. 405.

Taxes, right in respect of, where property is taken in eminent domain. 45 A.L.R.2d 522.

Title or interest acquired by railroad in exercise of eminent domain as fee or easement. 155 A.L.R. 381.

Unity of ownership necessary to allowance of severance damages in eminent domain. 95 A.L.R.2d 887.

Use of property, power to condemn against particular use. 8 A.L.R. 594.

Use or improvement of property not taken, exercise of eminent domain to control. 23 A.L.R. 876.

Validity, construction, and effect of state or lease provision expressly governing rights and compensation of lessee upon condemnation of leased property. 22 A.L.R.5th 327.

Validity of appropriation of property for anticipated future needs. 80 A.L.R.3d 1085.

What constitutes abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemner with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

Who, as between condemner and condemnee, bears risk of loss or destruction of property occurring after commencement but before completion of eminent domain proceedings. 89 A.L.R.2d 1076.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 14.

29-16-102. Incorporation of chapter into other laws.

  1. This chapter shall be deemed, unless expressly stated to the contrary, and without incorporation or reference, to be a part of every section, or legislative act, present or future, which grants the power of such condemnation.
  2. The making of compensation for such a taking, as therein set forth, shall also be so implied.

Code 1932, § 3133; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1402.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 27.

Cited: Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971); Hise v. State, 968 S.W.2d 852, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

This section, added by the compilers of the 1932 Code, simply amends the eminent domain law so as to provide for the payment of adequate compensation to the landowner in all condemnation proceedings but even if it is treated as “new matter” it was sufficiently covered by the title of the 1932 Code. Tennessee Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Anderson County, 173 Tenn. 497, 121 S.W.2d 543, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1938).

This section amends the eminent domain law so that the provisions of the general eminent domain law shall be read into private acts or special laws providing for condemnation. Ragland v. Davidson County Board of Education, 203 Tenn. 317, 312 S.W.2d 855, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (1958).

Title 29, ch. 16's provisions apply to every legislative enactment granting such condemnation powers, whether the enactment consists of a public statute or a private act. Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

By referring to “the power of such condemnation,” rather than simply “the power of condemnation,” T.C.A. § 29-16-102 limits its application to the type of condemnation actions set forth in T.C.A. § 29-16-101, i.e., the condemnation of land for the purpose of constructing internal improvements. Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2. Construction with Other Acts.

3. —Private Acts.

The provisions of this law would govern the condemnation of right-of-way for highways except as modified by special acts. Department of Highways & Public Works v. Gamble, 18 Tenn. App. 95, 73 S.W.2d 175, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

Where a private act prescribed procedure for the condemnation of highway right-of-way in Moore County, the commissioners could elect to proceed under the private law or under this law. Department of Highways & Public Works v. Gamble, 18 Tenn. App. 95, 73 S.W.2d 175, 1934 Tenn. App. LEXIS 16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1934).

Where Private Acts 1933, ch. 446, § 2, applicable to Anderson County as to condemnation and eminent domain proceedings made no provision for compensation of the landowners in cases appealed to the circuit court, the procedure in such cases was governed by this section and by the applicable provisions of the general law as to eminent domain as against the contention that such act was unconstitutional as failing to provide compensation in the aforementioned cases. Tennessee Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Anderson County, 173 Tenn. 497, 121 S.W.2d 543, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1938).

4. —Other Acts Generally.

This section must be read into every legislative act granting the power of condemnation. Tennessee Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Anderson County, 173 Tenn. 497, 121 S.W.2d 543, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1938).

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Statutes 225.

29-16-103. Property of corporations.

The operation of this chapter is extended so that the same shall apply to and include the condemnation and taking of property, privileges, rights, or easements of private corporations for public purposes or internal improvements.

Acts 1885, ch. 135; Shan., § 1868; Code 1932, § 3134; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1403.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law (Paul H. Sanders), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1159.

Cited: Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Brown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2009).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Charter Rights.

Although a corporation charter, granted prior to the Constitution of 1870, is a contract and protected by the federal Constitution, yet, the rights and privileges secured by it are property, and, like all other property, are subject to be condemned under the eminent domain power of the state. Williamson County v. Franklin & Spring Hill Turnpike Co., 143 Tenn. 628, 228 S.W. 714, 1920 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1921).

2. Property Dedicated to Public Use.

Where property has been devoted to a public use, it may be condemned and appropriated to another inconsistent public use, by the legislature manifesting an intention, in express terms or by necessary implication, to do so. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Union City, 137 Tenn. 491, 194 S.W. 572, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1917).

A statute giving a city specific power to extend its streets over and across the tracks, sidetracks, switchyards, depot buildings, and grounds of any railway corporation within the city, and vesting the city with the powers of eminent domain to condemn such property for the purpose of street extensions, sufficiently specifies property to be taken to confer authority to condemn it, though it was already devoted to public use. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Union City, 137 Tenn. 491, 194 S.W. 572, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1917).

Where property has been dedicated to a public use, it cannot be taken for another and inconsistent use, unless the power so to take it is conferred expressly or by necessary implication. Williamson County v. Franklin & Spring Hill Turnpike Co., 143 Tenn. 628, 228 S.W. 714, 1920 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1921).

3. —Unused Lands.

Land owned by a corporation whose business constitutes a public use, not in actual use nor essential to the exercise of its franchises, stands on the same footing as that of the private individual, and may be condemned by another corporation, under the general laws, although the land is taken from the actual and profitable use of the owner. Memphis & S. L. R. Co. v. Union R. Co., 116 Tenn. 500, 95 S.W. 1019, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1906); Memphis S. L. R. Co. v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 400, 94 S.W. 69, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1906).

One railroad corporation is entitled to condemn a right-of-way over the land of another railroad corporation, not in actual use by it, nor essential to the exercise of its franchises, and wholly unsuitable for the purpose for which it claimed the land to be valuable, especially where it does not appear that there is a more practicable and feasible route for the proposed new road. Memphis & S. L. R. Co. v. Union R. Co., 116 Tenn. 500, 95 S.W. 1019, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1906).

4. —Railroad Crossing.

When one railroad seeks to condemn a right-of-way for the construction of a crossing over the tracks of another railroad, in the absence of statutory authority, courts have no jurisdiction to require other than a grade crossing unless conditions are such that a grade crossing would be practically destructive of the objecting railroad company's franchise to operate its road at that point. Union R. Co. v. Illinois C. R. Co., 207 F. 745, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1656 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1913), cert. denied, 231 U.S. 754, 34 S. Ct. 323, 58 L. Ed. 467, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2587 (1913).

5. —Necessity.

Nothing less than absolute necessity which arises from the nature of things will warrant the condemnation of the property of a quasi public corporation, devoted to the public use, for the purpose of appropriating it for another public use. Whether the statute was intended to be declaratory of the existing law or to create a new rule, it is couched in general terms, and would be subject to the reasonable limitations. Memphis & S. L. R. Co. v. Union R. Co., 116 Tenn. 500, 95 S.W. 1019, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1906); Memphis S. L. R. Co. v. Forest Hill Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 400, 94 S.W. 69, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1906); Southern R. Co. v. Memphis, 126 Tenn. 267, 148 S.W. 662, 41 L.R.A. (n.s.) 828, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1912).

The question of the necessity for street extensions over railroad property is a political question, and not a judicial question, and cannot be brought before the court. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Union City, 137 Tenn. 491, 194 S.W. 572, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1917).

6. Agreement Not to Condemn — Estoppel.

Where the city authorities agreed with two railroad companies that if they would erect a union depot, the city would not attempt to open streets through the premises, upon the faith of which agreement, the companies erected such depot, the city is not estopped to condemn the right to extend its streets through the premises after the erection of such depot, because the power of eminent domain is inalienable. The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in such cases, for the reason that those interposing the defense are to be paid full compensation. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Union City, 137 Tenn. 491, 194 S.W. 572, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1917).

7. Damages.

The right of a railroad company being simply to occupy and use the right-of-way for railroad purposes, it follows that it can suffer only nominal damages when that use and occupation is not interfered with or encumbered in any way. RAILROAD v. TELEGRAPH CO., 101 Tenn. 62, 46 S.W. 571, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1898).

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-104. Petition.

The person seeking to appropriate such land shall file a petition in the circuit court of the county in which the land lies, setting forth, in substance:

  1. The parcel of land or rights therein or incident thereto a portion of which is wanted, and the extent wanted;
  2. The name of the owner of such land or rights, or, if unknown, stating the fact;
  3. The object for which the land, etc., is wanted; and
  4. A prayer that a suitable portion of land or rights may be decreed to the petitioner, and set apart by metes and bounds, or other proper mode.

Code 1858, § 1326; Shan., § 1845; mod. Code 1932, § 3110; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1404.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 44, 47.

Law Reviews.

Civil Procedure and Evidence — Tennessee Survey 1970 (Jerry J. Phillips), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 127.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Real Property — Eminent Domain — Reversion Upon Misuse or Nonuse of Land by Condemning Authority, 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 71.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. LeClercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communs. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. 1996); Brandy Hills Estates, LLC v. Reeves, 237 S.W.3d 307, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 794 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2006).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction with Other Acts.

Municipal condemnation statutes and general condemnation laws construed in pari materia. Nashville v. Dad's Auto Accessories, Inc., 154 Tenn. 194, 285 S.W. 52, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1926), dismissed, Dad's Auto Accessories v. Nashville, 47 S. Ct. 20, 273 U.S. 770, 71 L. Ed. 883, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1926).

While failure to comply with federal statute requiring public hearings on certain federal highway projects might serve to defeat right of state to federal funds, such failure would not defeat or impair state's right to condemn land for such project. County Highway Com. v. Smith, 61 Tenn. App. 292, 454 S.W.2d 124, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

2. Petition — Requisites.

The petition for the condemnation of lands, when filed by a corporation having incidental charter powers to engage in private business as well as in public business or a business affected with a public use, must show beyond doubt that the land sought to be condemned is to be devoted to a public use. Noell v. Tennessee Eastern Power Co., 130 Tenn. 245, 169 S.W. 1166, 169 S.W. 1169, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1914).

Failure of power company's petition for condemnation of way for poles and wires to allege width, length or dimensions of land sought to be taken rendered it subject to demurrer, the Code providing only for taking of definite areas of land on condemnation. Hydro Electric Corp. v. Shanks, 156 Tenn. 91, 299 S.W. 809, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1927).

Where the facilities of the courts are employed to exercise or restrain the power of eminent domain, the courts must determine whether the property sought by the public authority is “necessary” to the previously determined “public use” and, if so, how much private property is required. County Highway Com. v. Smith, 61 Tenn. App. 292, 454 S.W.2d 124, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

3. Demurrer to Petition — Effect.

The allegations of the petition for the condemnation of lands must be taken as true, upon demurrer. Great Falls Power Co. v. Webb, 123 Tenn. 584, 133 S.W. 1105, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1911).

Where a demurrer is filed to the petition for condemnation, and an answer is filed, presenting only the issues of law, and raising no issue of fact, such answer may be disposed of by the supreme court as a demurrer, where it was so treated by the circuit judge and counsel. Noell v. Tennessee Eastern Power Co., 130 Tenn. 245, 169 S.W. 1166, 169 S.W. 1169, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1914).

4. Jurisdiction.

5. —Circuit Court.

Where proceedings to condemn a right of way for a railroad have been instituted in the circuit court, such court has complete jurisdiction, and has power to construe a contract, between the owner of the land and the railroad company, for the establishment of crossings, and to determine the rights of the landowner, not only under such contract, but also under the statute and under the common law. Dixon v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 115 Tenn. 362, 89 S.W. 322, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1905).

Circuit court was not deprived of jurisdiction by private act conferring jurisdiction on the county court. Department of Highways v. Stepp, 150 Tenn. 682, 266 S.W. 776, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1924).

Upon exceptions to report of jury of view in condemnation proceedings, the circuit court, on recognizing compliance with the statute, acquired jurisdiction to review the report of the jury of view. State v. Oliver, 167 Tenn. 154, 67 S.W.2d 146, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

6. —Chancery Jurisdiction.

The chancery court has no jurisdiction of a proceeding brought solely for condemnation. Chambers v. Chattanooga Union R. Co., 130 Tenn. 459, 171 S.W. 84, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1914).

A bill will not lie to determine title to lands sought to be condemned in circuit court. Hombra v. Smith, 159 Tenn. 308, 17 S.W.2d 921, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1929).

7. Contract for Right-of-Way — Effect.

A contract for the sale or conveyance of a right-of-way, made by a landowner to a railroad company, although in parol and executory, is good as against another railroad company which subsequently institutes proceedings for condemnation of the same land, with notice that such agreement had been made. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

8. Injunction and Damages.

Where additional water, accumulating by reason of the construction of a slab on right-of-way, could be disposed of lawfully without unreasonable cost and without throwing it on the land of an adjoining owner, the landowner is entitled to injunction and damages. Anderson v. Knoxville Power & Light Co., 16 Tenn. App. 259, 64 S.W.2d 204, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

9. Effect of Statute.

This section places the burden of having the right-of-way laid off on the condemner and the landowner is relieved of the necessity of taking affirmative action to insure that his rights will be preserved. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

10. Failure to Comply with Statutory Provisions.

Public service company which entered land and appropriated right-of-way for electric lines without condemnation or compensation of landowner acquired only a possessory right and not a transmissible right and subsequent conveyances thereof did not operate to pass such right. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Until the appropriating corporation takes steps to have its needs set apart by metes and bounds and the amount of compensation due the owner determined and paid, possession though not subject to interference because of its public nature, is illegal and cannot ripen into a vested legal right to an easement short of 20 years adverse possession. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Where public service corporation entered land and appropriated right-of-way for electric line without condemnation or compensation of owner as provided in this chapter, any easement or right it may have acquired was abandoned when the line was dismantled and the land was allowed to remain unused for public purposes for eight years. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Condemnation proceeding is commenced only by filing of petition provided by this section and cannot be commenced by summons alone. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 387, 388, 395, 396.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 250-261.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 191.

29-16-105. Notice of petition.

  1. Notice of this petition, together with a copy thereof, shall be given to the owner of the land or rights, or, if a nonresident of the county, to the landownder's agent, at least five (5) days before its presentation.
  2. If the owner is a nonresident of the state or unknown, notice shall be given by publication, as provided in this Code in similar cases in chancery.

Code 1858, §§ 1327, 1328; Shan., §§ 1846, 1847; mod. Code 1932, §§ 3111, 3112; Acts 1959, ch. 194, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1405.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 46, 47.

Law Reviews.

In Rem Actions — Adequacy of Notice, 25 Tenn. L. Rev. 495.

Local Government Law — 1959 Tennessee Survey (A. E. Ryman, Jr.), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1257.

Real Property — 1959 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1318.

Cited: First Util. Dist. of Knox County v. Jarnigan-Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

This chapter provides explicit procedures which entities with the power of eminent domain should follow, and entities who fail to avail themselves of these provisions are, under appropriate circumstances, liable to the landowner for the full measure of damages, including punitive damages, appropriate to the cause of action. Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communs. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. 1996), rehearing denied, 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. 1996).

2. Exclusive Mode of Bringing Owners Before Court.

Sections 29-16-104 — 29-16-106 make no provision for bringing the owners of land before the court in any other way than by notice and by publication and do not provide for the issuance of process against them in the ordinary sense. In re Condemnation Suits, 234 F. 443, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1489 (D. Tenn. 1916).

Eminent domain proceedings are commenced by a petition as provided in § 29-16-104 with notice and publication as provided in this section and cannot be commenced by summons alone. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

This section and § 29-16-104 make no provision for bringing the owner of the land before the court in any other way than by notice and publication and do not provide for the issuance of process against them in the ordinary sense such proceedings being an exception to the general provision that civil actions in courts of record are commenced by summons except as otherwise provided. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

3. Process — Effect of Absence.

The validity of condemnation proceedings is not affected by the fact that they were not commenced by summons or other process of the court issued under seal of the court and signed by the clerk. In re Condemnation Suits, 234 F. 443, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1489 (D. Tenn. 1916).

4. Notice — Necessity of Requirement.

The right of eminent domain can be constitutionally exercised only when the property owner is given reasonable notice of the effort to condemn his property, and a statute must require such notice, either expressly or impliedly, or it will be void. A statute by necessary implication requires such notice, where it provides that the property owner may appeal from the award made by the commissioners appointed to assess his damages. Woolard v. Mayor, etc. of Nashville, 108 Tenn. 353, 67 S.W. 801, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1902).

5. Unborn Remaindermen.

Provision of this section relative to service of unknown owners by publication refers to owners in esse and is not applicable to unborn remaindermen who are subject to the provisions of § 29-16-106 to the effect that unborn remaindermen are bound by proceedings to which all living persons in interest are parties. Sanford v. Louisville & N. Railroad, 225 Tenn. 350, 469 S.W.2d 363, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1971).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 393, 394.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 242-246.

Eminent domain: Permissible modes of service of notice of proceedings. 89 A.L.R.2d 1404.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 179-184, 191.

29-16-106. Parties defendant.

All parties having any interest in any way in such land or rights may be made defendants, and the proceedings shall only cover and affect the interest of those who are actually made parties, unborn remaindermen being, however, bound by proceedings to which all living persons in interest are parties.

Code 1858, § 1329; Shan., § 1848; mod. Code 1932, § 3113; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1406.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 45.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Interested Parties.

2. —Who Constitutes.

A tenant for life or for years, as well as the owner of the reversion or remainder, is an interested party, and must be compensated. The statutory remedy is not limited to the owner of the fee, but includes all parties having any interest in any way in the land. Colcough v. Nashville & N. W. R. Co., 39 Tenn. 171, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (1858).

The lessee of the land sought to be condemned for public use is a necessary party to the condemnation proceedings. Union R. Co. v. Hunton, 114 Tenn. 609, 88 S.W. 182, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1905).

Holder of verbal lease for one year was entitled to intervene and to recover moving expenses in proceeding to condemn real property upon which he operated machine shop. Morristown v. Sauls, 61 Tenn. App. 666, 457 S.W.2d 601, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

3. —Failure to Join Interested Parties.

The fact that some of the owners of the lands are not before the court in no way affects those who are before the court. The statute provides in terms that “the proceedings will only cover and affect the interest of those who are actually made parties.” Camp v. Coal Creek & W. G. R.R. Co., 79 Tenn. 705, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1883).

A statutory proceeding for condemnation is but a substitute for the acquisition by contract, and the filing of the petition for condemnation by a railroad company gives it no right as against another company that previously obtained a deed from the owner for the same purpose, although such deed was not recorded, but was known to the petitioner, for, to accord priority to such a petitioner over the interest acquired by such known and unrecorded conveyance would be to bind and affect the interest of one not made a party. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

4. —Owner's Interest Acquired by Mortgagee.

The fact that owners of land, whose interests a mortgagee acquired, were not made parties to proceeding to condemn until after execution of the mortgage did not deprive the mortgagee, not a party, of property without due process of law. Federal Land Bank v. Monroe County, 165 Tenn. 624, 57 S.W.2d 553, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1933).

5. Compensation.

It would seem that the persons vested with the several interests which constitute the entire estate may join in a proceeding under the statute to obtain compensation, or, as they have several interests, they may proceed separately. In either mode of proceeding, however, the compensation for the entire damage must be apportioned according to the injury to their respective interests. Colcough v. Nashville & N. W. R. Co., 39 Tenn. 171, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (1858).

6. Unborn Remaindermen.

Provision of § 29-16-105 relative to service of unknown owners by publication refers to owners in esse and is not applicable to unborn remaindermen who are subject to the provisions of this section to the effect that unborn remaindermen are bound by proceedings in which all living persons in interest are parties. Sanford v. Louisville & N. Railroad, 225 Tenn. 350, 469 S.W.2d 363, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1971).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 258, 391.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 236.

Propriety and effect of argument or evidence as to financial status of parties in eminent domain proceeding. 21 A.L.R.3d 936.

Right of adjoining landowners to intervene in condemnation proceedings on ground that they might suffer consequential damage. 61 A.L.R.2d 1292.

Wife as necessary party to proceeding to condemn husband's real property. 5 A.L.R. 1347, 101 A.L.R. 697.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 175-178.

29-16-107. [Transferred.]

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-16-107 (Code 1858, §§ 1330, 1331; Shan., §§ 1849, 1850; Code 1932, §§ 3114, 3115; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1407), concerning writ of inquiry of damages, was transferred to § 29-16-202 by Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 3, effective May 16, 2014.

29-16-108. Constitution of jury.

The jury will consist of five (5) persons, unless the parties agree upon a different number, and either party may challenge, for cause or peremptorily, as in other civil cases.

Code 1858, § 1334 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 5); Shan., § 1853; Code 1932, § 3118; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1408.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 54.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Signatures of Majority of Original Jurors — Sufficiency.

Where the jury is nominated by the court, and the report shows that only three of the jury appeared, whereupon the sheriff then summoned two others, making five, all of whom signed the report, it is sufficient and unexceptionable. The fact that the report is signed by a majority of the original jury nominated by the court is sufficient. Mississippi R. Co. v. McDonald, 59 Tenn. 54, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1873).

Collateral References. 30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 293.

Use of peremptory challenge to exclude from jury persons belonging to race or class. 79 A.L.R.3d 14.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-109. Qualifications of jurors.

The jurors shall not be interested in the same or a similar question, and shall possess the qualifications of other jurors, and may be nominated by the court, selected by consent of parties, or summoned by the sheriff.

Code 1858, § 1332 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 5); Shan., § 1851; Code 1932, § 3116; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1409.

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 215.

29-16-110. Substitution of jurors.

If named by the court, and the persons named are unable to attend when summoned, the place of such persons shall be supplied by the sheriff.

Code 1858, § 1333; Shan., § 1852; Code 1932, § 3117; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1410.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 54.

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-111. Notice of inquest.

The sheriff shall give the parties or their agents, if residents of the county, three (3) days' notice of the time and place of taking the inquest, unless the time has been fixed by the order of court.

Code 1858, § 1335; Shan., § 1854; Code 1932, § 3119; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1411.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 46.

Collateral References. 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 242-246.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 179-184.

29-16-112. Swearing of jury.

The jury, before proceeding to act, shall be sworn by the sheriff, fairly and impartially, without favor or affection, to lay off, by metes and bounds, the land required for the proposed improvement, and to inquire and assess the damages.

Code 1858, § 1336; Shan., § 1855; Code 1932, § 3120; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1412.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Deputy Sheriff — Competency to Swear Jury.

The deputy sheriff may administer the oath. Stevens v. Duck River Navigation Co., 33 Tenn. 237, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1853).

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 217.

29-16-113. Investigation by jury.

  1. The jury will then proceed to examine the ground, and may hear testimony, but no argument of counsel, and set apart, by metes and bounds, a sufficient quantity of land for the purposes intended, and assess the damages occasioned to the owner thereby.
  2. In condemning rights-of-way for telegraph and telephone companies, or riparian rights, the juries shall not be required to lay off the property, privileges, rights, or easements included in the petition, or sought to be condemned, by metes and bounds; and, in such cases, it shall be discretionary with such juries whether they will view the premises or not.

Code 1858, § 1337; Acts 1885, ch. 135; Shan., §§ 1856, 1870; mod. Code 1932, §§ 3121, 3136; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1413.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 33, 55.

Tennessee Law of Evidence (2nd ed., Cohen, Paine and Sheppeard), § 401.16.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Sufficiency of Description.

The roadbed of a railroad is a permanent landmark, and the description of the land set apart for a right-of-way is sufficient where the jury designates the distance from the center of the railroad track on each side. Duck R. V. N. G. R.R. Co. v. Cochrane, 71 Tenn. 478, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1879).

2. Appropriation Without Proceeding — Presumption as to Amount.

Where a railroad company fails to institute any proceedings, or in any manner to designate the land to be appropriated for its right-of-way, its entry and construction of its road must be regarded as an appropriation of so much of the land as the law authorizes for such purposes. Duck R. V. N. G. R.R. Co. v. Cochrane, 71 Tenn. 478, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1879).

3. Elements Considered.

Where the facilities of the courts are employed to exercise or restrain the power of eminent domain, the courts must determine whether the property sought by the public authority is “necessary” to the previously determined “public use” and, if so, how much private property is required. County Highway Com. v. Smith, 61 Tenn. App. 292, 454 S.W.2d 124, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

4. Jury Not Required.

There was no need to impanel a jury of view under T.C.A. § 29-16-113 to determine the location and quantity of the easement sought by utility district. First Util. Dist. of Knox County v. Jarnigan-Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2001).

5. Incidental Damages.

The language of T.C.A. 29-16-113(a) does not indicate that the legislature intended for the jury to assess incidental damages as well as compensation for the property and improvements. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The type of expenses comprising incidental damages properly recoverable in eminent domain proceedings falls under T.C.A. § 29-16-114(a) and is a question of law. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

6. Construction with Rules of Civil Procedure.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 71 does not preclude the use of summary judgment in condemnation proceedings. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Collateral References. 30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 296-298.

Admissibility of hearsay evidence as to comparable sales of other land as basis for expert's opinion as to land value. 12 A.L.R.3d 1064, 89 A.L.R.4th 456.

Compelling testimony of opponent's expert in state court. 66 A.L.R.4th 213.

Compensation for diminution in value of the remainder of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land of others for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Condemner's liability for costs of condemnee's expert witnesses. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Evidentiary effect of view by jury in condemnation proceedings. 1 A.L.R.3d 1397.

Necessity of trial or proceeding, separate from main condemnation trial or proceeding, to determine divided interest in state condemnation award. 94 A.L.R.3d 696.

Propriety and effect, in eminent domain proceeding, of argument or evidence as to landowner's unwillingness to sell property. 17 A.L.R.3d 1449.

Right to view by jury in condemnation proceedings. 77 A.L.R.2d 548.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 209, 213-223.

29-16-114. [Transferred.]

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-16-114 (Code 1858, § 1338; Shan., § 1857; Code 1932, § 3122; Acts 1951, ch. 176, § 1; 1957, ch. 398, § 1; 1967, ch. 305, § 1; 1970, ch. 482, § 1; 1972, ch. 463, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1414; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 19), concerning elements of damages, was transferred to § 29-16-203 by Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 4, effective May 16, 2014.

29-16-115. Return of jury's report.

The report of the jury shall be reduced to writing, signed by a majority of the jurors, delivered to the sheriff, and by the sheriff returned into court.

Code 1858, § 1339; Shan., § 1858; Code 1932, § 3123; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1415.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 30; 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 55.

Cited: Kennard v. Townsend, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Signing — Sufficiency.

The fact that the report is signed by a majority of the original jury nominated by the court is sufficient. Mississippi R. Co. v. McDonald, 59 Tenn. 54, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1873).

2. Admissibility.

While Tennessee has not adopted a national standard of care in medical malpractice (now health care liability) cases, as any change in the locality rule must come from the legislature, not the judiciary, Tennessee courts recognizes that, in many instances, the national standard is representative of the local standard. A number of medical experts have testified in Tennessee cases that there is either a uniform national standard of care or a standard pertinent to a broad geographic area applicable to medical care providers. Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 882 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011).

Proffered medical expert is not required to demonstrate firsthand and direct knowledge of a medical community and the appropriate standard of medical care there in order to qualify as competent to testify in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case; a proffered expert may educate himself or herself on the characteristics of a medical community in order to provide competent testimony in a variety of ways, including but not limited to reading reference materials on pertinent statistical information such as community and/or hospital size and the number and type of medical facilities in the area, conversing with other medical providers in the pertinent community or a neighboring or similar one, visiting the community or hospital where the defendant practices, or other means. The Supreme Court of Tennessee expressly rejects the personal, firsthand, direct knowledge standard formulated by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Eckler  and Allen . Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 882 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011).

Trial court's decision to accept or disqualify an expert medical witness is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, and a trial court abuses its discretion when it disqualifies a witness who meets the competency requirements of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) and excludes testimony that meets the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 703. Tennessee continues to follow the majority rule and apply the abuse of discretion standard to decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence. Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 882 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011).

3. Qualifications.

T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a) and (b) serve two distinct purposes. Subsection (a) provides the elements that must be proven in a medical negligence action, and subsection (b) prescribes who is competent to testify to satisfy the requirements of subsection (a). Therefore, when determining whether a witness is competent to testify, the trial court should look to subsection (b), not subsection (a). Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 882 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011).

Collateral References. 30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 299-304.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 234, 237, 253(3).

29-16-116. Confirmation of report.

If no objection is made to the report, it is confirmed by the court, and the land decreed to the petitioner, upon payment to the defendants, or to the clerk for their use, of the damages assessed, with costs.

Code 1858, § 1340 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 5); Shan., § 1859; Code 1932, § 3124; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1416.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 30, 47, 55.

Cited: County Highway Com. v. Smith, 61 Tenn. App. 292, 454 S.W.2d 124, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969); Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgment for Condemnation — Finality.

A judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to have the land condemned as sought, and the appointment of a jury to lay it off by metes and bounds, and to assess the damages, where the jury has not filed its report, and no bond has been filed, is not a final judgment reviewable by certiorari in the Supreme Court. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903); Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

After a judgment of condemnation has been passed, the question made by the party seeking the condemnation that one of the defendants, who claimed an interest in the land under a lease, was entitled to no damages, is not open to examination at a subsequent term, when the court has under consideration merely the question of the amount of damages. Union R. Co. v. Hunton, 114 Tenn. 609, 88 S.W. 182, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1905).

The judgment for the appropriation of land in condemnation proceedings becomes final upon the confirmation of the report of the jury of view, and the payment of the assessment of damages, or upon the execution of the bond required by the statute, and that part of the case is dissociated from the assessment of damages, which may thereafter proceed as a separate litigation. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912). See Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

Where only valid determination in condemnation proceedings brought by housing authority under Housing Authority Law was that housing authority had right to take the land, and order confirming report of jury of view was void because entered out of term after trial court had adjourned and without knowledge or consent of landowners, there was no final adjudication, and Court of Appeals was without authority to review trial court's jurisdiction on petition for certiorari, and Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of petition for certiorari. Harper v. Trenton Housing Authority, 197 Tenn. 257, 271 S.W.2d 185, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (1954).

2. Dismissal or Nonsuit.

The petitioner cannot, after trial, verdict, and judgment for damages in the circuit court, dismiss the proceeding and avoid payment merely because the damages assessed were considered to be too high. Union R. Co. v. Standard Wheel Co., 149 F. 698, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4493 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1906).

When an appeal is prosecuted only on the subject of damages and the report of the jury of view is in every respect confirmed, the land decreed to the petitioner and a bond executed for it for the purpose of taking possession, it is then too late to take a nonsuit. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

After the report of the jury of view, but before its confirmation and before bond has been given in double the amount of damages found by the jury of view, the petitioner may take a nonsuit, even though it has incidentally invaded the possession of the defendant, if it has not taken possession under any order of court, where it is made to appear that the enterprise has become impracticable, and has been abandoned. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

A nonsuit must be taken before the case has been finally submitted to the jury on a trial in the circuit court before the court and jury, and before the jury has retired to consider its verdict; and there can be no nonsuit after the report of the jury of view has been confirmed, without exception or appeal, and the land has been decreed to the petitioner. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912); Southern R. Co. v. Memphis, 126 Tenn. 267, 148 S.W. 662, 41 L.R.A. (n.s.) 828, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1912); Southern R. Co. v. Michaels, 126 Tenn. 702, 151 S.W. 53, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1912).

A mere casual or physical possession in advance of confirmation of the report of the jury of view, however long maintained pending the proceedings, even under the sanction of a statute dispensing with a bond in case of a county, and authorizing such preliminary possession, does not vest such title as would prevent a dismissal or nonsuit before the cause reaches any final and severable character, even though one so possessing may mine and sever valuable material and use it so as to be unable to restore it, thus committing a waste for which it might be liable in an appropriate action. Huff v. Department of Highways & Public Works, 3 Tenn. App. 277, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 101 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

3. Writ of Possession — Time of Award.

Where the court fails to award a writ of possession at the term at which the report of the jury of view is confirmed, the court can award such writ at a subsequent term. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

Even if the circuit court has lost the power to award the writ of possession, then the Supreme Court will either award the writ or remand the cause to the court below for that purpose, where the condemnation was proper. Collier v. Union R. Co., 113 Tenn. 96, 83 S.W. 155, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1904).

4. Landowner Contesting Right to Possession.

A landowner can resist the taking of possession until his damages are ascertained and paid or provided for by execution of a bond; expressing a willingness to accept, but prosecuting the proceedings to ascertain the terms, is not a surrender either of the possession or the right thereto; acquiesence in a right to appropriate is conditional upon payment of damages. Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Link, 6 Tenn. App. 617, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

5. Clerk — No Fee for Receipt of Damages.

Where the damages assessed are paid to the clerk of the circuit court for the use of the owner of the property, the clerk is not entitled to any fee or commission. Railroad v. Boswell, 104 Tenn. 529, 58 S.W. 117, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1900).

6. Appraiser's Report.

This section applies to the report of the board of appraisers appointed in condemnation proceedings by boards of education under §§ 49-801 — 49-804 (now § 49-6-2001). Ragland v. Davidson County Board of Education, 203 Tenn. 317, 312 S.W.2d 855, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (1958).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 443-452, 461, 473-477.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 306.

Abandonment of condemnation proceedings after confirmation of award. 121 A.L.R. 90.

Attorneys' fees, validity of statutory provision for. 11 A.L.R. 884, 90 A.L.R. 530, 26 A.L.R.2d 1295.

Liability of condemner in eminent domain proceedings for fees of expert witnesses who testified for property owner. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Relinquishment of part of land or incorporeal rights therein as affecting costs. 5 A.L.R.2d 724.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 237.

29-16-117. Setting aside report.

Either party may object to the report of the jury, and the same may, on good cause shown, be set aside, and a new writ of inquiry awarded.

Code 1858, § 1341 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 5); Shan., § 1860; Code 1932, § 3125; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1417.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 55, 61.

Cited: Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966); State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Except — Evidence Admissible.

Either party has the right to except to the report and to make good his exceptions by proof before the court; but affidavits of an ex parte character in the circuit court, in proving or disproving such exceptions, are unauthorized. The evidence should be governed by the same rules as in other cases, giving the parties an opportunity to apply the test of cross-examination. Clarksville & Hopkinsville Turnpike Co. v. Atkinson, 33 Tenn. 426, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1853).

2. —Objection — Time and Mode of Making.

The proper time and way to make objections for want of title, of proper parties, and to make all contests, is by exceptions to the report of the jury of view when filed. Camp v. Coal Creek & W. G. R.R. Co., 79 Tenn. 705, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1883).

Exceptions to report of jury should be filed at first term of court following filing of report. Officer v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 192 Tenn. 184, 239 S.W.2d 999, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1951).

3. —Court as Trier of Exceptions.

The report of the jury of view is required to be returned into court, and must there be subject to revision for error in matter of law or matter of fact. The court is the exclusive trier of the exceptions to the report of the jury of view, and may allow them and order a new jury of view, as before, or disallow them and adopt the report of the jury of view as the judgment of the court. Clarksville & Hopkinsville Turnpike Co. v. Atkinson, 33 Tenn. 426, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1853); Overton County R.R. Co. v. Eldridge, 118 Tenn. 79, 98 S.W. 1051, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1906).

4. Appeal.

An appeal cannot be perfected until parties have a chance in a session by the court for the court to pass on exceptions and request for appeal. Officer v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 192 Tenn. 184, 239 S.W.2d 999, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1951).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 446-448.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 307.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 237.

29-16-118. Appeal.

  1. Either party may also appeal from the finding of the jury, and, on giving security for the costs, have a trial anew, before a jury in the usual way.
  2. In all cases where the right to condemn is not contested and the sole question before the jury is that of damages the property owner shall be entitled to open and close the argument before the court and jury.
  3. The time within which either party may appeal from the finding of the jury of view shall be forty-five (45) days from the date of the entry of the court's order confirming the report of the jury of view.

Code 1858, § 1342; Shan., § 1861; Code 1932, § 3126; Acts 1953, ch. 71, § 1; 1968, ch. 615, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1418.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 212; 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 53-55, 61.

Law Reviews.

Condemnation — Appeal from Award of Jury of View (Will Allen Wilkerson), 29 Tenn. L. Rev. 528.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1035.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature of Remedy.

A party excepting to the report of the jury of view may, upon the overruling of his exceptions and the confirmation of the report, appeal from the finding of the jury of view to the next term of the circuit court for a trial anew before a jury in the usual way, on the question of damages, for the remedies by exception and appeal are concurrent and successive; and exceptions to the report do not preclude or exclude the right of such appeal. Overton County R.R. Co. v. Eldridge, 118 Tenn. 79, 98 S.W. 1051, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1906).

Remedies given by this section and § 29-16-123 are exclusive. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

The remedies provided by this section and § 29-16-117 are cumulative, and it is error to refuse prayer for appeal after exceptions to jury of view's report is filed. Baker v. Rose, 165 Tenn. 543, 56 S.W.2d 732, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1933).

The right of trial by jury in an eminent domain proceeding being a right in existence at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1870 cannot be taken away by implication but can only be taken away, if at all, by an express act of the legislature. Shook & Fletcher Supply Co. v. Nashville, 47 Tenn. App. 339, 338 S.W.2d 237, 1960 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).

2. —New Jury of View.

Either party, in a proper case, may be entitled to a new jury of view; or, upon appeal in any case, will be entitled to a new trial before a regular jury in the circuit court. Overton County R.R. Co. v. Eldridge, 118 Tenn. 79, 98 S.W. 1051, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1906).

3. Remedies of Landowner Enumerated.

The statutory remedy given land proprietors, for land taken for the construction of railways, is, in general, exclusive of all other remedies, and not merely cumulative. Colcough v. Nashville & N. W. R. Co., 39 Tenn. 171, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 272 (1858).

Ejectment will not lie to recover land taken by a telephone company, the landowner being confined to his statutory remedy. Doty v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 123 Tenn. 329, 130 S.W. 1053, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1910).

The landowner must obtain redress in the condemnation proceedings, or in an appeal therefrom, or he may, upon his own petition for a jury of inquest, have his damages assessed, or he may sue for damages in the ordinary way; he cannot bring a suit of ejectment, nor is he entitled to an injunction which will have the effect of dispossessing a corporation from a right-of-way already occupied by it. Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913).

Where railroad, claiming title under deed from life tenant, erected costly buildings on the land, remainderman, after death of life tenant, was not entitled to partition. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

4. Appeal.

5. —Time for Appeal.

(Cases decided before 1968 amendment)

A party dissatisfied with such report filed out of term time need take no action until it can be had in open court, and an appeal is properly granted on the first day of next term. Baker v. Rose, 165 Tenn. 543, 56 S.W.2d 732, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1933).

An appeal from report of jury of view is timely if filed within the first term. State v. Oliver, 167 Tenn. 154, 67 S.W.2d 146, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

An appeal cannot be perfected until parties have a chance in a session by the court for the court to pass on exceptions and request for appeal. Officer v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 192 Tenn. 184, 239 S.W.2d 999, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1951).

Since statute does not indicate time for appeal on issue of damages a court cannot impose any condition on exercise of right of appeal unless circumstances indicate an intention to waive right of appeal. Officer v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 192 Tenn. 184, 239 S.W.2d 999, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1951).

Where utility perfected an appeal and case was placed on jury docket for trial and case thereafter was continued, a motion by property owner for an appeal following filing of motion of utility for dismissal of its appeal was timely and should have been granted by the trial court, since circumstances did not indicate that property owner intended to waive its right of appeal. Officer v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 192 Tenn. 184, 239 S.W.2d 999, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1951).

The time within which a party must appeal from the finding of a jury of view is not expressly stated in the general eminent domain statutes and an appeal from the report of a jury of view is timely if filed within the first term after the report is received. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

6. —Waiver of Trial De Novo.

Landowner who appealed from order of court confirming report of jury of view on the ground that state had no right to take the land did not waive trial de novo on question of damages. State v. Oliver, 167 Tenn. 154, 67 S.W.2d 146, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

7. —Failure to Appeal — Effect.

The exceptions to report of the jury of view for inadequacy of compensation and want of jurisdiction in the court, and the court's adoption of the value of the land and incidental damages fixed by the jury of view cannot be considered, in absence of appeal from such jury's findings and steps for a new trial, under this section, and assignment of error in adopting the value and incidental damages fixed by such jury. Department of Highways v. Stepp, 150 Tenn. 682, 266 S.W. 776, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1924).

8. —Dismissal of Appeal — Time of Motion.

Where the defendant landowners prayed an appeal from the report of the jury of view which was in the name of all of them, on condition that they file an appeal bond for costs, a motion to dismiss the appeal for defect, made more than two years thereafter, and two weeks after its discovery, and just before the close of the trial lasting about a month, when the judge was about to deliver his charge, came too late, and was properly overruled. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

9. —Appeal from Second Report of Jury of View.

The appeal provided for in this section lies, although the proposed appellant may have had a second report from the jury of view under the preceding section. Mississippi R. Co. v. McDonald, 59 Tenn. 54, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1873); Overton County R.R. Co. v. Eldridge, 118 Tenn. 79, 98 S.W. 1051, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1906).

10. —Defect in Appeal Bond — Correction.

Where appeal bond was made out by one of the attorneys who signed the names of three of the appellant defendants but omitted the names of two of the appellants but the bond was signed by sureties, it was a proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion to permit the defendants to amend such bond by the insertion of the omitted names. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

11. Right to Injunction.

The chancery court will not enjoin proceedings for condemnation of land for public improvement pending in the circuit court, upon the ground that the parties have not been able to agree as to the number and location of railroad crossings, and that the number and location thereof would materially affect the damages sustained by the landowner. Dixon v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 115 Tenn. 362, 89 S.W. 322, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1905).

Where a public service corporation takes land under condemnation proceedings, where there is no charter provision on the subject, it is not a trespasser, and cannot be sued as such, nor in ejectment; but where such corporation is about to enter upon land to appropriate it, without the institution of condemnation proceedings, or not in pursuance of law, it may be enjoined in chancery until compensation shall be secured or paid. Knoxville R. & L. Co. v. O'Fallen, 130 Tenn. 270, 170 S.W. 55, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1914).

That railroads' possession of complainant's land acquired for construction of branch line was illegal did not entitle complainant to dispossess railroads by injunction. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

Chancery court will not enjoin condemnation proceedings in absence of showing of inadequacy of legal remedy and that equitable relief is necessary to prevent injury destructive or irreparable in nature. Georgia Industrial Realty Co. v. Chattanooga, 163 Tenn. 435, 43 S.W.2d 490, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1931).

12. Appeal to Supreme Court.

13. —Appeal or Writ of Error.

Where the report of the jury of view is excepted to, and the exception is overruled by the court, an appeal or writ of error will lie to the supreme court. The action of the circuit judge upon the exceptions to the report is not under the appeal provided for in this section, and does not have the effect of the finding by a jury, but is in the nature of a proceeding in equity, with the exceptions to the report of a master, and is subject to revision upon appeal to the supreme court. East T., V & G. R.R. Co. v. Burnett's Ex'rs, 79 Tenn. 525, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1883).

Interest should be allowed on the amount of damages assessed from the date of appropriation, and where the circuit judge refused to allow interest upon the amount awarded by the regular trial jury, the Supreme Court, upon reversing his judgment for such error, will, without remandment, render the judgment that should have been rendered by the circuit judge. Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S.W. 123, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 72, 8 L.R.A. 123 (1890).

Where there is a concurrence of the two lower courts as to the amount of damages, the Supreme Court will not interfere except under very unusual circumstances. Southern R. Co. v. Pouder, 141 Tenn. 197, 208 S.W. 332, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1919).

14. —Bond by City.

City in proceeding to condemn property for state highway purposes was not required to give an appeal bond on its appeal from circuit court. Erin v. Brooks, 190 Tenn. 407, 230 S.W.2d 397, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 500 (1950).

15. Appraiser's Report.

This section applies to the report of the board of appraisers appointed in condemnation proceedings by boards of education under §§ 49-801 — 49-804 (now § 49-6-2001). Ragland v. Davidson County Board of Education, 203 Tenn. 317, 312 S.W.2d 855, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (1958).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 461, 468-477.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 343-345.

Abandonment of eminent domain proceedings, right of, as affected by appeal from decision. 121 A.L.R. 63.

Condemner's waiver, surrender or limitation, after award, rights or part of property acquired by condemnation. 5 A.L.R.2d 724.

Liability for costs on appeal relating to amount of condemnation award. 50 A.L.R.2d 1386.

Notice of appeal, who is “adverse party” entitled to. 88 A.L.R. 447.

Payment or deposit of award in court as affecting condemner's right to appeal. 40 A.L.R.3d 203.

Reducing or increasing award, power of appellate court as to. 61 A.L.R. 194.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 239.

29-16-119. Costs on appeal.

If the verdict of the jury, upon the trial, affirms the finding of the jury of inquest, or is more unfavorable to the appellant than the finding of such jury, the costs shall be adjudged against such appellant; otherwise the court may award costs as in chancery cases.

Code 1858, § 1343 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 5); Shan., § 1862; Code 1932, § 3127; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1419.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Property owner was liable for costs on successful appeal by city based on error of circuit court in refusing to allow city to introduce evidence on value in rebuttal after failing to do so in opening its case. Erin v. Brooks, 190 Tenn. 407, 230 S.W.2d 397, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 500 (1950).

Collateral References.

Liability for costs in trial tribunal in eminent domain proceedings as affected by offer or tender by condemner. 70 A.L.R.2d 804.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 265(4).

29-16-120. Operations pending appeal.

The taking of an appeal does not suspend the operations of the petitioner on the land; provided such petitioner will give bond with good security, to be approved by the clerk, in double the amount of the assessment of the jury of inquest, payable to the defendants, and conditioned to abide by and perform the final judgment in the premises.

Code 1858, § 1344 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 90, § 14); Shan., § 1863; Code 1932, § 3128; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1420.

Law Reviews.

State Constitutional Issues Arising from Tort Reform (Andy D. Bennett), 40 No. 2 Tenn. B.J. 27(2004).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Finality of Judgment.

In a proceeding for the condemnation of land for a railroad right-of-way, when the right to appropriate the property is contested by the owner and the case reaches the stage where the petitioner can give bond and take possession and does in fact file bond, the judgment of the circuit court condemning the property is a final judgment which may be brought before the Supreme Court, although the issue as to damages recoverable by defendants are yet pending and untried in the lower courts. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

After an appeal has been taken under this section and judgment has been entered assessing damages, the obligations of the parties are fixed and the petitioner cannot thereafter, at its election, dismiss the proceedings as to a portion of the land sought to be condemned because, in its opinion, the damages awarded were too high. Union R. Co. v. Standard Wheel Co., 149 F. 698, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4493 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1906).

2. Right to Possession.

The condemner does not have the right to take possession until the report of the jury has been confirmed as to the appropriation and the land decreed to the petitioner. Harper v. Trenton Housing Authority, 197 Tenn. 257, 271 S.W.2d 185, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (1954).

3. —Under Municipal Condemnation Laws.

Provisions of Municipal Condemnation Laws (§ 7-31-110) do not prevent city from taking possession of land condemned by it pending any litigation over the amount of damages or other incidental issues. Nashville v. Dad's Auto Accessories, Inc., 154 Tenn. 194, 285 S.W. 52, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1926), dismissed, Dad's Auto Accessories v. Nashville, 47 S. Ct. 20, 273 U.S. 770, 71 L. Ed. 883, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1926).

4. Applicability.

Bond provision does not apply to a proceeding brought pursuant to T.C.A. § 54-14-102 which permits a landlocked property owner to condemn an easement or right-of-way across the property of an adjacent landowner. Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain § 469.

Propriety and effect, in eminent domain proceeding, of argument or evidence as to source of funds to pay for property. 19 A.L.R.3d 694.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 238(4), 258.

29-16-121. Preliminary surveys.

A person or company actually intending to make application for the privileges herein contemplated, and entering upon the land of another for the purpose of making the requisite examinations and surveys, and doing no unnecessary injury, is liable only for the actual damage done, and, if sued in such case, the plaintiff shall recover only as much costs as damages.

Code 1858, § 1345; Shan., § 1864; Code 1932, § 3129; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1421.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction of Section.

Receiver of a railroad could not authorize employees of railroad to enter upon property of another railroad and lay crossovers and switches to connect receiver's railroad with private manufacturing customers, since only entry authorized by this section is an entry for the purpose of making a preliminary survey. Chattanooga Terminal R. Co. v. Felton, 69 F. 273, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3100 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1895).

At most, this section permits an entry against the will of the owner solely for the purpose of making the requisite examination and survey preliminary to the filing of a condemnation suit, and does not authorize any dispossession of the owner or occupancy for purposes of construction. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

Power company was liable for damages where it changed right-of-way by construction of new power line since it was only entitled to enter on new land taken for survey purposes, hence it was a trespasser. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Holt, 3 Tenn. App. 372, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

2. Preliminary Surveys — Necessity.

There is no statute requiring a preliminary survey before the institution of proceedings for condemnation for railroad purposes, nor is there any statute authorizing such surveys to be recorded; and such a survey gives no priority of right as against another company that subsequently acquires a right-of-way over the land by conveyance from the owner, before the institution of condemnation proceedings by the company making the survey. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

Collateral References. 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 113.

Right to enter land for preliminary survey or examination. 29 A.L.R.3d 1104.

What constitutes abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemner with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 186.

29-16-122. Prerequisites to occupation.

No person or company shall, however, enter upon such land for the purpose of actually occupying the right-of-way, until the damages assessed by the jury of inquest and the costs have been actually paid; or if an appeal has been taken, until the bond has been given to abide by the final judgment as provided in § 29-16-120.

Code 1858, § 1346; Shan., § 1865; Code 1932, § 3130; C. Supp. 1950, § 3130; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1422.

Law Reviews.

Real Property — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Wade H. Sides, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1110.

Cited: Hopper v. Davidson County, 206 Tenn. 393, 333 S.W.2d 917, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 374 (1960); Zirkle v. Kingston, 217 Tenn. 210, 396 S.W.2d 356, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 535 (1965); Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 87 (1985).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Nature of Statute.

This section is not applicable to counties of this state but rather to such agencies as are given the power of eminent domain under special statutes. Claiborne County v. Jennings, 199 Tenn. 161, 285 S.W.2d 132, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1955).

2. Right to Possession.

The condemner does not have the right to take possession until the report of the jury has been confirmed as to the appropriation and the land decreed to the petitioner. Harper v. Trenton Housing Authority, 197 Tenn. 257, 271 S.W.2d 185, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (1954).

3. Proceeding to Condemn — Dual Nature.

Condemnation proceedings are dual in their objects and results. Plaintiff recovers of defendant the land sought to be appropriated, and defendant recovers from plaintiff the value of the land and damages accruing to the remainder of his property in consequence of the appropriation, the former of which judgments may be pronounced and executed before the case is tried upon the question of damages. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

4. Prerequisite to Invoking Section.

The landowner must be dispossessed before he can invoke this section and § 29-16-123. Haase v. Memphis, 149 Tenn. 235, 259 S.W. 545, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1924).

5. Status of Parties Pending Payment.

The purchaser of a railroad, pending the injunction suit of the landowner seeking to recover his judgment in the condemnation suit or to restrain the use of his property, is affected with notice of all the equities of such landowner and complainant in the cause. White v. Nashville & N. R. Co., 54 Tenn. 518, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1872).

Under constitutional provision (Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21) that no man's property shall be taken without just compensation being made therefor, and under this statutory provision, the theory of the law is that the title to the property passes only when the possession is taken under the condemnation proceedings. While the title in the fee may remain in the landowner until the compensation is paid as his best guaranteed security for indemnity, yet he is not entitled to the possession in such sense that he can maintain an ejectment suit to recover the property, but may enforce the payment of indemnity by injunction against the use of his property, without compensation, where he has no other adequate remedy. White v. Nashville & N. R. Co., 54 Tenn. 518, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1872).

The statute does not authorize an entry on the land, without the consent of the owner, until his compensation has been ascertained and paid or secured unless, perhaps, for the purpose of making a survey; and the railroad company can acquire no rights by going upon the land and commencing construction work, without the owner's consent, even after it has filed a petition for condemnation. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

6. Bond.

7. —Failure to Demand Bond — Effect.

The landowner's failure or neglect to demand the bond required upon appeal of the party or corporation, seeking the condemnation, from the valuation of the jury of view, is not a waiver of his constitutional right to hold or look to the property for his compensation. White v. Nashville & N. R. Co., 54 Tenn. 518, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1872); Simms v. Memphis, C.L. R. Co., 59 Tenn. 621, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1874).

8. —Scope of Bond.

The bond does not cover the damages done to the property in constructing the railroad, or other improvement upon the land, if the court upon final hearing determines that the plaintiff is not entitled to appropriate it. It only covers the damages to which the defendants are entitled when the land is condemned. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

9. —Necessity.

When damages have been assessed by jury of inquest and defendant takes an appeal, the condemning company may proceed with its construction upon giving bond and security as provided in this section. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

The date at which there is a final judgment in favor of the petitioner is fixed by the confirmation of the report and the giving of the bond, which is a necessary preliminary to taking possession unless the money is paid into court. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

10. Appeal to Supreme Court.

Certiorari is the proper proceeding to bring before the supreme court to review judgments in condemnation proceedings by a railroad company to condemn land for a right-of-way when no other adequate remedy is available. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

Where the right to appropriate property is contested by the owner and the case reaches the stage where the petitioner can give bond and take possession of the portion of the premises set apart in the report of the commissioners, and files such bond, the judgment of the circuit court condemning the property may be brought before the supreme court for review by certiorari, although the issues as to damages to be recovered are still pending. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

There are two final judgments in condemnation proceedings, to wit: a judgment for the land and a judgment for damages; and each of these judgments can be reviewed by separate proceedings in error prosecuted at different times. Tennessee C. R. Co. v. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 640, 75 S.W. 1012, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1903).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 262, 263.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 221.

Charging landowner with rent or use value of land where he remains in possession after condemnation. 20 A.L.R.3d 1164.

Condemner's right, as against condemnee, to interest on excessive money deposited in court or paid to condemnee. 99 A.L.R.2d 886.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 320.

29-16-123. Action initiated by owner.

  1. If, however, such person or company has actually taken possession of such land, occupying it for the purposes of internal improvement, the owner of such land may petition for a jury of inquest, in which case the same proceedings may be had, as near as may be, as hereinbefore provided; or the owner may sue for damages in the ordinary way, in which case the jury shall lay off the land by metes and bounds and assess the damages, as upon the trial of an appeal from the return of a jury of inquest.
  2. Additionally, the court rendering a judgment for the plaintiff in a proceeding brought under subsection (a), arising out of a cause of action identical to a cause of action that can be brought against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) or § 1491, or the attorney general or chief legal officer of a political subdivision of the state effecting a settlement of any such proceeding, shall determine and award or allow to such plaintiff, as a part of such judgment or settlement such sum as will in the opinion of the court, or the attorney general or chief legal officer of a political subdivision of the state reimburse such plaintiff for reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred because of such proceeding.

Code 1858, § 1347; Shan., § 1866; Code 1932, § 3131; Acts 1972, ch. 463, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1423.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Adverse Possession, § 53; 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 248; 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 18, 27, 40, 44-66, 70; 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, § 34.

Tennessee Law of Evidence (2nd ed., Cohen, Paine and Sheppeard), § 401.16.

Law Reviews.

Civil Procedure and Evidence — Tennessee Survey 1970 (Jerry J. Phillips), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 127.

Claims Against the State in Tennessee — The Board of Claims, 4 Vand. L. Rev. 875.

Eminent Domain in Tennessee: Public Use, Just Compensation and the Landowner, 3 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 65.

Equity — Condemnation — Statutory Remedy Excludes Equitable Relief, 33 Tenn. L. Rev. 235.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Inverse Condemnation — Stream Pollution as Taking of Property for Public Use, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 514.

Real Property — 1956 Tennessee Survey (Herman L. Trautman), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 1089.

Real Property — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1188.

Real Property — 1960 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1241.

Real Property — 1961 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1387.

Real Property — 1963 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 17 Vand. L. Rev. 1124.

Cited: Ray v. Oliphant, 1 Tenn. App. 219, — S.W. —, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1925); Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Link, 6 Tenn. App. 617, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926); State ex rel. Moulton v. Williams, 207 Tenn. 695, 343 S.W.2d 857, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 387 (1961); Williams v. McMinn County, 209 Tenn. 236, 352 S.W.2d 430, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 372 (1961); United States v. 371.94 Acres of Land, 431 F.2d 975, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7255 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1970); Jones v. Cocke County, 61 Tenn. App. 555, 456 S.W.2d 665, 1970 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970); Maple Manor Hotel, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 543 S.W.2d 593, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975); Jones v. L & N R. Co., 617 S.W.2d 164, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); Land Associates v. Metropolitan Airport Authority, 547 F. Supp. 1128, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14992 (M.D. Tenn. 1982); Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 87 (1985); Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987); Burchfield v. State, 774 S.W.2d 178, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Williams v. Nicely, 230 S.W.3d 385, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007); Greenfield Land & Cattle Co. v. Greene County (In re Large), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2009).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Interpretation.

This section only confers upon the landowner the option of having his rights and compensation determined and paid in case the condemner fails to proceed according to the statute and is permissive rather than mandatory. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Right to just compensation depends upon the Constitution and not upon the harmonizing statutes. Brooksbank v. Roane County, 207 Tenn. 524, 341 S.W.2d 570, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 488 (1960).

The scope of this section will not be extended by implication. Johnston v. Chattanooga, 55 Tenn. App. 400, 401 S.W.2d 199, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where city had acquired four-fifths of certain land by purchase and warranty deed, suit by the owners of the remaining one-fifth for partition was not brought under this section and limitation of § 29-16-124 was not applicable. Johnston v. Chattanooga, 55 Tenn. App. 400, 401 S.W.2d 199, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

The remedy provided by this section is a statutory one and is the exclusive means by which a landowner may recover compensation for injuries to his property when such damage is brought about by a “taking” of property by one who has the right of eminent domain. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Inverse condemnation is the popular description of a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of the property which has been taken in fact by a governmental defendant even though no final exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the government. Johnson v. Greeneville, 222 Tenn. 260, 435 S.W.2d 476, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (1968).

Where the 1972 amendment to this section did not merely enlarge or affect a procedure for the enforcement of an existing right, but on the contrary, created a new right of recovery theretofore nonexistent, the trial judge erred in its retroactive application of the nonremedial statute. Anderson v. Memphis Housing Authority, 534 S.W.2d 125, 1975 Tenn. App. LEXIS 189 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975).

This section is applicable by its terms to real estate only. Davis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 620 S.W.2d 532, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

A property owner whose property is taken by an authority exercising the power of eminent domain has two alternative causes of action: the property owner may petition for a jury of inquest as provided by this section, and comply with the statutory provisions applicable to condemnation actions by the taking authority (see §§ 29-14-104, 29-16-105 and 29-16-107), or may sue for damages in a trespass action, in which case the proceeding is by jury “in the usual way.” Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communs. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. 1996), rehearing denied, 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. 1996).

2. —“Ordinary Way” Construed.

The latter clause of this section leaves no doubt as to the right of the owner to bring an action in the ordinary way, which can mean nothing else than an action of trespass or an action upon the facts of the case to recover the value of the land and the damages. East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. v. Gouge, 30 Tenn. App. 40, 203 S.W.2d 170, 1947 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947).

The provision of this section permitting action for damages in the ordinary way means an action of trespass or an action upon the facts of the case to recover the value of the land and the damages. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

3. —“Taking” — What Constitutes.

The “taking” of possession under this section should not be limited to the absolute conversion of the property, and it is not material whether the property in any respect changes hands. It is not necessary that the owner be wholly deprived of the use of the property; and any destruction, restriction, or interruption of the common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner may constitute a “taking.” The laying of heavy water pipes on the ground awaiting the digging of a ditch for their permanent location may constitute a “taking.” Lea v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 135 Tenn. 560, 188 S.W. 215, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1915).

The landowner must be dispossessed before he can invoke this section. Haase v. Memphis, 149 Tenn. 235, 259 S.W. 545, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1924).

Where a public service corporation caused erosion of plaintiff's realty by releasing large amounts of water daily across his land, such amounted to the taking of a property right, the remedy for which would be action under this section, with limitation as to time to sue for damages governed by § 29-16-124, not under § 28-3-105. Murphy v. Raleigh Utility Dist., 213 Tenn. 228, 373 S.W.2d 455, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 482 (1963).

This section applied in action for flood damages because of alleged change in drainage from highway construction near property even though there was no actual entry on plaintiff's land. Jones v. Hamilton County, 56 Tenn. App. 240, 405 S.W.2d 775, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Monday v. Knox County, 220 Tenn. 313, 417 S.W.2d 536, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 414 (1967).

Actual or physical entry upon the land is not necessary to constitute a “taking” and a landowner may have a right of action for interruption of ingress or egress or from the interruption or diverting of natural drainage. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Any destruction, restriction or interruption of the common and necessary use of property may constitute a “taking” and it is not necessary for the owner to be entirely deprived of the use of the property. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Where, in course of construction of bridge across river, an embankment was constructed on approaches of bridge in such a way to severely restrict natural drainage of flood waters and to cause flood waters to rise to greater heights on plaintiff's land than formerly and to remain on the land for a longer period of time, there was a “taking” of plaintiff's land within the meaning of this section. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Reduction in value of property because of construction of highway in close proximity thereto does not constitute a compensable “taking” of property where there is no physical taking of the land and no direct interference amounting to a physical invasion or deprivation of use. Ledbetter v. Beach, 220 Tenn. 623, 421 S.W.2d 814, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 445 (1967).

Unreasonable noise from low flying airplanes may constitute the taking of an easement so as to make the governmental agency constructing the airport subject to inverse condemnation action under this section. Johnson v. Greeneville, 222 Tenn. 260, 435 S.W.2d 476, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (1968).

An inverse condemnation action to recover damages to Georgia realty due to the closing of a road within Tennessee could be maintained in the Tennessee courts. Graham v. Hamilton County, 224 Tenn. 82, 450 S.W.2d 571, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (1969).

Where a right of ingress or egress is destroyed or impaired, there is a “taking” of property for which compensation must be paid to the landowner and no physical entry on the land is necessary. Graham v. Hamilton County, 224 Tenn. 82, 450 S.W.2d 571, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 379 (1969).

Destruction of a landowner's right to ingress or egress is a taking of property for which the condemning authority is liable. Wilkinson v. Coffee County, 499 S.W.2d 261, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971).

Any action which interferes with the common and necessary use of another's real property is a “taking,” and actual entry upon the property is not required. Pleasant View Utility Dist. v. Vradenburg, 545 S.W.2d 733, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1977), superseded by statute as stated in, Cole v. City of Loudon, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 1994).

It is possible to recover in inverse condemnation for unreasonable restriction of the use of property by enactment of a zoning law. Davis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 620 S.W.2d 532, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Plaintiff has no right of action against city for wrongfully enforcing its zoning ordinance simply because he chose to dispose of various junk cars he kept on his land in an effort to avoid a prosecution for violating the city's zoning ordinance, which he later learned could have been successfully defended because defendant had a conforming use under the prior zoning ordinance which would entitle him to maintain his junkyard under the new ordinance. Davis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 620 S.W.2d 532, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Where sewage had backed up into homes there had been no inverse taking by a publicly-owned, governmental utility district as it had not performed any purposeful or intentional act that had resulted in the damage and the court of appeals had erred when it vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the utility company. Edwards v. Hallsdale-Powell Util. Dist., 115 S.W.3d 461, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. 2003).

City had taken no action with regard to the drainage infrastructure on the company's property other than approving the construction; simply approving a construction plat was not tantamount to a purposeful and intentional act such that the city should be responsible for the company's damages under an inverse condemnation claim. Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

4. —Adverse Possession Covered.

The taking of property by adverse possession by a governmental unit comes under Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21 and the owners have an action for redress which is not limited to inverse condemnation. Johnson v. Mt. Pleasant, 713 S.W.2d 659, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3299 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

5. —Adverse Possession Not Covered.

Where defendants were in possession under deed that purported to convey land in fee simple for school purposes but where grantor only had a life estate in the land, defendants did not take such land under eminent domain upon death of the grantor but were in possession under recorded color of title so that this section and § 29-16-124 were without application. Dickens v. Shelby County, 178 Tenn. 305, 157 S.W.2d 825, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1942).

6. Jurisdiction — Chancery.

While the chancery court has no jurisdiction of a proceeding brought solely for the condemnation of land or to administer the relief provided by this section, in lieu of regular condemnation proceedings, yet it may entertain a bill by the children and heirs of a remainderman for a construction of a deed from the life tenant and the infant remaindermen as their ancestor, under which the defendant railroad company claimed title to its right-of-way, and to have their rights declared as against such deed; and when chancery has thus obtained jurisdiction, it may grant complete relief in damages under this section. Chambers v. Chattanooga Union R. Co., 130 Tenn. 459, 171 S.W. 84, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1914).

Where complainant landowner chose the chancery court for injunction, the appellate court properly remanded to that court for assessment of damages under this section. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

Jurisdiction to try condemnation and reverse condemnation suits is conferred upon the circuit courts and not upon the chancery courts. Cox v. State, 217 Tenn. 644, 399 S.W.2d 776, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 552 (1965); Monday v. Knox County, 220 Tenn. 313, 417 S.W.2d 536, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 414 (1967); McLain v. State, 59 Tenn. App. 529, 442 S.W.2d 637, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

Chancery court had jurisdiction to entertain suit by landowner for dual purpose of reformation of deed to state and for reverse condemnation. McLain v. State, 59 Tenn. App. 529, 442 S.W.2d 637, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

7. Rights Authorized by Section.

The landowner has not only his remedy of appeal in the condemnation proceedings, but, if the railroad is occupying for railroad purposes, without previous condemnation, the landowner may, upon his own petition, have a jury of inquest to assess his damages, or may sue for damages in the ordinary way, but this enlarged remedy of the landowner does not include an action in ejectment, or ordinarily, injunctive relief. Saunders v. Memphis & R.S.R.R., 101 Tenn. 206, 47 S.W. 155 (1898); Doty v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 123 Tenn. 329, 130 S.W. 1053, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1910); Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913); Chambers v. Chattanooga Union R. Co., 130 Tenn. 459, 171 S.W. 84, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1914).

This section enlarges the remedies of the owner, in case possession is taken, either with or without the consent of the owner. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

Landowner could not sue railroad for rent where railroad built its track over property but could only recover damages. Hewgley v. Tennessee Cent. R.R., 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 184 (1912).

A landowner whose land is taken and occupied by another in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, without resort to condemnation proceedings, may sue the taker thereof, in an ordinary action of damages. Piercy v. Johnson City, 130 Tenn. 231, 169 S.W. 765, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 21, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915F1029 (1914).

The landowner may sue for damages in the ordinary way, in which case the jury shall lay off the land by metes and bounds and assess the damages, as upon the trial of an appeal from the return of a jury of inquest. Tennessee Power Co. v. Lay, 133 Tenn. 511, 182 S.W. 253, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1916).

Where land occupied by a railroad company is for contemplated public use in connection with important industries, landowner is remitted to action under this section. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

Power company could not be ejected from right-of-way once acquired, but property owner could sue for damages. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Holt, 3 Tenn. App. 372, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

When a lessee's fixtures are taken for a public purpose the lessee is entitled to compensation. Hopper v. Davidson County, 206 Tenn. 393, 333 S.W.2d 917, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 374 (1960).

Under this section the owner can bring an action of trespass or an action upon the facts of the case. Hopper v. Davidson County, 206 Tenn. 393, 333 S.W.2d 917, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 374 (1960).

Owners of land situated on road leading into road closed at interstate highway could bring reverse condemnation proceedings and recover from county for any damages resulting from such closing. State ex rel. Moulton v. Williams, 207 Tenn. 695, 343 S.W.2d 857, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 387 (1961).

This section provides the aggrieved landowner with two or alternative rights or remedies in that he may petition for a jury of inquest which in practice is referred to as a reverse or inverse petition for condemnation or he may sue for damages in the ordinary way. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

If a landowner's right of ingress and egress is destroyed or seriously impaired he may bring a reverse condemnation action under this section for compensation for the taking but landowner cannot enjoin the closing of a street. Sweetwater Valley Memorial Park, Inc. v. Sweetwater, 213 Tenn. 1, 372 S.W.2d 168, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 461 (1963).

Owner of sewer and water lines taken under T.C.A., title 7, ch. 35 without adequate compensation has right to sue under reverse condemnation procedure provided by this section. Zirkle v. Kingston, 217 Tenn. 210, 396 S.W.2d 356, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 535 (1965).

If the game and fish commission takes land by purchase from one whose title is bad, the sole remedy of the owner of the property is an action at law for just compensation under this section and a bill in equity may not be maintained. Cox v. State, 217 Tenn. 644, 399 S.W.2d 776, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 552 (1965).

Nonresident equitable owners of land, worth more than $10,000, taken by a county for a public park in a condemnation action to which such nonresident owners were not made parties had the option of suing for damages in the federal district court or of petitioning for a jury of inquest. Cheatham v. Carter County, 363 F.2d 582, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427, 4 A.L.R. Fed. 226 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1966).

Allegations that county failed to provide adequate drainage in construction of new highway and thereby caused excessive amounts of water to collect on complainant's property causing damage to such property amounted to an allegation of “taking” for which the proper remedy was reverse condemnation proceeding in circuit court rather than action in chancery court to abate a nuisance. Monday v. Knox County, 220 Tenn. 313, 417 S.W.2d 536, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 414 (1967).

This section should be read as authorizing two distinct actions, the first being an inverse or reverse condemnation action and the second being a suit “for damages in the ordinary way.” Scott v. Roane County, 478 S.W.2d 886, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. 1972).

8. —Adverse Claim of Condemner.

The fact that the condemner enters under claim of title adverse to that of the landowner, leaves this remedy of the latter operative. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

9. —Vendor's Lien Holder — Rights.

A nonresident asserting a vendor's lien against realty was not entitled to assert such lien as against a pipeline constructed on such property for the purpose of carrying water from the city mains to a subdivision but was required to avail himself of the remedy provided under this section so that where he did not avail himself of such remedy within the statutory period of three years the owner of the pipeline acquired an easement on such property. Shinkle v. Nashville Improv. Co., 172 Tenn. 555, 113 S.W.2d 404, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1938).

10. Taking Without Condemnation — Legality.

This section does not recognize any right to take possession prior to an actual legal appropriation. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

A public service corporation is not authorized to take possession in advance of legal appropriation, and such taking is illegal. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904); Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926); Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

Public service company which entered land and appropriated right-of-way for electric lines without condemnation or compensation of landowner acquired only a possessory right and not a transmissible right and subsequent conveyances thereof did not operate to pass such right. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Owners stated an inverse condemnation claim by alleging that: (1) a planning commission denied their subdivision plat approval request based on the possible use of the property for a future highway right of way, but had no plans to begin construction or condemnation proceedings; (2) the planning commission interfered with the common and necessary use of the property, which was specifically allowed under the zoning ordinance; and (3) the denial of the plat constituted such a burdensome restriction on the use of the property that the county had taken the property and had to compensate the owners under the Takings Clause of the Tennessee Constitution and this section. Phillips v. Montgomery County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2013), rev'd, 442 S.W.3d 233, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2014).

Because Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 21 included regulatory takings, property owners' complaint alleging that the denial of their subdivision plat constituted a regulatory taking was sufficient to state a regulatory takings claim. Phillips v. Montgomery County, 442 S.W.3d 233, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2014).

11. —Abandonment After Taking.

State highway commission, which had taken possession of land sought to be condemned and removed and used gravel therefrom and later abandoned the project and taken a nonsuit in its condemnation proceedings, held liable to the owner for damages for the property so used. Huff v. Department of Highways & Public Works, 3 Tenn. App. 277, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 101 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

12. —Estate Taken.

A railroad company has no such title to its right-of-way as authorizes it to permit the erection thereon of a commercial telegraph line, altogether disconnected from the railroad operation. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. Co., 145 Tenn. 85, 237 S.W. 64, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1922), cert. denied, Nashville C. & S. L. R. Co. v. Western U. Tel. Co., 258 U.S. 626, 42 S. Ct. 382, 66 L. Ed. 798, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2768 (1922).

Subdivision homeowner's association was entitled to just compensation from a city, pursuant to the Tennessee inverse condemnation statute, when the city acquired from the subdivision's developers property rights in a portion of the subdivision's open space because the association had an equitable interest in the open space, pursuant to a declaration of protective covenants, conditions, and restrictions, when it was sold to the city. Willowmet Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Brentwood, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2013).

13. —Overflight of Aircraft.

Direct overflight of aircraft was not required to be alleged to state a cause of action in a complaint for inverse condemnation by residential property owners against an airport. Jackson v. Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Auth., 922 S.W.2d 860, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. 1996).

14. Compromise and Settlement.

A county condemning right-of-way may by compromise settle its liability to the owner and need not in such instance submit the question to a jury of view. Ray v. Oliphant, 1 Tenn. App. 219, — S.W. —, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1925).

15. Damages.

In an action for damages for deprivation or impairment of rights of ingress or egress to real property where there is no actual taking of the land, the damages must be apportioned between the lessor and the lessee, but the measure of damages is the same as where there is an actual taking and damages to the lessor and lessee need not be separately and independently assessed. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

In an action for damages to real property for loss of access, although there was no actual taking, a lessee is entitled to damages for any diminution in value of fixtures, structures and other improvements erected or installed by heirs, if, as against the lessor, he has the right to remove them prior to or upon the expiration of the lease. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

City was liable for damages to a privately owned dam caused by a rupture in one of its sewerage forced mains which had been constructed across the dam. Betty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 835 S.W.2d 1, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), overruled in part, Edwards v. Hallsdale-Powell Util. Dist., 115 S.W.3d 461, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. 2003).

Purchasers who acquired property at a delinquent tax sale under T.C.A. § 67-5-2504 were entitled to inverse condemnation damages under T.C.A. § 29-16-123 when the property was demolished under the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act, T.C.A. § 13-21-101 et seq., because the purchasers were assured of perfect title when they obtained the property at the tax sale and the City knew or should have known of the purchase long before the structure was demolished. Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Brown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2009).

16. —No Claim Against State.

Landowner in inverse condemnation action lacked specific statutory authority to file suit against the state. Hise v. State, 968 S.W.2d 852, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

17. —Effect of Action for Damages.

The owner's action for damages excludes the right to enjoin a taking by a public service corporation as well as the right to sue it as a trespasser or to sue in ejectment. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

18. —Amount.

The county may acquire for the state rights-of-way for state highways by donation, by agreement with owners, or by condemnation. Upon acquisition by purchase or condemnation, the county must pay the owner; and when any corporation, public or private, with power to condemn, takes possession without condemnation, it is liable to the owner for the same amount that should have been assessed in the condemnation suit. Carroll County v. Matlock, 7 Tenn. App. 564, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

Amount fixed by jury as value of land taken and for incidental damages was not excessive where substantially less than the average fixed by the witnesses. Chapman Mayor & Bd. of Aldermen v. Milan, 48 Tenn. App. 196, 344 S.W.2d 773, 1960 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).

An action for damages to real property resulting from deprivation or impairment of right to ingress or egress by the closing of a public street or road is in the nature of an inverse condemnation action and the measure of damages is the difference between the fair cash market value of the property prior to the deprivation or impairment of access and its value thereafter. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

19. —Interest.

In a proceeding brought to enforce either remedy provided by this section, interest will be allowed from the date that the state took possession of the land. Sullivan County v. Pope, 223 Tenn. 575, 448 S.W.2d 666, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1969).

Prejudgment interest should have been awarded under T.C.A. § 29-17-801(b) on an inverse condemnation claim by purchasers who acquired property at a delinquent tax sale because prejudgment interest was mandatory in an inverse condemnation action. Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Brown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2009).

20. —Improvements by Possessor.

Where a railroad company constructed a freight depot on a lot, on the assumption that it was entitled to the lot and its possession, it was held that the defendant, who thereafter was adjudged to be the owner, would not, in a condemnation proceeding thereafter instituted by the railroad company, be entitled to recover for such improvements. Southern R. Co. v. Pouder, 141 Tenn. 197, 208 S.W. 332, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1919).

Where contingent remainderman has one-sixth interest in land on which has been erected a costly terminal by railway claiming fee under deed from life tenant, basis for damages is value of land without improvements as of date of death of life tenant. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

21. —Punitive Damages.

This chapter provides explicit procedures which entities with the power of eminent domain should follow, and entities who fail to avail themselves of these provisions are, under appropriate circumstances, liable to the landowner for the full measure of damages, including punitive damages, appropriate to the cause of action. Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communs. Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. 1996), rehearing denied, 924 S.W.2d 632, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. 1996).

22. Satisfaction.

23. —Right-of-Way Lien Claims.

Liens for right-of-way sums against a railway corporation are on the whole line of the corporation, and not merely on the separate pieces of land respectively taken from the owners. They are entitled to full priority; all assets of an insolvent railway company under the court's control will be subjected to their satisfaction. Crosby v. Morristown & C. G. R. Co., 42 S.W. 507, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 67 (1897).

24. —Holder of Vendor's Lien Claims.

Holder of vendor's lien notes does not have a lien on a water line system constructed under the land but must avail himself of the remedy given him by this section. Shinkle v. Nashville Improv. Co., 172 Tenn. 555, 113 S.W.2d 404, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1938).

25. Procedure.

Proceeding for reverse condemnation under this section follows the procedure previously outlined in this chapter and is commenced by filing of petition as provided in § 29-16-104 and notice of petition as provided in § 29-16-105. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

Suit for damages in the ordinary way as authorized by this section is commenced by summons. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

Landowner's action suit under this section for damages in the ordinary way was commenced by summons as provided in § 20-201 (repealed). Scott v. Roane County, 478 S.W.2d 886, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. 1972).

Trial court erred in granting defendant's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff property owner's suit alleging a that their property was taken by nuisance-type activity because, although the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 29-16-124 had expired for the filing of an inverse condemnation proceeding, T.C.A. § 29-16-123(a) afforded the property owners two distinct actions: an action for inverse condemnation or an action for damages resulting from trespass to real property. Windrow v. Middle Tenn. Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 376 S.W.3d 733, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2012).

26. —Pleading.

In reverse condemnation suit against city for damages arising out of closing of street along landowner's property line after state had constructed highway and bridge, declaration which alleged that city fully cooperated with state but which did not allege that city did anything in its corporate capacity with respect to construction of the highway and bridge did not allege a cause of action against the city. Daniels v. Talent, 212 Tenn. 447, 370 S.W.2d 515, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1963).

When a city enacted an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on development of land within a 250 foot corridor abutting land owned by a developer, a trial court erred in dismissing the developer's inverse condemnation and wrongful taking claims because the developer pleaded sufficient factual allegations to be analyzed under the Penn Central standards to determine whether the moratorium constituted a regulatory taking of the developer's property. Durrett Inv. Co. v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013).

Arrestee failed to allege essential elements of a claim of inverse condemnation because the arrestee merely alleged the taking of the arrestee's automobile during the time when police Officers searched and seized it. Therefore, the arrestee alleged, at most, an occasional interference with personal property, resulting in no loss of market value. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017).

27. —Nonsuit.

A nonsuit may be taken in a condemnation case at the time the case has been finally submitted to the jury on a trial in the circuit court before the court and jury and before the jury has retired to consider its verdict, but not thereafter. Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

28. —Parties Plaintiff.

The heirs of an incompetent have no right of action for damages accruing to him by the taking of land by a railroad company for a right-of-way, for such action would be in his administrator. Griffith v. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 147 Tenn. 224, 246 S.W. 532, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1922).

Where lessee's term has expired and lessee holds over from month to month, he is not vested with an interest in the land so as to recover damages. American R. E. Co. v. Chattanooga, 10 Tenn. App. 63, — S.W.2d —, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1929).

29. —Parties Defendant.

A landowner whose property has been taken or occupied as a result of the construction of a state highway may sue the county wherein the land lies for damages to his property and it is immaterial whether the county wherein the land lies was at fault in any way or whether the county did the act that caused the damage. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

State of Tennessee is not amenable to a suit by a landowner under this section. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

30. —Statute of Limitations.

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the condemning authority in a condemnation action was inappropriate pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-16-124 because the conversations at issue did not satisfy the requirement that the land actually be taken possession of, and the work of the proposed internal improvement begun, before the 12-month period for the landowner to initiate suit. Lucas v. City of Waverly, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011).

Plaintiffs'  suit against a county and a school board was properly dismissed, as it was filed over a year after they knew they had suffered permanent injury to their property, so that their inverse condemnation was time-barred under T.C.A. § 29-16-124; and as plaintiffs knew the damage was permanent, they could not recover under their temporary nuisance claim. Loveday v. Blount County, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2012).

Landowner's complaint against a utility district was time-barred because (1) the gravamen of the complaint was for inverse condemnation, and (2) the complaint was not filed within one year of the date on which the landowner requested that the utility district's work on the landowner's property cease, and the complaint did not adequately allege a recurring cause of action, since the injury alleged was permanent, based on the installation of a water line. Parish v. Smith Util. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).

31. Right to Injunction.

Where an insolvent defendant railroad company had, without the assessment or payment of damages, taken possession of the complainant's land for the purpose of constructing a branch road, which, under the law, it had no authority to do, the landowner's remedy by bill in chancery to enjoin the use of the road over his land until the assessment of damages and the payment of compensation is not only appropriate, but the only complete and adequate remedy to redress the injury. Parker v. East T., V. & G. R.R. Co., 81 Tenn. 669, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1884).

Even though a flume corporation had no authority under the law to condemn and appropriate water to run its flume, a riparian owner, who stood by, and without objection acquiesced in its erection of a valuable flume which would be worthless without the water from his stream, cannot then enjoin such appropriation of water. Tenn. Coal Iron & R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume & Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1913).

Where a railroad company, without proceeding for determining damages, entered on the lands of one holding by adverse possession and destroyed her house, she could, after suit to restrain the trespass, in which an indemnity bond was given, recover on reference for an accounting on the bond, compensation as for any entry without proceedings. Tuggle v. Southern R. Co., 140 Tenn. 275, 204 S.W. 857, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1918).

That railroad's possession is illegal does not warrant injunction. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

If injunction is sued out, no damages are allowable on the injunction bond. Armstrong v. Illinois C. R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1926).

Owner of sewer and water lines taken by municipality without just compensation cannot enjoin such taking in chancery or maintain suit for unjust enrichment since adequate remedy at law is provided by this section. Zirkle v. Kingston, 217 Tenn. 210, 396 S.W.2d 356, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 535 (1965).

Where utility district discharged wastewater onto plaintiffs' land, plaintiffs' remedy was an action for damages under this section rather than an injunction. Pleasant View Utility Dist. v. Vradenburg, 545 S.W.2d 733, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1977), superseded by statute as stated in, Cole v. City of Loudon, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 1994).

32. Venue.

Where a city, without condemnation proceedings, takes for its waterworks system the water which would otherwise flow through the owner's land, the landowner's action can be brought only in the county in which the city is located, although the land be situated in another county. Piercy v. Johnson City, 130 Tenn. 231, 169 S.W. 765, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 21, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915F1029 (1914).

Where, as result of construction of embankment to approaches of river bridge constructed by state highway department, there was a “taking” of landowner's property by increased flooding and slower drainage, suit would lie against county in which land lay even though embankment was in another county and county in which land lay was not responsible for any of the acts which resulted in the flooding. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

33. Trial.

34. —Right to Open and Close.

The party seeking the condemnation is entitled to open and close the case, because the burden of proof is upon him. Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S.W. 123, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 72, 8 L.R.A. 123 (1890); McBee v. Bowman, 89 Tenn. 132, 14 S.W. 481, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1890); Woodward v. Iowa Life Ins. Co., 104 Tenn. 49, 56 S.W. 1020, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1899).

The fact that the burden of proof may be shifted to the landowner or the fact of his concession of the petitioner's right to condemn the particular lands, and his contesting the question of damages only, cannot change the rule; nor can the fact that the landowner alone appealed from the appraisement by the jury of inquest, for on that appeal the trial is de novo, and the attitude of the parties is the same as before. Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S.W. 123, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 72, 8 L.R.A. 123 (1890); McBee v. Bowman, 89 Tenn. 132, 14 S.W. 481, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1890).

35. —Required Proof by Landowner.

The landowner, suing for damages under this section, must establish his ownership, either by deraignment, or by adverse possession of granted land for seven years under a deed, or by adverse possession for 20 years without deed or grant from the state, or he must show actual possession of the land at the time of the invasion. Knoxville R. & L. Co. v. O'Fallen, 130 Tenn. 270, 170 S.W. 55, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1914).

In an action for damages for taking land for a right-of-way, plaintiff is required to prove ownership, and this may be done by proof of actual possession at the time the land was entered upon, or by proof of title. Whitlow v. Hardin County, 13 Tenn. App. 347, — S.W.2d —, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 142 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1930).

In inverse condemnation proceeding where landowner's testimony of ownership of land in question was allowed to go into record unchallenged and county repeatedly referred to property as that of landowner's, county waived technical objection to proof of ownership and was not in a position to insist on deraignment of title to state or other proof of actual ownership. Wilkinson v. Coffee County, 499 S.W.2d 261, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971).

36. Mandamus.

Complainant could not mandamus state to exercise power of eminent domain as to property of complainant allegedly taken over by state since he had an adequate remedy under this section. Fritts v. Leech, 201 Tenn. 18, 296 S.W.2d 834, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (1956).

37. Laying Off Right-of-Way.

Where, by proper and timely action, railroad defendant did not indicate that it needed land beyond that actually occupied it could not claim error because decree did not grant it rights to full 200 foot width authorized by § 65-609 (now § 65-6-109). Southern R. Co. v. Griffitts, 42 Tenn. App. 494, 304 S.W.2d 508, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

Railroad could not complain of the failure of the jury to set off the land by metes and bounds, where only proof in record was that defendant claimed under deed which fixed width of strip and failed to offer any other proof upon which jury could act. Southern R. Co. v. Griffitts, 42 Tenn. App. 494, 304 S.W.2d 508, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 478, 487.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 394-400.

Abating as a nuisance what is not in fact such as a taking for public use. 46 A.L.R. 362.

Abutting owner's right to compensation for railroad in street. 22 A.L.R. 145.

Access to navigability, right to damages for destruction of riparian owner's right of, by improvement of navigation. 21 A.L.R. 206.

Admissibility of hearsay evidence as to comparable sales of other land as basis for expert's opinion as to land value. 12 A.L.R.3d 1064, 89 A.L.R.4th 456.

Advertising, regulation of outdoor advertising. 79 A.L.R. 552.

Animals, constitutional right to compensation on destruction of diseased animals. 8 A.L.R. 70, 56 A.L.R.2d 1024.

Billboards, sign boards, etc., municipal regulation of, as a taking. 72 A.L.R. 469, 58 A.L.R.2d 1314.

Boundaries of municipal corporation, extension of, as a taking. 64 A.L.R. 1360.

Building line, right of owner of property to compensation for establishment of. 28 A.L.R. 315, 44 A.L.R. 1377, 53 A.L.R. 1222.

Building restriction as property right for taking of which compensation must be made. 4 A.L.R.3d 1137.

Buildings, limiting height of. 8 A.L.R.2d 963.

Cemetery, “damage” to property from proximity of. 36 A.L.R. 527.

Changing location of railroad in street or highway as a taking or damaging for which compensation must be made. 46 A.L.R. 1446.

City and town planning statutes or ordinances, constitutionality of. 12 A.L.R. 679.

City streets, use of, for interurban railway traffic as an additional servitude. 13 A.L.R. 809.

Civil rights legislation by state as a taking of private property for public use without compensation. 49 A.L.R. 506.

Compensation for diminution in value of remainder of land not taken, resulting from taking or use of adjoining lands for same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Condemner's liability for costs of condemnee's expert witnesses. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Conditions imposed to approval of proposed subdivision map or plat as constituting taking of property for public use without payment of compensation. 11 A.L.R.2d 524.

Constitutionality of statute or ordinance imposing upon abutting owners or occupants duty in respect of care or condition of street or highway. 58 A.L.R. 215.

Constitutional rights of owner as against destruction of building by public authorities. 14 A.L.R.2d 73.

Damage to private property caused by negligence of governmental agents as “taking,” “damage” or “use” or public purposes in constitutional sense. 2 A.L.R.2d 677.

Damages resulting from temporary conditions incident to public improvements or repairs as compensable taking. 23 A.L.R.4th 674.

Diversion of traffic by relocation or rerouting of highway, right of property owner to compensation for. 118 A.L.R. 921.

Electric light or power line in street or highway as an additional servitude. 58 A.L.R.2d 525.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Fixtures or chattels used in connection with real property taken or damaged, compensation in respect of. 90 A.L.R. 159.

Flood protection measures. 5 A.L.R.2d 57.

Franchise, competition by grantor of, as a taking or injuring of grantee's property. 114 A.L.R. 192.

Freight, carrying of, on electric railway in street or highway as an additional servitude. 2 A.L.R. 1404, 46 A.L.R. 1472.

Governmental liability for injury or damage resulting from insecticide or vermin eradication. 25 A.L.R.2d 1057.

Hospital, depreciation of property by the erection of, by a municipality. 4 A.L.R. 1012.

How to obtain jury trial in eminent domain: Waiver. 12 A.L.R.3d 7.

Intoxicating liquors, statute prohibiting the manufacture of. 3 A.L.R. 286.

Lack of diligence to contest a public use on ground that compensation has not been made for private property or rights as affecting right to relief. 58 A.L.R. 681.

Levee, right to compensation for damages to land left outside of. 20 A.L.R. 302.

Liability of irrigation district for damages. 160 A.L.R. 1165.

Liability of railroad company to property owner for change of grade incident to construction of overhead or underground crossing. 57 A.L.R. 657.

Liability of state or governmental unit or agency for damages arising from tortious acts in operation of hospital. 25 A.L.R.2d 203, 18 A.L.R.4th 858.

Logs or other material, constitutionality of statute authorizing hauling or floating of through private property. 51 A.L.R. 1199.

Motor buses, substitution of, for street cars. 102 A.L.R. 391.

New or additional compensation for use by municipality or public of subsurface of street or highway for purposes other than sewers, pipes, conduits for wires, and the like. 11 A.L.R.2d 180.

Nonabutter's right to compensation for vacation of street or highway. 49 A.L.R. 330, 93 A.L.R. 639.

Obstruction, diversion, or other interference with flow of surface water as taking or damaging property. 128 A.L.R. 1195.

Park property, diversion of, to other use as a taking or damaging of neighboring property. 83 A.L.R. 1435.

Plotting or planning in anticipation of improvement as taking or damaging of property affected. 37 A.L.R.3d 127.

Private crossing, statute requiring railroad company to construct and maintain without compensation. 12 A.L.R. 227.

Private railway as additional burden on highway. 61 A.L.R. 1046.

Public improvements not in aid of navigation, may paramount right of public to improve navigability of stream without compensating riparian owner for resulting damages be extended to. 18 A.L.R. 403.

Right of property owner to compensation for narrowing of street or highway by vacation of portion thereof. 49 A.L.R. 1254.

Right of riparian owner on navigable water to compensation for interference with access to water in improving navigation. 89 A.L.R. 1156.

Right to compensation for animals or trees destroyed to prevent spread of disease or infection. 67 A.L.R. 208.

Right to damages where access of abutter is interfered with by municipal or public use of subsurface of street or highway for tunnel purposes. 11 A.L.R.2d 180.

Right under constitutional provision against taking or damaging, to recover in other than an eminent domain proceeding, for consequent damages to property no part of which is taken. 20 A.L.R. 516.

Riparian owner deprived by public authority of continuation of periodic and seasonal overflows from stream as entitled to compensation. 20 A.L.R.2d 656.

Rural or urban character of street forming boundary of city, as affecting right of abutting owners to compensation for use by public utilities. 30 A.L.R. 746.

School, depreciation of property by location of, as taking or damaging within constitutional provision. 48 A.L.R. 1031.

Statute creating liability of municipality for mob or riot as a taking of private property. 26 A.L.R.3d 1142, 26 A.L.R.3d 1198.

Statute relating to surface waters as a taking of property. 85 A.L.R. 465.

Validity and applicability of statutes relating to use of highway by private motor carriers and contract motor carriers for hire. 109 A.L.R. 550, 175 A.L.R. 1333.

Validity of statutes, ordinances, or regulations for protection of vegetation against disease or infection. 70 A.L.R.2d 852.

War, actions or proceedings for compensation for property confiscated or requisitioned during. 137 A.L.R. 1308, 147 A.L.R. 1297, 148 A.L.R. 1384, 149 A.L.R. 1451.

Zoning, creating of restricted residence districts within municipality from which business buildings or multiple residences are excluded. 19 A.L.R. 1395, 33 A.L.R. 287, 38 A.L.R. 1496, 43 A.L.R. 668, 54 A.L.R. 1030, 86 A.L.R. 659, 117 A.L.R. 1117.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 293(1).

29-16-124. Limitation of owners' actions.

All actions that could be brought under § 29-16-123(a), regardless of the cause of action or remedy sought, including actions for trespass or nuisance, shall be commenced within twelve (12) months after the land has been actually taken possession of, and the work of the proposed internal improvement begun; saving, however, to unknown owners and nonresidents, twelve (12) months after actual knowledge of such occupation, not exceeding three (3) years, and saving to persons under the disabilities of infancy and unsoundness of mind, twelve (12) months after such disability is removed, but not exceeding ten (10) years.

Code 1858, § 1348 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 72, § 9; 1855-1856, ch. 132, §§ 10, 11); Shan., § 1867; mod. Code 1932, § 3132; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1424; Acts 2015, ch. 275, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment substituted “All actions that could be brought under § 29-16-123(a), regardless of the cause of action or remedy sought, including actions for trespass or nuisance, shall be commenced” for “The owners of land shall, in such cases, commence proceedings” at the beginning of the first sentence.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 275, § 2. July 1, 2015.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Adverse Possession, §§ 52, 53; 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 18, 64, 66; 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, §§ 17, 25, 34.

Law Reviews.

Eminent Domain in Tennessee: Public Use, Just Compensation and the Landowner, 3 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 65.

Inverse Condemnation — Stream Pollution as Taking of Property for Public Use, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 514.

Nuisances — Permanent Injury — Limitations of Actions, 28 Tenn. L. Rev. 433.

Real Property — 1956 Tennessee Survey (Herman L. Trautman), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 1089.

Torts — 1956 Tennessee Survey (John W. Wade), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 1137.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The statute is constitutional in its provisions of limitation. Simms v. Memphis, C.L. R. Co., 59 Tenn. 621, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1874).

2. Scope of Section.

An action for damages brought under Acts 1891, ch. 31 (§ 7-31-112) for changing or improving any highway in any town or city, had to be brought within one year after completion or cessation of the work or improvement causing the damage. Mayor, etc., of Chattanooga v. Neely, 97 Tenn. 527, 37 S.W. 281, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 176 (1896).

In an action against a city for compensation for its use and occupation of certain property as a road and dumping ground, without any intention of acquiring the property for a public highway or for permanent public use, the requirement that suit must be brought by the owner within 12 months has no application. Memphis v. Wait, 102 Tenn. 274, 52 S.W. 161, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1899).

Under § 65-2105 (now § 65-21-201) authorizing telephone companies to construct and operate their lines over the lands of private individuals and others, a suit to recover the damages for the occupation of land by a telephone company must be brought within the period. Doty v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 123 Tenn. 329, 130 S.W. 1053, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1910).

Where a railroad company is holding under an invalid deed, but complainants sue, not for the land itself, but proceed upon the theory that the railroad company is holding the land by virtue of the power of eminent domain and the decree of the chancellor, from which no appeal was taken by complainant, proceeds upon the theory that the action is one under § 29-16-123 the prescriptive period provided in this section applies. Griffith v. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 147 Tenn. 224, 246 S.W. 532, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1922).

A legal action is contemplated by this section. Whitlow v. Hardin County, 13 Tenn. App. 347, — S.W.2d —, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 142 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1930).

Where an action was brought, not for the actual taking, but for acts committed as a result of the taking, the limitation of this section was not applicable but the ordinary statute of limitations applied, which must be pleaded as a defense. East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. Co. v. Gouge, 30 Tenn. App. 40, 203 S.W.2d 170, 1947 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947).

Suit by property owner to recover compensation for value of right-of-way was barred by this section where suit was filed more then one year after taking by the county. Polk v. Davidson County, 39 Tenn. App. 68, 281 S.W.2d 257, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

In action against gas company for damages based on allegation that gas company in constructing pipeline left debris along sides of stream and changed natural drain of mountain resulting in flooding of plaintiffs' land, the three year limitation set out in § 28-3-105 rather than the one year provision of this section applied where the property alleged to have been damaged was not taken by defendant or intentionally appropriated to its use and the damage in question was unanticipated by the parties. Donohue v. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 39 Tenn. App. 438, 284 S.W.2d 692, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

The limitation provided by this section bars only the right of action for damages and not the right to reenter and repossess the land whenever that can be done without interfering with a public use. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

The scope of limitation imposed by this section will not be broadened by implication. Johnston v. Chattanooga, 55 Tenn. App. 400, 401 S.W.2d 199, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where damages to plaintiff's land from earthslide resulted from evacuation by defendant railroad company on its own land and there was no showing that defendant ever entered or encroached on plaintiff's land, intentionally appropriated it or materially interfered with its use, there was no “taking” of plaintiff's land within the meaning of the eminent domain statutes and three year general statute of limitations in § 28-3-105 covering damages to real property governed rather than one year provision of this section relating to takings under eminent domain applied. Williams v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 215, 417 S.W.2d 573, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

An action for damages to real property resulting from deprivation or impairment of rights of ingress or egress by the closing of a public road or street is in the nature of an inverse condemnation action and the one-year period of limitation in this section applies rather than the general three-year period of § 28-3-105. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

Arrestee's inverse condemnation claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the alleged taking of the arrestee's automobile during the time when police officers searched and seized it occurred more than a year before the arrestee filed suit against a city and a group of police officers. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017).

3. —Remaindermen.

Where land is taken by a railroad company, not in the exercise of the granted power of eminent domain, but by virtue of a private contract with, and conveyance from, one who claimed to convey the entire title to and not a mere life estate in the right-of-way, the one year period of limitation prescribed by this section does not apply to an action brought by a remainderman to recover damages for the appropriation of such land, when the conveyer was, in fact, only a life tenant. Southern R. Co. v. Jennings, 130 Tenn. 450, 171 S.W. 82, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1914).

The one year's statute does not begin to run against a remainderman until the death of the life tenant; and his damages are assessed as of date of such death. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

Owners of fee in land which had been subject to easement for street railway purposes were not entitled to recover possession when easement was abandoned and city took possession and constructed public street but such owners were entitled to seek compensation for the taking. Emory v. Knoxville, 214 Tenn. 228, 379 S.W.2d 753, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 468 (1964).

4. —Highway Fills—Taking.

Suit by property owner to recover damages from city where fills used to support highway extended on to plaintiff's land was barred by one year period of limitations, since suit was based on a taking and not a trespass. Central Realty Co. v. Chattanooga, 169 Tenn. 525, 89 S.W.2d 346, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1936).

5. —State as Condemner.

Suit by property owner to recover possession of land from state which had held same for period of over one year after eminent domain proceeding was barred by this section. Chumbley v. State, 183 Tenn. 467, 192 S.W.2d 1007, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 226 (1946).

6. —Overflow of Land.

County was liable to property owner for damages due to overflowing of land as result of construction of highway since property was taken by county without just compensation. Hollers v. Campbell County, 192 Tenn. 442, 241 S.W.2d 523, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 285 (1951).

Where a public service corporation caused erosion of plaintiff's realty by releasing large amounts of water daily across his land, such amounted to the taking of a property right, the remedy for which would be action under § 29-16-123, with limitation as to time to sue for damages governed by this section, not under § 28-3-105. Murphy v. Raleigh Utility Dist., 213 Tenn. 228, 373 S.W.2d 455, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 482 (1963).

This section and § 29-16-123 applied to action for flood damages because of alleged change in drainage from highway construction near property and burden was on county to show that knowledge or notice of damage accrued more than one year before suit. Jones v. Hamilton County, 56 Tenn. App. 240, 405 S.W.2d 775, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Suit for “taking” based on construction of embankment to highway bridge which resulted in increased flooding and slower drainage of plaintiff's land which was brought some years after construction of bridge and embankment but within one year after flooding was timely. Jones v. Cocke County, 57 Tenn. App. 496, 420 S.W.2d 587, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Initial flooding of land resulting from preliminary grading work on highway project would not be considered as permanent injury to property so as to cause running of statute, especially where landowner consulted with highway engineers and was assured problem would be alleviated, and it was only after additional flooding after substantial completion of project that damage could be considered permanent. Knox County v. Moncier, 224 Tenn. 361, 455 S.W.2d 153, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (1970).

Where city in constructing drainage system in 1958 and making street improvements in 1963 created and maintained a temporary and continuous nuisance by channeling surface water into a “concrete box” which had its exit into natural drainway impeded by a manhole cover which did not permit adequate drainage of surface water and debris thereby rendering complainants' property susceptible to flooding, suit to recover for damages to real and personal property from a 1968 flood was not barred by limitations of §§ 7-31-112, 28-3-105 or 29-16-124. Kind v. Johnson City, 63 Tenn. App. 666, 478 S.W.2d 63, 1970 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970).

Flooding of land as a result of construction of highway amounted to a taking, the exclusive remedy for which was inverse condemnation, which was barred by this section. Burchfield v. State, 774 S.W.2d 178, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), appeal denied, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. June 5, 1989).

7. —Blasting Damages.

Power company was liable to landowner for damage to land from blasting in construction of power line. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Holt, 3 Tenn. App. 372, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

8. Adverse Possession.

Where a railroad company constructed its road over a tract of land and operated it continuously for 30 years after its completion, without condemning or paying for the land taken, and without contract with the landowner in reference to the right-of-way, the company did not acquire the absolute fee or exclusive right to the possession of the right-of-way, but only an easement therein commensurate with its legitimate necessities. Railway Co. V. Telford's Ex'rs, 89 Tenn. 293, 14 S.W. 776, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 51, 10 L.R.A. 855 (1890).

Holder of vendor's lien notes does not have a lien on a water line system constructed under the land, and upon his failure to bring suit for damages under § 29-16-123 within the time provided by this section, his action is barred and the water line company acquired an easement. Shinkle v. Nashville Improv. Co., 172 Tenn. 555, 113 S.W.2d 404, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1938).

This statute is ineffective to deal with the problem of the state adversely possessing land over a period of several years; therefore, a landowner's remedy at law is quite limited. United States v. 371.94 Acres of Land, 431 F.2d 975, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7255 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1970).

9. —Recorded Color of Title.

Where defendants were in possession under deed that purported to convey land in fee simple for school purposes but where grantor only had a life estate in the land, defendants did not take such land under eminent domain upon death of the grantor but were in possession under recorded color of title so that this section and § 29-16-123 were without application. Dickens v. Shelby County, 178 Tenn. 305, 157 S.W.2d 825, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1942).

10. Property Not Acquired.

These statutes do not contain a provision of limitation as to time a landowner may bring suit for an interest in property which city or others with right of eminent domain have failed to acquire. Johnston v. Chattanooga, 55 Tenn. App. 400, 401 S.W.2d 199, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where city acquired four-fifths of certain land by purchase and warranty deed, suit by owners of remaining one-fifth was not a suit under § 29-16-123 and limitation of this section was not applicable. Johnston v. Chattanooga, 55 Tenn. App. 400, 401 S.W.2d 199, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

11. Accrual of Action.

Property owner who executed a deed to county for a right-of-way, and whose right of ingress was lost thereafter as a result of construction by county was entitled to one year's time after injury before filing suit for damages instead of one year's time after start of construction. Morgan County v. Neff, 36 Tenn. App. 407, 256 S.W.2d 61, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

Date of taking alleged in declaration is binding on plaintiff in determining whether statutory period has barred the suit. Davidson County v. Beauchesne, 39 Tenn. App. 90, 281 S.W.2d 266, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

This section and § 29-16-123 must be construed together in determining whether suit to recover compensation is barred by one year limitation period. Davidson County v. Beauchesne, 39 Tenn. App. 90, 281 S.W.2d 266, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Words “the work of the proposed internal improvement” means any one of a number of things preparatory to construction, such as plans and specifications, surveys, laying off the right-of-way, or clearing off obstructions. Davidson County v. Beauchesne, 39 Tenn. App. 90, 281 S.W.2d 266, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

Cause of action for alleged damages from operation of railroad switchyard on adjacent property in a nonnegligent manner arose when operations resulting in alleged injury commenced. Robertson v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 207 Tenn. 272, 339 S.W.2d 6, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 456 (1960).

Where the original act or cause of injury is permanent in its nature, and the damages, both present and prospective, may be recovered in one action, the statute will generally be regarded as attaching at the time the act complained of is done. Robertson v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 207 Tenn. 272, 339 S.W.2d 6, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 456 (1960).

In inverse condemnation action against city for alleged taking of easement as result of noise from low flying airplanes at municipal airport, period of limitation would commence to run from time airport was completed or airplanes started to fly rather than from time land for airport was purchased. Johnson v. Greeneville, 222 Tenn. 260, 435 S.W.2d 476, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (1968).

This section, providing a limitation on the bringing of the action, was intended to become operative only at the time suit could be brought under § 29-16-123 therefore landowner could sue in reverse condemnation within 12 months after condemnation proceeding was nonsuited rather than within 12 months after the construction of improvements was begun. Armistead v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, 222 Tenn. 486, 437 S.W.2d 527, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 492 (1969).

In determining what amounts to a taking and when the taking is complete so as to give the landowner a cause of action and begin the running of the statute of limitations, the court must look to the facts in the particular case. Knox County v. Moncier, 224 Tenn. 361, 455 S.W.2d 153, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (1970).

The landowner should have one year to commence his action after an injury to his property which reasonably appears to him to be a permanent injury rather than a temporary one. Knox County v. Moncier, 224 Tenn. 361, 455 S.W.2d 153, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (1970).

The statute of limitations should be applied in such a manner that the landowner will have the one-year period to bring his suit after injury or after reasonable notice or knowledge of such injury and damage. Knox County v. Moncier, 224 Tenn. 361, 455 S.W.2d 153, 1970 Tenn. LEXIS 334 (1970).

Where construction of fence along interstate highway was commenced two years before landowner brought suit in inverse condemnation because of alleged destruction of right to ingress and egress from his land but testimony was to the effect that fence construction was piecemeal and nothing positive was contained in the record to indicate that right of ingress and egress was destroyed more than a year before suit, evidence did not preponderate against finding of trial judge in favor of landowner on issue of statute of limitations. Spence v. Cocke County, 61 Tenn. App. 607, 457 S.W.2d 270, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970).

Where defendants asserted a right to compensation for an entirely separate tract than that described in the original petition for condemnation, the commencement of the original action did not toll the running of the statute of limitations on the assertion of this right. Smith v. Black, 547 S.W.2d 947, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Where original owner took no action against utility district for discharge of wastewater on his land, and 10 years later plaintiff bought the land and within a year brought suit against the district, but in an improper court, statute attached at date of district's first discharge, so as to bar plaintiff's action. Pleasant View Utility Dist. v. Vradenburg, 545 S.W.2d 733, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1977), superseded by statute as stated in, Cole v. City of Loudon, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 1994).

Where there was conflicting evidence as to when the taking of property by inverse condemnation occurred, it was error for the circuit judge to sustain defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. Osborne Enterprises, Inc. v. Chattanooga, 561 S.W.2d 160, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

A taking occurs and the statute of limitations begins to run when the property owner realizes or should reasonably realize that his property has sustained an injury which is permanent in nature. Osborne Enterprises, Inc. v. Chattanooga, 561 S.W.2d 160, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

The fact that plaintiffs were put on notice of a future taking and should have realized that their property would be damaged was insufficient to cause the statute of limitations to begin to run. Osborne Enterprises, Inc. v. Chattanooga, 561 S.W.2d 160, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Even if city's denial of a building permit due to the fact that there was a sewer line and storm drain crossing the property did constitute a taking of property without just compensation, property owner's cause of action was still barred by T.C.A. § 29-16-124 where property owner had knowledge of the sewer line and storm drain five years prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. Vowell Ventures v. City of Martin, 47 S.W.3d 434, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Trial court did not err when it characterized landowners'  cause of action against a county as inverse condemnation and in finding that the claim for inverse condemnation was time barred under the one year statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 29-16-124, because the landowners'  complaint set forth a prima facie case for inverse conversion of the nuisance-type since the landowners'  alleged loss of use of part of their properties due to the construction of the bridge was classified as a nuisance-type taking when they alleged a direct and substantial interference with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property due to flooding; the landowners were on notice of the flooding several years prior to executing their affidavits, and because they stated a prima facie case of inverse condemnation, they were precluded from pursuing their temporary nuisance claim. Greenfield Land & Cattle Co. v. Greene County (In re Large), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2009).

Homeowner's inverse condemnation claim against a city was barred by the statute of limitations because the limitations period commenced when the owner acquired the property, instead of when the demolition of the property occurred, as the owner acquired the property with inquiry notice that the city had already obtained a demolition order. If the owner desired to retain the property free from any threatened demolition, it was incumbent upon the owner to take actions to set aside the demolition order or to pursue other appropriate relief. Bobo v. City of Jackson, 511 S.W.3d 14, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 952 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2016).

Landowner's complaint against a utility district was time-barred because (1) the gravamen of the complaint was for inverse condemnation, and (2) the complaint was not filed within one year of the date on which the landowner requested that the utility district's work on the landowner's property cease, and the complaint did not adequately allege a recurring cause of action, since the injury alleged was permanent, based on the installation of a water line. Parish v. Smith Util. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).

Property owner's inverse condemnation and taking claims against a metropolitan government were untimely filed. Due to a contractor's answer to the owner's initial complaint against the contractor, the owner knew or should have reasonably known that road closures were accomplished by some action on the part of the metropolitan government, but the owner waited until it obtained street closure permits in discovery from the contractor before filing an amended complaint adding the metropolitan government as a party with claims against it. Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019).

Landowner's contest of an ordinance abandoning an alley adjacent to the landowner's property was untimely because suit was filed over one year after the landowner's actual notice of a city's final approval of the ordinance. Little v. City of Chattanooga, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).

12. Waiver of Limitations.

Quarterly county court did not have the authority to waive limitations and to levy a tax for payment of taking by county of property for construction of highway 16 years after property was taken especially where state by Public Acts 1931, ch. 57 transferred liability for acquisition of rights-of-way from county to the state. Hicks v. Fox, 190 Tenn. 82, 228 S.W.2d 68, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 422 (1950).

13. Measure of Damages.

Measure of damages to landowner where power company changed its line was the value of the new land taken. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Holt, 3 Tenn. App. 372, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

14. Procedure.

Trial court erred in granting defendant's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff property owner's suit alleging a that their property was taken by nuisance-type activity because, although the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 29-16-124 had expired for the filing of an inverse condemnation proceeding, T.C.A. § 29-16-123(a) afforded the property owners two distinct actions: an action for inverse condemnation or an action for damages resulting from trespass to real property. Windrow v. Middle Tenn. Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 376 S.W.3d 733, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2012).

15. —Demurrer.

The petition by the owner to assess his damages for land taken by a railroad company, which shows upon its face the lapse of time sufficient to bar his action since the completion of the road through the land, without more, will be dismissed on demurrer. Barnes v. Louisville & N.R.R., 3 Shan. 15 (1878).

16. —Declaration — Sufficiency.

Declaration against county charging that the county had raised the grade of a road causing overflow and washing of the lands of plaintiff sufficient as taking under this section against demurrer. Hollers v. Campbell County, 192 Tenn. 442, 241 S.W.2d 523, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 285 (1951).

17. —Ejectment Not Remedy.

An action in ejectment will not lie, a proceeding or action for damages being the proper remedy. Carter v. Mayor, etc., of Chattanooga, 48 S.W. 117, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 147 (1897).

18. —Statute of Limitations.

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the condemning authority in a condemnation action was inappropriate pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-16-124 because the conversations at issue did not satisfy the requirement that the land actually be taken possession of, and the work of the proposed internal improvement begun, before the 12-month period for the landowner to initiate suit. Lucas v. City of Waverly, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011).

Plaintiffs'  suit against a county and a school board was properly dismissed, as it was filed over a year after they knew they had suffered permanent injury to their property, so that their inverse condemnation was time-barred under T.C.A. § 29-16-124; and as plaintiffs knew the damage was permanent, they could not recover under their temporary nuisance claim. Loveday v. Blount County, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2012).

19. Failure to Bring Action.

The failure of the owner to exercise his right to sue for damages will not be held to confer vested rights upon the expropriator of his property without compensation. Rogers v. Knoxville, 40 Tenn. App. 170, 289 S.W.2d 868, 1955 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955).

20. Saving Statute.

Where landowner whose land was taken possession of for the purpose of internal improvements filed his suit under §§ 29-16-123, 29-16-124 within 12 months of the actual taking of possession but took a voluntary nonsuit when he misconceived his remedy and filed his petition against the proper defendant within one year of the nonsuit, such suit was saved by § 28-1-105. Brooksbank v. Roane County, 207 Tenn. 524, 341 S.W.2d 570, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 488 (1960).

Where suit for damages under § 29-16-123 which was commenced within the period of limitation was dismissed other than on the merits, suing out of summons in reverse condemnation proceeding within one year thereafter did not under § 28-1-105 save the running of the limitation where the petition required by § 29-16-104 was not filed until more than one year after the dismissal of the original suit as reverse condemnation suit was commenced only by filing petition and not by summons alone. Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1963).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 498, 499.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 415.

Abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemner with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 288.

29-16-125. Compensation of jurors — Limitation on compulsive service.

  1. The courts having jurisdiction of eminent domain proceedings are hereby authorized and empowered to fix the per diem of jurors who serve as members of juries of view in an amount not exceeding ten dollars ($10.00) per day, and the courts shall have no power or authority to fix an additional amount of remuneration for such jurors.
    1. Provisions of this section relating to compensation shall not repeal or apply to jurors in any county or counties wherein the per diem of jurors of view is fixed in an amount less than ten dollars ($10.00) per day by any private act or acts heretofore or hereafter passed.
    2. In counties of this state having a population of not less than two hundred thousand (200,000) according to the federal population census of 1960 or any subsequent federal population census, the amount shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day; provided, that by majority vote of the county legislative body occurring prior to January 1, 1998, such amount may be alternatively set at a level not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day.
  2. No person shall be compelled to serve as a member of a jury of view more often than once every two (2) years.

Acts 1961, ch. 298, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1425; modified; Acts 1997, ch. 427, §§ 1, 2.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Cited: State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-126. Hospitals — Eminent domain powers.

  1. In any counties of this state having a population of not less than one hundred thousand (100,000) nor more than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) according to the federal census of 1960 or any subsequent federal census, any hospital incorporated as a general welfare corporation under the laws of the state of Tennessee shall have the power of eminent domain and shall have the right and authority to condemn such lands, property, property rights, privileges and easements of others as may in the judgment of its board of directors, together with the concurrence of two thirds (2/3) of the members of the governing body of the municipality in which such hospital is located or in the event such hospital is located outside the boundaries of an incorporated municipality then together with the concurrence of two thirds (2/3) of the county legislative body of the county of location, be deemed necessary or proper for the purpose of providing buildings and other facilities, including any extension, enlargement or improvement for hospital purposes only.
  2. The land or property sought to be condemned must be adjacent and contiguous to the property upon which such hospital is presently located and not across any street.

Acts 1963, ch. 373, § 1 (T.C.A. (Supp.), § 48-1105); Acts 1965, ch. 127, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 7, 36; T.C.A., § 23-1426.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-127. [Transferred.]

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-16-127 (Acts 2001, ch. 276, § 1), concerning determining appraised value of property damaged by governmental entity, was transferred to § 29-16-201 by Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 2, effective May 16, 2014.

Part 2
Determination of Damages

29-16-201. Determining appraised value of property damaged by governmental entity.

Notwithstanding law to the contrary, in any case where a governmental entity accidentally or negligently causes substantial property damage, the appraised value recorded by the assessor of property for the year in which the damage occurred, divided by the state approved appraisal ratio for the county, shall be admissible into evidence as to the value of such property if such property owner:

  1. Had no prior notice or knowledge that such damages would occur; and
  2. Did not have a reasonably current appraisal preexisting the date of the property damage.

Acts 2001, ch. 276, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-16-127; Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 2.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment transferred this section from § 29-16-127.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 15. May 16, 2014.

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-16-202. Writ of inquiry of damages.

  1. After the requisite notice has been given, if no sufficient cause to the contrary is shown, the court shall issue a writ of inquiry of damages to the sheriff, commanding the sheriff to summon a jury to inquire and assess the damages.
  2. By consent of parties, or on application of the plaintiff, unless objection is made by the defendant, the writ of inquiry may be issued by the clerk, as of course, after service of notice, on which the sheriff will summon the jury.

Code 1858, §§ 1330, 1331; Shan., §§ 1849, 1850; Code 1932, §§ 3114, 3115; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1407; T.C.A. § 29-16-107; Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 3.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment transferred this section from § 29-16-107.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 15. May 16, 2014.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 40.

Law Reviews.

Appellate Procedure — Ripeness for Review by Appeal or Certiorari, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 1033.

Jury Trial in Condemnation Proceedings, 13 Tenn. L. Rev. 181.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Writ of Inquiry — Time of Award.

The statute allowing the defendant two days in which to plead is not applicable to condemnation cases, and the writ of inquiry of damages may be awarded at once, where it appears that the requisite notice has been given, if no sufficient cause to the contrary is shown. Camp v. Coal Creek & W. G. R.R. Co., 79 Tenn. 705, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1883).

2. No Appeal from Order for Writ.

An appeal will not lie from an order directing a writ of inquiry of damages to be issued, because such order is not a final judgment. Camp v. Coal Creek & W. G. R.R. Co., 79 Tenn. 705, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (1883).

3. Private Negotiations — Necessity.

Where a statute provided that commissioners should be appointed when the owner and the appropriator failed to agree upon the terms of purchase and sale, such commissioners might be appointed, though no effort was made to agree upon the terms. Compliance with such provision of the statute is not a condition precedent to the jurisdiction. Bigelow v. Mississippi C. & T. R. Co., 39 Tenn. 624, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (1859); Doty v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 123 Tenn. 329, 130 S.W. 1053, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1910).

There is no statute in this state requiring that any effort shall be made, by private treaty, for acquiring the property desired, and there is no constitutional objection to a proceeding for condemnation, before failure of negotiations. Atlanta, K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 131 F. 657, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4304 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904), cert. denied, Atlanta K. & N. R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 195 U.S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 732 (1904).

4. Interest.

Interest on award would run from the date of issuance of writ of inquiry rather than from the date on which the first report of the jury of view was filed. Shook & Fletcher Supply Co. v. Nashville, 47 Tenn. App. 339, 338 S.W.2d 237, 1960 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).

Collateral References. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 375-398.

30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 292.

Admissibility of hearsay evidence as to comparable sales of other land as basis for expert's opinion as to land value. 12 A.L.R.3d 1064, 89 A.L.R.4th 456.

Admissibility of photographs or models of property condemned. 23 A.L.R.3d 825.

Admissibility, on issue of value of condemned real property, of rental value of other real property. 23 A.L.R.3d 724.

Binding effect of plans and specifications as regards the work to be done on, or the particular use to be made of, the land in question. 89 A.L.R. 886.

Condemner's liability for costs of condemnee's expert witnesses in eminent domain. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Condemner's waiver, surrender or limitation, after award, of rights or part of property acquired by condemnation. 5 A.L.R.2d 724.

Constitutionality of provisions as to tribunal which shall fix amount of compensation for taking of property in eminent domain, otherwise than objections that a trial by jury is necessary. 74 A.L.R. 569.

Contractual rights, frustration of, as basis of claim for compensation where another's real property is taken in exercise of eminent domain. 152 A.L.R. 307.

Delayed or negligent prosecution of condemnation proceedings, right to damages due to. 92 A.L.R. 379.

De minimis not curat lex as applied to failure to give notice to mortgagee of land condemned. 44 A.L.R. 188.

Easement, right of owner of dominant estate to have compensation for taking of, by eminent domain determined with reference to land and improvements held in the dominant estate. 98 A.L.R. 640.

Eminent domain: compensability of loss of view from owner's property—state cases. 25 A.L.R.4th 671.

Eminent domain: utility or contiguity of separate properties sufficient to allow damages for diminished value of parcel remaining after taking of other parcel. 59 A.L.R.4th 308.

Exploration of land before proceedings to acquire it, without making compensation. 49 A.L.R. 506.

Flooding of property under right of eminent domain, damages resulting from. 106 A.L.R. 989.

How to obtain jury trial in eminent domain: waiver. 12 A.L.R.3d 7.

Injunction as available remedy against exercise of power of eminent domain as applied to imposition of additional servitude. 133 A.L.R. 150, 93 A.L.R.2d 465.

Legislative power to relieve one authorized to construct a dam from liability for damages to adjoining property. 6 A.L.R. 1326.

Liability, upon abandonment of eminent domain proceedings, for loss or expenses incurred by property owner, or for interest on award or judgment. 92 A.L.R.2d 355.

Prohibition as means of controlling action of administrative officers in regard to eminent domain proceedings. 115 A.L.R. 33, 159 A.L.R. 627.

Public improvements, imposing on property owner personal liability to pay assessments for. 127 A.L.R. 558, 167 A.L.R. 1030.

Removal of proceedings to federal court, stage of case as determining whether application for, is premature. 82 A.L.R. 523.

Right to abandon and effect of abandonment of eminent domain proceedings. 121 A.L.R. 12.

Right to have view by jury in condemnation proceeding. 77 A.L.R.2d 548.

Second eminent domain proceeding, compensation in. 18 A.L.R. 569.

Separate estates or interests in property taken, separate valuation of. 69 A.L.R. 1263,   .

Special assessment proceedings, failure to claim in, compensation for taking or damaging property in construction of improvements as waiver or estoppel. 64 A.L.R. 764.

Sufficiency of condemner's negotiations required as preliminary to taking in eminent domain. 21 A.L.R.4th 765.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 149(6).

29-16-203. Elements of damages.

    1. In estimating the damages, the jury shall give the value of the land or rights taken without deduction, but incidental benefits which may result to the owner by reason of the proposed improvement may be taken into consideration in estimating the incidental damages. Whenever any person, agency, or other entity acquires interest in any parcel of real property and such acquisition requires the removal of furniture, household belongings, fixtures, equipment, machinery, or stock in trade of any person in rightful possession, regardless of whether such person has a legal interest in such property, the reasonable expense of the removal shall be considered in assessing incidental damages. The reasonable expense of the removal of such chattels shall be construed as including the cost of any necessary disconnection, dismantling, or disassembling, the loading, and drayage to another location not more than fifty (50) miles distant, and the reassembling, reconnecting, and installing on such new location.
    2. When title to an entire tax parcel is condemned in fee, the total amount of damages for the condemnation of the parcel shall be not less than the last valuation used by the assessor of property just prior to the date of taking, less any decrease in value for any changes in the parcel occurring since the valuation was made, such as the removal or destruction of a building, flooding, waste, or removal of trees. The valuation may be introduced and admitted into evidence at the trial. In addition to condemnation proceedings under this chapter, this subdivision (a)(2) shall apply to condemnation proceedings under chapter 17 of this title or any other law.
  1. Notwithstanding any other law, if any person, agency, or other entity acquires any interest in real property pursuant to the execution of the power of eminent domain, the person shall acquire at least an equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other improvements located upon the real property so acquired and which the person requires to be removed from such real property or which the person determines will be adversely affected by the use to which such real property will be put.
    1. For the purpose of determining the just compensation to be paid for any building, structure, or other improvement required to be acquired by subsection (b), such building, structure, or other improvement shall be deemed to be a part of the real property to be acquired, notwithstanding the right or obligation of a tenant, as against the owner of any other interest in the real property to remove such building, structure, or improvement at the expiration of his term, and the fair market value which such building, structure, or improvement contributes to the fair market value of the real property to be acquired, or the fair market value of such building, structure, or improvement for removal from the real property, whichever is the greater, shall be paid to the tenant therefor.
    2. Payment under this subsection (c) shall not result in duplication of any payments otherwise authorized by law. No such payment shall be made unless the owner of the land involved disclaims all interest in the improvements of the tenant. In consideration for any such payment, the tenant shall assign, transfer, and release to the acquiring party all the tenant's right, title, and interest in and to such improvements. Nothing in this subsection (c) shall be construed to deprive the tenant of any rights to reject payment under this subsection (c) and to obtain payment for such property interests in accordance with applicable law, other than this subsection (c).
  2. Any person, agency or other entity acquiring real property pursuant to the exercise of eminent domain shall as soon as practicable after the date of payment of the purchase price or the date of deposit into court of funds to satisfy the award of compensation in a condemnation proceeding to acquire real property, whichever is earlier, reimburse the owner, to the extent that such acquiring party deems fair and reasonable for expenses the owner necessarily incurred for:
    1. Recording fees, transfer taxes, and similar expenses incidental to conveying such real property to the acquiring party;
    2. Penalty costs for repayment of any preexisting recorded mortgage entered into in good faith encumbering such real property; and
    3. The pro rata portion of real property taxes paid which are allocable to a period subsequent to the date of vesting title in the acquiring party, or the effective date of possession by the acquiring party, whichever is earlier.

Code 1858, § 1338; Shan., § 1857; Code 1932, § 3122; Acts 1951, ch. 176, § 1; 1957, ch. 398, § 1; 1967, ch. 305, § 1; 1970, ch. 482, § 1; 1972, ch. 463, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1414; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 19; T.C.A. § 29-16-114; Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 4.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment transferred this section from § 29-16-114.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 15. May 16, 2014.

Cross-References. Removal of personal property at state expense, roadway facility, § 54-5-111.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 26, 27-38; 11 Tenn. Juris., Evidence, § 160.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law (Paul H. Sanders), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1159.

Constitutional Law — 1961 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1171.

Eminent Domain in Tennessee: Public Use, Just Compensation and the Landowner, 3 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 65.

Eminent Domain — Moving Expense — A Condemner in Tennessee is Required to Pay Moving Expense for Fixtures and Chattels Upon Condemnation, 2 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 205.

Property Rights vs. Public Use: Analyzing Tennessee's Response to Kelo Eminent Domain Ruling (Scott Griswold), 43 Tenn B.J. 14 (2007).

Cited: Maury County Rd. Comm'rs v. Jones, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 710 (1911); Sullivan County v. Pope, 223 Tenn. 575, 448 S.W.2d 666, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 444 (1969); Shelby County v. Kingsway Greens of America, Inc., 706 S.W.2d 634, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Water Auth. v. Hooper, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2010); Water Auth. of Dickson County v. Hooper, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2010); City of Brentwood v. Cawthon, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Definitions.

2. —Damages.

The word “damages” does not mean a sum of money exacted by retributive justice for a legal injury inflicted, but purchase money for property taken pursuant to law, for the use of a public improvement, and compensation for the loss in value incidentally imposed upon the residue of the tract as a consequence of the taking of a part; and the court, acting for both parties in fixing such compensation, must be governed by the principle that the owner of the land shall be treated as one offering it for sale, at a fair price, while not being under any stress of circumstances that would induce him to sacrifice his property, and the condemner as an intending buyer, who is likewise free from stress, as not being forced to buy. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

The word “damages” as applied to the value of the strip taken, is given the same meaning when applied to the incidental damages resulting to the residue of the land. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

Statutory provisions reviewed in ruling as to meaning of word “damages” as used in Municipal Condemnation Act. Faulkner v. Nashville, 154 Tenn. 145, 285 S.W. 39, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1926).

3. —General Damages.

The term “general damages” may be defined as damages common to the entire community through which the railroad runs, and which do not, directly and proximately, result from the taking of the right-of-way and the proper construction and operation thereon of the railroad. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916); Lewisburg & N.R.R. v. Dudley, 161 Tenn. 546, 30 S.W.2d 278, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1930).

4. —Matters Not Amounting to “Taking.”

Reduction in value of property because of construction of highway in close proximity thereto does not constitute a compensable “taking” of property where there is no physical taking of the land and no direct interference amounting to a physical invasion or deprivation of use. Ledbetter v. Beach, 220 Tenn. 623, 421 S.W.2d 814, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 445 (1967).

5. Persons Entitled.

Where the legislature granted a charter to a railroad company authorizing the construction of its road through the vacant and unappropriated lands of the state, and the charter was accepted, and the company constructed its road accordingly, any subsequent enterer becomes invested subject to the right-of-way so granted, and is not entitled to damages. Davis v. East T. & G. R. Co., 33 Tenn. 94, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1853).

The fact that the route of the railroad was surveyed before the defendants became the owners of the land, and with their knowledge, cannot affect their right of recovery, where the location and appropriation was made after the rights of the defendants in the land had accrued. Paducah & M. R. Co. v. Stovall, 59 Tenn. 1, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1873).

The compensation can be recovered alone by the person owning the lands at the date of the taking, or by his assignee of the right of action. Smith v. Nashville & K. R. Co., 88 Tenn. 611, 13 S.W. 128, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1890).

Holder of verbal lease for one year was entitled to intervene and to recover moving expenses in proceeding to condemn real property upon which he operated machine shop. Morristown v. Sauls, 61 Tenn. App. 666, 457 S.W.2d 601, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

Defendants, as owners of the property on the condemnation date, are the parties entitled to compensation for the taking even though they had subsequently sold the land, for if there was a diminution in value, the court assumes that the loss was passed on to defendants in the sale of the property in the form of a lower purchase price. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

6. Amount.

The valuation must be made as of the date of the actual taking, and not as of the date of the filing of the petition or the service of the summons, and not before the right of condemnation is adjudged where that right was denied and contested. Therefore, where defendants, in a proceeding to condemn mill property, closed their mill and ceased to operate it, after the filing of the petition, and for more than four year before the petitioner's appropriation of the land, such abandonment was proper to be considered in assessing the damages. Southern R. Co. v. Michaels, 126 Tenn. 702, 151 S.W. 53, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1912).

Proper damages for railroad where its right-of-way was condemned for use as route of canal was the diminished value for railroad purposes of the company's exclusive use of the land taken. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. Co. v. Middle Fork Obion Drainage Dist., 149 Tenn. 490, 261 S.W. 975, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1924).

In a suit to condemn land under this chapter, by authority of ch. 164, Acts 1941 to be leased to the federal government for an air base, it was held that a verdict for $5,700 actual damages and $12,000 incidental damages was proper. State v. Rascoe, 181 Tenn. 43, 178 S.W.2d 392, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1944).

When the same jury is to determine the amount due the property owner and the lessee, the jury should be instructed to deduct from the amount fixed as the fair market value of the property and incidental damages thereto the amount they fix as the value of the leasehold plus incidental damages to the leasehold. Moulton v. George, 208 Tenn. 586, 348 S.W.2d 129, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1961).

Where piece of property is taken in which the ownership is divided into several interests, total compensation for value of land cannot exceed value of unencumbered fee. Moulton v. George, 208 Tenn. 586, 348 S.W.2d 129, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1961).

The trier of fact in determining the amount of award in eminent domain proceeding must be governed by the principle that the owner of the land shall be treated as one offering it for sale at a fair price while not being under any stress of circumstances which would induce him to sacrifice his property and the condemner as an intending buyer who is likewise free from stress not being forced to buy. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Stokely v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 271, 418 S.W.2d 255, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Where the property right taken is the right of access to an abutting street, the measure of damages is the difference in the fair cash market value of the defendant's property prior to the taking or impairment of access and its value after the taking and the construction of the project for which the property right was taken. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Stokely v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 271, 418 S.W.2d 255, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Where the property right taken in the right of access to or over a public street, the measure of damages is the difference in the fair cash value of the property prior to the taking or impairment of the access and the taking and the construction of the project for which the property was taken. Stokely v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 271, 418 S.W.2d 255, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

The statute setting the measure of compensation for annexed utilities was applicable in case where a city acquired the property of an electrical cooperative by condemnation, as the measure of compensation set in the general condemnation statute would not have been adequate. Duck River Electric Membership Corp. v. Manchester, 529 S.W.2d 202, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (Tenn. 1975).

The owner of real property is qualified, by reason of his ownership alone, to give an opinion in evidence of the value of his land. State ex rel. Smith v. Livingston Limestone Co., 547 S.W.2d 942, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. 1977).

The managing officer of a corporation is qualified to give opinion evidence on the market value of the corporation's real property. State ex rel. Smith v. Livingston Limestone Co., 547 S.W.2d 942, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. 1977).

The value to the owner of condemned property is only relevant in the special situation where, because of crop failure, financial panic or similar abnormal conditions, there is no market for property which in ordinary times has value. State ex rel. Smith v. Livingston Limestone Co., 547 S.W.2d 942, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. 1977).

Where the original improvement contemplated relocation of a road which later necessitated acquisition of additional property and where the project had not been fully completed, the enhanced value of the property because of the improvement may not be considered in computing damages. State v. Hodges, 552 S.W.2d 400, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Where a section of landowner's property was condemned, after which landowner optioned part of the remaining property to third parties, and then additional property was condemned causing the third parties to withdraw from the transaction, landowner was entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the proposed sale. State v. Hodges, 552 S.W.2d 400, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Award representing past or estimated future costs in connection with the removal and reinstallation of a sawmill, made necessary by the taking of a tract on which the owner conducted the sawmill and lumber business, was affirmed, since the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences to be drawn from their testimony were proper issues for resolution by the jury. State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, 575 S.W.2d 500, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. 1979).

Not all pecuniary losses suffered by a landowner from eminent domain are compensable, but only those authorized by the statutory provisions. State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, 575 S.W.2d 500, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. 1979).

7. —Date Determined.

Where a railroad company, having given bond to abide the final judgment, takes possession during the pendency of the proceedings, but before judgment fixing the amount of damages, the amount of damages recoverable should be awarded as of the date when the possession was actually taken. Chicago, S. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Moggridge, 116 Tenn. 445, 92 S.W. 1114, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1906); Snowden v. Shelby County, 118 Tenn. 725, 102 S.W. 90, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1907).

Where a railroad company takes possession under a deed from the life tenant, though purporting to convey the entire estate and not a mere life estate in the right-of-way, the measure of damages recoverable by the remainderman is the value thereof at the termination of the life estate, and not at the date of the taking. Southern R. Co. v. Jennings, 130 Tenn. 450, 171 S.W. 82, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1914).

The damages recoverable by a remainderman for the appropriation of land under a deed from the life tenant, in which the remainderman joined while an infant, were properly assessed as of the date of the death of the life tenant. Chambers v. Chattanooga Union R. Co., 130 Tenn. 459, 171 S.W. 84, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1914).

The value of land taken by eminent domain and the damages, if any, to the land remaining are to be based upon a fair cash market value of the property on the date of the taking. Love v. Smith, 566 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 1978).

8. —Value of Land Without Deduction.

The provision of this section that the jury shall give the value of the land, without deduction, has reference to the land of owners, which may be used for all purposes. RAILROAD v. TELEGRAPH CO., 101 Tenn. 62, 46 S.W. 571, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1898).

Where land or property rights are taken for a public improvement, the trier of facts shall award the value of the land or rights taken without deduction but permit the offset of incidental benefits resulting to the owner by reason of the proposed improvement against any incidental damages. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

9. —Incidental Benefits.

The advantages of more convenient access to property taken are direct benefits to be considered in estimating damages to the residue, though other property on the same street received like advantages, not common to all property in the vicinity. Faulkner v. Nashville, 154 Tenn. 145, 285 S.W. 39, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1926).

Decisions by Tennessee state courts in cases of eminent domain not involving United States to the effect that incidental benefits could only reduce compensation awarded for incidental damages are not controlling in determining amount of compensation to be paid by United States for a taking. United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Indian Creek Marble Co., 40 F. Supp. 811, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2784 (D. Tenn. 1941).

10. —Damages Against United States.

As compliance with this section requires the sovereign United States to pay something “in addition to the compensation provided by the Constitution, and separate from it,” it becomes a matter of substantive law, the statute is not purely procedural, and not applicable under the Conformity Act. United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Indian Creek Marble Co., 40 F. Supp. 811, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2784 (D. Tenn. 1941).

11. Incidental Damages.

Moving expenses of personal property as a result of the appropriation of real property are legitimate damages under this section. Moulton v. George, 208 Tenn. 586, 348 S.W.2d 129, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 325 (1961). See also State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

In condemnation suit to obtain factory site, court held that tenant was entitled to moving expenses for the removal of its equipment and was not required to seek recovery of funds through HUD or as a gratuity of the Federal Housing and Urban Redevelopment. Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill, 497 S.W.2d 917, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

Where parties specified that there were no incidental expenses, expenses of moving could not be made by additur. State ex rel. Smith v. Huffaker, 503 S.W.2d 106, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. 1973).

Where the state introduced evidence of the amount it had already paid for repair of the remaining property and evidence of a larger sum representing the cost of repair without specifying whether that sum represented the total cost of repair, part of which had been paid, or the remaining cost of repair, it was up to the state to clarify the relationship between these two elements of cost and the state could not have cause for complaint when the jury selected the larger figure as the amount of incidental damages awarded. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

The type of expenses comprising incidental damages properly recoverable in eminent domain proceedings falls under T.C.A. § 29-16-114(a) and is a question of law. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The additional items in corporation's “burden rate” added to the per labor-hour of relocation expenses, including the cost of utilities, the cost of health insurance, and the cost of retirement, did not fall under any of the categories for incidental expenses set forth in T.C.A. § 29-16-114(a). Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

12. —Right.

In view of the provision for estimating incidental damages to land not taken, bill alleging right to incidental damages to sloughs where all surrounding land was taken for park purposes and to enjoin condemnation suit until determination of title is not maintainable, remedy at law being adequate. A court of law can try title and has exclusive jurisdiction in condemnation proceedings. Hombra v. Smith, 159 Tenn. 308, 17 S.W.2d 921, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1929).

Because of the statutory right to incidental damages, the landowner need not file cross bill for damages to land not taken, but where he does, the allegation of ownership of land not taken may be contested by petitioner in condemnation proceedings, in which case the proper practice is for the court to determine the title in advance of the assessment of damages. Hombra v. Smith, 159 Tenn. 308, 17 S.W.2d 921, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1929).

Incidental benefits and damages provided by this section in eminent domain suits are statutory and are in addition to just compensation provided by fifth amendment. United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Indian Creek Marble Co., 40 F. Supp. 811, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2784 (D. Tenn. 1941).

Where private property is taken for a public purpose under the law of eminent domain, the condemning authority is required to pay the owner “just compensation” and such incidental damages as are provided by statute. Knoxville Housing Authority, Inc. v. Bush, 56 Tenn. App. 464, 408 S.W.2d 407, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

13. —Common Law Rule.

The common law rule is that the owners of adjacent lands, no part of which has been taken for a railroad right-of-way, are not entitled to compensation for damages naturally and unavoidably resulting from the proper conduct of the railroad and which are shared generally by the owners whose lands lie within the range of the inconveniences necessarily incident to proximity to a railroad, including noises and vibrations incident to the running of trains, the necessary emission of smoke and sparks from the locomotives, and similar annoyances inseparable from the normal and nonnegligent operation of a railroad. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

14. —Scope of Right.

Where a narrow strip of land along the frontage of lots is condemned so as to cut off the remainder from access to an existing railroad frontage, resulting in the impairment or destruction of the usefulness of the remainder for manufacturing sites, the incidental damages thus resulting to the remaining land must be allowed. Wray v. Knoxville, L. F. & J. R. Co., 113 Tenn. 544, 82 S.W. 471, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1904); Vaulx v. Tennessee Cent. R.R., 120 Tenn. 316, 108 S.W. 1142, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1907), superseded by statute as stated in, Gardner v. Steinforth, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 1994).

Store owner was not entitled to incidental damages for the costs involved in moving personal property from store located on property condemned. Lenzi v. Memphis Union Station Co., 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 218 (1913).

The provision for incidental damages is construed to be confined to the owner of land, a part of which is taken, and gives no relief to the owners of mere neighboring or adjacent lands, to which incidental loss accrues, by reason of the lawful establishment and operation of the public improvement; and they are left to the common law which gives no remedy for mere consequential damages, but only in case the injury amounts to a nuisance or taking. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

The compensation recoverable by the landowner as incidental and consequential damages for the diminution of the value of the residue of his land after the condemnation of a part includes anything which would injure the market value of the remaining land, in an appreciable degree that is capable of ascertainment in dollars and cents. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

A landowner conveying a right-of-way to a railroad company cannot recover damages caused to his other land by the construction of a fill with a culvert therein, collecting surface water and casting it on such other land in a body, where no negligence in the construction of the track or of the culvert is alleged and shown. Knott v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 144 Tenn. 676, 234 S.W. 1003, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 63, 19 A.L.R. 482 (1921).

Railroad was not entitled to recover damages for cost of construction of new bridge following condemnation of railroad's right-of-way by drainage district for route of canal. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. Co. v. Middle Fork Obion Drainage Dist., 149 Tenn. 490, 261 S.W. 975, 1923 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1924).

Where the property right taken is the right of access to an abutting street, the fact that the property has other access or is given access in the course of construction is a material factor to take into consideration in determining the before and after value of the property and consequently the value of the access taken. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Stokely v. Southern R. Co., 57 Tenn. App. 271, 418 S.W.2d 255, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Incidental damages compensable under this section are those relating to the part of the land remaining to a landowner after part of his land has been taken for a public improvement and the reasonable expenses of removing furniture, household belongings, fixtures, equipment or machinery made necessary by the taking of the property. Knoxville Housing Authority, Inc. v. Bush, 56 Tenn. App. 464, 408 S.W.2d 407, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

A property owner may remove any fixture which the condemner has not sought by his petition to condemn, with the property owner being entitled to the full cost of disassembling, removal, and reassembling, as provided in this section, but not to exceed the cost of replacement. Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971).

The purpose of the general assembly, in providing for payment of costs of removal in eminent domain proceedings, was to make the property owner whole, but in no case may the cost of disassembling, removal, and reassembling in the new location exceed the cost of buying and installing similar articles. Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971).

Freight and shipping costs incurred by owner of sawmill and lumber business in connection with the sale and liquidation of his inventory of lumber store on the condemned site were not moving expenses under this section, but were normal operating expenses incurred in the sale of merchandise through regular trade channels. State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, 575 S.W.2d 500, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. 1979).

It should be made affirmatively to appear that the property owner receives the full cost of removal or replacement, but no more than the full cost of removal or replacement. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

15. —Separate Report.

The amounts awarded by the trial jury for the value of the land taken and for the incidental damages to the remainder of the land should be reported separately in the verdict, though a joint judgment for both together may be rendered. Union R. Co. v. Raine, 114 Tenn. 569, 86 S.W. 857, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1905).

16. —Necessity that Part be Condemned.

Owners of land, no part of which has been taken for public purpose, are not entitled to compensation for damages naturally and unavoidably resulting from the careful construction and operation of the public improvement which damages are shared generally by the owners whose lands lie within the range of the inconveniences necessarily attending that improvement, but owners of land, part of which is taken for public improvement, are entitled to such damages so accruing to the remainder of the land. State v. Rascoe, 181 Tenn. 43, 178 S.W.2d 392, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1944).

17. —Instruction as to Incidental Damages.

Where it appears that the remainder of the tract of land, left after the appropriation, was valuable for manufacturing sites, and that the several existing railroads running in front of it and on the outer side of the proposed railroad had the right to build switches and spur tracks across each other and over the proposed railroad in order to reach any manufacturing plant thereon, the jury should be instructed that in estimating the incidental damages they must consider that none of the existing roads were cut off from access to the property by the construction of the proposed road, and the failure is reversible error. Union R. Co. v. Raine, 114 Tenn. 569, 86 S.W. 857, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (1905).

18. —Excessive — Remittitur.

Where there was a verdict and judgment for $5,775 as the value of a strip taken through a 56 acre tract of land, and of $32,000 as for incidental damages, and the testimony as to the amount of incidental damages showed considerable disagreement of opinion, not only as between the opposing witnesses but as between the witnesses on the same side, justice required a remittitur of $10,000 in reduction of such incidental damages as a condition of affirmance, or that otherwise a new trial would be granted. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

19. —Removal Expenses.

Where machinery was not located on part of property taken and the taking did not make necessary the removal of the machinery, no removal expenses were recoverable. Thompson Bros. Inv. Co. v. State, 60 Tenn. App. 92, 444 S.W.2d 180, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

Moving expenses are incidental damages and are to be paid along with the judgment for the taking and cannot be deferred until the cost of removal has been incurred. Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971).

Where one chose to sell his inventory rather than move it he could not claim any loss of profits as moving expenses. State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, 533 S.W.2d 283, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. 1976).

Nothing in this section or its predecessors indicates that the general assembly intended to compensate a landowner for removal of equipment, fixtures, or the like from land already in the state's possession. Commissioner of Dep't of Transp. v. Ben Lomand Tel. Co-op, Inc., 617 S.W.2d 146, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Where prior to the entering of final judgment it was established that, due to total destruction of goods by fire, moving expenses could not be reasonably necessary in the future, the trial judge erred in not granting a remittitur of the award given to cover those moving expenses. State ex rel. Commissioner of Transp. v. Edmonds, 614 S.W.2d 381, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

20. —Loss of Profits.

There is no provision in this section for loss of profits incurred upon the voluntary or involuntary liquidation of an inventory. State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, 533 S.W.2d 283, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. 1976).

21. Interest on Damages.

Interest will be allowed on the amount of damages assessed for the landowner from the date of the order of condemnation and the appointment of the jury of view; or, if possession was taken before such condemnation, then interest will be allowed from the time the possession of the land was actually taken. East T., V & G. R.R. Co. v. Burnett's Ex'rs, 79 Tenn. 525, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1883); Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510, 13 S.W. 123, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 72, 8 L.R.A. 123 (1890); Chicago, S. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Moggridge, 116 Tenn. 445, 92 S.W. 1114, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1906); Snowden v. Shelby County, 118 Tenn. 725, 102 S.W. 90, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1907); Cunningham v. Memphis R. T. Co., 126 Tenn. 343, 149 S.W. 103, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (1912).

An assignment of error with reference to the allowance of interest in a condemnation proceeding will be overruled, where the matter was not called to the attention of the court, on motion for a new trial. Southern R. Co. v. Pouder, 141 Tenn. 197, 208 S.W. 332, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 80 (1919).

Interest is allowable from the date of judgment. Tennessee Eastern Electric Co. v. Link, 6 Tenn. App. 617, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

Interest on award would run from date of issuance of writ of inquiry. Shook & Fletcher Supply Co. v. Nashville, 47 Tenn. App. 339, 338 S.W.2d 237, 1960 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).

22. Assignment of Right.

A quitclaim deed for the land, through which a railroad company claims and enjoys an easement for its right-of-way, made by the landowner subsequent to the accrual of his right to compensation, does not operate to assign the right to damages to his vendee, unless it is expressly embraced. Smith v. Nashville & K. R. Co., 88 Tenn. 611, 13 S.W. 128, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1890).

23. Easement Condemned — Damages.

Where a power company condemned an easement over a strip of land, it was liable as if fee had been taken. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Beard, 152 Tenn. 348, 277 S.W. 889, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1925); Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Burkhalter, 8 Tenn. App. 380, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (1928).

Where petitioner obtained a permanent easement in a strip of land, it became liable for value of that strip. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Beard, 152 Tenn. 348, 277 S.W. 889, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1925); Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Burkhalter, 8 Tenn. App. 380, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (1928).

24. Dedicated Lands.

Where land was the subject of a valid, subsisting offer of dedication for public use which ripened into an irrevocable dedication when the state started construction of a highway before the offer had been withdrawn, defendants were not entitled to receive compensation for the dedicated land. Smith v. Black, 547 S.W.2d 947, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

25. Evidence.

Although all uses of the property should be considered in determining the damages awarded, a landowner should not be permitted to present evidence that strays to a consideration of unlikely contingencies of speculative and potential uses which are unfeasible or remote in likelihood or in time, given the circumstances and location of the property. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

26. —Burden of Proof.

Circuit court committed reversible error when it refused to allow city to offer evidence on value of property after property owner had submitted evidence on value, since burden of proof on value of property was upon owner after city had established its right to take. Erin v. Brooks, 190 Tenn. 407, 230 S.W.2d 397, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 500 (1950).

27. —Incidental Detriment.

In determining incidental damages to that part of land remaining after the state had condemned part of an owner's land for the purpose of leasing such land to the federal government as an air base where the trial did not occur until several months after the taking, the jury might properly have been permitted to consider apprehension on the part of the landowner of injury from the operation of airplanes in close proximity to the houses on the land in estimating compensation to which the owner was entitled. State v. Rascoe, 181 Tenn. 43, 178 S.W.2d 392, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1944).

In a suit by the state to condemn land to be leased to the federal government for an air base where the trial was several months after the actual taking of the land, evidence as to incidental damages to that part of the land which was not taken, which resulted because of the construction of sewer lines and flowage from such sewers over a part of the remaining land, and because of the closing of a road to such land was properly admitted even though such damages occurred after the taking, and even though such damages occurred after the federal government took over the land. State v. Rascoe, 181 Tenn. 43, 178 S.W.2d 392, 1944 Tenn. LEXIS 344 (1944).

28. —Valuation of Land for Tax Assessment.

The courts know, judicially and as a part of the financial history of the state, that land is never assessed for purposes of taxation at its real cash market value, though that may be the law, but only in comparison with other lands around it. Wray v. Knoxville, L. F. & J. R. Co., 113 Tenn. 544, 82 S.W. 471, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1904).

The law does not require the owner to value his real estate, but merely to describe it for the purposes of assessment for taxation. If the owner values the land, the court will presume that he did not place the real market value upon it, but merely its comparative value. Wray v. Knoxville, L. F. & J. R. Co., 113 Tenn. 544, 82 S.W. 471, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1904).

29. —Sales of Similar Property.

Evidence of other sales of similar property is generally competent in ascertaining the value of the land taken. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

Exclusion of evidence as to the value of the land condemned by sales previously made, before certain improvements in the way of parks and boulevards, is not reversible error. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

In regard to the degree of similarity which must exist between the property concerning which such proof is offered and the property taken and the nearness in respect of time and distance, no general rules can be laid down. These are matters with which the trial judge is usually conversant, and they must rest largely in his discretion; but his discretion is not unlimited and will, in proper cases, be reviewed by the appellate court. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

30. —Sales of Land Condemned.

Evidence, by one of the landowners that their reason for not making any effort to sell the land for 25 years was that the land was held on account of the flattering prospects of increase in value by reason of so many improvements going on in the neighborhood, was properly admitted, because it was relevant to meet the inference to be drawn from the otherwise unexplained fact that the land had been held from the market for so long a time. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

31. —Benefits.

Where it was not contended that there were any incidental benefits to defendant landowner, and no controversy existed as to the right of condemnation, it is harmless error to admit evidence that defendant's land would be benefited by the railroad, and contrary evidence that the railroad was a departmental line of a trunk line road, to be used to transport fast through trains around Nashville, without entering the terminals, from which it would be inferred that there would be no stops made on defendant's land. Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 134 Tenn. 293, 183 S.W. 985, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 162 (1916).

In condemnation proceeding for the taking of property for interstate highway it was prejudicial error to admit evidence as to anticipated enhancement of value by reason of the very improvement for which the property was taken. State Dep't of Highways v. Jennings, 58 Tenn. App. 594, 435 S.W.2d 481, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

32. —Fair Market Value.

In applying the fair market value standard in general, the jury should consider all uses to which the property might reasonably be put as of the time of the taking. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Just as fair market value is the standard for measuring the value of property actually taken and for fixing compensation therefor, decline in fair market value is the test of compensation for damage to land remaining after a partial taking. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

There is no absolute prohibition against admitting evidence of rental value, at least where it is presented and interpreted by an expert as a criterion in his assessment of the property's fair market value. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

In determining what constitutes fair cash market value the jury must consider all capabilities of the property and all the legitimate uses for which it is available and reasonably adapted. Love v. Smith, 566 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 1978).

Expert witnesses in expressing their opinions of value should not be allowed to give their opinions as to the value of property for a particular purpose. Love v. Smith, 566 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 1978).

The last paragraph of § 67-4102(b), Item S (now § 67-4-409(c)) forbids the introduction of evidence of the contents of affidavits of consideration or value required by that statute, whether by way of direct evidence or cross examination. Love v. Smith, 566 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. 1978).

33. —Value for Specific Purpose.

The effect of the Davidson County rule which prohibits testimony of value for a single particular purpose is to exclude evidence of a particular use when it reaches the point of being an unreasonable emphasis on that use and not merely an explanation of the witness's valuation process. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

A witness in an eminent domain proceeding will not be allowed to state the value of the property for a specific purpose in order to protect against an overemphasis on the use for which the property was being taken, and to prevent the jury from valuing it in terms of its particular importance to the condemner. Davidson County Board of Education v. First American Nat'l Bank, 202 Tenn. 9, 301 S.W.2d 905, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (1957); State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Witnesses' discussion of the problems of constructing a commercial building on the property that remained after the taking was neither outside the bounds of reasonableness as an explanation of their expert evaluation testimony nor an undue overemphasis on value for a particular use, and did not run afoul of the Davidson County rule. State v. Parkes, 557 S.W.2d 504, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

34. Personal Property.

The provisions of the Code which authorized acquisition of real property by housing authorities made no provision for condemnation of personal property, and housing authority could not acquire personal property by eminent domain. Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971).

This section relates only to real property and did not apply to an outdoor advertising billboard attached to the land. State ex rel. Commissioner v. Teasley, 913 S.W.2d 175, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, State ex rel. Comm'r Dep't of Transp. v. Teasley, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 1995).

35. Witnesses.

The owner may not prove, either by his witness or independently, that the witness was first employed by the condemning authority to make the appraisal on the land condemned, or that he was paid by the condemning authority for making such appraisal. State ex rel. Smith v. Wilkinson-Snowden-McGehee, Inc., 571 S.W.2d 842, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).

36. Summary Judgment.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 71 does not preclude the use of summary judgment in condemnation proceedings. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Scope of Right.

A mortgage prepayment penalty did not fit into any category of incidental damages provided by this section and could not be recovered. Knoxville Housing Authority, Inc. v. Bush, 56 Tenn. App. 464, 408 S.W.2d 407, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966) (Decided before amendment).

Collateral References. 26, 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 150-356.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 136.

Admissibility, in eminent domain proceeding, of evidence as to price paid for condemned real property during pendency of the proceeding. 55 A.L.R.2d 781.

Admissibility, in eminent domain proceedings, of evidence as to price paid for condemned real property on sale prior to the proceeding. 55 A.L.R.2d 791.

Admissibility of evidence of proposed or possible subdivision or platting of condemned land on issue of value in eminent domain proceedings. 26 A.L.R.3d 780.

Admissibility of hearsay evidence as to comparable sales of other land as basis for expert's opinion as to land value. 12 A.L.R.3d 1064, 89 A.L.R.4th 456.

Admissibility on issue of value of real property of evidence of sale price of other real property. 85 A.L.R.2d 110.

Are different estates or interests in real property taken under eminent domain to be valued separately, or is entire property to be valued as a unit and the amount apportioned among separate interests. 69 A.L.R. 1263,   .

Assemblage or plottage as factor affecting value in eminent domain proceedings. 8 A.L.R.4th 1202.

Changes in purchasing power of money as affecting compensation in eminent domain proceedings. 92 A.L.R.2d 772.

Compensation for diminution in value of the remainder of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land of others for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Compensation for interest prepayment penalty in eminent domain proceedings. 84 A.L.R.3d 946.

Compensation or damages for condemning a public utility plant. 68 A.L.R.2d 392.

Condemned property's location in relation to proposed site of building complex or similar improvement as factor in fixing compensation. 51 A.L.R.3d 1050.

Condemner's liability for costs of condemnee's expert witnesses. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Constitutionality of statute which permits consideration of enhanced value of lands not taken. 68 A.L.R. 784.

Contractual rights, frustration of, as item of damages where another's real property is taken in eminent domain. 152 A.L.R. 307.

Cost to property owner of moving personal property as element of damages or compensation in eminent domain proceedings. 69 A.L.R.2d 1453.

Counsel's use, in trial of condemnation proceeding, of chart, diagram or blackboard, not introduced in evidence, relating to damages or the value of the property condemned. 80 A.L.R.2d 1270.

Deduction of benefits in determining compensation or damage in eminent domain. 145 A.L.R. 7.

Deduction of benefits in determining compensation or damages in proceedings involving opening, widening, or otherwise altering highway. 13 A.L.R.3d 1149.

De minimis non curat lex as applied to damages in condemnation proceeding. 44 A.L.R. 188.

Depreciation in value, from project for which land is condemned, as a factor in fixing compensation. 5 A.L.R.3d 901.

Determination in eminent domain proceedings of market value of land as affected by mineral deposits or similar conditions. 156 A.L.R. 1416.

Diversion of traffic by relocation or rerouting of highway, right of property owner to compensation for. 118 A.L.R. 921.

Elements and measure of compensation for oil or gas pipeline through private property. 38 A.L.R.2d 788, 23 A.L.R.4th 631.

Elements and measure of compensation in eminent domain for temporary use and occupancy. 7 A.L.R.2d 1297.

Elements and measure of compensation in eminent domain proceeding for temporary taking of property. 49 A.L.R.6th 205.

Eminent domain: Compensability of loss of view from owner's property—state cases. 25 A.L.R.4th 671.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Eminent domain: Cost of substitute facilities as measure of compensation to state or municipality for condemnation of public property. 40 A.L.R.3d 143.

Eminent domain: Right of owner of land not originally taken or purchased as part of adjacent project to recover, on enlargement of project to include adjacent land, enhanced value of property by reason of proximity to original land — state cases. 95 A.L.R.3d 752.

Eminent domain: Unity or contiguity of separate properties sufficient to allow damages for diminished value of parcel remaining after taking of other parcel. 59 A.L.R.4th 308.

Existence of restrictive covenant as element in fixing value of property condemned. 22 A.L.R.3d 961.

Expense of flagmen, gates, and automatic signal as items of compensation. 4 A.L.R. 137.

Fee owner, measure of compensation to. 8 A.L.R. 1293, 19 A.L.R. 383.

Fences, expense of building and maintaining, as element of damages. 10 A.L.R. 451.

Fire risk or hazard as element of damages in condemnation proceedings. 63 A.L.R.2d 313.

Fixtures or chattels used in connection with real property taken or damaged, compensation in respect of. 90 A.L.R. 159.

Flooding property under right of eminent domain, damages for. 106 A.L.R. 955.

Flood protection measures, damages occasioned by. 5 A.L.R.2d 57.

General governmental policy (distinguished from specific project) as affecting compensation allowable in eminent domain. 167 A.L.R. 502.

Good will as element of damages for condemnation of property on which private business is conducted. 81 A.L.R.3d 198.

Good will or “going concern” value as element of lessee's compensation for taking leasehold in eminent domain. 58 A.L.R.3d 566, 17 A.L.R.4th 337.

Income as element in determining value of property taken in eminent domain. 65 A.L.R. 455.

Increment to value, from project for which part of land is condemned, as a factor in fixing compensation. 147 A.L.R. 66.

Leasehold, elements and measure of lessee's compensation for taking or damaging. 58 A.L.R.3d 566, 17 A.L.R.4th 337.

Loss of liquor license as compensable in condemnation proceeding. 58 A.L.R.3d 581.

Measure of compensation to owner of fee when telegraph or telephone line is erected along railroad right-of-way or highway. 8 A.L.R. 1296, 19 A.L.R. 383.

Measure of damages for condemnation of lands of cemetery. 42 A.L.R.3d 1314.

Measure of damages or compensation in eminent domain as affected by premises being restricted to particular educational, religious, charitable, or noncommercial use. 29 A.L.R.5th 36.

Measure of damages or compensation where property is taken to widen street. 64 A.L.R. 1513.

Power or other wire lines over private property, remote damages for. 49 A.L.R. 702, 124 A.L.R. 407.

Promissory statements of condemner as to character of use or undertakings to be performed by it, compensation for taking as affected by. 7 A.L.R.2d 364.

Recovery of value of improvements made with knowledge of impending condemnation. 98 A.L.R.3d 504.

Restrictive covenant or right to enforcement thereof as compensable property right. 4 A.L.R.3d 1137.

Rights in condemnation award where land taken was subject to possible rights of reverter or re-entry. 81 A.L.R.2d 568.

Right to compensation for improvements made under authority, or color thereof, by body having power of eminent domain, before exercise of that power. 34 A.L.R. 1082.

Right to compensation in eminent domain on basis of entire extent of property or complete use ultimately contemplated in excess of present requirements. 75 A.L.R. 855.

Right to damages or compensation upon condemnation of property, of holder of unexercised option to purchase. 85 A.L.R.2d 588.

Riparian rights, damages in eminent domain as affected by actual or potential value of, in connection with other property. 58 A.L.R. 796.

Second eminent domain proceeding, compensation in. 18 A.L.R. 569.

Special value or adaptability of property for purpose for which it is taken as an element of, or matter for consideration in fixing, damages in condemnation proceedings. 124 A.L.R. 910.

Temporary appropriation of, or injury to real property by municipality or other public authority, measure of owner's damages for. 87 A.L.R. 1384, 151 A.L.R. 279.

Temporary closing or obstruction during repairs or reconstruction of street or highway, under statutes in that regard, measure of damages for injury resulting from. 120 A.L.R. 896.

Tenant, cost to, of removing fixtures or personal property, as affecting compensation. 58 A.L.R.3d 566, 17 A.L.R.4th 337.

Tenant's right to remove buildings or other fixtures as affecting his right to compensation in respect to such improvements in condemnation proceeding. 75 A.L.R. 1495.

The owner's right to compensation on condemnation for public street of property burdened with easement in nature of street, private or public. 17 A.L.R. 1249.

Traffic noise and vibration from highway as element of damages in eminent domain. 51 A.L.R.3d 860.

Unsightliness of powerline or other wire, or related structure, as element of damages in easement condemnation proceeding. 97 A.L.R.3d 587.

Use or improvement of highway as establishing grade necessary to entitle abutting owner to compensation on subsequent change. 2 A.L.R.3d 985.

Validity, construction, and effect of state or lease provision expressly governing rights and compensation of lessee upon condemnation of leased property. 22 A.L.R.5th 327.

Valuation at time of original wrongful entry by condemner or at time of subsequent initiation of condemnation proceedings. 2 A.L.R.3d 1038.

Valuation of land and improvements and fixtures thereon separately or as units. 1 A.L.R.2d 878.

War, amount and sufficiency of compensation for property confiscated or requisitioned during. 137 A.L.R. 1300, 147 A.L.R. 1297, 148 A.L.R. 1384, 149 A.L.R. 1451.

Zoning as a factor in determination of damages in eminent domain. 9 A.L.R.3d 291.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

Eminent domain 149(6).

Chapter 17
Eminent Domain by Public Agencies

Compiler's Notes. A new part 1 was enacted and former parts 1-12 of this chapter were reorganized by Acts 2006, ch. 863, effective July 1, 2006. The former parts are codified as follows:

Former Sections  Disposition

29-17-101 — 29-17-103 29-17-201 — 29-17-203

29-17-201 — 29-17-202 29-17-301 — 29-17-302

29-17-301 29-17-401

29-17-401 — 29-17-404 29-17-501 — 29-17-504

29-17-501 — 29-17-502 29-17-601 — 29-17-602

29-17-601 — 29-17-613 29-17-701 — 29-17-713

29-17-701 — 29-17-702 29-17-801 — 29-17-802

29-17-801 — 29-17-814 29-17-901 — 29-17-914

29-17-1201 — 29-17-1202 29-17-1001 — 29-17-1002

Part 1
Power and Use of Eminent Domain — General Provisions

29-17-101. Legislative intent.

It is the intent of the general assembly that the power of eminent domain shall be used sparingly, and that laws permitting the use of eminent domain shall be narrowly construed so as not to enlarge, by inference or inadvertently, the power of eminent domain.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Blighted areas and dilapidation defined, § 13-20-201.

Industrial park certificate requirements, § 13-16-107.

Transfer of land acquired by eminent domain, § 29-17-1003.

Law Reviews.

Property Rights vs. Public Use: Analyzing Tennessee's Response to Kelo Eminent Domain Ruling (Scott Griswold), 43 Tenn B.J. 14 (2007).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Voluntary Dismissal.

Trial court erred in permitting a county to voluntarily dismiss its petition for condemnation of a family's property because voluntary dismissal by the county after the trial court granted it ownership and the legal right of possession, leaving only the issue of compensation to be decided, was precluded; while the county had actual physical possession of the property prior to the filing of the condemnation action, its possession was bare, the county did not actually have the right to own and possess the property free of any claim by the family until entry of the consent order, and the right of possession was distinct from actual physical possession, which the county already enjoyed. Shelby County v. Crews, 315 S.W.3d 477, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. May 12, 2010).

2. Damages.

Where a city's construction project temporarily interrupted ingress and egress to a leaseholder's business, award of damages for inverse condemnation was not warranted under T.C.A. § 29-17-101 et seq.Frank v. Gov't of Morristown, 294 S.W.3d 566, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2008), appeal denied, Frank v. Gov't of City of Morristown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Jan. 20, 2009).

Collateral References.

Zoning scheme, plan, or ordinance as temporary taking. 55 A.L.R.6th 635.

29-17-102. Part definitions.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Eminent domain” means the authority conferred upon the government, and those entities to whom the government delegates such authority, to condemn and take, in whole or in part, the private property of another, so long as the property is taken for a legitimate public use in accordance with the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Tennessee, Art. I, § 21, and chapter 863 of the Public Acts of 2006; and
  2. “Public use” shall not include either private use or benefit, or the indirect public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunity, except as follows:
    1. The acquisition of any interest in land necessary for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation;
    2. The acquisition of any interest in land necessary to the function of a public or private utility, a governmental or quasi-governmental utility, a common carrier, or any entity authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain under title 65;
    3. The acquisition of property by a housing authority or community development agency to implement an urban renewal or redevelopment plan in a blighted area, as authorized by title 13, chapter 20, part 2 or title 13, chapter 21, part 2; or
    4. Private use that is merely incidental to a public use, so long as no land is condemned or taken primarily for the purpose of conveying or permitting the incidental private use.
    5. [Deleted by 2017 amendment.]

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1; 2017, ch. 422, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall apply to takings or condemnation actions initiated on or after May 18, 2017.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment deleted (E) in the definition of “Public use” which read, “(E) The acquisition of property by a county, city, or town for an industrial park, as authorized by title 13, chapter 16, part 2.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7. May 18, 2017.

Cross-References. Blighted areas and dilapidation defined, § 13-20-201.

Industrial park certificate requirements, § 13-16-107.

Transfer of land acquired by eminent domain, § 29-17-1003.

Law Reviews.

Property Rights vs. Public Use: Analyzing Tennessee's Response to Kelo Eminent Domain Ruling (Scott Griswold), 43 Tenn B.J. 14 (2007).

Cited: City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Public Use.

Construction and maintenance of electric utility lines was an established public use because a public utility's facilities had to be moved for a road improvement at an intersection, and the relocation of the utility poles was required for the utility to continue to provide utility services to the public in that area. City of Memphis v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family, L.L.C., 391 S.W.3d 60, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2012), appeal denied, City of Memphis v. Family, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Jan. 9, 2013).

29-17-103. Preemption.

In event of a conflict between this part and any other statutes granting the authority to use the power of eminent domain by government entities, or those entities to whom the government delegates such authority, this part shall control and shall be construed to protect the private property rights of individuals and businesses, such that private property may only be condemned and taken for legitimate public use as defined in § 29-17-102.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Blighted areas and dilapidation defined, § 13-20-201.

Industrial park certificate requirements, § 13-16-207.

Transfer of land acquired by eminent domain, § 29-17-1003.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Interpretation.

T.C.A. § 13-16-207(f) did not preempt the general condemnation authority set out in T.C.A. § 29-17-301 and, thus, did not violate T.C.A. § 29-17-103. City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

29-17-104. Condemnation proceedings.

  1. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in any condemnation proceedings initiated in this state:
    1. Notice of the filing of a petition to institute condemnation proceedings shall be given to each respondent at least thirty (30) days prior to the taking of any additional steps in the case. If the respondent is unknown, is a nonresident of the state, or cannot be found, notice shall be given by publication, which shall be made in the same manner as provided by law for similar situations in chancery court; and
      1. After the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of the giving of notice, if the right to take has not been challenged in an answer, the condemner shall have the right to take possession of the property or property rights sought to be condemned; and
      2. If the right to take is challenged in an answer within thirty (30) days from the date of the giving of  notice, the court shall promptly determine, as a matter of law, whether the condemner has the right to take the property or property rights sought to be condemned. If the court determines that the condemner has the right to take, the condemner shall thereupon have the right to take possession thereof.
  2. When a condemner has the right to take possession of property or property rights, if necessary, the court shall issue a writ of possession to the sheriff of the county to put the condemner in possession. The writ may be issued prior to a trial on the damages.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 15.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

29-17-105. Deposit by the condemner.

If, pursuant to an applicable statute or order of the court, the condemner is required to deposit funds with the court in the amount the condemner deems to be the amount of damages to which the owner is entitled pursuant to the condemnation, and a respondent is not satisfied with the amount deposited by the condemner, or otherwise objects to the taking, then the respondent shall, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of notice of the filing of the petition, file an answer to the petition and a trial may thereafter be had before a petit jury, as other civil actions are tried. The deposit by the condemner shall not limit or fix the amount to be allowed under subsequent proceedings in the action.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 18.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

29-17-106. Taxing of costs.

  1. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in any condemnation proceeding initiated in this state, the bill of costs prepared by the clerk shall be taxed against:
    1. The condemner, if:
      1. The amount of damages awarded at trial exceeds the amount assessed by the condemner and deposited with the clerk;
      2. The condemnation is abandoned by the condemner; or
      3. The final judgment is that the condemner cannot acquire the property or property rights by condemnation; or
    2. The respondents, if the amount of damages awarded at trial does not exceed the amount assessed by the condemner and deposited with the clerk.
    1. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in any condemnation proceeding initiated in this state in which interest in the property is being acquired for a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation, the court shall award the respondents a sum that will reimburse them for their reasonable disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the action, only if the costs are taxed to the condemner pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(B) or (a)(1)(C). The court shall not award this sum if the costs are taxed to the condemner pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A).
    2. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in any condemnation proceeding initiated in this state in which interest in the property is not being acquired for a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation, the court shall award the respondents a sum that will reimburse them for their reasonable disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the action. The court shall not award reasonable attorney fees if the costs are taxed to the condemner pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A).
  2. Rule 54.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the taxing of any additional costs.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 24; 2017, ch. 422, §§ 3, 4.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 1 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-101 —  29-17-103, concerning counties, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 2 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that this section shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall apply to takings or condemnation actions initiated on or after May 18, 2017.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment added (b)(2); and, in present (b)(1), inserted “in which interest in the property is being acquired for a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation,” near the beginning.

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7. May 18, 2017.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attorney's Fees.

There was no abuse of discretion by a trial court in awarding attorney's fees, in compliance with T.C.A. § 29-17-106(b), over and above the agreed upon fee that was paid by a prevailing landowner to the landowner's attorney pursuant to an employment letter. There was no indication in the record, and the city did not provide any counter evidence, to support a finding that the landowner's attorney did not perform the services or incur the time as set out in the affidavit of fees and expenses. City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

Although an appellate court could not find that the appeal by a city from a decision in a condemnation action was frivolous, under the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-17-106(b), as the prevailing party, the landowner was entitled to the landowner's reasonable attorney's fees and costs in defense of the appeal. Therefore, remand of the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amounts of those fees and expenses was necessary. City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

Part 2
Counties

29-17-201. County purposes.

Counties are empowered to condemn and take the property, buildings, privileges, rights, and easements of individuals and private corporations for any county purpose.

Acts 1909, ch. 144, § 2; Shan., § 1880a17; impl. am. Acts 1917, ch. 114, § 1; mod. Code 1932, § 3159; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1501; T.C.A. § 29-17-101; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 2 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-201 and 29-17-202, concerning municipalities, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 3 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Blighted or deteriorated vacant property, eminent domain proceedings, § 13-21-206.

Defense purposes, condemnation by state, § 58-1-504.

Land for institutional water and sewage systems, § 12-1-109.

Notice of eminent domain proceedings, § 6-54-122.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

School boards, condemnation by, § 49-6-2001.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 2, 6, 9.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law (Paul H. Sanders), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1159.

“Just Compensation” for Lessor and Lessee (John D. Johnston, Jr.), 22 Vand. L. Rev. 293.

The Institution and Prosecution of Condemnation Proceedings (Will Allen Wilkerson), 26 Tenn. L. Rev. 325.

Attorney General Opinions. Department of children's services’ leasehold interest in group home is a property interest which would preclude city from condemning the property, OAG 05-025 (3/21/05).

Comparative Legislation. Eminent domain:

Ala.  Code § 18-1A-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-15-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 22-2-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 416.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-27-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 523.010 et seq.

Va. Code Ann. § 25.1-100 et seq.

Cited: Vinson v. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 45 Tenn. App. 161, 321 S.W.2d 841, 1958 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958); Cheatham v. Carter County, 363 F.2d 582, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427, 4 A.L.R. Fed. 226 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1966); Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaner, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (1971); Jackson v. Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Auth., 922 S.W.2d 860, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. 1996).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Compromise and Settlement.

A county condemning right-of-way may by compromise settle its liability to the owner and need not in such instance submit the question to a jury of view. Ray v. Oliphant, 1 Tenn. App. 219, — S.W. —, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1925).

2. Capacity of County.

A county is neither an individual nor a private corporation but a political subdivision of the state and in exercising the right of eminent domain it acts in its governmental capacity pursuant to this and the following sections. Claiborne County v. Jennings, 199 Tenn. 161, 285 S.W.2d 132, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1955).

3. Meaning.

The county court had the right to take land because condemnation for the purpose of a “greenbelt” was a county purpose within the meaning of this section. Shelby County v. Armour, 495 S.W.2d 816, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971).

4. Taking.

Supreme Court of Tennessee held that where sewage had backed up into homes there had been no inverse taking by a publicly-owned, governmental utility district as it had not performed any purposeful or intentional act that had resulted in the damage and the court of appeals had erred when it vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the utility company. Edwards v. Hallsdale-Powell Util. Dist., 115 S.W.3d 461, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. 2003).

City violated T.C.A. § 13-16-107(f) in a condemnation action because the city impermissibly expanded the footprint of a dual purpose industrial and business park to include the owner's property, without first seeking to acquire a new certificate of public purpose and necessity which included the owner's property in the application for the park. The owner's property, which was to be used for the purpose of a pumping station to service the sewer system for the park, was not included within the original application for the certificate of public purpose and necessity that was approved for the park. City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

Collateral References. 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 19, 45, 48, 61, 86.

20 C.J.S. Counties § 166; 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 23.

Condemnation of land by public authority to provide hunting and fishing as affected by question of necessity. 172 A.L.R. 174.

Condemnation of materials for highway or other public or quasi-public work. 172 A.L.R. 131.

Constitutionality of levee and flood control acts. 70 A.L.R. 1281.

Drainage purposes, necessity for taking particular property for, as affecting exercise of eminent domain. 65 A.L.R. 504.

Exercise of eminent domain for purpose of library. 66 A.L.R. 1496.

Federal government, power of state or its political subdivisions to exercise power of eminent domain for benefit of. 143 A.L.R. 1040.

Historical interest, exercise of eminent domain to preserve places of. 59 A.L.R. 945.

Municipal power to condemn land for cemetery. 54 A.L.R.2d 1322.

Propriety of court's consideration of ecological effects of proposed project in determining right of condemnation. 47 A.L.R.3d 1267.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

Rights in respect of real estate taxes where property is taken in eminent domain. 45 A.L.R.2d 522.

United States, state power of eminent domain over property of. 4 A.L.R. 548.

Validity of extraterritorial condemnation by municipality. 44 A.L.R.6th 259.

What constitutes abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemner with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

Eminent domain 287.

29-17-202. County bridges.

All counties authorized to construct bridges are empowered to take and condemn the lands, property, buildings, and riparian and property rights, privileges, and easements of individuals and private corporations for approaches to such bridges and for bridge purposes, or which may be necessary for the construction or use of such bridges.

Acts 1907, ch. 583, § 1; Shan., § 1880a23; mod. Code 1932, § 3160; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1502; T.C.A. § 29-17-102; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 2 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-201 and 29-17-202, concerning municipalities, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 3 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Power to construct bridges, § 54-11-207.

Collateral References. 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 33.

Eminent domain 21.

29-17-203. Taking bridge property pending litigation.

Pending the assessment of damages or any litigation in regard thereto, in any case of authorized taking and condemnation, the counties may give bond, with good and sufficient security payable to the owner or owners of such lands, property, buildings, riparian, or property rights, privileges, or easements, to pay promptly to the owner or owners any amount of damages which may be assessed by the jury as provided for in § 29-17-202; and, upon executing and filing such bond, may thereupon take such lands, property, buildings, riparian and property rights and privileges and easements.

Acts 1907, ch. 583, § 5; Shan., § 1880a27; mod. Code 1932, § 3161; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1503; T.C.A. § 29-17-103; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 2 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-201 and 29-17-202, concerning municipalities, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 3 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 30.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Construction.

This section is applicable only where the county seeks the right of possession of property “pending the assessment of damages or any litigation in regard thereto.” Claiborne County v. Jennings, 199 Tenn. 161, 285 S.W.2d 132, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1955).

Part 3
Municipalities

29-17-301. Powers of municipalities.

All municipal corporations are empowered to take and condemn lands, property, property rights, privileges and easements of others for the purpose of constructing, laying, repairing, or extending sewers, water pipes, natural gas mains and pipes, or drainage ditches, both within and beyond the corporate limits of such cities, and of acquiring ingress and egress in the construction, repairing or maintenance thereof, and in making connection thereto; such property or interest in such property may be so acquired whether or not the same is owned or held for public use by corporations, associations or persons having the power of eminent domain, or otherwise held or used for public purpose; provided, that such prior public use will not be interfered with by this use.

Acts 1917, ch. 31, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 1880a27b1; mod. Code 1932, § 3162; Acts 1951, ch. 219, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1504; Acts 2000, ch. 726, § 2; T.C.A. § 29-17-201; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 3 of this chapter, § 29-17-301, concerning the power of condemnation and appropriations of lands by the University of Tennessee, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 4 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

City manager city, § 6-19-101.

Condemnation by municipal gas companies, §§ 7-39-303, 7-39-304, 7-39-305, 7-39-306, 7-39-307, 39-7-308, 7-39-309.

Electric plant, § 7-52-105.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

Proceeds of condemned municipal property, §§ 6-52-103, 6-52-104.

School purposes, § 49-6-2002.

Sewers and waterworks, §§ 7-35-101, 7-35-102, 7-35-403.

Streets, §§ 7-31-107, 7-31-108, 7-31-109, 7-31-110, 7-31-111.

Utility district, § 7-82-305.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 8, 17.

Attorney General Opinions. A municipality is authorized to take and condemn lands to lay a sewer line through another municipality; however, if the utility is financed under the Revenue Bond Law or the Local Government Public Obligations Act of 1986, the municipality building the utility through the territory of another municipality must obtain the consent of the latter's governing body, OAG 01-098 (6/13/01).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

The municipal condemnation statutes are cumulative to the other condemnation laws of the state. Maryville v. Waters, 207 Tenn. 213, 338 S.W.2d 608, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 449 (1960).

2. Timing.

City violated T.C.A. § 13-16-107(f) in a condemnation action because the city impermissibly expanded the footprint of a dual purpose industrial and business park to include the owner's property, without first seeking to acquire a new certificate of public purpose and necessity which included the owner's property in the application for the park. The owner's property, which was to be used for the purpose of a pumping station to service the sewer system for the park, was not included within the original application for the certificate of public purpose and necessity that was approved for the park. City of Cookeville v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).

Collateral References. 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 19, 45, 48, 61, 86.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 23; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 953.

Applicability of zoning regulations to projects of nongovernmental public utility as affected by utility's power of eminent domain. 87 A.L.R.3d 1265.

Construction and application of rule requiring public use for which property is condemned to be “more necessary” or “higher use” than public use to which property is already appropriated — State takings. 49 A.L.R.5th 769.

Establishment or extension of sewer as a public use or purpose for which power of eminent domain may be exercised. 169 A.L.R. 576.

Fee or merely easement, power of eminent domain conferred upon municipality as authorizing taking of. 79 A.L.R. 515.

Incidental private benefit, effect of. 53 A.L.R. 21.

Propriety of court's consideration of ecological effects of proposed project in determining right of condemnation. 47 A.L.R.3d 1267.

Protection of municipal water supply, constitutionality of statute as to. 72 A.L.R. 673.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

Rights in respect of real estate taxes where property is taken in eminent domain. 45 A.L.R.2d 522.

Street or public place, constitutionality of statute, charter or ordinance which makes actual knowledge or notice of defect in, a condition of municipal liability for personal injuries or damage to property caused thereby. 83 A.L.R. 288.

Validity of extraterritorial condemnation by municipality. 44 A.L.R.6th 259.

Municipal corporations 224.

29-17-302. Procedure by municipalities.

The compensation for damages in taking such lands, property, property rights, privileges, and easements shall be paid by such municipalities, and same shall be condemned and determined in the mode and manner provided by §§ 7-31-1087-31-111, and the rights and powers contained in such sections are extended to and conferred upon all of the municipal corporations.

Acts 1917, ch. 31, § 2; Shan. Supp., § 1880a27b2; mod. Code 1932, § 3163; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1505; T.C.A. § 29-17-202; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 3 of this chapter, § 29-17-301, concerning the power of condemnation and appropriations of lands by the University of Tennessee, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 4 in 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 8.

Collateral References.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Municipal corporations 224.

Part 4
University of Tennessee

29-17-401. University of Tennessee.

  1. The University of Tennessee has the power to condemn and appropriate such lands, property, property rights, privileges and easements of others as in the judgment of its board of trustees, or the executive committee thereof, may be necessary or proper for the purpose of providing buildings and other facilities, building sites, campus grounds, commons, streets, walkways, rights-of-way for utilities and other improvements, and for any extension, enlargement or improvement thereof, for the use and operation of such university and its various units and branches throughout the state.
  2. The compensation for damages in taking of such lands, property, property rights, privileges, and easements shall be paid by such university, and the same shall be condemned and determined in the mode and manner provided in chapter 16 of this title.

Acts 1929, ch. 9, § 1; mod. Code 1932, § 3170; Acts 1957, ch. 349, § 1; 1959, ch. 204, § 1; 1978, ch. 912, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1506; T.C.A. § 29-17-301; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 4 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-40129-17-404, concerning housing authorities, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 5 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Powers of state colleges and universities, § 49-3-1104.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

Cited: Metro. Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Eaton, 216 S.W.3d 327, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Collateral References.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

Part 5
Housing Authorities

29-17-501. Housing authorities — Declaration of taking.

  1. No sooner than thirty (30) days after the filing of a petition by a housing authority, created pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, compiled in title 13, chapter 20, or any other law of this state, for condemnation of property, and before the entry of final judgment, a housing authority may file with the clerk of the court in which the petition is filed a declaration of taking signed by the duly authorized officer or agent of the housing authority, declaring that all or any part of the property described in the petition is being taken for the use of the housing authority.
  2. The declaration of taking shall be sufficient if it sets forth:
    1. A description of the property, sufficient for the identification thereof, to which there may be attached a plat or map thereof;
    2. A statement of the estate or interest in such property being taken; and
    3. A statement of the sum of money estimated by the housing authority to be just compensation for the property taken, which sum shall be not less than the last assessed valuation for tax purposes of the estate or interest in the property to be taken.

Acts 1937, ch. 183, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 3130; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1507; T.C.A. § 29-17-401; Acts 2006, ch. 863, §§ 1, 16.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 5 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-501 and 29-17-502, concerning coast and geodetic surveys, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 6 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 10, 17-27.

Law Reviews.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Local Government Law — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Clyde L. Ball), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1061.

Real Property — Eminent Domain — Reversion Upon Misuse or Nonuse of Land by Condemning Authority. 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 71.

Real Property — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Wade H. Sides, Jr.), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1110.

Cited: Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Collateral References. 26, 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 19, 45, 48, 61, 86, 395, 396.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 23, 64; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 699.

Housing and slum clearance. 130 A.L.R. 1076, 172 A.L.R. 966.

Eminent domain 17.

29-17-502. Withdrawal of petition.

At any time prior to the vesting of title to property in the housing authority, the authority may withdraw or dismiss its petition with respect to any and all of the property therein described.

Acts 1937, ch. 183, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 3130; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1508; T.C.A. § 29-17-402; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 5 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-501 and 29-17-502, concerning coast and geodetic surveys, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 6 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Collateral References.

Abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemnoer with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

What constitutes abandonment of eminent domain proceeding so as to charge condemner with liability for condemnee's expenses or the like. 68 A.L.R.3d 610.

Eminent domain 17.

29-17-503. Vesting of title — Surrender of possession.

  1. From the filing of the declaration of taking and the deposit in court to the use of the persons entitled thereto of the amount of the estimated compensation stated in the declaration, title to the property described as being taken by the declaration shall vest in the housing authority, free from the right, title, interest or lien of all parties to the cause, and such property shall be deemed to be condemned and taken for the use of the housing authority, and the right to just compensation for the same shall vest in the persons entitled thereto.
  2. Upon the filing of the declaration of taking, the court shall designate a day, not exceeding twenty (20) days after such filing, except upon good cause shown, on which the persons in possession shall be required to surrender possession to the authority.

Acts 1937, ch. 183, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 3130; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1509; T.C.A. § 29-17-403; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 5 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-501 and 29-17-502, concerning coast and geodetic surveys, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 6 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Law Reviews.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 317-325.

29-17-504. Determination and payment of compensation.

  1. The ultimate amount of compensation shall be determined pursuant to chapter 16 of this title.
  2. In the event a housing authority files a declaration of taking and pays into court an amount estimated to be fair compensation for such property as provided in §§ 29-17-501 and 29-17-503, the property owner shall have the right to make written request to the clerk of the court wherein such funds have been deposited, to pay to such property owner without prejudice to any of the property owner's rights, the sum so deposited with the clerk, and the clerk shall pay to the owner the sum so deposited; provided the owner agrees to refund the difference between such sum and the final award in the case if the final award be less than the sum so paid into court or that a judgment may be entered against the owner in such case for the difference. Such payment to the property owner or into court shall in nowise limit or fix the amount to be allowed under subsequent proceedings in such case, and any further or additional sum that may be finally awarded in any subsequent proceedings shall bear interest from the date of taking possession of the property or property rights condemned by the condemner; provided, that no interest shall be allowed on the amount deposited with the clerk. The clerk shall be authorized to disburse the deficiency to the defendants as their interests may appear.
  3. In the event the housing authority shall not obtain possession of the property on the date of vesting of title, the ultimate amount of compensation, including any interest paid on the deficiency award, if any, shall be subject to abatement for use, income, rents, or profits derived from such property by the owner thereof subsequent to the vesting of title in the housing authority, and any funds disbursed shall be less the amount of abatement.

Acts 1937, ch. 183, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 3130; Acts 1968, ch. 614, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1510; T.C.A. § 29-17-404; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 5 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-501 and 29-17-502, concerning coast and geodetic surveys, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 6 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 40.

Law Reviews.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Fact that funds could be immediately withdrawn after payment into court by state, county or municipality under part 7 of this chapter or part 8 of this chapter so that no interest was due while housing authorities were required to pay interest on entire amount of award including deposit since there could be no such withdrawal did not amount to an arbitrary classification under Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 8. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

2. Immediate Payment.

The housing authority under this part cannot take property under eminent domain proceedings without paying the landowner immediately since such action would offend Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21. Nashville Housing Authority v. Doyle, 197 Tenn. 555, 276 S.W.2d 722, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1955). See also Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

Landowners do not have right to immediately withdraw deposit paid into court under this part but must await final determination of compensation. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

3. Interest on Compensation.

Interest will be allowed under this section on compensation paid into court from the time of the taking of the property by the filing of the declaration of taking. Nashville Housing Authority v. Doyle, 197 Tenn. 555, 276 S.W.2d 722, 1955 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1955). See also Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

Landowners were entitled to interest through the date of the final decree of the trial court awarding compensation. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966) (Decided before 1968 amendment).

Since landowner cannot withdraw deposit until final determination of amount of award, he is entitled to interest on both the deposit and any additional award. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

4. —Withdrawal Impossible.

In condemnation suit to obtain factory site where housing authority tendered money into court but made no attempt to apportion or allocate amount between fee owners so that they were unable to withdraw any amount, fee owners were entitled to interest on amount tendered from date of taking to final decree less interest earned. Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill, 497 S.W.2d 917, 1972 Tenn. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972).

5. Tenants by the Entirety.

Where a husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, sued the county in an inverse condemnation suit for the value of land taken to widen a public road, and the county asserted that they both were barred by reason of a conveyance of the land condemned to the county by the husband alone, the court held that, since all vestiges of the common law disability of coverture have been removed in Tennessee, only the husband was barred and the wife was entitled to immediate payment of an amount representing the value of the land taken. Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. 1974).

6. Incidental Damages.

The type of expenses comprising incidental damages properly recoverable in eminent domain proceedings falls under T.C.A. § 29-26-114(a) and is a question of law. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The language of T.C.A. § 29-16-113(a) does not indicate that the legislature intended for the jury to assess incidental damages as well as compensation for the property and improvements. Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc., 40 S.W.3d 73, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Collateral References.

Admissibility of evidence of proposed or possible subdivision or platting of condemned land on issue of value in eminent domain proceedings. 26 A.L.R.3d 780.

Compensation for diminution in value of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Eminent domain 83.

Part 6
Coast and Geodetic Surveys

29-17-601. Coast and geodetic survey.

Any person employed under an act of congress of the United States, passed on August 6, 1947, and of the supplements thereto, or under the direction of congress, to provide charts and related information for the safe navigation of marine and air commerce and for other purposes, may enter upon lands within this state for the purpose of exploring, triangulating, leveling, surveying, and of doing any other act which may be necessary to carry out the objects of such laws, and may erect any works, stations, buildings, and appendages requisite for that purpose, doing no unnecessary injury thereby.

Acts 1877, ch. 24, § 1; Shan., § 1877; Code 1932, § 3142; modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1511; T.C.A. § 29-17-501; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. This section formerly referred to the act of congress “passed the tenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and seven” and for its purposes contained the words “to form a geodetic connection between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and to furnish triangulation points for state surveys.” That Act of February 10, 1807, which created the geodetic survey for the purposes indicated in the former language of this section has been repealed and the Act of August 6, 1947, referred to in the present section, created the coast and geodetic survey as the present successor to the former geodetic survey, for the purposes shown in the present section.

For act of congress of August 6, 1947 see 33 U.S.C. § 883a et seq.

Former part 6 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-60129-17-613, concerning actions in rem, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 7 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Injuring property of coast and geodetic survey, penalty, § 39-14-408.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

Tennessee system of coordinates, title 66, ch. 6.

Collateral References.

Federal government, power as to exercise of eminent domain by, exclusively under state authority. 143 A.L.R. 1040.

Injunction against exercise of power of eminent domain. 93 A.L.R.2d 465.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

29-17-602. Damages payable by geodetic survey.

If the person over whose lands the survey has been made, or upon whose lands monuments, stations, or buildings have been erected, or who has in any way sustained damage by such survey, cannot agree with the officer of the survey as to the damage sustained, the amount of such damage may be ascertained in the manner provided for the taking of private property for public uses.

Acts 1877, ch. 24, § 2; Shan., § 1878; mod. Code 1932, § 3143; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1512; T.C.A. § 29-17-502; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 6 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-60129-17-613, concerning actions in rem, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 7 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Part 7
Action in Rem

29-17-701. Action in rem — Title uncertain.

  1. Whenever the state of Tennessee or any county therein or the United States shall desire to take or damage private property in pursuance of any law so authorizing, and shall find or believe that the title of the apparent or presumptive owner of such property is defective, doubtful, incomplete or in controversy; or that there are or may be persons unknown or nonresidents who have or may have some claim or demand thereon, or some actual or contingent interest or estate therein; or that there are minors or persons under disability who are or may be interested therein; or that there are taxes due or that should be paid thereon; or shall, for any reason, conclude that it is desirable to have a judicial ascertainment of any question connected with the matter; the state, county or the United States as the condemner, through any authorized representative, either in term time or vacation, may petition the circuit court of the county having jurisdiction, for a judgment in rem against such property, condemning the same to the use of the petitioner upon payment of just and adequate compensation therefor to the person or persons entitled to such payment.
  2. After the expiration of ten (10) days from the date the petition for condemnation is filed in the circuit court, the petitioner shall have the right to thereupon enter upon and take possession of the land sought to be condemned, and if necessary to place such petitioner in possession thereof, the clerk of the circuit court in which the petition is filed shall issue to the petitioner, upon request, a writ of possession directed to the sheriff of the county to put the petitioner into possession of the land.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.1 (Williams, § 3171.1); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1513; T.C.A. § 29-17-601; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Law Reviews.

Property Rights vs. Public Use: Analyzing Tennessee's Response to Kelo Eminent Domain Ruling (Scott Griswold), 43 Tenn B.J. 14 (2007).

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Brown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2009).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 5.

29-17-702. Contents of petition.

  1. The petition shall set forth the facts showing the right to condemn; the property to be taken or damaged, a full description of which shall be filed as an exhibit to the petition; the names and residences of the persons whose property or rights are to be taken or otherwise affected, so far as known; shall describe the persons or classes of persons unknown, whose rights therein are to be excluded or otherwise affected; shall set forth such other facts as are necessary for a full understanding of the cause; and shall pray for such judgment of condemnation as may be proper and desired.
  2. If any of the persons referred to are minors or under disability, the facts shall be stated.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.2 (Williams, § 3171.2); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1514; T.C.A. § 29-17-602; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 47.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 191.

29-17-703. Notice of hearing.

  1. The presiding judge may thereupon make an order requiring all persons concerned to appear at a time and place therein named, and make known their objections, if any, their rights, if any, their claims as to the value of the property or of their interest therein, and any other matters material to their respective rights, upon a day certain, not later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of process, which day shall be as early as may be convenient, having due regard to the necessities of notice, and shall in such order give appropriate directions for such notice and the service thereof.
  2. Such process shall be returned within twenty (20) days after its issuance.
  3. No service of a copy of the petition shall be necessary.
  4. Upon the return of process by the sheriff, if it shall appear that any of the defendants cannot be found or that they are nonresidents of the state, publication shall be made for them in the same manner as provided in §§ 21-1-203 — 21-1-205 for publications for nonresidents and parties unknown in chancery suits.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 3; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.3 (Williams, § 3171.3); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1515; T.C.A. § 29-17-603; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 46.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 198.

29-17-704. Parties bound — Defendants under disability.

  1. All parties having any interest or rights in such lands may be made defendants and proceedings shall only cover and affect the interest of those who are actually made parties, the unborn remaindermen being, however, bound by the proceedings to which all living persons in interest are parties.
  2. If it shall appear that any of the parties defendant are minors or otherwise under disability, the presiding judge shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent them, whose compensation shall be fixed by the court and taxed as a part of the costs.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 4; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.4 (Williams, § 3171.4); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1516; T.C.A. § 29-17-604; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Equitable Owners.

A county seeking to condemn land for a public park was not excused from naming as parties nonresidents who were known by the plaintiff to hold a contract of sale for the land, under which they were entitled to a deed, by bringing the action only against the record title holder of the land, from whom the nonresident equitable owners had purchased the land. Cheatham v. Carter County, 363 F.2d 582, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427, 4 A.L.R. Fed. 226 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1966).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 175-178.

29-17-705. Trial by jury.

If no objection be made to the acquisition of the land, or in case there is an agreed price between the petitioner and the presumptive or apparent owners of the property, the trial may be had before a jury at the first term of court after the return date; and in the discretion of the presiding judge all questions of title may be tried by the same jury at the same time.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 5; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.5 (Williams, § 3171.5); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1517; T.C.A. § 29-17-605; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Evidence.

Evidence of the potential use a property may be put to is admissible so long as the contingency for that use is not unlikely. State ex rel. Comm'r DOT v. Cox, 840 S.W.2d 357, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1006 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

2. Question of Fraud.

In a condemnation case, where there is substantial evidence that fraud was perpetrated by an agent of the United States in procuring an option on land taken for public use, where the issue involved is just compensation, there seems no reason whatever for departing from the accepted principle that the party defrauded was entitled to go to the jury upon the issue of fraud in the procurement or mistake resulting from misrepresentation; and, if the jury should find that issue in his favor, to have a verdict rendered by the jury fixing just compensation for the land taken. Scott v. United States, 161 F.2d 1009, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2873 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1947).

Collateral References.

How to obtain jury trial in eminent domain: waiver. 12 A.L.R.3d 7.

Jury 17(4), 19(11).

29-17-706. Jury of view.

  1. In case any party to the suit shall demand the appointment of a jury of view, the presiding judge shall appoint a jury of view as provided for in §§ 29-16-108 — 29-16-110 and 29-16-202.
  2. The order appointing the jury of view shall fix the date when they shall go upon the land; and in case no date is fixed, the sheriff shall give the parties or their agents, if residents of the county, three (3) days' notice of the time and place of going upon the land.
  3. The method of conduct and procedure after the appointment of the jury of view shall comply with §§ 29-16-112 — 29-16-119 and 29-16-203.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 6; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.6 (Williams, § 3171.6); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1518; T.C.A. § 29-17-606; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1; 2014, ch. 927, §§ 10, 11.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment, in (a), substituted “§§ 29-16-10829-16-110 and 29-16-202” for “§§ 29-16-10729-16-110” and , in (c), substituted “§§ 29-16-11229-16-119 and 29-16-203” for “§§ 29-16-11229-16-119”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 927, § 15. May 16, 2014.

Collateral References.

Right to view by jury in condemnation proceedings. 77 A.L.R.2d 548.

Eminent domain 220.

29-17-707. Procedure after demand for jury of view.

  1. On the day named in the rule, or at any other time to which the hearing may be continued, the court, having first passed on and adjudged all questions touching service and notice, shall, after hearing from all persons responding and desiring to be heard, make such order as to the appointment of a jury of view as provided in § 29-17-706 and give all persons interested equal rights in the selection thereof. If, by reason of conflicting interests or otherwise, such equality of right cannot be preserved, the judge presiding shall make such order on the subject as shall secure a fair and impartial assessment, or may, in the judge's discretion, order the issue tried in the first instance by a jury.
  2. In any event, it shall be within the power of the court to hear such cause as speedily as may be consistent with justice and due process of law, and, if necessary, at the term at which it is filed, or the first term after filing.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 7; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.7 (Williams, § 3171.7); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1519; T.C.A. § 29-17-607; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 222(3).

29-17-708. Payment of taxes.

It is the duty of any trustee or other officer charged with the collection of taxes, notified as required in § 29-17-703, to make known to the court in writing the taxes due on the property, and the court shall give such direction as will satisfy the same and discharge the lien thereof.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 10; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.10 (Williams, § 3171.10); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1520; T.C.A. § 29-17-608; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 152(1).

29-17-709. Court control of proceedings.

All questions of law arising upon the pleadings or in any other way arising from the cause may be passed on by the presiding judge, who may, from time to time, in term or vacation make such orders and give such directions as are necessary to speed the cause, and as may be consistent with justice and due process of law; but no jury trial shall be had except in open court, except the hearing before the jury of view.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 9; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.9 (Williams, § 3171.9); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1521; T.C.A. § 29-17-609; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Collateral References.

Counsel's use, in trial of condemnation proceeding, of chart, diagram or blackboard, not introduced in evidence, relating to damages or the value of the property condemned. 80 A.L.R.2d 1270.

Eminent domain 166.

29-17-710. Intervention or delayed pleadings.

  1. No provision contained in this part in reference to any rule or order, or time for responding thereto, shall be held or construed to exclude any person, as by way of default, from making known that person's right or claims in the property or in the fund arising therefrom within the time allowed.
  2. Any such person claiming any interest or any rights therein may file appropriate pleadings or intervention at any time before verdict or award, and be fully heard thereon.
  3. If any person, after judgment of condemnation, shall desire to come in and be heard on any claim to the fund or to any interest therein, the person shall be allowed to do so within not exceeding thirty (30) days.
  4. After condemnation is had and the fund paid into the registry of the court, the petitioner shall not be concerned with or affected by any subsequent proceedings unless upon appeal from the verdict or award as allowed in § 29-17-706.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 9; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.9 (Williams, § 3171.9); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1522; T.C.A. § 29-17-610; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Intervention, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-24.01-1.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Parties, § 7.

Law Reviews.

Parties and Claims, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 280.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Equitable Owners.

Nonresident equitable owners of land which a county sought to condemn for a public park in an action brought only against the record title holder of the land were not required to intervene in such action, but could bring their action for damages for the unlawful taking in the United States district court, the value of the land exceeding $10,000. Cheatham v. Carter County, 363 F.2d 582, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427, 4 A.L.R. Fed. 226 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1966).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 178.

29-17-711. Award and judgment.

  1. The award or verdict, as the case may be, shall have respect, either to the entire and unencumbered fee, or to any separate claim against the property or interest therein as may be ordered, and may be molded under the direction of the court so as to do complete justice and avoid confusion of interests.
  2. It shall be within the power of the court, upon payment of the award or verdict into the registry of the court, to adjudge a condemnation of the title as sought in the petition, and give such direction as to the disposition of the fund as shall be proper, according to the rights of the several defendants, causing such pleadings to be filed and such issues made up as shall be appropriate for an ascertainment and determination of such rights.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 8; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.8 (Williams, § 3171.8); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1523; T.C.A. § 29-17-611; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 47.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Authority of Court.

In municipal condemnation proceeding for street purposes, trial court could determine boundary line in order to properly apportion award. Maryville v. Waters, 207 Tenn. 213, 338 S.W.2d 608, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 449 (1960).

2. Tenants by the Entirety.

Where a husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, sued the county in an inverse condemnation suit for the value of land taken to widen a public road and the county asserted that they were both barred by reason of a conveyance of the land condemned to the county by the husband alone, the court held that, since all vestiges of the common law disability of coverture have been removed in Tennessee, only the husband was barred from recovery and the wife was entitled to immediate payment of an amount representing the value of the land taken. Robinson v. Trousdale County, 516 S.W.2d 626, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. 1974).

Collateral References.

Assemblage or plottage as factor affecting value in eminent domain proceedings. 8 A.L.R.4th 1202.

Distribution as between life tenant and remainderman of proceeds of condemned property. 91 A.L.R.2d 963.

Eminent domain 243.

29-17-712. Recording of decree.

  1. When such condemnation is fully completed, the award, whether made by a jury of view or the verdict of a jury, together with the decree of the court based thereon and a minute description of the property or interest condemned, or a duly certified copy of such award, decree and description, may be filed and recorded in the records of deeds in the office of the register of the county where the land so condemned lies, and if the land lies in more than one (1) county, such filing and recording may be made in each county in which such land lies.
  2. The register shall be entitled to the same fees for such filing and recording as are now, or may hereafter be, allowed by law for the filing and recording of deeds; such fees to be paid by the party in whose favor such condemnation is had.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 11; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.9 (Williams, § 3171.11); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1524; T.C.A. § 29-17-612; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

29-17-713. Provisions supplemental.

This part shall not be construed as repealing any provisions of other statutes prescribing a method of procedure for the condemnation of private property, but as supplementary thereto and cumulative thereof in cases in which the state or any county or the United States is concerned, and is intended to make simpler and more effective the method of condemnation in those cases where conflicting interests or doubtful questions render a judicial supervision of the procedure desirable. In all particulars not otherwise herein specially provided for, the court shall conform its procedure as nearly as may be to the provisions of the statute and the same shall remain in force.

Acts 1937, ch. 262, § 11; C. Supp. 1950, § 3170.11 (Williams, § 3171.11); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1525; T.C.A. § 29-17-613; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 7 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-701 and 29-17-702, concerning payments into court, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 8 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Part 8
Payments into Court

29-17-801. Payments into court at commencement of condemnation proceedings.

  1. When a governmental entity or other person or entity with the power of eminent domain deems it necessary to condemn any property or property rights pursuant to this chapter or chapter 16 of this title, it shall deposit the amount determined by the required appraisal with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction in the county in which the property or property rights, or a portion of the property or property rights, is located, and shall file a petition in the court asking that the property or property rights be condemned and decreed to the condemner.
  2. The payment into court shall in no way limit or fix the amount to be allowed under subsequent proceedings in such case, and any further or additional sum that may be finally awarded in any subsequent proceedings shall bear interest from the date of the taking of possession of the property or property rights condemned by the condemner.

Acts 1957, ch. 298, § 1; 1967, ch. 20, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1526; Acts 1981, ch. 525, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A. § 29-17-701; Acts 2006, ch. 863, §§ 1, 21.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 8 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-80129-17-814, concerning supplementary method, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 9 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Reelfoot Lake land acquisition through eminent domain, § 70-5-102.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 30, 40.

Cited: Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966); Town Park Hotel Corp. v. Commissioner, 446 F.2d 878, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8599 (6th Cir. 1971); Shelby County v. Armour, 495 S.W.2d 816, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971); West Wilson Utility Dist. v. Ligon, 768 S.W.2d 681, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Montgomery County v. Nichols, 10 S.W.3d 258, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Provision of this section that condemner “may” deposit payments with clerk at beginning of proceeding is discretionary rather than mandatory and condemner is not obligated to make such payments. Williams v. McMinn County, 209 Tenn. 236, 352 S.W.2d 430, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 372 (1961).

The statute serves a dual purpose in that it permits the condemner to avoid payment of interest from the date of the taking on the amount ultimately found to be due and it permits the owner to realize without delay and without prejudice the amount tendered into court and if he wishes to do so to use it to buy property to replace that taken from him. Clinton Livestock Auction Co. v. Knoxville, 52 Tenn. App. 614, 376 S.W.2d 743, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963).

2. Effect of Deposit.

The determination of the amount to be paid into court has nothing to do with the proof offered at the trial by either party and condemner may offer proof that the property is of lesser value. Clinton Livestock Auction Co. v. Knoxville, 52 Tenn. App. 614, 376 S.W.2d 743, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963).

Evidence concerning the amount the county decided to pay into court for property which was being condemned is irrelevant in a condemnation proceeding. Smith County v. Eatherly, 820 S.W.2d 366, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1005, 112 S. Ct. 1762, 118 L. Ed. 2d 424, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 2574 (1992).

3. Interest.

Where the date of taking is stipulated, interest under this section may be awarded from that date. State Dep't of Highways v. Urban Estates, Inc., 225 Tenn. 193, 465 S.W.2d 357, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1971).

Trial court did not err in its award of pre-judgment interest of $267,468 to property owners in County's condemnation action where according to the clear statutory mandates the trial court did not have discretion over whether to award pre-judgment interest. The appellate court found no error in the award being 2 percent greater than the undisputed prime loan rate at the time of taking; on the contrary, the appellate court found that it was clearly called for when the applicable statute was applied to the facts of the case at bar and the appellate court rejected the County's invitation to compute the interest in other ways. Sevier County v. Waters, 126 S.W.3d 913, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (Tenn. Feb. 2, 2004).

Prejudgment interest should have been awarded under T.C.A. § 29-17-801(b) on an inverse condemnation claim by purchasers who acquired property at a delinquent tax sale because prejudgment interest was mandatory in an inverse condemnation action. Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Brown, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2009).

4. Condemner Taking Possession.

Where the condemner obtained a court order for possession of the property being condemned leaving nothing to be decided except that compensation to be paid the owner of the land taken, condemner lost the right to take a nonsuit over the objection of the owner. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

5. Alternative Methods.

The state of Tennessee and its agencies are given the option of condemning property under the procedure set forth in ch. 16 of this title, which provides for a jury of view to fix the compensation due landowner before possession can be decreed to the condemner, or under parts 7 and 8 of this chapter, which provide the condemner shall determine the amount of compensation due the property owner and deposit the amount in court at the time of filing the petition after which possession can be decreed the condemner. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 73-78.

29-17-802. Certain authorities excepted.

Section 29-17-801 shall apply only to condemnation proceedings instituted by the state of Tennessee, its counties, or municipalities, and shall not apply to any housing authority, association, or administration.

Acts 1957, ch. 298, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-1527; T.C.A. § 29-17-702; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 8 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-80129-17-814, concerning supplementary method, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 9 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cited: Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966); Shelby County v. Crews, 315 S.W.3d 477, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 783 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2009).

Part 9
Supplementary Method

29-17-901. Eminent domain for state, county or municipal road purposes and for certain levee and drainage districts — Supplementary condemnation procedure for counties and municipalities.

    1. The state of Tennessee, its counties or municipalities are hereby authorized and empowered to acquire by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, in the manner hereinafter set out, such right-of-way, land, material, easements and rights as may be deemed necessary, suitable or desirable for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, drainage or protection of any street, road, highway, freeway or parkway by the official charged by law with the construction or maintenance of the same.
    2. Levee and drainage districts located in counties with a population of not less than thirty thousand (30,000) nor more than thirty-one thousand (31,000) according to the 1970 federal census or any subsequent federal census, created pursuant to title 69, chapter 6, are hereby authorized and empowered to acquire by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, in the manner hereinafter set out, such right-of-way, land, material, easements and rights as may be deemed necessary, suitable or desirable to construct levees, ditches, drains or watercourses, or to straighten, widen, deepen, or change natural watercourses in such districts.
  1. Sections 29-17-902 — 29-17-914 shall also be deemed, unless expressly stated to the contrary, and without incorporation or reference, to be a part of every section, or legislative act, present or future, which grants the power of condemnation to counties and municipalities for county and municipal purposes respectively, and the making of compensation in the manner therein set forth shall also be so implied; provided, that either party, upon filing a statement to that effect within five (5) days of the service or publication of the original petition, may elect to proceed under chapter 16 of this title or this chapter.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 1; 1965, ch. 153, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1528; Acts 1981, ch. 248, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-17-801; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Cross-References. Applicability of part to metropolitan port authorities, § 7-5-108.

Condemnation for controlled-access roads, § 54-16-104.

Continuance of condemnation trial, § 29-17-1001.

Department of highways, condemnation by, §§ 54-5-104, 54-5-105, 54-5-106, 54-5-107.

Eminent domain by state within municipalities, § 54-5-208.

Establishment of roads by county council, title 54, ch. 10, part 1.

Evidence in condemnation trial, § 29-17-1002.

Municipal corporations, condemnation by, §§ 7-31-106, 7-31-107, 7-31-108, 7-31-109, 7-31-110, 7-31-111.

Private property not to be taken for public use without just compensation, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 21.

Reelfoot Lake land acquisition through eminent domain, § 70-5-102.

State powers of eminent domain relating to rights-of-way and road improvement, §§ 54-22-101, 54-22-104.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-71-2.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 46, 54.

Law Reviews.

Condemnation Trials — 1959 Legislation (Arthur D. Byrne), 26 Tenn. L. Rev. 486.

Local Government Law — 1959 Tennessee Survey (A. E. Ryman, Jr.), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1257.

Real Property — 1959 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1318.

Attorney General Opinions. Condemnation for railroad spur benefiting a private business, OAG 92-32 (4/13/92).

Cited: Pack v. Boyer, 59 Tenn. App. 141, 438 S.W.2d 754, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 337 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968); West Wilson Utility Dist. v. Ligon, 768 S.W.2d 681, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Town of Collierville v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.3d 68, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Leonard v. Knox County, 146 S.W.3d 589, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This part was constitutional with the exception of provisions of § 29-17-905 relating to time of trial of claim of owner who does not accept deposit (unconstitutional language was later deleted from the section). Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960); Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960).

A property owner has a recognized property right in the use of the street abutting its property and this right is compensable under the laws of Tennessee. East Park United Methodist Church v. Washington County, 567 S.W.2d 768, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

2. Construction.

This part is cumulative or supplementary to other statutes relating to eminent domain and all of the eminent domain statutes are construed in pari materia. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960); State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

The 1965 amendment in making §§ 29-17-90229-17-914 applicable to condemnation by counties and municipalities for county or municipal purposes did not make such provisions applicable to housing authorities as they are not counties or municipalities. Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

Where Acts 1959 added second paragraph to this section making §§ 29-17-90229-17-914 applicable to proceedings by counties and municipalities and providing that either party by notice could elect within five days to proceed under ch. 16 of this title or ch. 17 of this title, proviso authorizing such election only related to the amendatory paragraph of the section and did not authorize appointment of jury of view under ch. 16 of this title where proceeding was by the state rather than by a county or municipality. State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Proviso in second paragraph authorizing election within five days to proceed under ch. 16 of this title or ch. 17 of this title only relates to that paragraph and to counties and municipalities as specified therein and not to proceedings by state. State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

3. Jurisdiction.

Landowner was not entitled to have suit by state for condemnation of portion of farm for public highway transferred from circuit court to chancery court for purpose of having question of damages resulting from airport clear zone determined at the same time. Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960).

4. Use of Acquired Land.

State upon acquiring fee-simple title to land could make the acquired land available to any legal use permissible to any owner in fee simple where such use was not in conflict with its acquisition primarily for construction of a public highway. Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960).

5. Damages.

6. —Fair Market Value.

The measure of damages where the property right taken is the right of access to an abutting street is the difference in the fair cash market value of the property prior to the taking or impairment of the access and its value after the taking and the construction of the project for which the property right was taken. East Park United Methodist Church v. Washington County, 567 S.W.2d 768, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

7. —Right to Compensation.

Where plaintiff's easement of way along the street was taken from it and was transferred to the county for the construction of a highway, the county had taken the exclusive use of the street which the plaintiff formerly enjoyed, and for this reason the county was required to compensate the plaintiff for the taking of this property right. East Park United Methodist Church v. Washington County, 567 S.W.2d 768, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Collateral References.

Right to condemn property owned or used by private educational, charitable, or religious organization. 80 A.L.R.3d 833.

Eminent domain 19.

29-17-902. Deposit of amount of damages.

When a governmental entity or a levee or drainage district authorized to condemn by § 29-17-901(a)(2) deems it necessary or desirable to condemn any property or property rights as set out in § 29-17-901, it shall proceed to determine what it deems to be the amount of damages to which the owner is entitled because of the taking of such property or property rights, and shall deposit such amount with the clerk of the circuit or law court having jurisdiction in the county in which the same or a portion of the same is located, and shall file a petition in such court asking that the same be condemned and decreed to the condemner.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-1529; Acts 1981, ch. 248, § 2; T.C.A. § 29-17-802; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cited: Shelby County v. Armour, 495 S.W.2d 816, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Deposit.

Deposit of amount into court under this section in no event concludes the rights of either party. Kennedy v. Chattanooga, 56 Tenn. App. 198, 405 S.W.2d 653, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

2. Purpose of Statute.

The intent and purpose of the statute is to protect the owner by having the money for damages in court and when the money has been deposited to give the condemner the privilege of almost immediate damages. Kennedy v. Chattanooga, 56 Tenn. App. 198, 405 S.W.2d 653, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 188.

29-17-903. Payments into court at commencement of condemnation proceedings — Notice — Possession of property.

  1. When a governmental entity or other person or entity with the power of eminent domain deems it necessary to condemn any property or property rights pursuant to this chapter or chapter 16 of this title, it shall deposit the amount determined by the required appraisal with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction in the county in which the property or property rights, or a portion of the property or property rights, is located, and shall file a petition in the court asking that the same be condemned and decreed to the condemner.
  2. The payment into court shall in no way limit or fix the amount to be allowed under subsequent proceedings in the case, and any further or additional sum that may be finally awarded in any subsequent proceedings shall bear interest from the date of the taking of possession of the property or property rights condemned by the condemner.
  3. Notice of the filing of such petition shall be given the owner of the property or property rights at least thirty (30) days prior to the taking of any additional steps in the case. If the owner is a nonresident of the state or unknown, notice shall be given by publication as provided by law in similar cases in chancery.
  4. After the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of the giving of such notice if the right to take is not questioned, the condemner shall have the right to take possession of the property or property rights sought to be condemned, and if necessary to place such condemner in possession thereof, the court shall issue a writ of possession to the sheriff of the county to put the condemner in possession.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-1530; T.C.A. § 29-17-803; Acts 2006, ch. 863, §§ 1, 17, 22, 23.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-71-1.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 28, 47.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law — 1960 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1021.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Procedure — 1963 Tennessee Survey (William J. Harbison), 17 Vand. L. Rev. 1108.

Cited: Shelby County v. Armour, 495 S.W.2d 816, 1971 Tenn. App. LEXIS 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1971).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Specifying Interests or Claims of Different Defendants.

This section does not prohibit condemner from specifying interests or claims of different defendants but merely provides that it shall not be necessary to do so. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Where interests of different defendants have been specified by condemner, defendant willing to accept same under § 29-17-804 may withdraw his share of the deposit. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

2. Effect of Specifying Damages.

Specification of amount of damages in condemner's petition is not an admission by condemner that the owner is entitled to at least the specified amount. Kennedy v. Chattanooga, 56 Tenn. App. 198, 405 S.W.2d 653, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

3. Issuance of Writs or Possession in Error.

Where town sought condemnation of railroad easement for grade crossings, railroad's objections based on safety concerns presented a justiciable issue concerning the town's right to the taking, which the trial court should have determined at an evidentiary hearing prior to issuing writs of possession. Town of Collierville v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.3d 68, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

4. Right to Jury.

Trial court's denial of a jury of view as to the size and location of a utility easement was consistent with the procedure set out in T.C.A. § 29-17-903, without the need to impanel a jury pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-16-113. First Util. Dist. of Knox County v. Jarnigan-Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2001).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 191.

29-17-904. Acceptance by property owner of amount deposited.

If the owner is satisfied with the amount deposited by the condemner with the clerk of the court, the owner may file with the clerk a statement, duly sworn to, stating that the filer is the owner of the property or property rights described in the petition and that the owner accepts the amount deposited with the clerk as full settlement for the taking of such property or property rights and all damages occasioned to the residue of the property, and the clerk shall pay to the owner the amount deposited with the clerk, and the court, at its next term, shall enter a decree divesting the title to the property or property rights out of the owner and vesting the same in the condemner.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-1531; T.C.A. § 29-17-804; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Withdraw Deposit.

Filing of exceptions under § 29-17-905 did not preclude condemnee from subsequently accepting valuation fixed by condemner and withdrawing deposit. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

It was clearly the intent of the legislature in enacting this part to permit the owner of property condemned under such statute to draw down money deposited by the condemner under either of the alternative methods provided by §§ 29-17-804, 29-17-806. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Where different condemnees have interest in property sought to be condemned and condemner specifies the interests of different condemnees, condemnee willing to accept same may withdraw his interest. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Where in original proceeding state merely specified amount condemnees were entitled to without specifying amount lessee and lessor were entitled to but subsequently state informed lessee of amount to which each condemnee was entitled and lessee was willing to accept such amount, lessee was entitled to withdraw such amount. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

29-17-905. Trial when property owner does not accept deposit.

If the owner is not satisfied with the amount assessed by the condemner, the owner shall, on or before the second day of the regular term of the court next, after the serving of such notice, appear, except to the amount assessed by the condemner, and thereupon a trial may be had before a petit jury as other civil actions are tried.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 5; T.C.A., § 23-1532; T.C.A. § 29-17-805; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Words at the end of this section which read, “but no trial shall be had until six (6) months have expired after the completion of said street, road, highway, freeway or parkway; provided, however, that if the same has not been completed within twenty-four (24) months from the filing of said condemnation petition, said case shall be tried” were omitted from this section since the case of Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 337 S.W.2d 462 (1960) has held that such provision violates Tenn. Const., art. I, § 17 and should be stricken.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Continuance of condemnation trial, § 29-17-1001.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 61.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law — 1961 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1171.

Federal and State Condemnation Proceedings — Procedure and Statutory Background (William E. Miller), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1085.

Cited: Town of Collierville v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.3d 68, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Portion of this section which read “but no trial shall be had until six (6) months have expired after the completion of said street, road, highway, freeway or parkway; provided, however, that if the same has not been completed within twenty-four (24) months from the filing of said condemnation petition, said case shall be tried” was violative of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 17, providing that courts shall be open to all persons and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial and delay, and such provision would be stricken without invalidating the remainder of the statute. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960).

2. Determination of Damages.

This part was not subject to the objection that the condemner is entitled to determine the damages in view of the provisions for trial by petit jury and the provisions of § 29-17-910 specifying the manner of determining damages. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960).

In condemnation proceeding state was entitled to have value of leasehold considered as an integral part of the total value of the unencumbered tract of land sought to be condemned and refusal of trial judge to so charge was prejudicial to state. State Dep't of Highways & Public Works v. Texaco, Inc., 49 Tenn. App. 278, 354 S.W.2d 792, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

Ordinarily profits are not admissible in a condemnation case but peculiar circumstances in any particular case may make such evidence admissible. State Dep't of Highways & Public Works v. Texaco, Inc., 49 Tenn. App. 278, 354 S.W.2d 792, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

The removal of machinery may constitute incidental damages. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Value of land taken as determined on basis of its actual market value. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Evidence as to amount paid into court under § 29-17-801 and as to who made appraisal upon which payment was based, was properly excluded at trial. Clinton Livestock Auction Co. v. Knoxville, 52 Tenn. App. 614, 376 S.W.2d 743, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963).

The determination of the amount to be paid into court under § 29-17-801 has nothing to do with the proof offered at the trial by either party and the condemner may offer proof that the property is of lessor value. Clinton Livestock Auction Co. v. Knoxville, 52 Tenn. App. 614, 376 S.W.2d 743, 1963 Tenn. App. LEXIS 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1963).

3. Burden of Proof.

The burden is always on the landowner to prove the damages he is entitled to for the taking of his property which is to be rebutted by the condemner. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960); State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

In leasehold property both lessor and lessee prove the value of their interests. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

4. Subsequent Acceptance of Deposit.

Filing of exceptions to amount of award did not preclude condemnee from subsequently accepting valuation fixed by condemner and withdrawing the money deposited. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

5. Method of Trial.

Trial court was not authorized to appoint a jury of view under ch. 16 of this title in connection with condemnation proceeding by state under ch. 17, part 8 of this title. State, Dep't of Highways v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884, 1967 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 211, 240.

29-17-906. Payment of amount deposited pending trial.

If the owner asks for a trial as provided by § 29-17-905, the owner may, if desired, make written request to the clerk to pay to the owner, without prejudice to the rights of either party, the sum so deposited with the clerk, and the clerk shall pay to the owner the sum so deposited; provided the owner agrees to refund the difference between such sum and the final award in the case if the final award be less than the sum so paid to the owner or that a judgment may be entered against the owner in such case for the difference.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-1533; T.C.A. § 29-17-806; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legislative Intent.

It was clearly the intent of the legislature in enacting this part to permit the owner of property condemned under such statute to draw down money deposited by the condemner under either of the alternative methods provided by §§ 29-17-904, 29-17-906. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

2. Right to Withdraw Deposit.

Where in original proceeding state merely specified amount condemnees were entitled to without specifying amount lessee and lessor were entitled to but subsequently state informed lessee of amount to which each condemnee was entitled and lessee was willing to accept such amount, lessee was entitled to withdraw such amount. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

In a condemnation proceeding instituted by a utility district, affected landowners have the right to withdraw funds placed on deposit with the court clerk pending a final decision of the case on the merits. West Wilson Utility Dist. v. Ligon, 768 S.W.2d 681, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 164.

29-17-907. Default of owner — Case set for hearing.

If the owner does not appear and accept the amount deposited by the condemner as provided in § 29-17-904 or does not appear and ask for a trial as provided by § 29-17-905, then the petition shall be taken as confessed and the case set for hearing upon the record and in the absence of the owner.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 7; T.C.A., § 23-1534; T.C.A. § 29-17-807; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 185.

29-17-908. Issues confined to amount of compensation — Determination of rights and interest of adverse claimants.

The only issue or question that shall be tried upon exception shall be the amount of compensation to be paid for the property or property rights taken, but in case of adverse claimants of such compensation, the court may require the adverse claimants to interplead, so as to fully determine the rights and interests of such claimants.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 8; T.C.A., § 23-1535; T.C.A. § 29-17-808; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. Evidence in condemnation trial, § 29-17-1002.

Cited: Town of Collierville v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.3d 68, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); First Util. Dist. of Knox County v. Jarnigan-Bodden, 40 S.W.3d 60, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Nonsuit.

Where the condemner obtained a court order for possession of the property being condemned leaving nothing to be decided except the compensation to be paid the owner of the land taken, condemner lost the right to take a nonsuit over the objection of the owner. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

Collateral References.

Propriety of court's consideration of ecological effects of proposed project in determining right of condemnation. 47 A.L.R.3d 1267.

29-17-909. Proper party defendant omitted — Amended petition.

If any person who is proper party defendant in the petition shall have been omitted from the petition, amendments to the same may be filed, which amendments, from the filing of the same, shall have the same effect as though contained in such petition.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 9; T.C.A., § 23-1536; T.C.A. § 29-17-809; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

29-17-910. Manner of determining damages to which owner is entitled.

In all instances the amount to which an owner is entitled shall be determined by ascertaining the fair cash market value of the property or property rights taken and adding to the same the amount of incidental damage done to the residue of the owner's property, if any, after deducting from the incidental damages to the residue the value of all special benefits, if any, occasioned such residue by the construction of such street, road, highway, levee, ditch, drain, watercourse improvement (when such levee, ditch, drain, or watercourse improvement is condemned pursuant to § 29-17-901(a)(2)), freeway or parkway including, but not limited to, increased accessibility to the owner's property, greater convenience in the approach with vehicles, the advantages generally of a front on a more desirable roadway, better drainage, or increased attractiveness.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 10; T.C.A., § 23-1537; Acts 1981, ch. 248, § 3; T.C.A. § 29-17-810; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, §§ 20-34.

Cited: Tate v. County of Monroe, 578 S.W.2d 642, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978); Shelby County v. Kingsway Greens of America, Inc., 706 S.W.2d 634, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Leonard v. Knox County, 146 S.W.3d 589, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Water Auth. v. Hooper, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2010); Water Auth. of Dickson County v. Hooper, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2010); City of Brentwood v. Cawthon, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Damages, actual and incidental, to be fixed by taking in fee simple by state of portion of farm were to be determined by taking into consideration all factors then existing with reference to the farm which entered into the question of damages resulting from such taking. Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960).

2. Determination of Damages.

This part was not subject to the objection that the condemner is entitled to determine the damages in view of the provisions of this section and the provisions permitting a trial by a petit jury. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960).

The burden is always on the landowner to prove the damages he is entitled to for the taking of his property which is rebutted by the condemner. Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 402 (1960); State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

In leasehold property both the lessor and lessee prove the value of their interests. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

The removal of machinery may constitute incidental damages. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

Value of land taken is determined on basis of its actual market value. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

The trier of fact in determining the amount of award in eminent domain proceeding must be governed by the principle that the owner of the land shall be treated as one offering it for sale at a fair price while not being under any stress of circumstances which would induce him to sacrifice his property and the condemner as an intending buyer who is likewise free from stress not being forced to buy. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where land or property rights are taken for a public improvement, the trier of facts shall award the value of the land or rights taken without deduction but permit the offset of incidental benefits resulting to the owner by reason of the proposed improvement against any incidental damages. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where the property right taken is the right of access to an abutting street, the fact that the property has other access or is given access in the course of construction is a material factor to be taken into consideration in determining the before and after value of the property and consequently the value of the access taken. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

Where the property right taken is the right of access to an abutting street, the measure of damages is the difference in the fair cash market value of the defendant's property prior to the taking or impairment of access and its value after the taking and the construction of the project from which the property right was taken. Brookside Mills, Inc. v. Moulton, 55 Tenn. App. 643, 404 S.W.2d 258, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 269 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).

The special or peculiar value which the condemned property has to the owner should be taken into consideration by the court and jury in arriving at an award to the owner in a condemnation case. State ex rel. Department of Transp., Bureau of Highways v. Brevard, 545 S.W.2d 431, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

The special or peculiar value which the condemned property has to the owner is only one element for consideration; the special value of the property as presently used may not continue indefinitely since it may become necessary or desirable to change the use or sell the property, in which event its value for other uses and to other people would become a material factor for consideration. State ex rel. Department of Transp., Bureau of Highways v. Brevard, 545 S.W.2d 431, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Where the state constructed a ditch along the entire frontage of the property completely eliminating access, the burden was on the state to provide reasonable access or to compensate for denial of access. State ex rel. Commissioner of Dep't of Transp. v. Vanatta, 728 S.W.2d 341, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Trial court erred in prohibiting evidence of contamination of condemned property and the remediation costs associated with the pollution in determining the fair market value. State ex rel. Commissioner, Dep't of Transp. v. Brandon, 898 S.W.2d 224, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).

3. —“Taking” — What Constitutes.

Reduction in value of property because of construction of highway in close proximity thereto does not constitute a compensable “taking” of property where there is no physical taking of the land and no direct interference amounting to a physical invasion or deprivation of use. Ledbetter v. Beach, 220 Tenn. 623, 421 S.W.2d 814, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 445 (1967).

The right of access is a property right which may not be appropriated in whole or in part without paying just compensation for its value, although diminution of access does not necessarily require compensation. Knox County ex rel. McBee v. Barger, 576 S.W.2d 1, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

4. —Damages Resulting from Other Causes.

Landowner was not entitled to have suit by state for condemnation of portion of farm for public highway transferred from circuit court to chancery court for purpose of having question of damages resulting from airport clear zone determined at the same time. Strasser v. Nashville, 207 Tenn. 24, 336 S.W.2d 16, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1960).

5. —Inverse Condemnation.

An action for damages to real property resulting from deprivation or impairment of rights of ingress or egress by the closing of a public street or road is in the nature of an inverse condemnation action and the measure of damages is the difference in the fair cash market value of the property prior to the deprivation or impairment of access and its value thereafter. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

The conversion of a city street to one-way was a lawful act that left the plaintiff a means of ingress and egress. Although the plaintiff's ingress and egress is more circuitous than before the conversion the inconvenience to the plaintiff does not constitute a compensable taking. Ambrose v. Knoxville, 728 S.W.2d 338, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

6. Apportionment of Damages.

In an action for damages to real property for loss of access, although there was no actual taking, a lessee is entitled to damages for any diminution in value of fixtures, structures and other improvements erected or installed by him, if, as against the lessor, he has the right to remove them prior to or upon the expiration of the lease. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

In an action for damages for deprivation or impairment of right of ingress or egress to real property where there is no actual taking of the land, the damages must be apportioned between the lessor and the lessee, but the measure of damages is the same as where there is an actual taking and damages to the lessor and lessee need not be separately and independently assessed. Shelby County v. Barden, 527 S.W.2d 124, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 644 (Tenn. 1975).

Absent any express provision by the parties, Tennessee law requires an apportionment of the award according to the value of the respective interests of lessor and lessee in the property taken. State ex rel. Department of Transp., Bureau of Highways v. Gee, 565 S.W.2d 498, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977), rehearing denied, 567 S.W.2d 470, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Condemned land is to be valued as one estate and a fair market value must be fixed for the taken property as a whole before apportionment of that amount is made among the various interests in the property. State ex rel. Department of Transp., Bureau of Highways v. Gee, 565 S.W.2d 498, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977), rehearing denied, 567 S.W.2d 470, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Apportionment between lessor and lessee is accomplished by determining the value of the latter's interest in the taken property, which is calculated by determining the fair rental value of that property for the unexpired term of the lease and subtracting the rent that would actually have been paid for it by the lessee during that term. State ex rel. Department of Transp., Bureau of Highways v. Gee, 565 S.W.2d 498, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977), rehearing denied, 567 S.W.2d 470, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

7. Damage Award Upheld.

Jury's award for damages was affirmed where material evidence supported the jury's finding on the plaintiff's loss of access and damages resulting therefrom, and where the award was well within the range of damages proven. State ex rel. Shaw v. Gorman, 596 S.W.2d 796, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. 1980).

Collateral References.

Compensation for diminution in value of the remainder of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land of others for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Eminent domain: Consideration of fact that landowner's remaining land will be subject to special assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.

Validity, construction, and effect of statute or lease provision expressly governing rights and compensation of lessee upon condemnation of leased property. 22 A.L.R.5th 327.

Eminent domain 149.

29-17-911. Removal or destruction of a building or structure on land.

When any building or structure is situated wholly or in part upon the land sought to be acquired, the condemner may remove the same to adjoining land of the owner or may divide the same upon the line between the land sought to be acquired and the adjoining land, or may tear down or otherwise dispose of the same.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 11; T.C.A., § 23-1538; T.C.A. § 29-17-811; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cross-References. State powers of eminent domain relating to rights-of-way and road improvement, §§ 54-22-101, 54-22-104.

Collateral References. Eminent domain 15.

29-17-912. Costs of trial.

    1. If the amount of compensation awarded at the trial shall exceed the amount assessed by the condemner and deposited with the clerk, then the bill of costs prepared by the clerk shall be taxed against the condemner. If the amount of compensation awarded at the trial is not in excess of the amount assessed by the condemner and deposited with the clerk, then the bill of costs prepared by the clerk may be taxed against the defendants.
    2. Rule 54.04, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, shall govern the taxing of any additional costs.
    1. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the state court having jurisdiction of a proceeding initiated by any person, agency or other entity to acquire real property for the purpose of a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation by condemnation shall tax the bill of costs prepared by the clerk against the condemner and shall award the owner of any right, or title to, or interest in, such real property such sum as will in the opinion of the court reimburse such owner for the owner's reasonable disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of condemnation proceedings, only if:
      1. The final judgment is that the acquiring party cannot acquire the real property by condemnation; or
      2. The proceeding is abandoned by the acquiring party.
    2. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the state court having jurisdiction of a proceeding initiated by any person, agency, or other entity to acquire real property, which is not being acquired for a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation, by condemnation shall tax the bill of costs prepared by the clerk against the condemner and shall award the owner of any right, or title to, or interest in, such real property such sum as will in the opinion of the court reimburse such owner for the owner's reasonable disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred because of condemnation proceedings; provided, that reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded only if:
      1. The final judgment is that the acquiring party cannot acquire the real property by condemnation; or
      2. The proceeding is abandoned by the acquiring party.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 12; 1972, ch. 463, § 2; 1973, ch. 140, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1539; Acts 1994, ch. 931, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-17-812; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1; 2017, ch. 422, §§ 5, 6.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7 provided that the act, which amended this section, shall apply to takings or condemnation actions initiated on or after May 18, 2017.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment added (b)(2); and in present (b)(1), substituted “to acquire real property for the purpose of a public utility or for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation” for “to acquire real property”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 422, § 7. May 18, 2017.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-71-2.

Cited: Montgomery County v. Nichols, 10 S.W.3d 258, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County, 301 S.W.3d 196, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 835 (Tenn. Dec. 16, 2009).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Effect.

Where the condemnee accepts the valuation in full as fixed by the condemner under § 29-17-804 (now § 29-17-904) the condemner pays the costs and this section does not apply. State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, 212 Tenn. 352, 370 S.W.2d 411, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 428 (1963).

This section is applicable to condemnation proceedings whether instituted under ch. 16 of this title or ch. 17, parts 7 and 8 of this title. Anderson v. Smith, 521 S.W.2d 787, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 696 (Tenn. 1975).

Because the grant of summary judgment by the trial court to the landowners'  in a condemnation proceeding was in error, the award by the court of attorney's fees and costs to the landowners was, likewise, error. City of Memphis v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family, L.L.C., 391 S.W.3d 60, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2012), appeal denied, City of Memphis v. Family, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. Jan. 9, 2013).

Property owners were not entitled to discretionary costs in an eminent domain proceeding because the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure did not authorize an assessment of discretionary costs in contravention of the State of Tennessee's sovereign immunity under the Tennessee Constitution. Moreover, an assessment of expert witness and court reporter fees was not expressly authorized by statute. State v. Anderson, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2015).

Because a trial court erred on remand in dismissing a county's condemnation case, as the county's entitlement to condemnation of property through a consent order was already the established law of the case, the vacating of the court's dismissal order was appropriate, as well the vacating of all subsequent orders that assessed damages, including rental loss. Furthermore, the owners were not entitled to an award of attorney's fees on appeal. Shelby Cnty. v. Crews, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 967 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015).

County was entitled to receive a credit in a condemnation action against the amount of compensation that was determined to be owed to the landowners on remand because, prior to the first appeal of the matter, in connection with the trial court's allowance of a nonsuit, the trial court assessed costs and fees in the amount of the credit against the County. The reversal of the nonsuit in the first appeal prevented the county from abandoning the condemnation proceeding and thus prevented an award of damages from properly being made. Shelby Cnty. v. Crews, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 967 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015).

Collateral References.

Condemner's liability for costs of condemnee's expert witnesses. 68 A.L.R.3d 546.

Eminent domain 265.

29-17-913. Payment of judgments — Interest.

  1. All judgments rendered against a municipality, county or the state shall be paid out of the general funds of the municipality, county or state, whichever may be the condemner, together with interest at the rate of two percentage points (2%) greater than the prime loan rate established, as of the date of the taking, by the federal reserve system of the United States on any excess of the amount awarded an owner over the amount deposited with the clerk.
  2. All judgments rendered against a levee or drainage district, which condemns property in accordance with § 29-17-901(a)(2), shall be paid from funds collected as provided in title 69, chapter 6, together with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) on any excess of the amount awarded an owner over the amount deposited with the clerk.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 13; T.C.A., § 23-1540; Acts 1981, ch. 248, §§ 4, 5; 1981, ch. 263, § 2; 1994, ch. 800, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-17-813; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Eminent Domain, § 27.

Law Reviews.

Constitutional Law — 1960 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 13 Vand. L. Rev. 1021.

Eminent Domain in Tennessee: Public Use, Just Compensation and the Landowner, 3 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 65.

Cited: Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, 219 Tenn. 201, 408 S.W.2d 651, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (1966).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Rate of Interest.

The 1981 amendment raising the rate of interest applied even where the taking occurred before the effective date of the amendment. State ex rel. Commissioner of Transp. v. McDougal, 648 S.W.2d 254, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Trial court did not err in its award of pre-judgment interest of $267,468 to property owners in County's condemnation action where according to the clear statutory mandates the trial court did not have discretion over whether to award pre-judgment interest. The appellate court found no error in the award being 2 percent greater than the undisputed prime loan rate at the time of taking; on the contrary, the appellate court found that it was clearly called for when the applicable statute was applied to the facts of the case at bar and the appellate court rejected the County's invitation to compute the interest in other ways. Sevier County v. Waters, 126 S.W.3d 913, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 600 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (Tenn. Feb. 2, 2004).

Collateral References. Eminent domain 159-162.

29-17-914. Provisions supplemental.

This part is not intended to repeal any existing statute relating to eminent domain, but is intended to be an accumulative or supplementary method of acquiring property by eminent domain proceedings.

Acts 1959, ch. 216, § 14; T.C.A., § 23-1541; T.C.A. § 29-17-814; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Alternative Procedures.

County was not obligated to proceed under ch. 17, part 9 of this title in highway condemnation suit but could proceed under ch. 16 of this title. Williams v. McMinn County, 209 Tenn. 236, 352 S.W.2d 430, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 372 (1961).

Part 10
Miscellaneous Provisions

29-17-1001. Continuance of condemnation trial.

In any case in which the state of Tennessee, its counties or municipalities exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire land for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, drainage or protection of any street, road, highway, freeway or parkway under this chapter and chapter 16 of this title or any other law, and the owner of the condemned property is not satisfied with the amount of damages offered, such owner may, upon motion filed with the proper court not less than ninety (90) days prior to the trial on the issue of damages, request that such trial be continued until the highway for which the land was condemned, or any work being done thereto, is completed. If the motion is timely and properly filed, it shall be granted.

Acts 1981, ch. 334, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-17-1201; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Former part 12 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-1201 and 29-17-1202, concerning miscellaneous provisions, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 10 in 2006.

Cross-References. Condemnation by department of transportation, §§ 54-5-104, 54-5-105, 54-5-106, 54-5-107.

Condemnation for controlled-access roads, § 54-16-104.

Eminent domain by state within municipalities, § 54-5-208.

Eminent domain for road purposes, title 29, ch. 17, part 8.

Cited: State ex rel. Comm'r DOT v. Cox, 840 S.W.2d 357, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1006 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

29-17-1002. Evidence.

If the trial of any such condemnation case is commenced prior to the completion of the highway for which the land was condemned, or any work being done thereto, maps, drawings or photographs of the land being condemned shall be admissible in evidence, provided the undertaking is substantially complete and such evidence would not misrepresent the same.

Acts 1981, ch. 334, § 1; T.C.A. § 29-17-1202; Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 12 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-1201 and 29-17-1202, concerning miscellaneous provisions, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 10 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Cited: Edwards v. Hallsdale-Powell Util. Dist., 115 S.W.3d 461, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 723 (Tenn. 2003).

29-17-1003. Transfer of land acquired by eminent domain.

  1. Land acquired by eminent domain that the acquiring entity seeks to dispose of may be sold, leased or otherwise transferred to another public or quasi-public entity or to a private person, corporation or other entity; provided, that the entity transferring the land receives at least fair market value for the land.
  2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to or affect the disposal of the state's surplus interests in real property pursuant to § 12-2-112.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, §§ 1, 4.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 12 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-1201 and 29-17-1202, concerning miscellaneous provisions, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 10 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

Former § 29-17-1203  (Acts 1994, ch. 870, § 1; 1995, ch. 136, § 1), concerning disposition of property acquired by eminent domain, was repealed by Acts 1997, ch. 402, § 16. For present comparable provisions, see this section.

29-17-1004. Appraisal required in any condemnation proceeding.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, in any condemnation proceeding in this state, an appraisal of the property must be obtained. The appraisal shall value the property considering its highest and best use, its use at the time of the taking, and any other uses to which the property is legally adaptable at the time of the taking. Any appraiser making an appraisal must possess the designation Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), or be an otherwise licensed and qualified appraiser under title 62, chapter 39.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 20.

Compiler's Notes. Former part 12 of this chapter, §§ 29-17-1201 and 29-17-1202, concerning miscellaneous provisions, was transferred to title 29, ch. 17, part 10 in 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 863, § 25, provided that the amendment by that act shall apply only to eminent domain or condemnation proceedings initiated on or after July 1, 2006.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Not Error to Admit Affiliate Real Estate Broker's Testimony on Real Estate Value In Divorce.

It was not error, in a divorce, to admit an affiliate real estate broker's testimony as to the value of real estate because: (1) T.C.A. § 62-39-103 did not prohibit someone other than a licensed real estate appraiser or real estate broker from giving an opinion of the value of real property in all circumstances, where such an opinion of value, rather than the appraised value of property as directed by T.C.A. § 29-17-1004, was sought; and (2) nothing in the statute prohibited an affiliate real estate broker from offering opinion testimony of the value of real property in a domestic relations case. Bates v. Bates, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 428 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2012).

2. Valuation.

Because a land consultant was not a licensed appraiser, he was not legally qualified to give an appraisal of property; however, the fact that the consultant could not appraise property did not automatically disqualify him from rendering an opinion as to the value of property, and although he could not appraise the property at issue, the fact he was not a licensed appraiser did not render him incompetent to render an opinion as to the value of the property. Breen v. Sharp, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).

3. —Expert Witness Testimony.

In a condemnation of property by a utility district case, the testimony of the landowner's expert witness should have been excluded because, although the existence of the spring on the property and the history of rental income from the property were appropriate for consideration when determining the fair market value of the property, it was not appropriate for the expert witness to calculate the fair market value of the condemned property by looking solely to the rental income from the use of water on the property and simply turning it into a value; and because the jury's verdict was obviously influenced by the expert witness's impermissible valuation testimony, as it adopted the identical figure of $ 417,000 that he suggested. Ocoee Util. Dist. of Bradley v. Wildwood Co., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2016).

29-17-1005. Condemned property to be offered for sale to former owner under certain circumstances.

  1. In any case in which a local government exercises the power of eminent domain under this chapter, chapter 16 of this title, or any other law, and the local government determines the property condemned or taken by eminent domain is not used for the purpose or purposes for which it was condemned or for some other authorized public use, or if the local government subsequently decides to sell it within ten (10) years of being condemned or taken, the property shall be first offered for sale to the former property owner or owners from whom the property was condemned or taken.
  2. An agreement to purchase the property for the lesser of the following must be signed by the former property owner or owners within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer:
    1. The price paid to the former property owner or owners by the local government at the time the local government acquired the property through eminent domain, plus the appraised fair market value of any improvements made to the property after condemnation and an amount equal to the average amount of interest that would have accrued on the amount paid to the former property owner or owners if held in United States treasury bonds; or
    2. An amount representing not less than the fair market value of the property as of the date of the purchase agreement.
  3. If the property is not purchased by the former property owner or owners within thirty (30) days or if no former property owner can be found following a good faith effort by the local government to do so, the property shall be offered for sale in any commercially reasonable manner to the general public for an amount not less than the fair market value, together with costs.
    1. In any case in which a local government exercises the power of eminent domain under this chapter, chapter 16 of this title, or any other law, for a public use, a former property owner may request from the local government a statement of intent for public use no more than once every twenty-four (24) months following the date of the condemnation.
    2. The statement of intent for public use must state the public use for which the local government intends to use the property and a description of the intended plan for any improvements to the property.
    3. Notwithstanding subdivision (d)(1), if the local government publicly discloses its decision to not use the property for a public use, then a former property owner may immediately request from the local government a new statement of intent for public use.
  4. Rights granted to a former property owner under this section do not transfer to the former property owner's heirs or transfer to any other party.
  5. This section does not apply if compliance is prohibited by federal law.
  6. As used in this section, “local government” means any incorporated city or town, county, or metropolitan government.

Acts 2014, ch. 851, § 1; 2018, ch. 871, § 1.

Amendments. The 2018 amendment added (d), (f), and (g) and redesignated the existing language accordingly; in present (a), substituted “local government” for “county and municipality” following “In any case in which”, substituted “local government” for “condemning entity” twice, and substituted “former property owner or owners for “person or persons” following “sale to the”; rewrote present (b) and (c) which formerly read: “The person from whom the property was condemned or taken shall have thirty (30) days in which to sign an agreement to purchase the property. The former property owner may purchase the property for an amount representing not less than the fair market value, together with costs. If the property is not purchased by the former property owner within thirty (30) days the property shall be offered for sale in any commercially reasonable manner to the general public. The property shall be sold for an amount not less than the fair market value, together with costs.”; rewrote present (e) which read: “The good faith effort by the condemning entity to locate and contact the former property owner satisfies this section and the sale shall be valid. The former property owner’s right shall not transfer to the owner’s heirs.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 851, § 2. July 1, 2014.

Acts 2018, ch. 871, § 2. July 1, 2018.

Chapter 18
Forcible Entry and Detainer

29-18-101. Unlawful entry prohibited.

No person shall enter upon any lands, tenements, or other possessions, and detain or hold the same, but where entry is given by law, and then only in a peaceable manner.

Code 1858, § 3341 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 1); Shan., § 5090; Code 1932, § 9244; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1601.

Cross-References. Dispossession of tenant from dwelling unfit for habitation because of complaint prohibited, § 68-111-105.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 18.

Law Reviews.

An Exegesis of the Ejectment Statutes of Tennessee (R.D. Cox), 18 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 581 (1988).

An Overview of the Tennessee Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 109.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

The Indigent Tenant in Tennessee — IV. Constructive and Partial Constructive Eviction (William E. Caldwell), 1 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 117.

Comparative Legislation. Forcible entry and detainer:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-310 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-301 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 42-6-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 383.200 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-25-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 534.010 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-124 et seq.

Cited: Perry v. Royal Arms Apartments, 729 F.2d 1081, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24316 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1984); In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The metropolitan development and housing authority's policy of excluding applicants for federal assistance because of prior indebtedness created an unauthorized collection device that circumvented the procedures and protections provided to both landlords and tenants under § 23-1601 et seq. (now this chapter) and title 66, ch. 28, part 1. Ferguson v. Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency, 485 F. Supp. 517, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10346 (M.D. Tenn. 1980).

Trial court erred in its finding that the lessee was a holdover tenant where the plain language of the lease stated that it could be extended at the lessee's discretion for another five years, and the lease required no additional act by the lessee in order to do so; there was no dispute that the lessee continued to occupy the premises and pay rent. Four Eights, LLC v. Salem, 194 S.W.3d 484, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —,  2006 Tenn. LEXIS 478 (Tenn. 2006).

2. Constitutionality.

The unlawful detainer statute is constitutional. Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

3. Purpose of Remedy.

The remedy of forcible entry and detainer protects possession without reference to title. It was given in order to preserve the peace and harmony of society, by preventing persons who have conflicting titles to same land from taking redress of their own wrongs into their own hands. Cutshaw v. Campbell, 3 Tenn. App. 666, — S.W. —, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1925); Rhea v. Redus, 7 Tenn. App. 478, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

The action of forcible entry and detainer is designed to determine the right of possession to land. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

4. —Action as Substitute for Entry to Forfeit a Lease.

Under this section, the action of unlawful detainer is a substitute for an entry by a landlord to forfeit a lease for nonpayment of rent. The institution of such action has the same effect as an entry. Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S.W. 695, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1914).

5. Unlawful Entry — Trespass.

Where the plaintiff, a tenant at sufferance, sought damages for the trespass of his landlord in removing the roof of the premises and damages to his furnishings when it rained he was allowed recovery since the landlord could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer proceeding and, therefore, the removal of the roof was trespass. Price v. Osborne, 24 Tenn. App. 525, 147 S.W.2d 412, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

Where the defendant forcibly entered and ejected the plaintiffs from the tenant house they occupied on his property he was guilty of trespass and assault since he could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer action. Schumpert v. Moore, 24 Tenn. App. 695, 149 S.W.2d 471, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

6. Adverse Possession.

Adverse possession is a defense to a claim of forcible entry. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

7. Validity.

Federal court abstained from deciding the validity of the forcible entry and detainer statute as applied to low-income tenants of federally financed housing where the challenger's interpretation that the statute did not require any showing by the landlord of cause for eviction was not a settled or certain interpretation of the statute by the Tennessee courts. Troupe v. Fairview Apartments, 464 F. Supp. 234, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14975 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Wrestling club's unlawful detainer claims were without merit because there was no evidence of the club having a leasehold interest in the building on the grounds of a middle school where the club conducted its activities. The trial court found that the wrestling program located at the middle school was conducted by the sheriff's office, not the club and that the club was merely a booster club aiding a program of the sheriff's office. Rutherford Wrestling Club, Inc. v. Arnold, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2015).

8. Burden of Proof.

Generally the landlord in a summary eviction procedure has at least the burden of showing a prima facie case. Troupe v. Fairview Apartments, 464 F. Supp. 234, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14975 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

9. Notice.

Federal regulations under the rent supplement program require that certain notices be given before eviction procedures are commenced, but the question of what those eviction procedures must be is left entirely up to state law as long as constitutional notice and hearing requirements are met. Troupe v. Fairview Apartments, 464 F. Supp. 234, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14975 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

10. Rights of Tenant.

In an unlawful detainer action, tenant did not have the constitutional right to a jury trial in a general sessions court; however under this section, the tenant was guaranteed a trial by jury, on appeal, of a general sessions court judgment. Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

Despite a lease provision allowing reentry by a lessor, T.C.A. § 29-18-101 requires the lessor to obtain a writ of possession before entering the leased premises, even though the lessor had terminated the lease because of the lessee's default. 94th Aero Squadron of Memphis, Inc. v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Auth., 169 S.W.3d 627, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 721 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 523 (Tenn. May 23, 2005).

11. Legislative Intent.

The intent of the 1821 legislative act, in creating the action of unlawful detainer, was to streamline the cumbersome and more formal common law action, such as ejectment, used to determine rightful possession of real property. Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 2, 3.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 1, 2.

Forcible entry and detainer 4, 5.

29-18-102. Forcible entry and detainer defined — Where action does not lie.

  1. A forcible entry and detainer is where a person, by force or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors, windows, or other parts of the house, whether any person be in it or not, or by any kind of violence whatsoever, enters upon land, tenement, or possession, in the occupation of another, and detains and holds the same; or by threatening to kill, maim, or beat the party in possession; or by such words, circumstances, or actions, as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger; or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession; or by entering peaceably and then turning or keeping the party out of possession by force or threat or other circumstances of terror.
  2. No action for forcible entry and detainer shall lie against any tenant who has paid all rent due for current occupancy of the premises and who is not in violation of any law nor otherwise in breach of the tenant's written lease, but this subsection (b) shall not apply in any manner to farm property, nor shall this subsection (b) be construed to alter or amend any valid lease agreement in effect on May 31, 1979.

Code 1858, § 3342 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 2); Shan., § 5091; Code 1932, § 9245; Acts 1979, ch. 421, §§ 1-3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1602.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 2, 3, 8.

Cited: Lewis v. Muchmore, 26 S.W.3d 632, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Self Help Ventures Fund v. Robilio, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose and Policy.

The remedy was given in order to preserve peace and harmony of society by preventing persons who have conflicting titles to the same land from taking redress of their wrongs into their own hands, and to prevent violence, to which the temptation would be great, if a party dispossessed by violence could legally regain possession only by making out title. The defendant in possession, although without a vestige of title, can securely defy the whole world, except the true owner. So, the law removes all temptations to scramble for possession by compelling restoration of possession unlawfully taken. Davidson v. Phillips, 17 Tenn. 93, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1836); Childress & Wyley v. Black, 17 Tenn. 317, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1836); White v. Suttle, 31 Tenn. 169, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1851); Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855); Gass v. Newman, 38 Tenn. 136, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1858).

The action of forcible entry and detainer is designed to determine the right of possession to land. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

2. Invasion of Possession.

Where plaintiff did not have title to a strip of land but had adversely possessed for about 14 years and then the title owner deprived plaintiff of possession by erecting a fence, plaintiff could not sue for the strip of land because he did not have title, but could assert his right to possession by a writ of forcible entry and detainer. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

3. —Acts Constituting Possession.

One may be in possession of land without having a crop growing on it, or any person residing in the house, or an inclosure by fence. Any act done by the owner of land, after a tenant has left it, indicating an intention not to abandon it, but to hold possession, will continue the possession. Taking possession by locking the doors of the house, closing the windows, and driving stock on the premises, was held sufficient. Davidson v. Phillips, 17 Tenn. 93, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1836); West v. Lanier, 28 Tenn. 762, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1849); Mansfield v. Northcut, 112 Tenn. 536, 80 S.W. 437, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1903); Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907).

Mere foothold or semblance of possession is not sufficient, nor is possession obtained by stealth or fraud. A scrambling and inchoate possession, void of substance or continuity, will not support action. Jones v. Czaza, 19 Tenn. App. 327, 86 S.W.2d 1096, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 43 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

Where complainant by his own testimony admitted he was never in possession except for a few hours when his employee started a tractor and evidence was to the effect that defendant had already taken possession, doing bulldozer work, burning Johnson grass, cutting timber and exercising all indicia of ownership, complainant never had such possession as to entitle him to prevail in an action for forcible entry and detainer. Hall v. Lane, 60 Tenn. App. 38, 444 S.W.2d 156, 1968 Tenn. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968).

4. —Possession by Plaintiff — Necessity.

A party, to be guilty, must enter into possession of the premises, when actually adversely held. Lane v. Marshall, 8 Tenn. 254, 8 Tenn. 255, 1827 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1827).

Action for a schoolhouse may be maintained by the owner of the land against a trespasser in the possession thereof. Vanhook v. Story, 23 Tenn. 59, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1843).

The plaintiff must be in possession, actual or constructive, at the time of the defendant's entry. Greer v. Wroe, 33 Tenn. 246, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1853); Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855); Bird v. Fannon, 40 Tenn. 12, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1859); Elliott v. Lawless, 53 Tenn. 123, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1871); Rook v. Godfrey, 105 Tenn. 534, 58 S.W. 850, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1900).

The action will not lie in favor of a trustee under a deed of trust or mortgage, nor in favor of a purchaser from him, where neither of them has had possession, against a naked trespasser. In such case, there is no privity between the trustee or purchaser and the trespasser; and the latter is not the tenant of either of the former. Kuhn v. Feiser, 40 Tenn. 82, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1859); Ballow v. Motheral, 64 Tenn. 600, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1875); Griffith v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. 387, 37 S.W. 273, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 156, 46 L.R.A. 435 (1896).

The mortgagee not in possession cannot maintain the action against the mortgagor. Ballow v. Motheral, 64 Tenn. 600, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1875); Verner v. Carson, 2 Shan. 101 (1876); Griffith v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. 387, 37 S.W. 273, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 156, 46 L.R.A. 435 (1896).

Unless the plaintiff was in possession at the date of defendant's entry on the land, he cannot maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer. Rook v. Godfrey, 105 Tenn. 534, 58 S.W. 850, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1900).

Where defendant has fenced a strip of land, the fact that plaintiff stretched a single wire around it was insufficient possession to maintain the action. Clay v. Sloan, 104 Tenn. 401, 58 S.W. 229, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1900).

5. —Actual Possession of Part.

A constructive possession, created by actual possession on some part of the land within the boundaries of the deed definitely describing its boundaries, is sufficient to authorize action of forcible entry and detainer. Mansfield v. Northcut, 112 Tenn. 536, 80 S.W. 437, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1903); Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907).

The possession of part of a tract of land under an instrument, though merely in the nature of a quitclaim deed, describing the boundaries of the tract, is in law the possession of the whole tract, sufficient to support an action. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907).

The fact that complainant, from time to time, cut timber and grazed stock on a certain part of a tract of land held under an instrument describing the whole tract does not show such actual possession as will extend the construction possession to the other part, so as to be sufficient to support an action for that other part, and especially where the user was not shown to be continuous and uninterrupted. Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907).

Where one was in actual possession of land, by residence thereon, under a deed defining boundaries, and claiming to the limit of the stated bounds, and so in actual possession of the whole tract lying within the bounds, his possession was violated when another fenced in a part of such land, and a right of action accrued to him whose possession was so violated. Walker v. Davis, 139 Tenn. 475, 202 S.W. 78, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1918).

6. —Abandonment of Possession.

The accidental continuance or ranging of stock upon a place would not constitute possession, if the intention to abandon it had been evinced by declarations or actions. There must be a concurrence of acts and intention to fill the idea of actual occupation or possession. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855).

Where the party, although saying that he intended to renew his contract of renting for another year, had not done so, but, before the close of the year, had removed his cattle, except three, which were left, not on purpose, but because he could not get them out, this was held to be a deliberate abandonment. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855).

7. —Court Order Putting One in Possession.

The possession of lands obtained by the issuance of a writ of possession and execution of a writ of possession in violation of an injunction is an unlawful possession, and though the court of chancery issuing the injunction could, in such case, restore the person so dispossessed to the possession, still he may resort to forcible entry and detainer. Farnsworth v. Fowler, 31 Tenn. 1, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1851).

An action cannot be maintained to dispossess a party who has been put in possession of land by command of a court of competent jurisdiction by a writ of possession executed by an officer. Where a person has been wrongfully dispossessed in this way, he must petition the court ordering the dispossession to have himself restored to the possession; or, if he have a superior title, he may resort to ejectment. Scott v. Newsom, 36 Tenn. 457, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1857); Rook v. Godfrey, 105 Tenn. 534, 58 S.W. 850, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1900); Cope v. Payne, 111 Tenn. 128, 76 S.W. 820, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 10, 102 Am. St. Rep. 746 (1903).

In case of dissolution of injunction against defendant's action of forcible entry, the court was without power to award defendant possession. Myers v. Northcutt, 127 Tenn. 54, 152 S.W. 1034, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1912).

8. —Peaceable Possession of Vacant Property.

Taking peaceable and quiet possession of an island in a river, without any obstruction or impediment in the way, with no doors to open, no gates to unbolt, or fences to throw down, but all open and unoccupied, is a case clearly beyond the scope of the action. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855).

If the premises are vacant, and the defendant enters peaceably and for himself, the action will not lie, but he will only be subject to an action in ejectment to try the title. Bird v. Fannon, 40 Tenn. 12, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1859); Elliott v. Lawless, 53 Tenn. 123, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1871). See Greer v. Wroe, 33 Tenn. 246, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1853); Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855).

9. —Police Officers Putting One in Possession.

This action lies against a person put into possession forcibly by the town constable of a municipal corporation, although done under the orders of the city council. Dennis v. Rainey, 67 Tenn. 501, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1875).

10. —Tenant by Landlord.

Where the plaintiff, a tenant at sufferance, sought damages for the trespass of his landlord in removing the roof of the premises and damages to his furnishings when it rained he was allowed recovery since the landlord could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer and, therefore, the removal of the roof was trespass. Price v. Osborne, 24 Tenn. App. 525, 147 S.W.2d 412, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

Where the defendant forcibly entered and ejected the plaintiffs from the tenant house they occupied on his property he was guilty of trespass and assault since he could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer. Schumpert v. Moore, 24 Tenn. App. 695, 149 S.W.2d 471, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

Landlord's act in cutting off utilities was not, in itself, a trespass. Morrison v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 678, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

11. —Collusion Between Tenant and Adverse Claimant.

Plaintiffs had a deed to the land sought to be recovered, definitely describing the boundaries, and claimed to the extent of the boundaries. There was a house on the land occupied by defendant as a tenant of plaintiffs, but the remainder was uninclosed mountain land. A claimant of the land under hostile title built a cabin upon a different part of the premises, and induced the tenant to move into it and attorn to him. The landlord could not thus, by collusion between his tenant and such adverse claimant, be deprived of his possession, which was of the entire tract and sufficient to maintain his action. Mansfield v. Northcut, 112 Tenn. 536, 80 S.W. 437, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1903).

12. Forcible Entry.

Adverse possession is a defense to a claim of forcible entry. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

Landlord was not guilty of forcible entry and detainer simply as a result of turning off the utilities. Morrison v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 678, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

13. —Invasion Without Violence — Sufficiency.

Downright violence is not necessary to constitute the offense of forcible entry and detainer, for if the actual possession of another be invaded and held under circumstances showing that it will not be surrendered without a breach of the peace, on the one side or the other, it is sufficient. Childress & Wyley v. Black, 17 Tenn. 317, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1836); Turner v. Lumbrick, 19 Tenn. 7, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1838).

The law implies force in every unauthorized entry upon premises in the peaceable possession of another, and in every unauthorized obstruction of such possession. Gass v. Newman, 38 Tenn. 136, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 141 (1858); Cleage v. Hyden, 53 Tenn. 73, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 319 (1871).

Actual violence is not necessary to constitute a forcible entry and detainer. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

14. —Words or Acts Exciting Fear.

Where the defendants came to a mill, forbade the party in possession from grinding, or in any way using the mill, ordered him away, and in an angry manner told him that if he raised a gate or touched anything in the mill, he should suffer for it, it was held that these facts constituted a forcible entry and detainer. Turner v. Lumbrick, 19 Tenn. 7, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1838).

Such words, circumstances, or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or the breaking open of doors or windows, or other parts of a house, or throwing out goods, or acts of force or violence, or appearances tending to inspire an apprehension of violent acts to the person, goods, houses, or inclosures, must exist. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855); Mansfield v. Northcut, 112 Tenn. 536, 80 S.W. 437, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1903).

15. —Required Force.

To maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, the plaintiff must be actually expelled from the premises by force. He is not bound to resist and fight to the last extremity, nor, indeed, to fight at all, for he may retire without any resistance, upon the appearance of force. White v. Suttle, 30 Tenn. 449, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (1850).

To maintain the action it must appear that there were acts of force, or appearances tending to inspire apprehension of violent acts to the person, goods, or inclosures, in the manner in which the plaintiff was deprived of the possession. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855); Mansfield v. Northcut, 112 Tenn. 536, 80 S.W. 437, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 121 (1903).

16. Procedure.

17. —Proper Plaintiff.

Tenant in common may maintain action without joining his cotenants as plaintiffs. Turner v. Lumbrick, 19 Tenn. 7, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1838); Jones v. Phillips, 57 Tenn. 562, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 262 (1873).

Where a party, not as a mere agent, but as an agent having an interest in the premises and a right to the possession for a certain time, has been wrongfully dispossessed, he may maintain the action. Colcord v. Hall, 40 Tenn. 625, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 184 (1859); De Garmo v. Prater, 125 Tenn. 497, 146 S.W. 144, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1911).

Action of forcible entry and detainer is a mere possessory action, and cannot be substituted for ejectment to try titles, and must be in the name of the tenant if he is wrongfully ousted of his possession, and not in the name of his landlord. Elliott v. Lawless, 53 Tenn. 123, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1871); Chamberlin v. Fox Coal & Coke Co., 92 Tenn. 13, 20 S.W. 345, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1892); Rook v. Godfrey, 105 Tenn. 534, 58 S.W. 850, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 101 (1900); Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Tenn. 135, 104 S.W. 792, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1907); Hunt v. Foley, 9 Tenn. App. 96, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

18. —Misjoinder.

Where the question of misjoinder is raised there can be no recovery of the whole tract, at suit of several to whom the owner has leased different portions by separate contracts. Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 7 Tenn. Civ. App. (7 Higgins) 43 (1917).

19. —Married Women or Infants as Defendants.

The action of forcible entry and detainer will lie against married women or infants. Skipwith v. Johnson, 45 Tenn. 454, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1868).

20. Trial.

21. —Plaintiff's Possession as Jury Question.

Whether the plaintiff was in possession, at the time of the forcible entry complained of, is a question of fact for the jury. Davidson v. Phillips, 17 Tenn. 93, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1836).

22. —Issues in Action.

Title cannot be inquired into in action by writ of forcible entry and detainer. It is no defense that the defendant's title is perfect. He must assert it by proper legal proceedings. He cannot help himself to the possession by a forcible entry. Even a landlord, after the expiration of the lease, cannot enter upon the possession of his tenant. The only questions of importance are (1) was the plaintiff in possession? (2) did he lose it by the defendant's act of forcible entry and detainer? If so, the possession must be restored. Davidson v. Phillips, 17 Tenn. 93, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1836).

Possession being the foundation of an action, the question of title is only incidental, and if the complainant proves possession, the defect, if any, in his title, is not available to the defendant. Round Mountain Lumber & Coal Co. v. Bass, 136 Tenn. 687, 191 S.W. 341, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1916).

Title is not to be inquired into in an action at law. The rule is different in equity. Brown v. Grayson, 160 Tenn. 374, 24 S.W.2d 894, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1930).

The issues in an action of forcible entry and detainer are: (1) was the plaintiff in possession and (2) did he lose possession by defendant's act of forcible entry and detainer. Foster v. Hill, 510 S.W.2d 520, 1973 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973).

23. —Inquiry into Title — Extent Permissible.

As a general rule, the title cannot be inquired into; nevertheless, for some purposes, the title may be looked to, not as a ground of action or defense, but in elucidating whether the case made out constitutes in law a wrongful entry or detainer, as to define boundaries, or in reference to the question of rents and damages to be recovered in an action brought by mere intruder against the rightful owner of the land; or, where the claimant, by fraud, induced another to take a lease, or to enter under him, upon a false representation as to his title, so that the contract was vitiated by fraud; and, perhaps, in some other cases. Shultz v. Elliott, 30 Tenn. 183, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1850); Philips v. Sampson, 39 Tenn. 429, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (1859); Beatty v. Jones, Scott & Baker, 41 Tenn. 482, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1860); Allison v. Casey, 63 Tenn. 587, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (1874); McGhee v. Grady, 80 Tenn. 89, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1883); Smith v. Zwicker, 136 Tenn. 77, 188 S.W. 595, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (1916).

24. Satisfaction — Lands Recoverable.

The plaintiff's right of action and recovery is limited to such portion of the land as the defendant had in possession on the day the warrant was issued, and he cannot recover other portions of the land taken possession of pending the litigation. White v. Suttle, 30 Tenn. 449, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (1850); Jones v. Phillips, 57 Tenn. 562, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 262 (1873).

25. Eviction by Election — Doctrine Inapplicable.

The doctrine of eviction by election has no application to actions of forcible entry and detainer. White v. Suttle, 30 Tenn. 449, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (1850).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 1.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 16-19.

Agent's or servant's personal liability for. 20 A.L.R. 97, 99 A.L.R. 408.

Criminal offense of forcible detainer where entry was peaceable. 49 A.L.R. 597.

Dispossession without legal process by one entitled to possession of real property as ground of action, other than for recovery of possession or damage to his person, by person dispossessed. 101 A.L.R. 476.

Forcible entry and detainer as a remedy of tenant against stranger wrongfully interfering with his possession. 12 A.L.R.2d 1192.

Gasoline station, right of lessee of, to maintain action of forcible entry and detainer. 83 A.L.R. 1419, 126 A.L.R. 1375.

Husband and wife, joint liability for. 12 A.L.R. 1485.

Justice of the peace, action for forcible entry and detainer as one involving title to land, beyond jurisdiction of. 115 A.L.R. 510.

Master and servant, statute prescribing damages for forcibly ejecting or excluding one for possession of real property as applying to possession held by one as servant or employee. 14 A.L.R. 808.

Minerals or oil and gas, forcible entry and detainer or unlawful detainer as applicable in case of “lease” of. 107 A.L.R. 661.

Multiple damages for ejection from real estate, construction and application of statute providing for. 126 A.L.R. 127.

“Owner,” scope and import of term in statutes relating to forcible entry and detainer. 2 A.L.R. 798, 95 A.L.R. 1085.

Right of landlord legally entitled to possession to dispossess tenant without legal process. 6 A.L.R.3d 177.

Right-of-way, forcible entry and detainer as remedy for interference with. 47 A.L.R. 556.

Right to use force to obtain possession of real property to which one is entitled. 141 A.L.R. 255.

Rule that in general inhibits foreign corporation which has failed to comply with conditions of doing or continuing business in state or domestic corporation which has forfeited its charter, from maintaining action, as applicable to action of forcible entry and detainer. 136 A.L.R. 1168.

Tenant at will or by sufferance, necessity of notice to, before bringing of action by transferee of property. 151 A.L.R. 370.

Vendor's right to bring action to recover possession from vendee without first giving notice or making demand for possession. 94 A.L.R. 1250.

29-18-103. Forcible detainer defined.

A forcible detainer is where a person enters lawfully or peaceably, and holds unlawfully, and by any of the means enumerated in § 29-18-102 as constituting a forcible entry.

Code 1858, § 3343 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 3); Shan., § 5092; Code 1932, § 9246; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1603.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 2-4.

Cited: Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992); Self Help Ventures Fund v. Robilio, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Possession as Basis for Suit.

Where, by permission of the owner, a house and yard is used for the purpose of maintaining a neighborhood school, the same is, while so occupied, in the possession of the teacher, and not of the owner of the fee; and if, while so occupied, a third person takes forcible possession of it, the owner cannot maintain the action of forcible entry and detainer; but after the termination of the school, he may maintain the action of forcible detainer. Vanhook v. Story, 23 Tenn. 59, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1843).

Chancery court's order establishing the conservatorship vested plaintiff with the exclusive authority and responsibility to manage and preserve the owner's estate; by charging rent, which defendant refused to pay, plaintiff was attempting to maintain the owner's estate, rather than fundamentally changing the character of it, and thus the trial court did not err in awarding possession of the property to plaintiff for the benefit of the owner. Sullivan v. Kreiling, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

2. Admissions Estopping One from Recovering.

The owner's admission that if the trespasser had the title of a certain third person to the property, he had a right to the possession, but stating that he did not believe that he had such person's title, such hypothetical admission did not amount to an assent that the trespasser had obtained possession lawfully, or was holding lawfully, and would not estop the owner from recovering in an action. Vanhook v. Story, 23 Tenn. 59, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1843).

3. Unlawful Possession by Tenant.

Actual violence is not required to be proved in a proceeding for forcible detainer, if proof shows that landlord is entitled to possession. Trousdale v. Darnell, 14 Tenn. 430, 14 Tenn. 431, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1834).

4. One of Several Lessees Suing.

One tenant in possession, even though other tenants enjoy the possession in common with him, may maintain the action. Hopkins v. Calloway, 35 Tenn. 11, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1855); Hunt v. Foley, 9 Tenn. App. 96, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

5. Appropriate Remedy.

Defendant entered the property peacefully; however, after she refused plaintiff's demand for rent, she unlawfully kept possession of the property to the exclusion of plaintiff, who had the affirmative duty to utilize the property as an income-producing asset for the benefit of the owner, and thus the appropriate remedy was an action for forcible detainer. Sullivan v. Kreiling, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 1.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 2, 15, 42.

29-18-104. Unlawful detainer defined.

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.

Code 1858, § 3344 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 5); Shan., § 5093; Code 1932, § 9247; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1604.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 2-4, 9, 18.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

Cited: Rhea v. Redus, 7 Tenn. App. 478, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928); Nashville Housing Authority v. Kinnard, 186 Tenn. 33, 207 S.W.2d 1019, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1948); Pan-Am Southern Corp. v. Cummins, 156 F. Supp. 673, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2844 (D. Tenn. 1957); Buchanan v. Johnson, 595 S.W.2d 827, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 384 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979); In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Interpretation.

The unlawful detainer statute creates a right to bring a cause of action for a writ of possession when a lessee remains on leased property after the lease has been terminated, but does not address the problem of the tenant who breaches the provisions of a lease which has not by its terms expired. Cain Partnership v. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 914 S.W.2d 452, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (Tenn. 1996).

2. —“Tenant” — Meaning as Used.

The word “tenant” has reference to the relation of landlord and tenant, and not to the more remote meaning which the word bears as used in the expressions “tenant by the curtesy,” and “tenant in common,” and the like. This section applies alone to one who occupies the relation of tenant to a landlord, or to one claiming under such tenant. Shepperson v. Burnette, 116 Tenn. 117, 92 S.W. 762, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1906).

Wrestling club's unlawful detainer claims were without merit because there was no evidence of the club having a leasehold interest in the building on the grounds of a middle school where the club conducted its activities. The trial court found that the wrestling program located at the middle school was conducted by the sheriff's office, not the club and that the club was merely a booster club aiding a program of the sheriff's office. Rutherford Wrestling Club, Inc. v. Arnold, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2015).

3. —Entering Under Contract Required.

The action of unlawful detainer will not lie unless the defendant, or the one under whom he claims, entered by contract. Shepperson v. Burnette, 116 Tenn. 117, 92 S.W. 762, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1906).

4. — —Theory of Case.

Where warrant issued failed to charge unlawful entry but did include word “forcible,” and where proof was confined to theory of entry by contract and unlawful detainer without force, plaintiff proceeded under and was confined to an action of unlawful detainer hence, entry under contract was the gravamen of the action. Springfield v. Stamper, 31 Tenn. App. 252, 214 S.W.2d 345, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

5. —Contrasted with Ejectment.

The feature which mainly distinguishes ejectment from unlawful detainer is the appearance of an issue respecting legal title of the actor. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 167 Tenn. 620, 72 S.W.2d 1050, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1934).

6. Landlord and Tenant.

If the tenancy is month-to-month, and notice of eviction is given in the middle of the month, the tenant has until the end of the following month to vacate the premises—not just thirty days from the date of the notice. Morrison v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 678, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

7. —Disclaiming Tenant.

Action against tenant disclaiming to hold under his landlord lies for unlawful detainer because, by such disclaimer, he forfeits his term. Ladd v. Riggle, 53 Tenn. 620, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1871).

8. —New Lease to Another.

The landlord may dispossess a subtenant or assignee holding over, notwithstanding such landlord had lost control of the reversion for a term, by demising the premises to another for a term to commence at the expiration of the term of the tenant holding over, for it is the duty of the landlord to place his second tenant in possession, and he may maintain an action to dispossess the original tenant. Fine v. Lawless, 139 Tenn. 160, 201 S.W. 160, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 96, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1918C1045 (1918).

9. —Purchaser of Remainder Against Tenant.

Purchaser of remainder or reversion may maintain action of unlawful detainer against the tenant or a subtenant, after the expiration of the term of lease, in the same manner as his grantor could have done, had he not sold. Marley v. Rodgers, 13 Tenn. 217, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1833); Turner v. Lumbrick, 19 Tenn. 7, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1838); Elliott v. Boren, 34 Tenn. 662, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1855).

Plaintiff and husband, as purchasers or assignees of reversion, could maintain action of unlawful detainer if defendants were in fact guilty of unlawful detainer as defined by this section. Smith v. Holt, 29 Tenn. App. 31, 193 S.W.2d 100, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945).

Deed conveying fee simple title to property carried with it all rights which grantor had in property, including the assignment of the reversion, as under this section, the right to the remedy is given to “the landlord, or the assignee of the remainder or reversion.” Rabe v. Thrasher, 29 Tenn. App. 419, 197 S.W.2d 1, 1946 Tenn. App. LEXIS 77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1946).

10. —Lessee for Term of Years Against Prior Tenant.

Lessee for term of years may not maintain action against prior tenant holding over; such suit may be prosecuted only by the landlord or the assignee of the remainder or reversion. Bloch v. Busch, 160 Tenn. 21, 22 S.W.2d 242, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1929).

11. —Promise to Vacate.

Where defendant was permitted to enter land during landlord's absence on condition that he would leave upon landlord's return, and he refuses to leave upon landlord's return the breach of faith in not surrendering upon request is willful and without force and defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer. Trousdale v. Darnell, 14 Tenn. 430, 14 Tenn. 431, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1834).

Where it was stipulated in the lease that the lessee, upon receiving notice of a desire of the lessors to sell the premises, should vacate the same, the lessors in such case to pay a stipulated sum, the notice, not expressing the desire to sell, was void; and, even had such desire been expressed, unlawful detainer would not have been maintainable, because such provision was merely a covenant, enforceable by damages for its breach, there being no right of reentry reserved, and no provision that, upon the happening of the contingency, the lease should become void, and the estate of the tenant terminate, and revest in the lessors. Sloan v. Cantrell, 45 Tenn. 571, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1868).

12. —Purchaser Never in Possession Against Lessee.

Unlawful detainer will not lie in favor of the purchaser under a deed of trust against the lessee of the maker, nor against a naked trespasser, where such purchaser never had been in possession. Kuhn v. Feiser, 40 Tenn. 82, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1859); Ballow v. Motheral, 64 Tenn. 600, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1875); Verner v. Carson, 2 Shan. 101 (1876); Griffith v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. 387, 37 S.W. 273, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 156, 46 L.R.A. 435 (1896).

13. —Remaindermen Against Assignee of Tenant by Curtesy.

An action will not lie by remaindermen against an assignee of the tenant by the curtesy, holding over after the expiration of that estate. Shepperson v. Burnette, 116 Tenn. 117, 92 S.W. 762, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1906).

14. Mortgagor After Default.

As a mortgagor received proper notice of a foreclosure sale under the deed of trust and T.C.A. §§ 35-5-101 and 35-5-104, the foreclosure sale transferred title to the purchaser and ultimately to its transferee. Thus, a landlord/tenant relationship arose between the transferee and the mortgagor, giving the transferee constructive possession of the property such that it could maintain an unlawful detainer action against the mortgagor under T.C.A. § 29-18-104. Self Help Ventures Fund v. Robilio, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2011), cert. dismissed, 179 L. Ed. 2d 293, 131 S. Ct. 1548, 562 U.S. 1210, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1709 (U.S. 2011).

Circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the bank's unlawful detainer case against the homeowners, despite the fact that the bank filed a notice for removal in a prior lawsuit between the parties, given that the case removed to federal court involved a foreclosure action, not the unlawful detainer action, and the bank could not have successfully brought an unlawful detainer claim until it purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and the homeowners refused to vacate. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Robertson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2018).

15. —Tenant by Sufferance.

A mortgagor holding possession after default is tenant at sufferance of the mortgagee. So where a trust deed provides that the trustee or beneficiary should be entitled to rents after default, they are entitled to bring unlawful detainer, as against contention that the only remedy was by way of foreclosure sale on bill in equity for receiver to collect rents. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 167 Tenn. 620, 72 S.W.2d 1050, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1934).

Where legal title of the trustee or mortgagee is not involved but confessed, and such default occurs, the remedy of this section may be followed. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 167 Tenn. 620, 72 S.W.2d 1050, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1934).

16. —Tenant by Agreement.

A maker of a deed of trust in possession may contract in such deed with the trustee and beneficiary, that foreclosure shall create the relation of landlord and tenant between the purchaser and maker, and that, upon the maker's default in surrendering possession, he may be removed by writ of unlawful detainer. A constructive entry that enables him to maintain unlawful detainer attaches as soon as title is acquired by purchaser at foreclosure sale. No express reservation of a formal right of reentry by the purchaser under such deed of trust is necessary to enable him to maintain unlawful detainer. Griffith v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. 387, 37 S.W. 273, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 156, 46 L.R.A. 435 (1896).

By unlawful detainer a purchaser at foreclosure sale of mortgage may oust the mortgagor who had been allowed to remain on the premises until a fixed time; the mortgagor became a tenant at will. Beasley v. Gregory, 2 Tenn. App. 378, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

Assignee of a foreclosure sale purchaser produced evidence to establish its unlawful detainer claim against the borrower because the deed of trust established a landlord/tenant relationship between the foreclosure sale purchaser and the borrower, so that the borrower was a tenant at will of the assignee and subject to eviction at its election. Fannie Mae v. Daniels, 517 S.W.3d 706, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 978 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 308 (Tenn. Apr. 14, 2016).

17. —Tenancy by Entireties — Notice.

Husband and wife being tenants by the entireties executed a trust deed which provided that in case of foreclosure grantors should become tenants after foreclosure, and that the tenancy might be terminated by ten days' notice, and husband alone was served with such notice, judgment for possession cannot be rendered against the wife. Question reserved whether judgment given against husband was proper. Hamilton Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Patton, 105 Tenn. 407, 58 S.W. 482, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1900).

18. Oral Sale of Land Repudiated — Seller Against Purchaser.

The oral vendor of land may recover the possession where the oral contract has been repudiated by either party; but, where the vendor repudiates the contract, the vendee's possession will not become unlawful until the vendor has given him notice that he has repudiated the contract, and, until then, the action would be premature. Section 29-18-113, dispensing with notice, is not applicable to this kind of a case. Beard v. Bricker, 32 Tenn. 50, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1852); Sullivan v. Ivey, 34 Tenn. 487, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1855); Redmond v. Bowles, 37 Tenn. 547, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1858); Biggs v. Johnson, 1 Shan. 622 (Tenn. 1876); Hurt v. Owens, 1 Shan. 631 (1876).

19. Heir Against Widow's Grantee.

Widow of deceased landowner could not by contract, deed or assignment create such an entry on the premises as would, upon a holding over, give rise to an unlawful detainer action by a remainderman. Springfield v. Stamper, 31 Tenn. App. 252, 214 S.W.2d 345, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

20. Summary Judgment.

When the undisputed facts did not resolve questions as to whether a foreclosure was conducted pursuant to the terms in a deed of trust, summary judgment on a bank's wrongful detainer action was inappropriate; a letter constituted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to the proper address where notices of acceleration could be sent under the deed of trust, and the parties presented evidence from which the fact-finder could draw conflicting inferences as to the proper notice address. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Chamberlain, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020).

Letter was non-hearsay and could be considered at summary judgment in a bank's wrongful detainer action because the purpose of the letter was only to establish that a letter was sent to a borrower's residential address, rather than the property address; thus, the letter was offered for the mere fact that the statement was uttered, as an operative fact that notices were at some point sent to the borrower's residential address. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Chamberlain, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 1.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 15.

29-18-105. Scope of definitions.

Sections 29-18-101 — 29-18-104 extend to and comprehend terms for years, and all estates, whether freehold or less than freehold.

Code 1858, § 3345 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 4); Shan., § 5094; Code 1932, § 9248; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1605.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

29-18-106. Alternative actions.

Where the action is to recover real property, ejectment, or forcible or unlawful entry or detainer may be brought.

Code 1858, § 2750; Shan., § 4441; Code 1932, § 8567; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1606.

Cross-References. Ejectment, title 29, ch. 15.

Injunction pending litigation, § 29-1-102.

One form of action, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 2.

Law Reviews.

Pleading — General Issue — Scope in Tennessee, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 256.

Cited: Pan-Am Southern Corp. v. Cummins, 156 F. Supp. 673, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2844 (D. Tenn. 1957); Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

Collateral References. 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 1-4; 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 1-9.

Propriety of filing of lis pendens in action affecting leasehold interest. 67 A.L.R.3d 747.

29-18-107. Jurisdiction of general sessions judge.

All cases of forcible entry and detainer, forcible detainer, and unlawful detainer, may be tried before any one (1) judge of the court of general sessions of the county in which the acts are committed, who shall decide the particular case, and all questions of law and fact arising.

Code 1858, § 3346 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 1); Acts 1879, ch. 23; Shan., § 5095; Code 1932, § 9249; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1607.

Cross-References. Jurisdiction generally, § 16-15-501.

Law Reviews.

The Judicial System in Tennessee and Potentialities for Reorganization — The Court System in Tennessee (Elvin E. Overton), 32 Tenn. L. Rev. 503.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. LeClercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Cited: Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bell Forge Assoc., Ltd., 750 F. Supp. 296, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15354 (M.D. Tenn. 1990).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Exclusive Jurisdiction.

Action of forcible and unlawful detainer could not be moved from justices (now general sessions court) where case was pending by certiorari merely because case was complicated. Mullins v. Watson, 3 Shan. 36 (1878).

Jurisdiction of an unlawful detainer action is in a justice of the peace (now general sessions court), the circuit court or chancery court, and the court which first takes jurisdiction thereby acquires exclusive jurisdiction. Robinson v. Easter, 208 Tenn. 147, 344 S.W.2d 365, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1961).

Chancery court had no jurisdiction to enjoin unlawful detainer suit commenced before justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) where only basis for suit in equity was complainant's claim of oral lease of premises for a year and the alleged lease, if valid, would have amounted to legal defense to the unlawful detainer action. Robinson v. Easter, 208 Tenn. 147, 344 S.W.2d 365, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1961).

2. Writ of Certiorari.

In an unlawful detainer action, a tenant was not entitled to proceed with a writ of certiorari after the writ of supersedeas was dismissed because she filed her petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas within the time allowed for filing a direct appeal, and the tenant was not deprived of an appeal and could establish a good and sufficient reason for not taking an appeal. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

3. Jurisdiction Proper.

Circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the bank's unlawful detainer case against the homeowners, despite the fact that the bank filed a notice for removal in a prior lawsuit between the parties, given that the case removed to federal court involved a foreclosure action, not the unlawful detainer action, and the bank could not have successfully brought an unlawful detainer claim until it purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and the homeowners refused to vacate. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Robertson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2018).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 33.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 78.

Justices of the peace 36(7).

29-18-108. Original jurisdiction of circuit court.

The action for the recovery of the possession of land, given in this chapter, may also be originally instituted in the circuit court, the same forms being substantially pursued as those prescribed, the process being issued by the clerk, the plaintiff first giving bond and security to answer costs and damages as provided in § 29-18-111.

Code 1858, § 3366 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 8); Shan., § 5115; Code 1932, § 9270; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1608.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 18.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. LeClercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. LeClercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of an unlawful detainer action is in a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), the circuit court or chancery court, and the court which first takes jurisdiction thereby acquires exclusive jurisdiction. Robinson v. Easter, 208 Tenn. 147, 344 S.W.2d 365, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1961).

Circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the bank's unlawful detainer case against the homeowners, despite the fact that the bank filed a notice for removal in a prior lawsuit between the parties, given that the case removed to federal court involved a foreclosure action, not the unlawful detainer action, and the bank could not have successfully brought an unlawful detainer claim until it purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and the homeowners refused to vacate. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Robertson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2018).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 33.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 31.

Forcible entry and detainer 16.

29-18-109. Limitation of actions.

The uninterrupted occupation or quiet possession of the premises in controversy by the defendant, for the space of three (3) entire years together, immediately preceding the commencement of the action, is, if the estate of the defendant has not determined within that time, a bar to any proceeding under this chapter.

Code 1858, § 3347 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 20); Shan., § 5096; Code 1932, § 9250; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1609.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 11.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

If suit be brought within three years for possession against an interloper, the action would be forcible entry and detainer, and not ejectment. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

2. Application and Scope.

The limitation provided by this section has no application to a suit which is not a forcible entry and detainer action. Whitaker v. House, 213 Tenn. 61, 372 S.W.2d 194, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 495 (1963).

3. Collusive and Fraudulent Possession.

The fact that the land was held by the defendant, through a collusive attornment, if the plaintiff knew of it and acquiesced, will not take the case out of the statute. Philips v. Sampson, 39 Tenn. 429, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 242 (1859).

The defendant's tenant attorning to the plaintiff during a portion of the three years, through fraud of the plaintiff, will not take the case out of the statute. Beatty v. Jones, Scott & Baker, 41 Tenn. 482, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1860).

4. Connecting Different Possessions.

This section only bars the remedy, and confers no right, and the defendant cannot unite his own possession to that of his tenant before he himself entered into possession, in order to constitute the bar. Thompson v. Holt, 28 Tenn. 407, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1848). But one may have effectual possession for three years by his tenant Heirs of Marr v. Gilliam, 41 Tenn. 488, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1860).

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 33.

Validity of statute canceling, destroying, nullifying, or limiting enforcement of possibilities of reverter or rights of reentry for condition broken. 87 A.L.R.3d 1011.

Forcible entry and detainer 17.

29-18-110. Death of parties.

  1. The heir or representative of the person who might have been plaintiff, if alive, may bring the suit after the potential plantiff's death.
  2. If either party die during the pendency of the suit, it may be revived by or against the heirs or legal representatives of the decedent, in the same manner and to the same extent as real actions.

Code 1858, §§ 3368, 3369 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 113, § 1); Shan., §§ 5118, 5119; Code 1932, §§ 9273, 9274; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1610.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Abatement, Survival and Revival, § 27; 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 3, 8.

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 30.

Forcible entry and detainer 18.

29-18-111. Plaintiff's bond.

The party complaining is required, before the issuance of the writ, to give bond, with good security, to pay all costs and damages which shall accrue to the defendant for the wrongful prosecution of the suit.

Code 1858, § 3348 (deriv. Acts 1822, ch. 35, § 1); Shan., § 5097; Code 1932, § 9251; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1611.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Action in Forma Pauperis.

An action of forcible entry and detainer may be commenced in forma pauperis as in other actions. Shaw v. Shaw, 1 Shan. 423 (1875).

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 52.

Forcible entry and detainer 21(7).

29-18-112. Form of warrant.

The warrant may be issued by a single general sessions judge in the following form:

State of Tennessee,

To the sheriff or any constable of such county:

County.

Whereas, complaint is made to me by A B, of a certain forcible and unlawful entry and detainer, made by C D, into and of a certain tract or lot of land, situated in the county aforementioned, and bounded [or known and described] as follows [insert boundaries and description], which land A B alleges A B is entitled to the possession of, and C D unlawfully detains from A B: We, therefore, command you to summon C D to appear before some judge of the court of general sessions, in and for such county, to answer the above complaint.

This  day of  , 20 . E F, G.S.J.

Code 1858, § 3349 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 1); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5098; Code 1932, § 9252; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1612.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 7, 12.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Actions Which May be Prosecuted Under Form.

Any species of the action may be prosecuted under the above form, but if plaintiff instead of following it brings one of the particular actions allowed, he is confined to that particular action. Some general statement of the cause of action is required, even in justice's (now general sessions judge's) proceeding. Westmoreland v. Farmer, 7 Tenn. App. 385, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

2. Sufficient Descriptions — Examples.

A description of premises in a warrant as “a schoolhouse in the tenth civil district of Union County, known as Miller's schoolhouse,” is sufficiently certain. Butcher v. Palmer, 48 Tenn. 431, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1870); Ladd v. Riggle, 53 Tenn. 620, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1871).

The description of the premises in the warrant as “certain land, and the house and improvements, to wit, the house and lot of land whereon the said Ladd now resides, the said premises being situated in said county and state,” is sufficient. Ladd v. Riggle, 53 Tenn. 620, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1871).

3. Title Not Stated — Sufficiency of Warrant.

The warrant or writ in forcible entry and detainer, averring that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession, is sufficient without stating his title or estate. Rhodes v. Comer, 34 Tenn. 40, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1854).

4. Written Complaint Unnecessary.

No written complaint is required in this action. Butcher v. Palmer, 48 Tenn. 431, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1870).

5. Evidence of Unlawful Detainer — Sufficiency.

Action of unlawful detainer is not made out where all the proof shows that the defendants entered without the consent of the plaintiffs. Westmoreland v. Farmer, 7 Tenn. App. 385, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 34, 37, 38.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 99.

Forcible entry and detainer 24(3).

29-18-113. Notice to quit not required.

No notice to quit need be given by the plaintiff to the defendant, other than the service of this warrant.

Code 1858, § 3351 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 2); Shan., § 5100; Code 1932, § 9254; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1613.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 7; 17 Tenn. Juris., Landlord and Tenant, § 33.

Law Reviews.

The Indigent Tenant in Tennessee — VII. Retaliation by Eviction or Rent Increase (William E. Caldwell), 1 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 117.

Cited: Craig v. Collins, 524 S.W.2d 947, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Aldridge, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Where the action of unlawful detainer will lie, no other notice than the suing out and service of the warrant or writ is necessary. Mallory v. Hananer Oil-Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 S.W. 396, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1888).

2. Sufficiency of Notice When Required.

One day's notice to quit was held to be a reasonable notice and sufficient, where notice was necessary. Marley v. Rodgers, 13 Tenn. 217, 1833 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1833).

Where the renting is by the month, it was held that one month's notice to quit was sufficient, if notice was necessary. Spillman v. Walt, 59 Tenn. 574, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1873).

3. Notice Required to Make Holding Unlawful.

This section, dispensing with notice, applies only to those cases where the possession is made unlawful in terms by the statute, without more, as in the case of renters, lessees, and the like, holding over. The notice must always be given, where the notice itself is necessary to make the holding unlawful. Sullivan v. Ivey, 34 Tenn. 487, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1855); Mallory v. Hananer Oil-Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 S.W. 396, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1888); Etheridge v. First Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn. App. 46, 387 S.W.2d 835, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 1964).

Vendor repudiating oral sale must give notice thereof, before bringing the action of unlawful detainer against the vendee, because the vendee's possession would not be unlawful until he had notice of such repudiation. Sullivan v. Ivey, 34 Tenn. 487, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1855).

Month to month tenant who agreed to surrender premises on a specified date and who assured landlord that no legal proceedings would be necessary to secure his eviction became a trespasser and was not entitled to notice other than warrant where he did not vacate as promised. Etheridge v. First Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn. App. 46, 387 S.W.2d 835, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 1964).

4. Oral Vendee Repudiating Contract.

Oral vendee repudiating contract is not entitled to notice, and the vendor may then maintain his action of unlawful detainer without any notice. Chilton v. Niblett, 22 Tenn. 404, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1842); Ellege v. Cooke, 73 Tenn. 622, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 194 (1880).

5. Tenant Disclaiming Landlord's Title.

A tenant disclaiming to hold under his landlord forfeits his term, and notice to quit is not a condition precedent to bringing an action of unlawful detainer. Ladd v. Riggle, 53 Tenn. 620, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 403 (1871).

6. Express Contract Creating Landlord and Tenant Relationship.

The statute dispensing with notice to quit was on behalf of landlords and their tenants, against tenants and subtenants, provided the relation had been created by, or arose from, express contract, and does not apply to other contracts, as mortgagor and mortgagee, vendor and vendee, where in certain phases the relationship becomes assimilated to that of landlord and tenant. Griffith v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. 387, 37 S.W. 273, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 156, 46 L.R.A. 435 (1896).

7. Termination of Periodic Tenancy.

Notice was never necessary where the tenant was in for a definite time, but the six months' notice was necessary where the tenant was holding from year to year at will. Trousdale v. Darnell, 14 Tenn. 430, 14 Tenn. 431, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1834); Spillman v. Walt, 59 Tenn. 574, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1873); Mallory v. Hananer Oil-Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 S.W. 396, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1888).

This section does not dispense with the notice necessary to terminate a periodic tenancy, since it dispenses with notice only in cases where the possession is made unlawful by the statutes of forcible entry and detainer, forcible detainer, and unlawful detainer. Smith v. Holt, 29 Tenn. App. 31, 193 S.W.2d 100, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945).

This section does not dispense with notice necessary to terminate a periodic tenancy. Etheridge v. First Nat'l Bank, 54 Tenn. App. 46, 387 S.W.2d 835, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 1964).

Collateral References.

Landlord's permitting third party to occupy premises rent free as acceptance of tenant's surrender of premises. 18 A.L.R.5th 437.

Forcible entry and detainer 21(1).

29-18-114. Defects in proceedings.

The warrant need not set forth the particular species of entry or detainer, and any defect therein, or in any of the proceedings, may be amended as other process and pleadings in court.

Code 1858, § 3350 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 5); Shan., § 5099; Code 1932, § 9253; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1614.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Parties.

2. —Heirs of Tenant Added as Parties.

Where, by amendment, the heirs of a deceased tenant are made complainants as necessary parties, with the owner, to an action in chancery, evidence that the parties mentioned are the heirs of the deceased tenant is not required where the terms of the amending order preclude the necessity for any inquiry upon the subject, as where it is so framed as to state that they are his heirs, and no objection is made to such statement. Round Mountain Lumber & Coal Co. v. Bass, 136 Tenn. 687, 191 S.W. 341, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 171 (1916).

3. —Additional Lessees as Plaintiffs.

The addition of two tenants or lessees with one first suing is permissible. Hunt v. Foley, 9 Tenn. App. 96, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

4. Warrant.

5. —Sufficiency.

Plaintiff's writ does not have to state plaintiff's interest or estate as it is sufficient if it states that he is entitled to possession. Rhodes v. Comer, 34 Tenn. 40, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1854).

6. —Charge of Unlawful Detainer.

Where warrant issued failed to charge unlawful entry but did include word “forcible,” and where proof was confined to theory of entry by contract and unlawful detainer without force, plaintiff proceeded under and was confined to an action of unlawful detainer hence, entry under contract was the gravamen of the action. Springfield v. Stamper, 31 Tenn. App. 252, 214 S.W.2d 345, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

7. —Damages.

The gravamen of a detainer suit is the wrongful detaining of realty and the ascertainment of damages for detention, either rents or otherwise, is a statutory incident to the proceeding so that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to demand damages in a detainer warrant in order to authorize a judgment for the same. Craig v. Collins, 524 S.W.2d 947, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 99.

29-18-115. Method of serving summons.

    1. In commencing an action under this chapter, summons may be served upon any adult person found in possession of the premises, which includes any adult person occupying the premises; and service of process upon such party in possession shall be good and sufficient to enable the landlord to regain possession of such landlord's property. In the event the summons cannot be served upon any adult person found in possession of the premises, personal service of process on the defendant is dispensed with in the following cases:
      1. When the defendant is a nonresident of this state;
      2. When, upon inquiry at the defendant's usual place of abode, the defendant cannot be found, so as to be served with process, and there is just ground to believe that the defendant has gone beyond the limits of the state;
      3. When the summons has been returned “not to be found in my county”;
      4. When the name of the defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained upon diligent inquiry;
      5. When the residence of the defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained upon diligent inquiry; or
      6. When a domestic corporation has ceased to do business and has no known officers, directors, trustee, or other legal representatives, on whom personal service may be had.
    2. In those cases specified in subdivision (a)(1), where personal service of process on the defendant is dispensed with, the proceeding shall be governed by §§ 21-1-203 — 21-1-205, and in addition thereto, the plaintiff shall post or cause to be posted on the front door or other front portion of the premises a copy of the publication notice at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date specified therein for the defendant to appear and make a defense.
    3. In addition to the methods set out in subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), in commencing an action under this chapter, summons may be served upon a contractually named party, and service of process upon such party shall be good and sufficient to enable the landlord to regain possession of the landlord's property.
  1. In commencing an action under this chapter, service of process may be made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney, or the plaintiff's agent, in lieu of subsection (a), by lodging the original summons and a copy certified by the clerk with the sheriff or constable of the county in which suit is brought, who shall promptly send postage prepaid a certified copy by certified return receipt mail to the individual as follows:
    1. In the case of an individual defendant, to the party named;
    2. In the case of a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation doing business in this state, to an officer or managing agent thereof, or to the chief agent in the county where the action is brought or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the corporation; or
    3. In the case of a partnership or an unincorporated association which is a named defendant under a common name, to a partner or managing agent of the partnership or to an officer or managing agent of the association, or to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the partnership or association.
  2. In any case in which such warrant or process is returned undelivered for any reason whatsoever, service of process shall then be made as otherwise provided by law.
    1. The original process, endorsed as indicated below, an affidavit of the appropriate sheriff or constable setting forth the sheriff or constable's compliance with the requirements of the preceding provisions, and the return receipt signed by the defendant shall be attached together and sent to and filed by the clerk of the court of general sessions. There shall be endorsed on the original warrant by the sheriff or constable over the sheriff or constable's signature the date of the sheriff or constable's mailing the certified copy to the defendant; thereupon service of the defendant shall be consummated. An act of a deputy of the sheriff in the sheriff's behalf hereunder shall be deemed the equivalent of the act of the latter.
    2. When service of process by mail is made upon one (1) or more individual defendants, service of process shall not be complete as to any individual unless a return receipt, signed or acknowledged on its face by the individual personally, is returned to the deputy sheriff or constable.
    1. In addition to the methods set out in this section, service of process for an action commenced under this chapter shall be good and sufficient to enable the landlord to regain possession of such landlord's property if a sheriff, sheriff's deputy, constable, or private process server personally serves a copy of the warrant or summons upon any one (1) named defendant who has a contractual or possessory property right in the subject premises.
    2. If, after attempting personal service of process on three (3) different dates and documenting such attempts on the face of the warrant, the sheriff, sheriff's deputy, constable, or private process server is unable to serve any such one (1) named defendant personally, service of process for determining the right of possession of the subject premises as to all who may have a contractual or possessory property right therein may be had by the sheriff, sheriff's deputy, constable, or private process server taking the following actions at least six (6) days prior to the date specified therein for the defendant or defendants to appear and make a defense:
      1. Posting a copy of the warrant or summons on the door of the premises;
      2. Sending by United States postal service first class mail a copy of the warrant or summons to the so named defendant or defendants at the address of the subject premises or the defendants' last known address, if any; and
      3. Making an entry of this action on the face of the warrant or summons filed in the action.
    3. Subdivision (e)(2) shall apply only to service of process to regain possession of real property, and shall not apply to service of process to recover monetary judgment.

Acts 1869-1870, ch. 64, § 6; Shan., § 5127; Code 1932, § 9282; Acts 1945, ch. 79, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 9282; Acts 1979, ch. 420, § 1; 1980, ch. 798, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1615; Acts 1997, ch. 380, § 1; 2010, ch. 827, § 1; 2015, ch. 160, §§ 1-4; 2018, ch. 670, §§ 1, 2; 2019, ch. 160, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment inserted “or constable” following “sheriff” in (b); rewrote the first two sentences of (d)(1) which read “The original process, endorsed as indicated below, an affidavit of the appropriate sheriff setting forth the sheriff's compliance with the requirements of the preceding provisions, and the return receipt signed by the defendant shall be attached together and sent to and filed by the clerk of the court of general sessions. There shall be endorsed on the original warrant by the sheriff over the sheriff's signature the date of the sheriff's mailing the certified copy to the defendant; thereupon service of the defendant shall be consummated.”; inserted “or constable” following “deputy sheriff” in (d)(2) and inserted “or constable” following “sheriff, sheriff’s deputy,” once in (e)(1) and twice in (e)(2).

The 2018 amendment inserted “, which includes any adult person occupying the premises” in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph of (a)(1); and added (a)(3).

The 2019 amendment, in (e), substituted “sheriff, sheriff's deputy, constable, or private process server” for “sheriff, sheriff's deputy, or constable” in (1) and twice in (2), and, in (3), substituted “to service of process to regain” for “to the service of process in an action brought to regain“ and substituted “to service of process to recover monetary judgment” for “to the service of process in any action seeking monetary judgment” at the end.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 160, § 5. April 16, 2015.

Acts 2018, ch. 670, § 3. April 12,  2018.

Acts 2019, ch. 160, § 2. April 18,  2019.

Cross-References. Process, service of summons, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.

Sheriff's fee for summons, § 8-21-901.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 8, 9.

Law Reviews.

Broadening The Bases of Individual In Personam Jurisdiction in Tennessee, 22 Tenn. L. Rev. 237.

Cited: In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); Lipscomb v. Doe, 32 S.W.3d 840, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 663 (Tenn. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Relief Available.

Under this section the landlord may recover possession of his land where process cannot be served on the lessee, and such a proceeding will not preclude him from recovering a judgment for rents when service of process can be had. Woodward v. Ragsdale, 179 Tenn. 526, 167 S.W.2d 979, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1943).

Under the plain wording of T.C.A. § 29-18-115(a), the service of process upon an adult found in possession of the premises at issue was “good and sufficient” to support the award of possession of plaintiff's property. B & G Constr. v. Polk, 37 S.W.3d 462, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), rehearing denied, B & G Constr., Inc. v. Polk, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2000).

2. Service Improper.

While service on a lessee's father was sufficient for a lessor to regain possession of property, service on the lessee was not achieved for purposes of securing a money judgment against him. Tommy Burney Homes v. Francis, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2015).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 37.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 35.

Forcible entry and detainer 19.

29-18-116. Neglect to execute process.

Any officer neglecting or refusing to execute any process, under this chapter, shall forfeit two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to the party aggrieved, to be recovered with costs before any tribunal having jurisdiction thereof.

Code 1858, § 3373; Shan., § 5123; Code 1932, § 9278; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1616.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 17.

Collateral References. Forcible entry and detainer 19.

29-18-117. Time of trial.

The officer serving the warrant shall notify the defendant of the time and place of trial, the time not to be less than six (6) days from the date of service.

Code 1858, § 3352 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 2); Shan., § 5101; Code 1932, § 9255; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1617.

Cited: In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986).

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 35.

Forcible entry and detainer 31-36.

29-18-118. Postponement of trial.

The general sessions judge may, at the request of either party, and on good reason being assigned, postpone the trial to any time not exceeding fifteen (15) days. The postponement shall not be for a longer period of time unless agreed upon by the parties, no civil court is being conducted, or upon request of the plaintiff, the party making the application for postponement paying the costs.

Code 1858, § 3355 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 15); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5104; Code 1932, § 9258; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1618; Acts 2010, ch. 809, § 1.

Collateral References. 36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 31.

Forcible entry and detainer 31-36.

29-18-119. Manner of trial — Title not inquired into.

  1. The cause shall be tried at the time and place designated, by a single general sessions judge, without the intervention of a jury, and in all respects like other civil suits before the court of general sessions.
  2. The general sessions judge will try every case upon its merits and ascertain whether the plaintiff or defendant is entitled to the possession of the premises agreeably to the laws governing such cases, and give judgment accordingly.
  3. The estate, or merits of the title, shall not be inquired into.

Code 1858, §§ 3353, 3354; (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 20 and Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, §§ 1, 2); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., §§ 5102, 5103; Code 1932, §§ 9256, 9257; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1619, 23-1620; Acts 1991, ch. 273, § 40.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 3, 18; 17 Tenn. Juris., Justices of Peace and General Sessions Courts, § 24.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

Cited: Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992); Lewis v. Muchmore, 26 S.W.3d 632, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Drake, 410 S.W.3d 797, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction — Chancery.

Where the chancery court had jurisdiction to settle the rights of the parties as to title and consequent right of possession in certain land it also had jurisdiction to enjoin further proceedings in the circuit court between the same parties in a forcible entry and detainer action since jurisdiction for one purpose gave jurisdiction for all purposes. Mathis v. Campbell, 22 Tenn. App. 40, 117 S.W.2d 764, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

The circuit court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the title of the property in a forcible entry and detainer suit, but the chancery court has jurisdiction under an ejectment bill to inquire into and settle the title, and having done so it might decree that the owner is entitled to the immediate possession of same. Branstetter v. Poynter, 32 Tenn. App. 189, 222 S.W.2d 214, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949).

2. Retaking Possession by Force.

Trial court correctly determined that a borrower's counterclaim, which challenged the constitutionality of the private foreclosure process, did not state a prima facie constitutional violation because the borrower was free to assert wrongful foreclosure as a defense to the unlawful detainer action and raise her constitutional issues in circuit court. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Drake, 410 S.W.3d 797, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 663 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2013).

3. —Trespass.

Where the plaintiff, a tenant at sufferance, sought damages for the trespass of his landlord in removing the roof of the premises and damages to his furnishings when it rained he was allowed recovery since the landlord could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer proceeding, and, therefore, the removal of the roof was trespass. Price v. Osborne, 24 Tenn. App. 525, 147 S.W.2d 412, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

4. —Trespass and Assault.

Where the defendant forcibly entered and ejected the plaintiffs from the tenant house they occupied on his property he was guilty of trespass and assault since he could obtain possession only by a forcible entry and detainer action. Schumpert v. Moore, 24 Tenn. App. 695, 149 S.W.2d 471, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

5. Title Determination.

In the trial of unlawful detainer suits “the estate, or merits of the title, shall not be inquired into.” Branstetter v. Poynter, 32 Tenn. App. 189, 222 S.W.2d 214, 1949 Tenn. App. LEXIS 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949).

6. Rent and Damages.

The action in unlawful detainer is for possession of the property and the judgment for rent and damages are incidental to the judgment for possession. Nashville Housing Authority v. Kinnard, 186 Tenn. 33, 207 S.W.2d 1019, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1948).

7. Defenses.

Doctrine of res judicata barred homeowners' action against a mortgage company, wherein the homeowners alleged the company had not acquired proper title to the property and, as such, committed fraud in foreclosing, because the issue should have been alleged as a defense in the company's forcible entry and detainer action in general sessions court. Boyce v. LPP Mortg., Ltd., 435 S.W.3d 758, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2013), appeal denied, Boyce v. LPP Mortg., Ltd., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2014).

8. No Right to Jury Trial.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the buyer at a foreclosure sale in its detainer action and upheld the foreclosure sale because the borrower failed to offer any evidence establishing her right of possession to the property where the sale of the property prior to the foreclosure was not unlawful, the borrower did not comply with the majority of the appellate brief requirements, was not entitled to a trial by jury, and did not offer any evidence that she discharged her debt. Fannie Mae v. Lambert, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2014).

9. Jurisdiction - Circuit Court.

Property owner's pending federal lawsuit did not foreclose the trial court's jurisdiction to decide the issue of possession of the property because there was no final judgment that would preclude the state court from exercising jurisdiction over the in personam detainer action. Belgravia Square, LLC v. White, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2019).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 46.

51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace §§ 30, 100.

Forcible entry and detainer 31-36.

29-18-120. Trial in circuit court.

  1. Actions originally instituted in the circuit court will stand for trial at the first term after the pleadings are complete.
  2. The jury, if it finds for the plaintiff, will ascertain the damages the plaintiff has sustained, including rent, and judgment shall be given accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3367 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, §§ 8, 9); Shan., § 5116; Code 1932, § 9271; modified; Acts 1972, ch. 565, § 2; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1621.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 12, 15.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

Cited: Nashland Associates v. Shumate, 730 S.W.2d 332, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Pan-Am Southern Corp. v. Cummins, 156 F. Supp. 673, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2844 (D. Tenn. 1957); Fannie Mae v. Stokes, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2012).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 46.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 36-50, 63-66.

Forcible entry and detainer 31-36.

29-18-121. Subpoenas.

The general sessions judge before whom the complaint is made, or the one before whom the cause is to be tried, may issue subpoenas for witnesses into any county of the state.

Code 1858, § 3356; impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5105; Code 1932, § 9259; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1622.

29-18-122. Fees.

  1. The general sessions judge is entitled to one dollar ($1.00) per day for trying cases of forcible entry and detainer, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer.
  2. The officer is entitled to two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) for each defendant named in the original process, and one dollar ($1.00) for each witness summoned.
  3. Each witness shall receive one dollar ($1.00) for each day's attendance.

Code 1858, § 3365 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 131, § 1); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5114; mod. Code 1932, § 9269; Acts 1957, ch. 22, § 6; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1623.

Collateral References. Forcible entry and detainer 47.

29-18-123. Bond to confess judgment at termination of lease — Judgment and writ.

  1. Any person, granting a lease of lands, tenements, and hereditaments, may incorporate or take from the tenant a bond covenanting to deliver possession of the rented premises on the day specified therein as the end of the term of the lease, and further authorizing the party from whom the premises are rented, or any other person whose name may be mentioned as attorney, in case possession of the premises is not delivered in conformity with the provisions of the lease, to appear on any day of the term of any court having jurisdiction in such case, the term of such court to be expressly named, and the premises to be sufficiently described in the bond, and then and there, in the name of the party executing the bond, confess a judgment for possession of the rented premises.
  2. Upon presentation of the bond, and satisfactory proof of its execution, the court shall enter judgment for possession and also for costs of the proceeding, in favor of the party granting the lease against the tenant thus unlawfully holding over.
  3. The writ of possession shall have effect to dispossess any party in possession who holds as assignee or sublessee of the original tenant.

Acts 1869-1870, ch. 64, §§ 3-5; Shan., §§ 5124-5126; mod. Code 1932, §§ 9279-9281; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1624, 23-1625.

Cross-References. Issuance of writ, § 26-1-101.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 16.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Implied Verdict of Possession.

Where in unlawful detainer action jury awarded rental and attorney's fee to plaintiff a determination that plaintiff was entitled to possession was implied by such verdict although it is better practice for trial judge to require an express verdict of possession. Craig v. Collins, 524 S.W.2d 947, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

Collateral References. Forcible entry and detainer 38.

29-18-124. Form of judgment for plaintiff.

The judgment for the plaintiff should be endorsed on the warrant or annexed thereto, substantially to the following effect:

A B  Judgment for the plaintiff, that plaintiff be restored to possession of

the

v.  land described in the within warrant, and that a writ of possession

C D  or restitution issue therefor, and also for the costs of suit. This

day of  , 20 . E F, G.S.J.

Code 1858, § 3357 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 3); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5106; Code 1932, § 9260; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1626.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Cited: In re Goodloe, 61 B.R. 1016, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5691 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); Isham v. Marshall, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2011).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 47, 49.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 68.

Forcible entry and detainer 38.

29-18-125. Monetary judgments for plaintiff.

In all cases of forcible entry and detainer, forcible detainer, and unlawful detainer, the judge of the court of general sessions trying the cause shall be authorized and it shall be the judge's duty to ascertain the arrearage of rent, interest, and damages, if any, and render judgment therefor if the judge's judgment shall be that the plaintiff recover possession.

Acts 1903, ch. 42, § 1; Shan., § 5106a1; Code 1932, § 9261; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1627.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 9, 15.

Cited: CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Drake, 410 S.W.3d 797, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Damages and Possession — Recovery in One Suit.

The tenant holding over shall be subjected to but a single suit in which both possession and damages shall be recovered. Having recovered possession in one action, the owner may not prosecute another for rents or damages. The statute forbids a subsequent tenant bringing action against the prior tenant for damages occasioned by his holdover. Bloch v. Busch, 160 Tenn. 21, 22 S.W.2d 242, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1929).

In an action under this section plaintiff is entitled only to the damages that actually compensate him for the breach. He is not entitled to future damages. This section does not preclude a suit for rent which accrues subsequent to a judgment for possession. Nashland Associates v. Shumate, 730 S.W.2d 332, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Circuit court properly interpreted damages to include the amount of the monetary judgment awarded by the general sessions court because damages and the value of rent during the litigation were two separate elements of the bond amount. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

2. Substituted Service.

This section has in its contemplation an action in which the lessee is before the court and a personal judgment is entered against him and is inapplicable to those cases where service is obtained under the provisions of § 29-18-115. Woodward v. Ragsdale, 179 Tenn. 526, 167 S.W.2d 979, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1943).

3. Demand Unnecessary.

The gravamen of a detainer suit is the wrongful detaining of realty and the ascertainment of damages for detention, either rents or otherwise, is a statutory incident to the proceeding so that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to demand damages in a detainer warrant in order to authorize a judgment for the same. Craig v. Collins, 524 S.W.2d 947, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 50.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 72, 75.

Forcible entry and detainer 30.

29-18-126. Delay before execution.

No execution or writ of possession shall issue against the defendant upon any judgment, under this chapter, until after the lapse of ten (10) days from the rendition of the judgment.

Code 1858, § 3361 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, §§ 4, 6; 1849-1850, ch. 131, § 3); Shan., § 5109; Code 1932, § 9264; Acts 1963, ch. 115, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1628.

Attorney General Opinions. Enforcement, utility disconnection, OAG 90-26 (2/27/90).

Cited: In re Goodloe, 61 B.R. 1016, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5691 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Bankruptcy.

A writ of possession may not issue under this section until 10 days from the rendering of an eviction judgment and where a bankruptcy petition is filed within nine days from the issuance of a detainer warrant, a debtor still has a possessory interest in the lease. In re Shannon, 54 B.R. 219, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 5684 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985).

2. Writ of Possession.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.01 did not apply to the dismissal of writs of certiorari and supersedeas, and a landlord was entitled to seek and enforce a writ of possession because a writ was injunctive in nature, and to the extent the order dismissed the writs, the order was the equivalent of a denial of injunctive relief; once the writ of supersedeas was dismissed, the landlord, as the prevailing party in general sessions court, was entitled to the issuance and execution of the writ of possession. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 53.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 75.

Forcible entry and detainer 39-41.

29-18-127. Form of execution and writ — Disposition of personal property following defendant's removal from property.

  1. The execution for costs shall issue in the usual form, and the writ of possession may be as follows:

    State of Tennessee,

    To the sheriff or any constable of such county:  County.

    Whereas, at a trial of forcible and unlawful detainer had in such county on the  day of  , 20 , before E F, a judge of the court of general sessions of such county, judgment was given that A B recover from C D possession of a certain tract or parcel of land, bounded [or known and described] as follows [insert the description in the warrant]: We therefore command you, that you take with you the force of the county, if necessary, and cause A B, the plaintiff in such judgment, to have and be restored to the possession of such tract or parcel of land, and that you remove C D, the defendant in such judgment, therefrom, and give such plaintiff peaceable possession of such premises, and make return to me in twenty (20) days how you have executed this writ.

    This  day of  , 20 . E F, G.S.J.

    1. Upon removing the defendant in any judgment under this chapter, the plaintiff or a designated representative of the plaintiff, shall place the defendant's personal property:
      1. On the premises from which the defendant is being removed;
      2. In an appropriate area clear of the entrance to the premises; and
      3. At a reasonable distance from any roadway.
    2. The plaintiff or a designated representative of the plaintiff shall not disturb the defendant's personal property for forty-eight (48) hours. After such forty-eight (48) hours, the remaining personal property of the defendant may be discarded by the plaintiff or a designated representative of the plaintiff.
    1. All actions of any county, municipality, metropolitan form of government or other local government relative to the disposition of personal property after the execution of a writ of possession shall be temporarily suspended during the forty-eight-hour time period created pursuant to subsection (b).
    2. Notwithstanding subdivision (c)(1), a county, municipality, metropolitan form of government or other local government shall not be liable for any damages to the defendant's personal property.
  2. The plaintiff or a designated representative of the plaintiff, acting in accordance with this section, shall not be liable for any damages to the defendant's personal property during or after the forty-eight-hour time period, unless it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the damages resulted from a malicious act or malicious omission of the plaintiff or a designated representative of the plaintiff.

Code 1858, § 3359 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 4); impl. am. Acts 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5107; mod. Code 1932, § 9262; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1629; Acts 2014, ch. 534, § 1.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment added (b)-(d).

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 534, § 2. July 1, 2014.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 16.

Attorney General Opinions. Enforcement, utility disconnection, OAG 90-26 (2/27/90).

Cited: In re Goodloe, 61 B.R. 1016, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5691 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Writ of Restitution.

A justice (now general sessions judge) has no power to issue a writ of restitution, which issues only from a court of record, and then in the discretion of the court. Ramsey v. Hood, 136 Tenn. 597, 191 S.W. 129, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 165 (1916).

2. Execution of Writ — What Constitutes.

The writ of possession is not completely executed until the officer has delivered the full and actual possession of the premises to the person having recovered the same, and has left him in quiet possession. If the tenant does not peaceably and quietly yield possession to the plaintiff, and consent thereto, it is the duty of the officer to remove him off the premises, and the writ has not been executed until he has done so. Farnsworth v. Fowler, 31 Tenn. 1, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1851).

3. Criminal Cases.

A writ of possession cannot be awarded upon a conviction in a criminal prosecution for forcible entry and detainer. The party dispossessed must resort to his civil remedy. State v. Walker, 37 Tenn. 259, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1857).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 53.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 75.

Forcible entry and detainer 39-41.

29-18-128. Appeal.

An appeal will also lie in suits commenced before general sessions judges, under this chapter, within the ten (10) days allowed by § 27-5-108, as in other cases, the appellant, if the defendant, giving bond as in the case of a certiorari.

Code 1858, § 3360 (deriv. Acts 1849-1850, ch. 74, § 1); Shan., § 5108; Code 1932, § 9263; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1630; Acts 1989, ch. 20, § 1.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 30, 72; 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 17, 18.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

Cited: In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); B & G Constr. v. Polk, 37 S.W.3d 462, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Implied Repeal of Section.

Section 27-5-108, and not the former version of this section, controlled the time limitation on an appeal from a general sessions court judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action; § 27-5-108 repealed the former version of this section by implication. Steinhouse v. Neal, 723 S.W.2d 625, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 817 (Tenn. 1987).

2. Bond on Appeal or Certiorari.

Where the defendant removes the case to the circuit court upon certiorari and supersedeas, or where he takes it from the circuit court to the appellate court by appeal, he will be required to execute bond for costs and damages and the rents during the litigation. Buchanan v. Robinson, 62 Tenn. 147, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (1873); Hawkins v. Alexander, 91 Tenn. 359, 18 S.W. 882, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1892).

The unsuccessful defendant in an action of forcible entry and detainer, of forcible detainer, or of unlawful detainer before a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) can only secure his possession pending further litigation, by suing out writs of certiorari and supersedeas, and entering into bond to secure costs and rents; or if the judgment of the circuit court be adverse to him, he can remain in possession by executing bond to secure rents pending the appeal. Hawkins v. Alexander, 91 Tenn. 359, 18 S.W. 882, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1892).

The appeal bond requirements of this section, § 29-18-129 and § 29-18-130 do not impose any unreasonable or irrational burdens upon parties seeking to appeal an adverse decision from the general sessions court. Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

3. —Pauper's Oath.

A defendant in a forcible entry and detainer suit, if willing to surrender possession pending the litigation in the higher courts, may obtain an appeal without bond upon taking the pauper oath. Ammons v. Coker, 124 Tenn. 676, 139 S.W. 732, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1911).

4. Possession — Effect.

Where there is a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the writ of possession executed, the defendant may appeal by giving a bond for costs only, or upon taking the pauper's oath. The statute substitutes the possession of the land as the plaintiff's security in lieu of the bond for rents and profits formerly required. And the defendant may thus appeal, although the plaintiff voluntarily forbears to have the writ of possession executed. Burns v. Haggard, 58 Tenn. 122, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (1872); Lynn v. Tellico Mfg. Co., 76 Tenn. 29, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1881); McGhee v. Grady, 80 Tenn. 89, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1883); Hawkins v. Alexander, 91 Tenn. 359, 18 S.W. 882, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1892); Ammons v. Coker, 124 Tenn. 676, 139 S.W. 732, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1911).

Where the unsuccessful defendant appeals from a justice's (now general sessions judge's) judgment, and is permitted to remain in possession, he cannot be properly required to give bond for rents of the land accruing during the pendency of the appealed case in the circuit court. The plaintiff's remedy is to give bond for rents himself, and take and hold possession pending the appeal. And where the circuit court requires the defendant to execute a bond to secure the rents, no judgment can be properly rendered on such bond, because there was no authority for the same, and the court has no jurisdiction to render judgment upon it. Hawkins v. Alexander, 91 Tenn. 359, 18 S.W. 882, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1892).

5. Certiorari in Lieu of Appeal.

Defendants could not resort to certiorari in lieu of an appeal during the two days allowed for an appeal and the certiorari might have been dismissed on motion in the circuit court. Smith v. Holt, 29 Tenn. App. 31, 193 S.W.2d 100, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945).

6. Private Act — Effect.

Private Acts 1941, ch. 6 as amended by Private Acts 1943, ch. 37 allowing appellants five days to perfect appeals from general sessions court contrary to general law expressed in this section was approved since legislature could set up procedure for court as it created court. Hunter v. Jones, 182 Tenn. 698, 189 S.W.2d 825, 1945 Tenn. LEXIS 268 (1945).

Provision of Private Acts 1937, § 6 stating that no appeal shall be granted from a judgment of $50.00, or less in general sessions court did not apply to judgment for possession of premises in litigation. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

7. Appeal — Effect on Writ of Possession.

An appeal from a possession judgment does not bar the writ of possession. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

8. Miscellaneous.

While plaintiff tenant had waived remand for failure to file a motion to remand timely as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and he had asserted federal arguments including violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violations of the Fair Housing Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, there was a question whether defendant housing authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), could remove a state court eviction action based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 merely by labeling the tenant's petition/appeal in that action as a “complaint” (which was itself an appeal for a trial de novo pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 29-18-128, 16-15-729, of a final judgment in the housing authority's state court unlawful detainer action) and the tenant as a “plaintiff,” thus, briefing was required as to whether subject matter existed. Felts v. Cleveland Hous. Auth., 821 F. Supp. 2d 968, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110300 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 2011).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 55, 56.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 76-84.

Justices of the peace 171(2), 202(2, 3).

29-18-129. Certiorari and supersedeas to circuit court.

The proceedings in such actions may, within thirty (30) days after the rendition of judgment, be removed to the circuit court by writs of certiorari and supersedeas, which it shall be the duty of the judge to grant, upon petition, if merits are sufficiently set forth, and to require from the applicant a bond, with security sufficient to cover all costs and damages; and, if the defendant below be the applicant, then the bond and security shall be of sufficient amount to cover, besides costs and damages, the value of the rent of the premises during the litigation.

Acts 1869-1870, ch. 64, § 2; Shan., § 5111; Code 1932, § 9266; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1631.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 30; 5 Tenn. Juris., Certiorari, §§ 36, 40, 49, 52, 59, 63; 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 16-18.

Law Reviews.

Right to a Jury Trial in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions in General Sessions Courts in Tennessee (Robert Larry Brown), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 59.

Cited: In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); Isham v. Marshall, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Scope of Section.

The provisions of this section and § 29-18-130 are confined to the proceedings to be had while the cause is pending in the circuit court, upon appeal or certiorari and supersedeas from the judgment of the justice of the peace (now general sessions judge). Buchanan v. Robinson, 62 Tenn. 147, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (1873).

Giving each word in the statute meaning, an unsuccessful defendant seeking writs of certiorari and supersedeas must post a bond with sufficient security to cover costs, damages, and the value of the rent during the litigation. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

2. Effect of Section on Other Statutes.

The power of two justices of the peace (now general sessions judges) to grant writs of certiorari and supersedeas for removal of a case of a justice to the circuit court, at any time within 20 days after the rendition of the justice's judgment therein in § 29-18-128, was not taken away by the statute in this section. Fisher v. Baldridge, 91 Tenn. 418, 19 S.W. 227, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1892).

3. Pleading.

4. —Petition — Sufficiency.

The petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas need not state any reason for failure to appeal, if presented within the 30 days, but it must show merits; and, if presented after the expiration of the 30 days, it must state both merits and a sufficient excuse for the delay beyond the 30 days in making the application. Elliott v. Lawless, 53 Tenn. 123, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 329 (1871); Rogers v. Wheaton, 88 Tenn. 665, 13 S.W. 689, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1890).

Petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas could not be sustained where allegations in petition were vague and indefinite and consisted merely of statements that petitioner had been informed of matters alleged therein. Pritchard v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 183 Tenn. 408, 192 S.W.2d 845, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 220 (1946).

5. —Reasons for Not Appealing.

It is a sufficient reason for not appealing that the party was unable to give bond within the time limited. Day v. Johnson, 44 Tenn. 231, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1867).

Where, within the time allowed for appealing, a writ of certiorari is sought to be used as a substitute for an appeal, the party applying therefor must show in his petition some good and sufficient reason for not taking an appeal, and when such is not shown, the writ must be dismissed, for this rule obtains in forcible entry and detainer cases as well as other cases. Ammons v. Coker, 124 Tenn. 676, 139 S.W. 732, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1911).

6. Parties — Heirs of Lessee.

Where the circuit court, in an action appealed to it by the lessee, rendered judgment on the lessee's supersedeas bond, but failed to render judgment for possession against the heirs of the lessee, the action having been revived in the name of the heirs and administrator of the lessee who died before the judgment, the Court of Appeals may, upon appeal by the surety alone, reform the judgment and render judgment against the heirs. Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S.W. 695, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1914).

Where a lessee died pending an action of unlawful detainer by the lessor, the heirs at law of the lessee are necessary parties upon the revival of the cause. Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S.W. 695, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1914).

7. Sufficiency of Bond.

Bond given to “perform and abide whatever judgment shall be awarded and rendered by said court in said cause” is as broad as the obligation required by this section and § 29-18-131. Robertson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Tenn. App. 387, 123 S.W.2d 848, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

8. —Cash Deposit.

Where petition for certiorari and supersedeas showed merits and where record disclosed that certified check for more than double the amount of one year's rent in lieu of bond was deposited with clerk of the court, circuit court properly denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari. Noles v. Winn Oil Co., 30 Tenn. App. 227, 204 S.W.2d 539, 1947 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947).

9. —Penalty of Bond.

Upon removal of a case by an unsuccessful defendant from the justice's (now general sessions) court to the circuit court by certiorari and supersedeas, he is required to give a bond with sureties for a “sufficient amount to cover, besides costs and damages, the value of the rents of the premises during the litigation.” Simmons v. Taylor, 91 Tenn. 363, 18 S.W. 867, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1892).

10. Scope of Bond as to Installments of Rent.

Where a tenant, against whom judgment for possession was rendered for his nonpayment of an installment of rent, in an unlawful detainer proceeding begun in a justice's (now general sessions) court, removed the proceedings to the circuit court, giving the supersedeas bond for the value of the rent of the premises during the litigation, it was unnecessary to institute successive actions to enforce the forfeiture for nonpayment of each installment of rent as it fell due, for the supersedeas bond covered the whole contract. Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S.W. 695, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1914).

In action of unlawful detainer certiorari and supersedeas bond covered not only the rents which accrued during the litigation but also those which had accrued before the litigation. Robertson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Tenn. App. 387, 123 S.W.2d 848, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

This section and § 29-18-131 have been held to require that all rents past due at the time the action of unlawful detainer is commenced shall be included in the judgment, and cannot be otherwise recovered. Robertson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Tenn. App. 387, 123 S.W.2d 848, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

11. Possession.

12. —Retained by Defendant.

In unlawful detainer action, defendant by pursuing the remedy of certiorari and supersedeas, and giving the bond to cover costs, damages and the value of the rent during the litigation, as required by this section, was enabled to keep possession until the end of the litigation in the circuit court. Robertson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Tenn. App. 387, 123 S.W.2d 848, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938); Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

Defendant who lost unlawful detainer suit in general sessions court and who wished to retain possession was entitled to file petition in circuit court for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, since supersedeas stayed the writ of possession and the writ of certiorari presented the case for review. Nashville Housing Authority v. Kinnard, 186 Tenn. 33, 207 S.W.2d 1019, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1948).

13. —Surrender Pending Litigation.

While a surrender of the demised premises, duly accepted, relieves the lessee from any liability for rents subsequently accruing, where a lessee, who defaulted in payment and against whom the lessor had brought an action of unlawful detainer, retained possession pending a removal of the case to the circuit court, by giving the bond required, a surrender pending the litigation did not relieve the lessee and surety from liability on the bond; and, consequently, while it was unnecessary for the court to render a judgment awarding the lessor possession, yet under § 25-1-105, providing that judgments should be molded to suit the facts, the judgment should recite the facts, including the surrender, and declare the lessor entitled to possession, and assess damages on the bond. Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S.W. 695, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1914).

14. —Certiorari Without Supersedeas.

It was intended to allow the unsuccessful defendant in an action before a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), if dissatisfied, either to appeal and surrender the property, or to retain the property by obtaining a writ of certiorari and supersedeas upon the execution of a supersedeas bond, which would operate as a substitute for the appeal, and give a new trial in the circuit court, but these remedies were not intended to be concurrent, so that within the two days after the justice's judgment the writ of certiorari without supersedeas cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Ammons v. Coker, 124 Tenn. 676, 139 S.W. 732, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1911).

Filing of petition for certiorari without obtaining supersedeas constituted the use of certiorari as a substitute for appeal, hence where petitioner failed to show a good reason for not taking an appeal the petition was properly denied. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

Plaintiff who obtained judgment for possession of premises involved in proceeding in general sessions court was entitled to writ of possession where defendant failed to obtain supersedeas. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

15. Private Act — Effect.

Provision of Private Acts 1937, § 6 stating that no appeal shall be granted from a ment of $50.00 or less in general sessions court did not apply to judgment for possession of premises in litigation. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

16. Bond on Appeal or Certiorari.

The appeal bond requirements of §§ 29-18-12829-18-130 do not impose any unreasonable or irrational burdens upon parties seeking to appeal an adverse decision from the general sessions court. Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard, 839 S.W.2d 86, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. 1992).

Circuit court properly dismissed writs of certiorari and supersedeas after a tenant failed to file a possessory bond because the tenant failed to post a possessory bond of any amount; the tenant's promise to pay rent failed to meet the requirements of the statute, which specified a bond with security. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Plain language of the statute indicates that the bond must“cover, besides costs and damages, the value of the rent of the premises during the litigation, and following the rules of grammar and punctuation, ”during the litigation“ can only modify ”the value of the rent“ not ”costs and damages“; damages and the value of rent during the litigation are two separate elements of the bond amount. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

In light of the liberal policy of allowing indigent parties to proceed in court without first providing a cost bond, an indigent defendant in an unlawful detainer action who has petitioned for writs of certiorari and supersedeas is required to post a possessory bond, but the bond does not have to include the costs of the action; in other words, the bond posted by the indigent defendant must be sufficient in amount to cover damages and the value of the rent of the premises during the litigation. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Circuit court properly interpreted damages to include the amount of the monetary judgment awarded by the general sessions court because the statute included in the bond requirement the value of the rent during the litigation in an effort to enlarge, not to diminish, the landlord's protection; limiting the scope of damages to those incurred on appeal would run contrary to the statute's intent as expressed in its plain language. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Although the circuit court erred in including the amount of costs in determining the amount of the possessory bond, it did not err in dismissing the writ of supersedeas because the tenant failed to post a possessory bond of any amount. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Tenant was not entitled to proceed with a writ of certiorari after the writ of supersedeas was dismissed because she filed her petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas within the time allowed for filing a direct appeal, and the tenant was not deprived of an appeal and could establish a good and sufficient reason for not taking an appeal. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

Giving each word in the statute meaning, as the court must, an unsuccessful defendant seeking writs of certiorari and supersedeas must post a bond with sufficient security to cover costs, damages, and the value of the rent during the litigation. Rentals v. Appelt, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

17. Time Limits.

Circuit court properly dismissed a tenant's petition for common law and/or statutory writs of certiorari and supersedeas as untimely because the specific statute at issue governed both statutory and common law writs in forcible entry and detainer actions, and it was undisputed that the tenant filed its petition more than two years after the general sessions court entered judgments in the unlawful detainer actions. Outloud! Inc. v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2017).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 55, 56.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 85-94.

Justices of the peace 163.

29-18-130. Immediate execution of writ of possession — Bond pending appeal.

  1. When judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in any action of forcible entry and detainer, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer, brought before a judge of the court of general sessions, and a writ of possession is awarded, the same shall be executed and the plaintiff restored to the possession immediately.
    1. If the defendant pray an appeal, then, in that case, the plaintiff shall execute bond, with good and sufficient security, in double the value of one (1) year's rent of the premises, conditioned to pay all costs and damages accruing from the wrongful enforcement of such writ, and to abide by and perform whatever judgment may be rendered by the appellate court in the final hearing of the cause.
    2. In cases where the action has been brought by a landlord to recover possession of leased premises from a tenant on the grounds that the tenant has breached the contract by failing to pay the rent, and a judgment has been entered against the tenant, subdivision (b)(1) shall not apply. In that case, if the defendant prays an appeal, the defendant shall execute bond, or post either a cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit from a regulated financial institution, or provide two (2) good personal sureties with good and sufficient security in the amount of one (1) year's rent of the premises, conditioned to pay all costs and damages accruing from the failure of the appeal, including rent and interest on the judgment as provided for herein, and to abide by and perform whatever judgment may be rendered by the appellate court in the final hearing of the cause. The plaintiff shall not be required to post a bond to obtain possession in the event the defendant appeals without complying with this section. The plaintiff shall be entitled to interest on the judgment, which shall accrue from the date of the judgment in the event the defendant's appeal shall fail.

Acts 1869-1870, ch. 64, § 1; 1871, ch. 65; impl. am. 1879, ch. 23, § 1; Shan., § 5110; mod. Code 1932, § 9265; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1632; Acts 1983, ch. 232, § 1.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, § 17.

Law Reviews.

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1983 (N. L. Resener, J. A. Whitson, K. J. Miller), 50 Tenn. L. Rev. 785 (1983).

Tennessee and the Installment Land Contract: A Viable Alternative to the Deed of Trust, 21 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 551 (1991).

Attorney General Opinions. Enforcement, utility disconnection, OAG 90-26 (2/27/90).

Cited: Barrasso v. Tennessee Brewing Co., 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 662 (1911); Pan-Am Southern Corp. v. Cummins, 156 F. Supp. 673, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2844 (D. Tenn. 1957); In re Talley, 69 B.R. 219, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 4788 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

0.5. Posting Bond.

By reading the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-18-130(b)(2) and construing it harmoniously with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.05, the statute did not require a tenant who had surrendered possession of the property to post a bond for one year's rent when appealing an adverse judgment of the general sessions court in an unlawful detainer action; the cost bond that the tenants had already posted pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-5-103(a) was sufficient to perfect their appeal and confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court. Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1010 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2013).

Circuit court erroneously held that a tenant did not properly perfect an appeal in an unlawful detainer action when the tenant failed to post a non-jurisdictional bond for staying the writ of possession because the tenant's failure to post the bond of one year's rent allowed the landlord to regain possession immediately, but it did not deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. McLucas v. Nance, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2015).

Trial court erred in dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a property owner's appeal of an order granting immediate possession of the disputed property to a purchaser based on his failure to post the possessory bond, although he remained in possession of the property, because the bond was non-jurisdictional; a possessory tenant's failure to file a bond in the amount of one year's rent did not prevent that tenant from perfecting his or her appeal to circuit court. Belgravia Square, LLC v. White, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2019).

1. Certiorari and Supersedeas by Defendant.

Use of remedy of certiorari and supersedeas plus giving of bond to cover rent forestalls writ of possession in possession suit. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

Plaintiff who obtained judgment for possession of premises involved in proceeding in general sessions court was entitled to writ of possession where defendant failed to obtain supersedeas. Bell v. Smith, 185 Tenn. 11, 202 S.W.2d 654, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 293 (1947).

Appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised on appeal because an occupant of property sold at a foreclosure sale did not perfect the appeal by filing a bond for good surety or pauper's oath under T.C.A. §§ 27-5-103 or 29-18-130, and the bond requirements were mandatory and jurisdictional. Pledged Prop. II, LLC v. Morris, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2013).

2. Appeal Not Perfected.

Appellant met the requirement of the jurisdictional cost bond for appeal to the circuit court by filing a pauper's oath, and had she relinquished possession of the property, the appeal bond would have been sufficient to perfect her appeal; however, because she retained possession, she was also required to post a possession bond, and in the absence of one, the appeal was not perfected, and the trial court properly dismissed it. Crye-Leike Prop. Mgmt. v. Dalton, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2016).

3. Writ of Possession.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.01 did not apply to the dismissal of writs of certiorari and supersedeas, and a landlord was entitled to seek and enforce a writ of possession because a writ was injunctive in nature, and to the extent the order dismissed the writs, the order was the equivalent of a denial of injunctive relief; once the writ of supersedeas was dismissed, the landlord, as the prevailing party in general sessions court, was entitled to the issuance and execution of the writ of possession. Gallatin Hous. Auth. v. Pelt, 532 S.W.3d 760, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 329 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2017).

4. —Requirements.

Trial court erred in granting a landlord's motion to dismiss a tenant's appeal of a detainer warrant because the tenant's failure to post bond equal to one year's rent enabled the landlord to regain possession immediately but did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the tenant's appeal since the possession bond was not jurisdictional; the trial court should have awarded the landlord immediate possession of the property and allowed the appeal to proceed. Rentals v. Appelt, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

Tenant's failure to post bond does not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction to hear a tenant's appeal from general sessions court, and this is so even where the tenant fails to surrender possession voluntarily; if a tenant does not post a bond of one year's rent, his or her appeal can continue, but the landlord is entitled to immediate possession without the landlord being required to post any bond. Rentals v. Appelt, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2018).

5. Jurisdiction.

Property owner's pending federal lawsuit did not foreclose the trial court's jurisdiction to decide the issue of possession of the property because there was no final judgment that would preclude the state court from exercising jurisdiction over the in personam detainer action. Belgravia Square, LLC v. White, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2019).

Collateral References. Forcible entry and detainer 41.

29-18-131. Monetary judgment in circuit court.

  1. If the defendant obtain certiorari, and, upon trial in the circuit court, the jury find that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land, the jury shall also ascertain the value of the rents during the time the plaintiff has been kept out of possession, and such other damages as the plaintiff is entitled to, and the court shall give judgment against the defendant and the defendant's sureties for the amount.
  2. Should the cause be taken to the circuit court by the plaintiff, and a verdict be found in the plaintiff's favor, the jury shall, in like manner, ascertain the value of the rents, and the damages the jury may consider the plaintiff entitled to, and return the amount in its verdict, upon which the court shall give judgment accordingly.

Code 1858, §§ 3363, 3364 (deriv. Acts 1841-1842, ch. 186, § 6); Shan., §§ 5112, 5113; Code 1932, §§ 9267, 9268; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1633.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 686.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Certiorari, § 63; 13 Tenn. Juris., Forcible Entry and Detainer, §§ 9, 15, 17.

Cited: Woodward v. Ragsdale, 179 Tenn. 526, 167 S.W.2d 979, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1943); Isham v. Marshall, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgment in Circuit Court.

Where a forcible detainer case is brought to the circuit court by certiorari, that court must render final judgment. It cannot dismiss the certiorari and issue a procedendo to the justice (now general sessions judge). Weigand v. Malatesta, 46 Tenn. 362, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1869).

2. —Remedy for Rents.

This section is mandatory, and the remedy upon the bond for rents therein provided is exclusive. The sureties on the bond cannot be held for rents in a separate suit, but only in the forcible entry and detainer case, as provided in this section. Simmons v. Taylor, 91 Tenn. 363, 18 S.W. 867, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1892); Bloch v. Busch, 160 Tenn. 21, 22 S.W.2d 242, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1929).

3. —Failure of Defendant to Give Bond.

Where judgment in an unlawful detainer action in a justice of the peace (now general sessions) court had been rendered against the defendant and he filed a petition for certiorari and supersedeas which was granted but the defendant failed to make the bond required by the court and these proceedings were dismissed whereon the circuit court without a jury properly allowed judgment against the defendant and his sureties for the amount of the judgment in the justice of peace court, plus the rents accruing during the ensuing litigation, plus the costs of the action. Robertson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 22 Tenn. App. 387, 123 S.W.2d 848, 1938 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938).

4. Damages Recoverable.

The damages recoverable are such as result to the plaintiff from any injury which is the immediate result or consequence of the forcible and unlawful disseizin of the plaintiff, provided it be not for injury merely to the freehold, because this would involve title. White v. Suttle, 31 Tenn. 169, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1851); Spillman v. Walt, 59 Tenn. 574, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 116 (1873).

The gravamen of a detainer suit is the wrongful detaining of realty and the ascertainment of damages for detention, either rents or otherwise, is a statutory incident to the proceeding so that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to demand damages in a detainer warrant in order to authorize judgment for the same. Craig v. Collins, 524 S.W.2d 947, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

5. —Time from Which Rents and Damages Recoverable.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover rents and damages accruing from and after the time when the defendant's possession became wrongful and unlawful, and they are recoverable as incidental to the recovery of the possession. Beard v. Bricker, 32 Tenn. 50, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1852).

6. Failure of Plaintiff to Give Bond.

In unlawful detainer case where plaintiff landlord prevailed in general sessions and circuit court and defendant appealed to Court of Appeals but during proceeding plaintiff did not exercise the right to give bond as provided by §§ 29-15-116 (repealed; see Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62) and 29-18-131, plaintiff was not entitled to dismissal of defendant's appeal on ground that defendant did not execute the bond provided by § 29-15-117 (repealed; see Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62). Elliott v. Lewis, 225 Tenn. 96, 463 S.W.2d 698, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (1971).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 50.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer § 94.

Forcible entry and detainer 38.

29-18-132. [Reserved.]

  1. A person, once dispossessed by action, who again illegally possesses the premises, commits a Class C misdemeanor.
  2. The only evidence, required or admitted on the trial of the criminal charge, is that the defendant was turned out of possession by action brought for the purpose, and that the defendant has again taken possession of the premises.

Code 1858, §§ 3370, 3371 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 63, § 3); Shan., §§ 5120, 5121; Code 1932, §§ 9275, 9276; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1635; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

29-18-134. Trespass action.

The judgment in a case of forcible entry and detainer shall be no bar to an action against the defendant for trespass.

Code 1858, § 3372 (deriv. Acts 1821, ch. 14, § 19); Shan., § 5122; Code 1932, § 9277; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1636.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remedies Not Limited.

A sublessor evicting sublessee by committing a trespass may be sued for damages; he is not limited to remedy of forcible entry and detainer. Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 16 Tenn. App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44, 1932 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1932).

Collateral References. 35 Am. Jur. 2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 13.

36A C.J.S. Forcible Entry and Detainer §§ 39, 61.

29-18-133. Penalty for resuming possession.

Chapter 19
Gambling Contracts

29-19-101. Void contracts.

All contracts founded, in whole or in part, on a gambling or wagering consideration, shall be void to the extent of such consideration.

Code 1858, § 1769 (deriv. Acts 1799, ch. 8, § 1); Shan., § 3159; Code 1932, § 7812; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1701.

Cross-References. Criminal liability for gaming, title 39, ch. 17, part 5.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Actions, § 11; 1 Tenn. Juris., Agency, § 41; 13 Tenn. Juris., Gaming, Gambling and Gambling Contracts, §§ 2, 12.

Law Reviews.

Contracts — 1956 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 951.

Gaming — Liability of Stakeholder, 18 Tenn. L. Rev. 219.

Attorney General Opinions. Applicability of Statute of Anne provisions regarding gambling, OAG 04-046 (3/18/04).

Comparative Legislation. Gambling contracts:

Ala.  Code § 8-1-150 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-118-103 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 372.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 87-1-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 434.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 16-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 11-14 et seq.

Cited: Mathes v. State, 173 Tenn. 511, 121 S.W.2d 548, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1938); Huckeby v. Spangler, 521 S.W.2d 568, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 688 (Tenn. 1975); Baugh v. Novak, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. May 20, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Interpretation.

2. —“Gaming” Defined.

Whenever money or other valuable thing is hazarded and may be lost, or more than the value obtained, and dependent upon chance, the transaction is gambling or gaming. State v. Smith, 10 Tenn. 272, 1829 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1829); Bagley v. State, 20 Tenn. 486, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1840); Walker v. State, 32 Tenn. 287, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (1852).

Any contest or course of action commenced and prosecuted in consequence of a bet or wager, and with a view to determine the bet or wager upon the event of such contest or course of action, is gaming. State v. Smith, 19 Tenn. 99, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1838); Bagley v. State, 20 Tenn. 486, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1840); Harrison v. State, 44 Tenn. 195, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1867).

Gaming, in the sense of the statute, is any agreement between two or more persons to risk money or property on a contest or chance of any kind, where one must be loser and the other winner or gainer. Bell v. State, 37 Tenn. 507, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1857); Eubanks v. State, 50 Tenn. 488, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1872); McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S.W. 38, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 (1887); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

It matters not what is the unlawful device upon which the money is received as a hazard, it is gaming; and if there be no unlawful device, but the hazard is upon the result of a lawful but uncertain event by which one will lose and the other gain, it is gaming. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S.W. 38, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 (1887); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

3. —“Wager” Defined.

A “wager” is a bet, a contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S.W. 38, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 (1887); Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

4. —“Lottery” Defined.

A “lottery” is a game of hazard, in which small sums are ventured for the chance of obtaining greater. Bell v. State, 37 Tenn. 507, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1857); Daly v. State, 81 Tenn. 228, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1884).

5. —Protection of Section — Extent.

This section provides protection against suits upon gaming contracts, but it does not provide protection against the judgment rendered for a gambling debt. Holland v. Pirtle, 29 Tenn. 167, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1849).

6. Gaming Contracts.

7. —Illegality.

Every species of gaming contracts, whether verbal or written, is declared to be illegal and void, and every conveyance or lease of land founded upon a gaming consideration is absolutely void, and may be canceled in chancery, at the suit of the party injuriously affected. Haley v. Long, 7 Tenn. 93, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1823); Peters v. Edwards, 8 Tenn. 262, 1827 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1827); Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831); Bagley v. State, 20 Tenn. 486, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1840); Smith v. Harris, 35 Tenn. 553, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1856); Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859); Williams v. Talliaferro, 41 Tenn. 37, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1860); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869).

8. —Loan Void Under Section.

To render a loan of money void under this section, because it was made at a time and place of a gaming transaction, it must be made to some one engaged in the game as player or bettor, and it must in some way promote the game or contribute thereto. Smith v. Harris, 35 Tenn. 553, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1856).

9. —Insurance as Gambling Contract.

While a niece has no insurable interest in life of an uncle, the policy contract is not denounced by this section and §§ 29-19-102, 29-19-105. Bloomstein v. Bloomstein, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 187 (1901).

Insurance as a speculation, without insurable interest, is void, under this section, as a gambling or wagering contract. Marquet v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 128 Tenn. 213, 159 S.W. 733, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 42, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915B749 (1913).

Notwithstanding statutory provision making life insurance policies incontestable after the lapse of two years from the date of issuance, such policies are subject to the defense that the assignee of the policy has no insurable interest in the life of the insured, and procured the policy exclusively for his own benefit and subsequently took an assignment of the policy from the insured in furtherance of the initial fraud, where the assignee paid all the premiums due under the policy. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hooker, 62 F.2d 805, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3861 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1933), cert. denied, Hooker v. Aetna Ins. Co., 289 U.S. 748, 53 S. Ct. 691, 77 L. Ed. 1494, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 373 (1933).

Insurance policy which was actually issued and delivered to holder of mortgage on building, with loss payable clause in favor of mortgagee, would not be held void as a wagering contract even though person initiating the contract had no interest in the building. Vinson v. Mills, 530 S.W.2d 761, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 568 (Tenn. 1975).

10. —Negotiable Paper.

Where a cashier's negotiable certificate was endorsed by the payee and delivered as payment of a gambling debt and, subsequently endorsed by the holder and delivered to a third party in due course for full consideration and without notice of the gambling transaction, such instrument was enforceable in the hands of the innocent holder in due course. Winecoff Operating Co. v. Pioneer Bank, 179 Tenn. 306, 165 S.W.2d 585, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1942).

An endorsement and delivery of negotiable paper to pay a gambling debt does not make the endorsee a holder in due course and no title passes between the immediate parties, but if the paper finds its way into the hands of an innocent holder for value before maturity, it is enforceable despite its intermediate transfer for a gambling consideration. Winecoff Operating Co. v. Pioneer Bank, 179 Tenn. 306, 165 S.W.2d 585, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1942).

11. Stakeholder's Liability.

A holder of stake money is liable to the loser in an action to recover the money provided he had notice not to pay the money to the winner before he does so. Lillard v. Mitchell, 37 S.W. 702, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 34 (1896).

12. Equitable Jurisdiction.

This section does not deprive equity of jurisdiction to cancel a gambling contract. Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859).

Collateral References. 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling §§ 186-197, 207-211.

38 C.J.S. Gaming §§ 3, 4.

Automobile liability insurance, omnibus coverage clause as gaming contract. 72 A.L.R. 1384, 106 A.L.R. 1251, 126 A.L.R. 544, 143 A.L.R. 1394.

Bequest of “money” as including money put up on bets. 93 A.L.R. 543, 173 A.L.R. 656.

Bridge as within gambling laws. 97 A.L.R.2d 1420.

Brokers, contract by which real estate broker is to have all in excess of a stipulated sum, as a wagering contract. 30 A.L.R. 829.

Coin operated or slot machine which may be played for amusement only or which confines winner's reward to privilege of additional play or other form of amusement, as within antigambling statutes. 148 A.L.R. 879, 89 A.L.R.2d 815.

Corporate stock, guaranteeing future price of, or dividends on, as a wagering contract contrary to public policy. 24 A.L.R. 986.

Gate money, agreement by which division of, depends upon outcome of game or contest as a wagering contract. 29 A.L.R. 430.

“Hedging” transactions on the commodity market, nature and validity of. 20 A.L.R. 1422.

Insurance, when violation of law as to gaming deemed proximate cause of death or injury, so as to preclude recovery under policy. 166 A.L.R. 1118.

Law of forum against wagering transactions as precluding enforcement of claim based on gambling transactions valid under applicable foreign law. 71 A.L.R.3d 178.

Legal aspect of transactions in securities “when issued,” or “when, as and if” issued. 88 A.L.R. 311.

Option attached to contract of present sale of personal property as making it a gambling contract. 1 A.L.R. 1548.

Right to recover money lent for gambling purposes. 74 A.L.R.5th 369.

Validity of transactions in futures. 83 A.L.R. 522.

What are games of chance, games of skill, and mixed games of chance and skill. 135 A.L.R. 104.

Winner's rights and remedies in respect of pari mutuel and similar legalized betting systems. 165 A.L.R. 838.

29-19-102. Action barred.

No money, or property of any kind, won by any species or mode of gambling, shall be recovered by action.

Code 1858, § 1770 (deriv. Acts 1801, ch. 38, § 1); Shan., § 3160; Code 1932, § 7813; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1702.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Gaming, Gambling and Gambling Contracts, § 12.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Pleading Gaming Consideration.

There is no necessity for pleading the gaming act, for it renders everything void which falls within the sphere of its prohibition, and it can be given in evidence under the plea of non assumpsit. Herd v. Vincent, 1 Tenn. 369, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1808).

2. Loser Regaining Possession.

Where the loser, after delivery of the property to the winner, and within 90 days from the time he lost the property, peaceably regains possession of it, without instituting a suit, he may lawfully retain it to the exclusion of the winner or any person claiming under him with notice. Peters v. Edwards, 8 Tenn. 262, 1827 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1827); Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899).

3. —Note Given to Recapture Gaming Money.

If the loser at poker shall repossess himself of the identical money lost, under pretense of borrowing it from the winner, and gives his note for the amount, such note is not collectable. It is a valid recapture of the money. Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899).

4. Price to be Paid to Buy Gaming Note Not Recoverable.

An action will not lie to recover the price agreed to be paid for the purchase of a note given for a gaming debt. Herd v. Vincent, 1 Tenn. 369, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1808).

5. New Security in Lieu of Security Void for Gaming.

A new security, taken in lieu of another security void for illegality, as for gaming or usury, is equally invalid in the hands of the party to the first illegal transaction, but not in the hands of a bona fide holder. Thus, an action will not lie on a bond given upon an award made under an order of court in a pending action on a note given for a gaming debt, for the bond given upon the award is not purged of the original illegality. Haley v. Long, 7 Tenn. 93, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1823).

Collateral References. 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling § 187.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 13; 38 C.J.S. Gaming §§ 29, 38.

Law of forum against wagering transactions as precluding enforcement of claim based on gambling transactions valid under applicable foreign law. 71 A.L.R.3d 178.

Gaming 39-50.

29-19-103. Qui tam for bringing action.

Any person who institutes an action for money or property, claimed under a contract founded on a gambling consideration, shall forfeit one hundred dollars ($100), recoverable in any court having cognizance; one half (½) to the person who shall sue therefor, the other one half (½) to the county in which action is brought.

Code 1858, § 1774 (deriv. Acts 1799, ch. 8, § 5); Shan., § 3164; Code 1932, § 7817; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1703.

Collateral References. Gaming 61.

29-19-104. Action for property lost.

Any person who has paid any money, or delivered anything of value, lost upon any game or wager, may recover such money, thing, or its value, by action commenced within ninety (90) days from the time of such payment or delivery.

Code 1858, § 1771 (deriv. Acts 1799, ch. 8, § 4); Shan., § 3161; Code 1932, § 7814; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1704.

Cross-References. Limitation of actions, § 28-3-106.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 18.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Actions, § 11; 3 Tenn. Juris., Attachment and Garnishment, § 5; 13 Tenn. Juris., Gaming, Gambling and Gambling Contracts, § 15.

Law Reviews.

Federal Income Tax — Deductibility of Wagering Losses, 1 Vand. L. Rev. 145.

Cited: Mathes v. State, 173 Tenn. 511, 121 S.W.2d 548, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1938); Clemmer Motor Co. v. Towler, 179 Tenn. 295, 165 S.W.2d 581, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1942).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Interpretation.

2. —Common Law Rule.

Money or property lost at gaming, and afterwards voluntarily paid or delivered to the winner, was not, by the loser, recoverable at common law, but same is recoverable under the statute. Herd v. Vincent, 1 Tenn. 369, 1808 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1808); Whiteside v. Tabb, 3 Tenn. 383, 1813 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1813); Nichol v. Batton, 11 Tenn. 468, 11 Tenn. 469, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1832); Perkins v. Hyde, 14 Tenn. 288, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1834); Allen v. Dodd, 23 Tenn. 131, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 32, 40 Am. Dec. 632 (1843); Yerger v. Rains, 23 Tenn. 259, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1843); Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

3. —“Gaming” Defined.

Betting on an election is “gaming.” Williams v. Talliaferro, 41 Tenn. 37, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1860). Compare with Allen v. Dodd, 23 Tenn. 131, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 32, 40 Am. Dec. 632 (1843); Smith v. Stephens, 37 Tenn. 253, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1857).

4. Procedure.

5. —Attachment.

The loser's action may be commenced by attachment, whenever there is statutory ground for the attachment. Lucky v. Miller, 16 Tenn. 90, 1835 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1835).

6. —Who Entitled to Recover.

None other than the person who made the bet, and to whom the money or other valuable thing lost upon the game or race belonged, can maintain an action for the recovery thereof. The mere agent or servant employed and intrusted in that character to make the deposit and conduct the race for another, who was known to all concerned as the principal, falls neither within the letter nor spirit of the statute. Swaggerty v. Stokely, 31 Tenn. 38, 1851 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1851). But certain others may sue within certain other limited periods, as provided in §§ 23-1705, 23-1706 (now §§ 29-19-105, 29-19-106).

7. —Joint Losers — Suits Against Winner.

A joint action will not lie by persons joining in a wager on a horse race to recover the money lost and paid over to the winning party, but each must sue separately for his portion, because the transaction is illegal, and no such relation as that of joint owners or legal privity of any sort can be created between the parties. Wood v. Owens, 32 Tenn. 146, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1852).

In case two sue jointly as complainants, one may have it dismissed as to the other, and amend the bill so as to make it the suit of such one. It was error to deny such amendment upon payment of costs. The bill is not fatally defective in not stating specifically that the money lost was that of complainant. Lillard v. Mitchell, 37 S.W. 702, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 34 (1896).

8. —Interest on Recovery.

In an action for the recovery of the money, the court may, in its discretion, allow or refuse interest on the recovery. Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

9. Gambling Transactions.

10. —Stock Gambling.

Where the parties, though simply acting as agents, advance money in aid of wagering contracts on the future prices of commodities, knowing them to be such, they cannot recover the same from their principal, for whom they advanced. Beadles, Wood & Co. v. Ownby, 84 Tenn. 424, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1886).

In all stock gambling transactions, the broker is responsible as principal, and not as agent only, to the customer dealing through or with him. Allen v. Dunham, 92 Tenn. 257, 21 S.W. 898, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1893).

11. —Horse Racing.

Money or property wagered on a horse race, and lost and paid or delivered to the winner, may be recovered by the loser. While horse racing may, under certain restrictions, be so tolerated by statute as to exempt the parties concerned from criminal prosecution, in all other respects it is illegal, and no valid contract, either express or implied, can arise out of such illegal transaction. Peters v. Edwards, 8 Tenn. 262, 1827 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1827); Wood v. Owens, 32 Tenn. 146, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1852).

12. —Election Bet.

It is a good defense to a suit upon a note that it was won in a bet or wager on an election, or that the consideration of the note was a wager on an election. Russell v. Pyland, 21 Tenn. 131, 1840 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1840); Giddens v. Lea, 22 Tenn. 133, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1842); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869).

By statute, though not at common law, a loser may recover money wagered, lost, and paid upon the result of a primary election. Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

13. Lender of Money to be Bet.

Money lent for the express purpose to be bet on an election, and so applied, is not recoverable by the lender from the borrower. Bates v. Watson, 33 Tenn. 376, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1853).

Money lent to be bet in gambling cannot be recovered by the lender from the borrower. Smith v. Harris, 35 Tenn. 553, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1856).

The lender's mere knowledge of the illegal use that the borrower intends to make of the borrowed money is not, of itself, enough to fix the stain of illegality upon him, and so affect the note for the borrowed money with the taint. It must appear that the lender made the loan, with the purpose on his part, to furnish the money to enable the borrowers to do the illegal act. McGavock v. Puryear, 46 Tenn. 34, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1868); Armstrong v. American Exch. Nat'l Bank, 133 U.S. 433, 10 S. Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1923, 6 Ohio F. Dec. 509 (1890).

14. —Lender of Money to Pay Losses.

The lender of money to pay losses already sustained in an unlawful undertaking, as a gambling transaction, may recover it; but the furnisher or lender of money to be used in such undertakings and transactions cannot. Marshall v. Thruston, 71 Tenn. 740, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 142 (1879).

15. —Promise After Loss to Repay Loan for Gambling.

The borrower's promise, after the gambling loss, to repay the loan made for the express purpose of being wagered, and so applied by the borrower, if not supported by a new and sufficient consideration, will not enable the lender to recover the amount so lent. Bates v. Watson, 33 Tenn. 376, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1853).

16. Relief Barred.

17. —Contract Reduced to Judgment.

Where the maker of a note based upon a gaming consideration suffers judgment to be rendered against him, where his defense was complete and unembarrassed, which he failed to make through his own negligence and laches, he is entitled to no relief against such judgment, and the execution thereof will not be enjoined in chancery. Giddens v. Lea, 22 Tenn. 133, 1842 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1842); Weakley v. Watkins, 26 Tenn. 356, 1846 Tenn. LEXIS 137 (1846), questioned, Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869).

Money paid in satisfaction of a judgment rendered on a note given for a wager lost on a shooting match cannot be recovered back. Holland v. Pirtle, 29 Tenn. 167, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1849).

18. —Personal Representative Paying Note.

A personal representative is entitled to credit for the decedent's notes based upon gaming considerations, and paid by him, without any knowledge of the illegal consideration, at the time of their payment. Coffee v. Ruffin, 44 Tenn. 487, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1867).

19. Stockholders — Liability on Wagering Contracts.

The stockholders in a corporation, organized to conduct such a business, are individually liable for all sums illegally received by the manager and agents of such corporation on wagering contracts. Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887).

20. Third Party's Note to Pay Winner.

The loser's delivery to the winner of a note of a third person lost in gaming is voidable at the election of the loser, who may or may not take advantage of the statute. Woodson v. Gordon, 7 Tenn. 196, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1823); Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899).

21. Recovery from Stakeholders.

The loser is entitled to recover the money or property staked by himself, and his recovery will not be defeated, because he demanded the whole stake instead of the deposit made by himself. The motive by which he was influenced is immaterial, for it is enough that he put an end to the contract. Perkins v. Hyde, 14 Tenn. 288, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1834).

If after notice not to do so, the stakeholder pays the money over to the winner, he is liable to the loser for the amount of his stake or deposit. Perkins v. Hyde, 14 Tenn. 288, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1834); Bates v. Lancaster, 29 Tenn. 134, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1849); Guthman v. Parker, 40 Tenn. 233, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1859); Lillard v. Mitchell, 37 S.W. 702, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 34 (1896).

Where several parties jointly deposit a sum of money with a stakeholder they must all join in the action to recover the joint deposit after their abandonment of the wager and notice to the stakeholder not to pay the sum to the other party. Gray v. Wilson, 19 Tenn. 394, 1838 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1838).

Where the stakeholder, in good faith, pays over the money to the winner, before notification not to do so, he is not liable to the loser for the amount of his stake or deposit. Bates v. Lancaster, 29 Tenn. 134, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1849).

22. Proof — Receiver of Money.

In an action by a minor to recover from the defendant his father's gambling losses it was shown that the defendant was the occupant and in control of other premises in which similar gambling games occurred, that he at times operated the games himself and at other times had “dealers” operate them which dealers were the same dealers that operated the game in which the father lost, that the defendant though not actually in control of the game in which the father lost was in the same room, these circumstances plus the fact that the defendant never testified and did not attempt to rebut them could properly lead the court to the inference that the defendant operated the game in which the father lost his money. Pickard v. Berryman, 24 Tenn. App. 263, 142 S.W.2d 764, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

23. Relief in Chancery.

Gaming securities given for losses in gambling transactions and conveyances of land made upon gambling considerations are void, both at law and in equity, and chancery will compel them to be canceled, even at the suit of the particeps criminis. Blair v. Brabson, 4 Tenn. 18, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1816); Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831); Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859); Williams v. Talliaferro, 41 Tenn. 37, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1860); Kelton v. Millikin, 42 Tenn. 410, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1865); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869); Bivins v. Jarnigan, 62 Tenn. 282, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1873); Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899).

In transactions contravening public policy, relief may be given in chancery to a particeps criminis; but the relief is given always in aid of public policy, and not in subversion thereof. The fact that one is a particeps criminis is not an objection, in chancery, against him when asking relief against the effect of a contract made in contravention of the policy of the statutes to suppress gaming. Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831); Allen v. Dodd, 23 Tenn. 131, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 32, 40 Am. Dec. 632 (1843); Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859); Williams v. Talliaferro, 41 Tenn. 37, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1860); Kelton v. Millikin, 42 Tenn. 410, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1865); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869); Bivins v. Jarnigan, 62 Tenn. 282, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1873).

The chancery court has jurisdiction to require gaming securities to be canceled, after a suit at law has been commenced thereon, and before the rendition of judgment. Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859), approved generally in Kelton v. Millikin, 42 Tenn. 410, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1865); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869); Bivins v. Jarnigan, 62 Tenn. 282, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1873), and Stanford v. Howard, 103 Tenn. 24, 52 S.W. 140, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 83, 76 Am. St. Rep. 635 (1899).

24. —Land Lost at Gambling.

The limitation does not apply to land lost at gaming and conveyed by the loser, which, when by the winner conveyed to a third party with notice, may be recovered in chancery by the loser, and the deeds canceled, upon a bill filed more than 90 days after the time of the execution of the deed. Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831); Rucker v. Wynne, 39 Tenn. 617, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 291 (1859).

25. —Wagering Contract Disaffirmed.

This statute has no application to cases where the wagering contract is disaffirmed, and notice is given to the stakeholder not to deliver the wager. In such cases, the action rests on common law principles. The limitation does not apply in gaming contracts disaffirmed while the impending event is undecided, nor where the stakeholder has been notified not to deliver the property. Perkins v. Hyde, 14 Tenn. 288, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1834); Bates v. Lancaster, 29 Tenn. 134, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1849); Guthman v. Parker, 40 Tenn. 233, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1859). See Allen v. Dodd, 23 Tenn. 131, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 32, 40 Am. Dec. 632 (1843).

26. Limitations.

This section contains a statute of limitation. The right of action cannot be extended beyond the time specified. Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831); Nichol v. Batton, 11 Tenn. 468, 11 Tenn. 469, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 97 (1832); Perkins v. Hyde, 14 Tenn. 288, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1834).

27. —Accrual.

If a loser elects to avoid his delivery to winner of note of third person lost in gaming, he must show his election by action against the winner within the time prescribed. Otherwise the delivery will be good. Woodson v. Gordon, 7 Tenn. 196, 1823 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1823).

As against the loser's right of action, limitation of 90 days begins to run at the date of the payment of the money lost, and not at the date it may have been deposited to abide the result. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S.W. 38, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 84, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 (1887).

28. —Pleading Limitation.

The limitation must be either pleaded or the benefit thereof must be insisted on in the answer in chancery. Johnson v. Cooper, 10 Tenn. 524, 1831 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1831).

29. —Insurance Contracts.

The statutory limitation of 90 days within which suit may be brought for money lost at gaming cannot be extended to contracts of insurance unenforceable on behalf of those who pay the premiums and cannot collect the insurance because they have no insurable interest. Such contracts are void because contrary to public policy. Interstate Life & Acci. Co. v. Cook, 19 Tenn. App. 290, 86 S.W.2d 887, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

Although last premium had been paid more than three years prior to commencement of action, 90-day statute of limitation on action for money lost at gambling or betting did not bar action to recover premiums paid on policy of life insurance without knowledge of insured, such policy being primarily void as against public policy. Interstate Life & Acci. Co. v. Cook, 19 Tenn. App. 290, 86 S.W.2d 887, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

In action to recover premiums paid on policy of life insurance without knowledge of insured, and in which one ground of defendant's motion for new trial included assignment that court erred in holding that plaintiff was not barred by statute of limitations applicable to action, such error was properly preserved in view of fact that defendant's counsel at close of evidence had expressly directed attention of court to statutory 90-day limitation on actions for money lost at gambling or betting, as a result of which the trial judge could not have failed to understand that the mentioned ground of defendant's motion for a new trial was a complaint of the court's ruling that the 90-day statute was not applicable to plaintiff's action. Interstate Life & Acci. Co. v. Cook, 19 Tenn. App. 290, 86 S.W.2d 887, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

Collateral References. 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling §§ 225-263.

38 C.J.S. Gaming § 53.

Agent, right to recover from, money placed in his hands to be used for gambling purposes. 3 A.L.R. 1635.

Agreement between charitable home and applicant for admission respecting compensation to home and property rights of applicant as wagering contract. 10 A.L.R.2d 864.

Bucket shops or bucket shop transactions, violation of statute relating to, as ground of action by customer or patron. 113 A.L.R. 853.

Gambler's right to recover money lost by him as including money belonging to others. 162 A.L.R. 1224.

Margin transactions or dealings in futures as within Constitution or statutes providing for recovery back of money paid on gaming consideration. 49 A.L.R. 1085.

Recovery of money or property entrusted to another for purpose of dealings in futures or on margins but not so used. 8 A.L.R.2d 307.

Recovery of money or property lost through cheating or fraud in forbidden gambling or game. 39 A.L.R.2d 1213.

Right to recover money lent for gambling purposes. 53 A.L.R.2d 345.

Rights and remedies in respect of property pledged for payment of gambling debt. 172 A.L.R. 701.

Setoff by professional gambler in action against him by casual gambler to recover losses, of money lost by defendant to plaintiff. 88 A.L.R. 1078.

Gaming 39-50.

29-19-105. Action for use of family.

Any other person may, after the expiration of the ninety (90) days, and within twelve (12) months thereafter, recover the amount of such money, thing, or its value, by action for the use of the spouse; or, if no spouse, the child or children; and, if no child or children, the next of kin of the loser.

Code 1858, § 1772; Shan., § 3162; Code 1932, § 7815; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1705.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Gaming, Gambling and Gambling Contracts, § 15.

Law Reviews.

Federal Income Tax — Deductibility of Wagering Losses, 1 Vand. L. Rev. 145.

Cited: Clemmer Motor Co. v. Towler, 179 Tenn. 295, 165 S.W.2d 581, 1942 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1942).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Persons Entitled to Recover.

The statutes empower not only the losing party, but his wife, children, next of kin, or creditors, within the period, order, and limitations therein prescribed, to recover the money thus lost from the other party. Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887).

2. —Adult Children.

This section does not limit the right of recovery to the minor children of a loser in a gaming transaction. Coles v. Morrow, 128 Tenn. 550, 162 S.W. 577, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1913), reprinted in Coles v. Morrow, 130 Tenn. 700, 162 S.W. 577, 1914 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1914).

3. —Wife.

The suit of the wife by next friend to recover gambling losses paid by her husband more than 90 days before its institution is not barred, if brought within 12 months after the expiration of the 90 days. Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887).

The pledge of husband's automobile to defendant for destruction of a check given in gaming transaction is invalid, and wife is entitled to replevin the automobile. Hall v. McCandless, 14 Tenn. App. 528, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

4. —Husband Suing for Use of Wife.

The suit may be maintained by the husband for the use of the wife, to recover money which he lost at gaming, where instituted after the expiration of the 90 days, and before the expiration of the 12 months. Forrest v. Grant, 79 Tenn. 305, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1883).

Where a husband sues for gambling losses paid more than 90 days before the institution of his suit, he may be allowed to amend so as to sue for the use of his wife. Forrest v. Grant, 79 Tenn. 305, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1883).

5. Amount of Recovery.

The defendant is entitled to a setoff for any money lost by him and won by the husband and accounted for to him in the settlement of balances, notwithstanding the statute of limitation of 90 days may have barred an independent action by the defendant for his such losses. The recovery can only be for the net balance of the losses. Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S.W. 41, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (1887); Lewis v. Turnley, 97 Tenn. 197, 36 S.W. 872, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1896).

6. —Loss of Value — Necessity for Recovery.

The husband or father must have lost something of value by gambling. Bloomstein v. Bloomstein, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 187 (1901).

7. Proof — Receiver of Money.

In an action by a minor to recover from the defendant his father's gambling losses it was shown that the defendant was the occupant and in control of other premises in which similar gambling games occurred, that he at times operated the games himself and at other times had “dealers” operate them which dealers were the same dealers that operated the game in which the father lost, that the defendant though not actually in control of the game in which the father lost was in the same room; these circumstances plus the fact that the defendant never testified and did not attempt to rebut them could properly lead the court to the inference that the defendant operated the game in which the father lost his money. Pickard v. Berryman, 24 Tenn. App. 263, 142 S.W.2d 764, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

Collateral References. 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling §§ 226, 228, 239, 244.

38 C.J.S. Gaming §§ 38, 53.

Gaming 46(1).

29-19-106. Action by creditor.

After the expiration of the time prescribed in § 29-19-105, and within twelve (12) months thereafter, any creditor of such losing party may, by garnishment or action, recover the amount of such money, thing, or its value, in satisfaction of so much of the creditor's debt.

Code 1858, § 1773; Shan., § 3163; Code 1932, § 7816; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1706.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 13 Tenn. Juris., Gaming, Gambling and Gambling Contracts, § 15.

Law Reviews.

Federal Income Tax — Deductibility of Wagering Losses, 1 Vand. L. Rev. 145.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Creditors of Loser — Rights Against His Conveyance to Winner.

Where land is lost at gaming and conveyed by the loser to the winner, the creditors of the loser may set aside the conveyance and subject the land to the payment of their debts against the loser. Williams v. Talliaferro, 41 Tenn. 37, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1860); Porter v. Jones, 46 Tenn. 313, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1869); Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S.W. 476, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (1901).

Collateral References. 38 C.J.S. Gaming §§ 38, 54.

Gaming 39-50.

Chapter 20
Governmental Tort Liability

Part 1
General Provisions

29-20-101. Title.

This chapter shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.”

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3301.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 85.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Bridges, § 9; 8 Tenn. Juris., Counties, § 28; 22 Tenn. Juris., State, § 14.

Law Reviews.

A Pragmatic Approach to Improving Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2001).

Accidental Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1225 (2001).

Civil Procedure — Flowers v. Dyer County: The Death of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 409 (1993).

Civil Rights — Municipal Liability for Police Misconduct, 10 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 129.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Negligence Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 893 (2001).

Duty Rules, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 767 (2001).

Intent and Recklessness in Tort: The Practical Craft of Restating Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1133 (2001).

Interpretive Construction, Systematic Consistency, and Criterial Norms in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1157 (2001).

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Legal Cause: Cause-In-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 941 (2001).

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 863 (2001).

Once More Into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution, and the Extent of Legal Responsibility, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1071 (2001).

On Determining Negligence Norms, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 813 (2001).

Policing the Police: Clarifying the Test for Holding the Government Liable Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the State-Created Danger Theory, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 165 (2001).

Purpose, Belief, and Recklessness: Pruning the Restatement's (Third) Definition of Intent, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1165 (2001).

Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 751 (2001).

Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles and the Prescription of Masculine Order, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2001).

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1039 (2001).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

1985 Tennessee Survey: Selected Developments in Tennessee Law, 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 415 (1986).

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1986, 54 Tenn. L. Rev. 457 (1987).

Sovereign Immunity and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (John C. Cook), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 885.

Tennessee's Adoption of the Planning-Operational Test for Determining Discretionary Function Immunity Under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 633 (1993).

Tennessee Civil Disabilities: A Systemic Approach (Neil P. Cohen), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 253.

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

The Constitutional Implications of High-Speed Police Pursuits Under a Substantive Due Process Analysis: Homeward Through the Haze, 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 599 (1997).

The Duty Concept in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2001).

The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as Well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Passing of Palsgraf?, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2001).

The Restatement of Torts and the Courts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1439 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (2001).

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1413 (2001).

The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act: Nonfeasance, the Duty to Maintain Streets, and the Discretion to Do Nothing, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 223 (1992).

The Trouble with Negligence, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1187 (2001).

The Unexpected Persistence of Negligence, 1980 - 2000, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1337 (2001).

Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and the Collateral Source Rule Do Not Mix (Victor E. Schwartz), 39 Vand. L. Rev. 569 (1986).

Torts — Bowers v. City of Chattanooga: Planning-Operational Distinctions in Determining Discretionary Function Immunity Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (Harold W. Fonville II), 24 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 167 (1993).

Torts — Chase v. City of Memphis: The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Meets the Special Duty Doctrine, 29 U. Mem. L. Rev. 507 (1999).

Torts — Hurd v. Woolfork: The Public Duty Doctrine in Tennessee (Emilia G. Ballentine), 28 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1279 (1998).

Torts — Pinner v. Lanier: Corporal Punishment and the Discretionary Function Immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, 22 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 597 (1992).

When the Earth Moves and Buildings Tumble, Who Will Pay? — Tort Liability and Defenses for Earthquake Damage within the New Madrid Fault Zone, 22 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (1991).

Attorney General Opinions. Contracts to perform county road work, OAG 88-93 (4/20/88).

Duties of constables in Rutherford County/Liability of County for actions of constables, OAG 91-70 (8/1/91).

Agreements by local governmental entities to indemnify private parties or other governmental entities, OAG 93-01 (1/4/93).

City housing authority as governmental entity under Tort Liability Act, OAG 97-072 (5/19/97).

Liability for conduct of inmates performing community service work, OAG 97-112 (8/12/97).

County or municipal liability for actions of elected county constables, OAG 99-129 (6/29/99).

Liability of failure to maintain Johnson City school buildings, OAG 99-210 (10/20/99).

Franklin County constables, OAG 00-050 (3/20/00).

Personal immunity of emergency medical technicians and paramedics from tort suits, OAG 03-093 (7/28/03).

The Healthy Workplace Act of 2014 does not create a new cause of action against state or local employers or against state or local employees for abusive conduct in the workplace.  It appears that when a state or local government complies with the policy-adoption requirement of T.C.A. § 50-1-503(b), that entity would, under certain circumstances, acquire a specific supplement to the immunity already applicable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) and the Tennessee Claims Commission Act. OAG 15-01, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 1 (1/6/15).

The Healthy Workplace Act extends to quasi-governmental entities. “Employer” is defined in the Act as any agency, county, metropolitan government, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state. The definition of “agency” in the Act includes all boards, offices, and other agencies of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government. OAG 15-01, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 1 (1/6/15).

Each “employer” may adopt a policy conforming to T.C.A. § 50-1-503(b).  When the employer is a local governmental entity, such as a county or a municipality, the question of who has authority within that local governmental entity to adopt such a policy is a matter of local law and will depend in each case on the particular charter of the local government, its ordinances, rules, and regulations. OAG 15-01, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 1 (1/6/15).

Comparative Legislation. Governmental tort liability:

Ala.  Code § 41-9-60 et seq.

Ark.  Const. art. V, § 20.

Ga.  Const. art. I, § II, par. IX.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 65.200 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-45-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.600 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-291 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-195.1 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act removes common-law governmental immunity only in the situations specifically enumerated in its provisions. Mabray v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 480 F. Supp. 1240, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8211 (W.D. Tenn. 1979).

This act was passed in an attempt to avoid the confusion experienced by states that had judicially revoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Chapman v. Sullivan County, 608 S.W.2d 580, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. 1980).

The Governmental Tort Liability Act abolished the earlier distinction drawn between “proprietary” and “governmental” functions of local governments as related to tort claims. Fretwell v. Chaffin, 652 S.W.2d 755, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. 1983).

The public duty doctrine of governmental immunity survived the enactment of Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act. Hurd by & Through Hurd v. Woolfork, 959 S.W.2d 578, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

2. Constitutionality.

In an action arising out of the death of a patient and injuries to the patient's newborn child, applying a substantive amendment to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-101 to 29-20-408, enacted after the injury-producing events occurred to the plaintiffs'  damage claims violated the prohibition against retrospective laws in Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 20. Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 24, 2010), rehearing denied, 318 S.W.3d 823, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. 2010).

3. Construction with Other Statutes.

If a specific or special statute provides for a remedy and waiver of immunity for injuries that are expressly excluded from the operation of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), then those remedies would not be affected by the GTLA because they cannot conflict with the statutory scheme of the GTLA and are separate from it, regardless of whether these statutes were enacted before or after the GTLA. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007).

This chapter does not supersede title 8, ch. 8, part 3, which provides a waiver of immunity to suit against a county to recover damages caused by wrongful conduct of a sheriff's deputy. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007).

Generally, no inconsistency exists between the scope of the remedies provided by the Governmental Tort Liability Act for certain unintentional torts and that of title 8, ch. 8, part 3 for the official misconduct of deputies, except to the extent that these latter statutes could extend to actions for negligence. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007).

The general provisions of the Governmental Tort Liability Act do not supersede the specific provisions of title 8, ch. 8, part 3 as they relate to misconduct of sheriff's deputies, except to the extent that title 8, ch. 8, part 3 could extend to actions for negligence under § 29-20-205. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007); Doe v. Sullivan County, 956 F.2d 545, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 864, 113 S. Ct. 187, 121 L. Ed. 2d 131, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 5302 (1992).

Section 28-1-105, the saving statute, is not applicable to actions commenced under this chapter. Rael v. Montgomery County, 769 S.W.2d 211, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

This chapter limits actions that arise under title 8, chapter 8, part 3 to non-negligent causes of action. Hensley v. Fowler, 920 S.W.2d 649, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. 1996).

Although T.C.A. § 8-8-409 gives counties the power to determine what fringe benefits they will provide to their employees, T.C.A. § 5-23-101 makes clear that the legislature does not intend that counties can exempt themselves from the purview of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., by adopting written personnel policies that include the provision of fringe benefits. The authority granted to counties to define written personnel policies does not grant them the power to suspend or remove statutory negligence actions as provided for in the GTLA. Crawley v. Hamilton County, 193 S.W.3d 453, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 2006).

Even if plaintiff had likely not abandoned her Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claim by failing to raise it on appeal, it failed on the merits; officers entitled to summary judgment on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claim are automatically entitled to summary judgment on the Tennessee common-law battery claim. Griffin v. Hardrick, 604 F.3d 949, 2010 FED App. 134P, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9752, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 601, 178 L. Ed. 2d 435, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8903 (U.S. 2010).

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, concludes that T.C.A. § 41-2-123(d)(2) operates to remove immunity in cases where an inmate is injured while working on a detail, but only as it pertains to liability for medical treatment, and controls over the more general provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq.Vaughn v. City of Tullahoma, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 502 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2017).

4. Jurisdiction.

District court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because T.C.A. § 29-20-307 of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101, et seq., gave the state circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to its provisions. Conner v. City of Jackson, 669 F. Supp. 2d 886,  2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112545 (W.D. Tenn. June 9, 2009).

Motion to dismiss was denied in part because to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claims would waste the resources of the parties and the state and federal courts and the TGTLA did not exempt municipalities from liability for assault and battery. Birgs v. City of Memphis, 686 F. Supp. 2d 776, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14908 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2010).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the court declined to accept jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because the Tennessee legislature had shown an unequivocal preference that TGTLA claims be handled by its own state courts. Smith v. Shelby County, 721 F. Supp. 2d 712, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58701 (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2010).

Transfer Statute, T.C.A. § 16-1-116, is applicable to Government Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claims; the Transfer Statute does not create a new substantive right or a new cause of action that could be asserted against the state or its political subdivisions, but the Transfer Statute merely authorizes the transfer of such a claim to a court empowered to hear the merits of the claim. Haynes v. Rutherford County, 359 S.W.3d 585, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 915 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2011).

5. Action Against State Agencies.

This statute applies only to local governmental entities and does not confer the right to maintain an action against state agencies. Tennessee Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Hughes, 531 S.W.2d 299, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. 1975); Youngblood v. Clepper, 856 S.W.2d 405, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

This act was intended to apply uniformly to cities and counties but not to the state of Tennessee. Chapman v. Sullivan County, 608 S.W.2d 580, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. 1980).

County sheriff acted as a county employee, and not a state employee, when he improperly released a state prisoner in the sheriff's custody who later shot and killed the claimant's son, so the state was not liable for the alleged negligent acts of the sheriff. Cooper v. State, 106 S.W.3d 688, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (Tenn. May 19, 2003).

Where the inmate sued the county under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., to recover for injuries he sustained when he fell from a scaffolding while performing construction work at the jail, the trial court erred by granting the county's motion for summary judgment; the simple tool doctrine did not bar his recovery because the doctrine was abolished in Tennessee in favor of comparative negligence, and reasonable minds could differ over whether the fault attributable to the inmate was equal to the fault potentially attributable to the county. Baggett v. Bedford County, 270 S.W.3d 550, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. June 30, 2008).

Finding against the government in a driver's action under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because the officers were negligent in the manner in which they assessed the threat posed by the driver and were negligent in the decision to handcuff him in the prone position, causing his injuries. The officers thought that the driver was intoxicated and he instead was in diabetic shock. Timmons v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 307 S.W.3d 735, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2010).

In a suit brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act after plaintiff fell in a puddle of water on property adjacent to a water tower located on property owned by a governmental entity, the record fully supported the findings by the trial court that plaintiff failed to show that the governmental entity's water tank caused a defective condition on the adjacent property or, if a dangerous condition existed on the adjacent property that the governmental entity had notice of it. Morgan v. Memphis Light Gas & Water, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

In a suit brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act after plaintiff fell in a puddle of water on property adjacent to a water tower located on property owned by a governmental entity, the trial court properly considered the Eaton factors in determining that the adjacent owner, which had a duty to use ordinary care to keep its premises safe, and plaintiff, who had a duty to use reasonable care for his own safety, were each at least 50 percent at fault. Morgan v. Memphis Light Gas & Water, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018).

6. Provisions Inapplicable.

The Governmental Tort Liability Act (this chapter) had no application in breach of contract cases, and an action against the county for breach of implied warranty of fitness for defects in the construction of a house purchased from the county was an action in contract and not an injury in tort. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

In pursuit of an escaping offender, a police officer who operates his vehicle with due care (in light of the standard by which his conduct should be judged) is not responsible for the acts of the pursued offender, although the pursuit may have contributed to the reckless driving of the pursued since the officer is not obliged to allow him to escape. Nevill v. Tullahoma, 756 S.W.2d 226, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. 1988), overruled, Haynes v. Hamilton County, 883 S.W.2d 606, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 260 (Tenn. 1994), overruled, Whitfield v. City of Dayton, 167 Ohio App. 3d 172, 2006 Ohio 2917, 854 N.E.2d 532, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 2797 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County 2006).

Where plaintiffs had entered into a rural fire service contract with the city, this chapter had no application to the parties' claims for breach of contract. Harper v. Milan, 825 S.W.2d 92, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

Though the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., does not waive a Tennessee county's state law immunity for certain torts, including interference with contract rights and invasion of civil rights, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2), this statutory exception is limited to the claims specified in § 29-20-205(2). The Tennessee supreme court has made it clear that if a specific or special statute provides for a remedy and waiver of immunity for injuries that are expressly excluded from the operation of the TGTLA, then these remedies would not be affected by the TGTLA because they cannot conflict with the statutory scheme of the TGTLA and are separate from it, regardless of whether these statutes were enacted before or after TGTLA. Buchanan v. Williams, 434 F. Supp. 2d 521, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41234 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).

7. Punitive Damages.

Punitive damages are not recoverable under this chapter. Tipton County Board of Education v. Dennis, 561 S.W.2d 148, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 575 (Tenn. 1978).

8. Nuisance.

In passing the act, the legislature did not deprive a court of equity of its inherent jurisdiction to abate a nuisance created and maintained by a municipality. Mabray v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 480 F. Supp. 1240, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8211 (W.D. Tenn. 1979).

9. Immunity.

Language in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) retaining governmental immunity in cases involving infliction of mental anguish applies only to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, a governmental entity does not retain immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., against claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Marla H. v. Knox County, 361 S.W.3d 518, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1042 (Tenn. Oct. 18, 2011).

Plaintiff's suit alleging that defendants violated his civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that their actions constituted violations of the Tennessee Governmental Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., by bringing an unsuccessful criminal case against him was properly dismissed because the suit was barred by judicial immunity and sovereign immunity; the Tennessee Governmental Liability Act expressly excluded claims for violation of civil rights under § 1983. Houston v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. May 23, 2012).

In a wrongful death, medical malpractice (now health care liability), and civil rights action brought by the estate of a deceased inmate against a sheriff, a county, and others, a district court dismissed the medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit against the county asserted under Tennessee law because the county was immune from suit, pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Ramirez-Rosales v. Matheny, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100887 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2011).

10. No Governmental Immunity.

Finding that a government employer's immunity was removed pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because an operator was acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently injured the employee. The operator was acting within the scope of his employment because he was returning the front end loader as part of his employment with the employer, his primary motivation in operating the front end loader was serving the employer, he was traveling the route prescribed by the employer, and the front end loader had been furnished by the employer; additionally, a civil action for assault required an intent to harm and nothing indicated that the operator intended to harm the employee. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010), rev'd, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011).

11. Trespass.

In a case in which several individuals asserted a trespass claim against a city alleging that odorous gases and mists had entered their property without their permission, the city argued unsuccessfully that it was immune from the trespass suit pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because that the GTLA did not remove immunity for that particular type of action. Under the Burchfield decision, the GTLA did not preclude an injunction to address a governmental entity's trespass. Stephens v. Koch Foods, LLC, 667 F. Supp. 2d 768, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95411 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 13, 2009).

12. Intentional Tort.

Finding in favor of a walker was improper because the government employee's operation of equipment constituted the intentional tort of assault rather than negligence and the government could not have been held liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-101 to 29-20-408 absent proof of its negligent supervision. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011), rehearing denied, Hughes v. Metro. Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. June 14, 2011).

13. Proximate Cause.

Judgment was properly entered for an accused on a Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claim after an assault in a jail cell as a county breached its duty to the accused by failing to timely release him pursuant to the arraigning court's order; proximate cause was implicit in the finding that the attack would not have happened if the accused had been timely released as several of the inmates in the cell were charged with violent crimes, and the injury was reasonably foreseeable. King v. Anderson County, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 419 S.W.3d 232, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 989 (Tenn. 2013).

In a premises liability case filed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging that plaintiff fell because the sidewalk was in a dangerous and defective condition due to the negligence of the city, the trial court did not err in failing to find a causal connection between the defective sidewalk and the injuries plaintiff received because neither plaintiff nor any witnesses were able to testify as to what caused plaintiff's fall on the sidewalk; and, in fact, when asked if she knew what caused her to fall, plaintiff responded in the negative. Lurks v. City of Newbern, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2017).

In a case in which the parents of a student filed suit against a metropolitan government for negligence under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, after their child, who was autistic, injured her arm at school, the metropolitan government's motion for summary judgment was properly granted because, even if the trial court had allowed the parents to amend their complaint to include the allegations regarding the playground and that the child should not have been allowed to enter the playground, the parents failed to prove cause in fact or proximate cause as they failed to point to evidence demonstrating how the child injured her arm or how any precaution or supervision by the metropolitan government could have prevented the injury. Webster ex rel. Webster v. Metro. Gov't Nashville And Davidson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2019).

14. Burden of Proof.

Trial court properly dismissed an injured pedestrian's action against a city under the Governmental Tort Liability Act because, inter alia, the pedestrian failed to prove that a dangerous or defective condition existed or that the city had prior notice or sufficient time to take corrective action or to warn of the dangerous condition or defect since she provided no expert proof to support her contention that the design of the steps, the installation of a handrail on only one side of the steps, or the elevation of the metal strip on the edge of the steps constituted a dangerous or defective condition, and the city's subsequent corrective measures did not prove that a dangerous condition or defect existed before the pedestrian's fall. James v. City of Dyersburg, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2019).

Collateral References. 57 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal, School and State Tort Liability.

20 C.J.S. Counties §§ 215-221, 297-318; 63, 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 745-949, 2173-2185; 81A C.J.S. States §§ 196-202, 298-328.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit. 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Governmental tort liability for social service agency's negligence in placement, or supervision after placement, of children. 90 A.L.R.3d 1214.

Liability of municipality or other governmental unit for failure to provide police protection from crime. 90 A.L.R.5th 273.

Liability of public authority for injury arising out of automobile race conducted on street or highway. 80 A.L.R.3d 1192.

Liability of school or school personnel for injury to student resulting from cheerleader activities. 25 A.L.R.5th 784.

Municipal corporation's safety rules and regulations as admissible in evidence in action by private party against municipal corporation or its officers or employees for negligent operation of vehicle. 82 A.L.R.3d 1285.

Municipal liability for negligent performance of building inspector's duties. 24 A.L.R.5th 200.

Recovery of exemplary or punitive damages from municipal corporation. 1 A.L.R.4th 448.

Validity, construction, and application of the uniform fire code. 46 A.L.R.5th 479.

29-20-102. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Claim” means any claim brought against a governmental entity or its employee as permitted by this chapter;
  2. “Employee” means and includes any official (whether elected or appointed), officer, employee or servant, or any member of any board, agency, or commission (whether compensated or not), or any officer, employee or servant thereof, of a governmental entity, including the sheriff and the sheriff's employees and, further including regular members of voluntary or auxiliary firefighting, police, or emergency assistance organizations;
    1. “Governmental entity” means any political subdivision of the state of Tennessee including, but not limited to, any municipality, metropolitan government, county, utility district, school district, nonprofit volunteer fire department receiving funds appropriated by a county legislative body or a legislative body of a municipality, human resource agency, community action agency or nonprofit corporation that administers the Head Start or Community Service Block Grant programs, public building authority, and development district created and existing pursuant to the constitution and laws of Tennessee, or any instrumentality of government created by any one (1) or more of the named local governmental entities or by an act of the general assembly. “Governmental entity” also means a nonprofit public benefit corporation or charitable entity, including any entity with tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)), that is appointed by statute, ordinance, resolution, contract, or other governmental directive to develop, maintain, manage, and provide services and activities at government owned property that is a public park, including facilities located on park property;
      1. In any county having a population not less than eight hundred ninety-seven thousand four hundred (897,400) and not more than eight hundred ninety-seven thousand five hundred (897,500), according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census, “governmental entity” means any political subdivision of the state of Tennessee including, but not limited to, any municipality, county, utility district, school district, nonprofit volunteer fire department receiving funds appropriated by a county legislative body or a legislative body of a municipality, human resource agency, community action agency or nonprofit corporation that administers the Head Start or Community Service Block Grant programs, public building authority, development district created and existing pursuant to the constitution and laws of Tennessee, or any instrumentality of government created by any one (1) or more of the local governmental entities named in this subdivision (3)(B) or by an act of the general assembly, or nonprofit public benefit corporation operating a hospital whose voting board of directors or governing body is appointed, designated or elected by one (1) or more of the local governmental entities named in this subdivision (3)(B), and which hospital corporation either:
  1. Receives funds appropriated by a county legislative body or a legislative body of a municipality; or
  2. Receives or leases hospital real property from a county and/or municipality.

Such hospital corporation shall be subject to the Open Meetings Law, compiled in title 8, chapter 44, and subject to the Open Records Law, compiled in title 10, chapter 7, to the extent that other local government hospitals and government hospital authorities are subject to such laws;

This subdivision (3)(B) shall apply to all claims filed on or after July 1, 2003; and

In any county having a population not less than five hundred sixty-nine thousand eight hundred (569,800) nor more than five hundred sixty-nine thousand nine hundred (569,900), according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census, “governmental entity” also means a nonprofit public benefit corporation or charitable entity, including an entity with tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3), codified in 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), that operates or is created to operate, in conjunction with a metropolitan hospital authority, where such authority was formed pursuant to the Metropolitan Hospital Authority Act, compiled in title 7, chapter 57;

“Injury” means death, injury to a person, damage to or loss of property or any other injury that one may suffer to one's person, or estate, that would be actionable if inflicted by a private person or such person's agent.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 2; 1976, ch. 608, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 23-3302; modified; Acts 1984, ch. 889, § 1; 1986, ch. 942, § 1; 1998, ch. 937, § 1; 2003, ch. 321, §§ 1, 2; 2005, ch. 54, § 1; 2009, ch. 206, §§ 1, 2; 2010, ch. 752, § 1; 2011, ch. 318, § 1; 2015, ch. 487, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Acts 2009, ch. 206, § 3 provided that the act, which amended § 29-20-102(3)(A) and (3)(B)(i), shall apply to all causes of action accruing on or after May 13, 2009.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment added the second sentence in the definition of “Governmental entity”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 487, § 2. May 20, 2015.

Attorney General Opinions. Tennessee Valley Public Power Association insurance program, OAG 84-090 (3/15/84).

Interlocal cooperation agreements, liability for acts of police officers, OAG 88-39 (2/24/88).

Agreements by local governmental entities to indemnify private parties or other governmental entities, OAG 93-01 (1/4/93).

Negligent actions or omissions by private security guards and other private citizens would not trigger liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, OAG 03-088 (7/15/03).

There is no statutory requirement for volunteer parent-drivers to carry the same amount of liability insurance coverage as the school system; it would be within a local school board's discretion to establish a policy requiring volunteer parent-drivers to have a specific amount of liability insurance when, under the auspices of the school involved, they volunteer to transport students to “away” sporting or other similar events, OAG 04-136 (8/24/04).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Governmental Entity.

This statute applies only to local governmental entities and does not confer the right to maintain an action against state agencies. Tennessee Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Hughes, 531 S.W.2d 299, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. 1975).

The Reelfoot regional planning commission is a “governmental entity” under the provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and thus is immune as a matter of law from any liability. Lake County v. Truett, 758 S.W.2d 529, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 164 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

2. —Municipality.

The legislature placed the term “municipality” in this definitions section in an attempt to give an example of a “governmental entity” rather than in an attempt to distinguish between the two terms. Chapman v. Sullivan County, 608 S.W.2d 580, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 511 (Tenn. 1980).

3. —Regional Planning Commission.

A regional planning commission is a governmental entity as defined by this section. Foley v. Hamilton, 659 S.W.2d 356, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 730 (Tenn. 1983).

4. Injury.

The definition of “injury” was not broad enough to cover a claim of damages resulting from breach of contract. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

The Governmental Tort Liability Act (this chapter) had no application in breach of contract cases, and an action against the county for breach of implied warranty of fitness for defects in the construction of a house purchased from the county was an action in contract and not an injury in tort. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Traffic stop detainees who were robbed by a police officer made a plausible claim of negligence on the part of the city where they alleged the negligence was not that of a single employee, but a broader, system-wide phenomenon, manifested most prominently in an alleged failure to investigate serious complaints against the police officer; the assertion that such negligence was causally related to the police officer's alleged misdeeds was equally plausible. Brown v. City of Memphis, 440 F. Supp. 2d 868, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77807 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

5. Loss of Consortium.

Where removal of governmental immunity rests upon § 29-20-203, removing immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the right to recover for loss of consortium is a right independent of the spouse's right to recover for the injuries themselves, and is not limited by the liability limitations of § 29-20-403. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Where removal of governmental immunity rests upon § 29-20-203, removing immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the injured person's spouse may, where the damages are proved, recover for the loss of consortium. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

29-20-103. Application of chapter.

    1. Any governmental entity may exempt itself from this chapter by action of its legislative body if such action is taken by January 1, 1975; provided, that §§ 7-31-103, 7-31-112, 7-51-202 (repealed) and 7-51-203, shall apply to any governmental entity exempting itself from this chapter.
    2. Any governmental entity exempting itself from this chapter may by resolution of its governing body elect at any time to come under this chapter, provided, that this chapter would only apply to claims or actions arising after the effective date of such resolution.
  1. After January 1, 1976, this chapter shall apply to all governmental entities as defined herein, provided that as to those governmental entities exempting themselves, as provided for in the preceding subsection, this chapter will only apply to claims or actions arising after January 1, 1976.
  2. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deprive any person of any cause of action or damages to which they are otherwise entitled arising under the federal Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964, as amended.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 31; 1974, ch. 780, § 1; 1975, ch. 252, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3303; Acts 1987, ch. 405, § 9.

Compiler's Notes. Section 7-51-202, referred to in this section, was repealed by Acts 1987, ch. 405, § 3.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, referred to in this section, may be found at 16 Stat. 433. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, also referred to in this section, is codified generally in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.

Law Reviews.

Torts — Chase v. City of Memphis: The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Meets the Special Duty Doctrine, 29 U. Mem. L. Rev. 507 (1999).

Cited: Anderson v. Hayes, 578 S.W.2d 945, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978); Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prior Injuries.

In action for wrongful death caused by the condition of county road and bridge, the accident having taken place prior to the date when governmental units which had exempted themselves from tort liability would automatically be subject to the provisions of this statute, court would not accelerate the tort liability, and the county was immune from suit. Cooper v. Rutherford County, 531 S.W.2d 783, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. 1975).

2. Jurisdiction.

This chapter places exclusive original jurisdiction for claims arising under it with the state courts. Timberlake v. Benton, 786 F. Supp. 676, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2549 (M.D. Tenn. 1992).

Because this chapter addresses the liability of governmental entities only, and its jurisdictional limitations do not apply to persons sued individually, officials may be subject to personal liability in federal court. Timberlake v. Benton, 786 F. Supp. 676, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2549 (M.D. Tenn. 1992).

3. Applicability.

County that does not opt into the workers'  compensation statutes as provided for in T.C.A. § 50-6-106(6) may not exempt itself from liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-10129-20-408, by adopting a civil service policy that purports to provide county employees with an exclusive remedy for recovering for work-related injuries. Such policies are void to the extent that they operate to preclude injured employee from pursuing their remedies under the GTLA. Crawley v. Hamilton County, 193 S.W.3d 453, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 2006).

Hamilton County, Tennessee, could not avoid application of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-10129-20-408, by adopting a civil service policy that purported to provide a corrections officer with an exclusive remedy for recovering for his work-related injuries: (1) The officer could not recover for his work-related injuries under the workers'  compensation statutes because the county had not opted into the statutes, as provided for in T.C.A. § 50-6-106(6); (2) Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205, the county was liable for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment; (3) As T.C.A. § 5-23-101 made clear, the legislature did not intend to exempt counties from the GTLA when it enacted T.C.A. § 8-8-409, which allows counties to define fringe benefits for their employees, and compensation for work-related injuries did not constitute a fringe benefit in any case; and (4) The county's civil service policy was void, as against public policy, to the extent that it operated to preclude the injured officer from pursuing his statutory remedies under the GTLA. Crawley v. Hamilton County, 193 S.W.3d 453, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 2006).

29-20-104. Applicability of other laws.

  1. Sections 7-31-103, 7-31-112, 7-51-202 [repealed] and 7-51-203, and all other acts or statutes in conflict with this chapter shall only be applicable to governmental entities exercising their right not to come under this chapter as provided for by § 29-20-103.
  2. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, §§ 28-1-106 — 28-1-108 shall apply in causes of action arising pursuant to this chapter.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 30; 1980, ch. 828, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3304.

Compiler's Notes. Section 7-51-202, referred to in this section, was repealed by Acts 1987, ch. 405.

Law Reviews.

Civil Procedure — Flowers v. Dyer County: The Death of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 409 (1993).

Cited: Williams v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 773 S.W.2d 522, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Flowers v. Dyer County, 830 S.W.2d 51, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. 1992); Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. 1996); Daniel ex rel. Daniel v. Hardin County Gen. Hosp., 971 S.W.2d 21, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Statute of Limitation.

Actions for personal injuries to minors against city and public utility initiated three years after accident were barred as not having been initiated within one year after the cause of action accrued; and provisions of this section enacted in 1980 making § 28-1-106 applicable to the Governmental Tort Liability Act were not applied retroactively to these actions which had accrued in 1978, and did not save the causes of these minor plaintiffs. Collier v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 657 S.W.2d 771, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2. Nonnegligent Misconduct.

Actions for the nonnegligent misconduct of sheriff's deputies do not arise pursuant to subsection (b), and may therefore be covered by title 8, ch. 8, part 3 in the appropriate cases. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007).

29-20-105. Inverse condemnation not affected.

This chapter shall not apply to any action in eminent domain initiated by a landowner under §§ 29-16-123 and 29-16-124 nor be construed to impliedly repeal those statutes.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 5; T.C.A., § 23-3305.

Cited: Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987); Betty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 835 S.W.2d 1, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Paxton McClenahan v. Lawhorne, 849 S.W.2d 773, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Hise v. State, 968 S.W.2d 852, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

29-20-106. Workers' compensation not affected.

This chapter shall not apply to any action brought by an employee under the workers' compensation laws of Tennessee.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 6; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3306.

Attorney General Opinions. Municipality employers not accepting Workers' Compensation Law, OAG 86-113 (6/24/86).

Cited: Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

An action for retaliatory discharge is not an action for compensation brought under the workers' compensation laws and this section does not apply. Montgomery v. Mayor of Covington, 778 S.W.2d 444, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), superseded by statute as stated in, Ivory v. Shelby County Gov't, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26422 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2001).

29-20-107. Definition of government employee for tort liability purposes.

  1. Any person who is not an elected or appointed official or a member of a board, agency or commission shall not be considered an employee of a governmental entity for purposes of this chapter unless the court specifically finds that all of the following elements exist:
    1. The governmental entity itself selected and engaged the person in question to perform services;
    2. The governmental entity itself is liable for the payment of compensation for the performance of such services and the person receives all of such person's compensation directly from the payroll department of the governmental entity in question;
    3. The person receives the same benefits as all other employees of the governmental entity in question including retirement benefits and the eligibility to participate in insurance programs;
    4. The person acts under the control and direction of the governmental entity not only as to the result to be accomplished but as to the means and details by which the result is accomplished; and
    5. The person is entitled to the same job protection system and rules, such as civil service or grievance procedures, as are other persons employed by the governmental entity in question.
  2. A governmental entity's reservation of the right to approve employment or terminate employment by any contract, agreement or other means or such entity's ability to control or direct a person not otherwise in the regular employ of such entity shall not operate to make a person an employee of such entity for the purpose of the immunity granted by this chapter unless such person otherwise qualifies as an employee according to this section.
  3. No governmental entity may extend the immunity granted by this chapter to independent contractors or other persons or entities by contract, agreement or other means, nor shall the doctrine of borrowed servants operate to make any person a governmental entity employee for the purpose of immunity who does not otherwise meet all of the elements set out in this section.
  4. A regular member of a voluntary or auxiliary firefighting, police or emergency assistance organization of a governmental entity shall be considered to be an employee of that governmental entity for purposes of this chapter without regard to the elements set forth in subsection (a).
  5. Persons who are employed in part-time, seasonal, or probationary positions by a governmental entity shall not be disqualified by subdivision (a)(3) or (a)(5) from the immunity granted by this chapter if they receive the same benefits or are subject to the same job protection system and rules as other persons employed by that government in comparable part-time, seasonal, or probationary positions.
  6. Agreements between governmental entities entered into pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, title 12, chapter 9, or as otherwise duly authorized by law, may confer or determine the status of an employee for purposes of this chapter on persons without regard to the elements set forth in subsection (a). Such agreements may provide, but are not, limited to, agreements that an employee of a governmental entity, including, but not limited to, police officers shall be assigned to another governmental entity to serve a particular purpose. The agreement may provide which of the governmental entities shall be liable for the acts of such person who shall continue to be considered as an employee for purposes of this chapter.
      1. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, non-governmental independent contractors or other persons or entities that contract with or enter into any agreements with the regional transportation authority, as defined and created in title 64, chapter 8, for the provision of commuter rail transit services, facilities, or functions upon a rail line or rail line right-of-way owned and maintained by a governmental entity shall be granted limited tort exposure under this chapter. This grant of limited tort exposure shall be provided only when the non-governmental independent contractors or other persons or entities are providing by contract or agreement the rail transit services, facilities, or functions that title 64, chapter 8 authorizes the regional transportation authority to perform.
      2. In performing or providing such rail transit services, facilities, or functions, the non-governmental independent contractors or other persons or entities are deemed to be the functional equivalent of the regional transportation authority. They are performing or providing these rail transit services, facilities, or functions in the stead of the regional transportation authority and by such are fulfilling a public purpose that is authorized to be performed by the regional transportation authority. The regional transportation authority shall enter into such contracts or agreements because it has been determined by the board of the regional transportation authority to be more cost effective to contract or enter into an agreement for the rail transit services, facilities, or functions. When the regional transportation authority's independent contractor or other person or entity that provides these rail transit services, facilities, or functions is deemed to be the functional equivalent of the regional transportation authority as provided for in this subsection (g), then the regional transportation authority's contracting party or party to the agreement shall have limited tort exposure as long as the regional transportation authority's contracting party or party to the agreement was performing rail transit services, facilities or functions within the scope of work and during the normal course of work of the contract or agreement when the accident occurred. The regional transportation authority's contracting party or party to the agreement will not be afforded any limits to its tort exposure for gross negligence in the performance of the contract or agreement.
      3. For any rail transit accident, occurrence, or act, the limits of tort exposure for the regional transportation authority's contracting party or party to the agreement shall be two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for bodily injury or death of all persons in any one (1) accident, occurrence, or act arising or that occurred during that time frame. No tort liability limits shall be granted to the non-governmental contractor or other persons or entities that contract with or enter into any agreement with the regional transportation authority for injury to or destruction of property in any accident, occurrence, or act. The regional transportation authority shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, a self insurance retention fund in a minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) up to an amount not to exceed two million dollars ($2,000,000), which shall be utilized as a first fund source for any payment of a tort claim arising from any rail transit accident, occurrence or act that results in bodily injury or death to one (1) or more persons.
    1. The limits of liability prescribed under subdivision (g)(1) shall not apply to any for-profit owners of rail lines or rail line rights-of-way. As a matter of public policy, the general assembly declares and deems the operation of the regional transportation authority's commuter rail train to be a public purpose, a public and governmental function and a matter of public necessity.

Acts 1981, ch. 527, § 1; 1984, ch. 889, §§ 2, 3; 1985, ch. 55, § 1; 2008, ch. 918, § 1; 2012, ch. 835, §§ 3, 4; 2013, ch. 96, § 1.

Amendments. The 2008 amendment, effective until July 1, 2018, added (g).

The 2012 amendment, in (g)(1), deleted the former third from the last sentence which read: “From July 1, 2008, until June 30, 2013, for any rail transit accident, occurrence, or act, the limits of tort exposure for the regional transportation authority’s contracting party or party to the agreement shall be two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for bodily injury or death of all persons in any one (1) accident, occurrence, or act arising or that occurred during that time frame.”, redesignated the former first two sentences as present (A), redesignated the former fourth through seventh sentences as (B), redesignated the remaining sentences as (C), and deleted “From July 1, 2008, until June 30, 2013” from the beginning of present (B); and deleted (g)(3) which read: “Unless amended or extended, this subsection (g) shall expire July 1, 2018.”

The 2013 amendment deleted the former last sentence of (g)(2) which read: “Any for-profit owners of rail lines or rail line rights-of-way shall not deny access to, trackage rights on, or use of rail lines or rail line rights-of-way for the operation of a regional transportation authority commuter rail operation based upon any criteria attributable to tort liability, nor shall the for-profit owners of rail lines or rail line rights-of-way subject or require the regional transportation authority to provide any tort liability protection, insurance or coverage as part of any access to, tracking rights on, or use of rail lines owned by such a for-profit.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 835, § 5. April 25, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 96, § 2. April 11, 2013.

Attorney General Opinions. Defense of substitute judge designated by Supreme Court, OAG 97-004 (1/24/97).

Claims against general sessions judge for conduct while sitting by interchange, OAG 97-005 (1/24/97).

Cited: Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose.

Subsection (c) does not prevent university doctors from becoming the loaned servants of a public hospital; its purpose is to prevent the loaned servants from being immune from tort liability unless certain conditions are met. Parker v. Vanderbilt University, 767 S.W.2d 412, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987), rehearing denied, 767 S.W.2d 412, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

2. Not an Employee.

Medical legal examiner (MLE), who worked at a hospital, was not a “government employee” protected from liability by the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the MLE did not prove she was paid by the governmental entity's payroll department; the MLE was assigned a vendor number rather than an employee number, submitted an invoice for services rendered, received a 1099 at the end of the year, and was paid from the entity's professional services account, not from the payroll account. Baker v. Snedegar, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2013).

Neither doctor was a governmental employee within the meaning of the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act, and as the requirements for an employee of a governmental entity were not met, the summary dismissal of this claim was affirmed. Gilreath v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2016).

29-20-108. Immunity of emergency communications district boards — Exception. [Effective until January 1, 2021. See the version effective on January 1, 2021.]

  1. Emergency communications district boards, established in § 7-86-105, and the members of such board shall be immune from any claim, complaint or suit of any nature which relates to or arises from the conduct of the affairs of the board except in cases of gross negligence by such board or its members. The finding of the general assembly is that the service of such boards and the members thereof is so critical to the safety and welfare of the citizens of this state that such absolute and complete immunity is required for the free exercise of the duties of such boards by the members.
  2. Such immunity shall also extend to employees of an emergency communications district, and county and municipal governments for the acts or omissions of employees that manage, supervise, or perform 911 emergency communications service as communicators or dispatchers; provided, that all such employees shall attain and maintain training requirements as may be required by law.

Acts 1985, ch. 144, § 1; 2014, ch. 795, § 9.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment, effective January 1, 2015, rewrote (b) which read: “Such immunity shall not, however, be construed to extend to any employee of the emergency communications district.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 795, § 15. January 1, 2015.

29-20-108. Immunity of emergency communications district boards, state, counties, and municipalities and employees — Exceptions. [Effective on January 1, 2021. See the version effective until January 1, 2021.]

  1. Emergency communications district boards, established in § 7-86-105, and the members of such board shall be immune from any claim, complaint or suit of any nature which relates to or arises from the conduct of the affairs of the board except in cases of gross negligence by such board or its members. The finding of the general assembly is that the service of such boards and the members thereof is so critical to the safety and welfare of the citizens of this state that such absolute and complete immunity is required for the free exercise of the duties of such boards by the members.
  2. Such immunity shall also extend to employees of an emergency communications district, and county and municipal governments for the acts or omissions of employees that manage, supervise, or perform 911 emergency communications service as communicators or dispatchers; provided, that all such employees shall attain and maintain training requirements as may be required by state law.
  3. An emergency call taker or public safety dispatcher who assists or instructs a caller or bystander on T-CPR is not liable for any civil damages or subject to a civil suit of any nature arising out of the assistance and instruction provided to the caller or bystander, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
    1. A caller or bystander may decline to receive T-CPR.
    2. When a caller or bystander declines T-CPR, the emergency call taker or public safety dispatcher has no obligation to provide such instruction.
  4. The emergency communication district, state, county, and municipality are not liable for any civil damages or subject to a civil suit of any nature for employees who answer 911 emergency calls and employees who are recently hired, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  5. As used in this section, “T-CPR” means telecommunicator cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which is the dispatcher-assisted delivery of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction by trained emergency call takers or public safety dispatchers to callers or bystanders for events requiring CPR, such as out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Acts 1985, ch. 144, § 1; 2014, ch. 795, § 9; 2020, ch. 575, §§ 2, 3.

Amendments. The 2014 amendment, effective January 1, 2015, rewrote (b) which read: “Such immunity shall not, however, be construed to extend to any employee of the emergency communications district.”

The 2020 amendment, effective January 1, 2021, inserted “state” in (b); and added (c)-(f).

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 795, § 15. January 1, 2015.

Acts 2020, ch. 575, § 4. January 1, 2021; provided that, for purposes of promulgating rules, the Act took effect March 19, 2020.

29-20-109. Immunity of local education agency employees from asbestos-related liability.

Local education agency employees, including board members, superintendents, teachers and non-professional staff members, shall be absolutely immune from liability for acts and omissions within the scope of the employee's office arising from the detection, management or removal of asbestos from buildings and other structures owned or controlled by the local education agency when the local education agency has complied with the United States environmental protection agency regulations relative to asbestos in schools; provided, that such immunity shall not apply if the acts or omissions of the employee were grossly negligent, willful, malicious, criminal or were done for personal gain.

Acts 1986, ch. 772, § 1.

Cross-References. Defense of local education agencies and employees in asbestos related litigation, § 8-6-109.

Not-for-profit board members, immunity from suit, § 48-58-601.

29-20-110. [Obsolete.]

Code Commission Notes.

Former § 29-20-110, concerning filing of an annual report regarding tort liability activities of certain entitities, was deleted as obsolete by the code commission in 2012.

29-20-111. No employee liability for attempts to maintain order in judicial proceedings.

Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or any other law to the contrary, no claim may be brought, or any judgment entered against an employee of local government, who is acting in good faith and within the scope of employment, arising from the employee's negligent act or omission in attempting to control another person's disorderly conduct or violent behavior that delays or disrupts, or threatens to delay or disrupt, a courtroom proceeding or that jeopardizes the safety of a judge, judicial employee, attorney, litigant, witness, or spectator who is present for a judicial proceeding.

Acts 2002, ch. 839, § 1.

Cross-References. Contempt of court, § 16-1-103.

Duties of sheriff's office, § 8-8-201.

29-20-112. Immunity of local board of education and school officials for activities outside of regularly scheduled school activities on premises of public schools.

  1. For purposes of this section:
    1. “Premises” means any and all real property, natural or artificial landscape or waterway thereon, building, bathroom, gymnasium, facility, track, playground, tennis or badminton court, horseshoe pit, bleachers, stage, or other improvement erected on the premises for recreational purposes;
    2. “Recreational activity” means any activity undertaken for exercise, pleasure, or other recreational purposes including, but not limited to, basketball, football, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, lacrosse, running, walking, wrestling, cheerleading, taekwondo, karate, community gardening and music lessons; and
    3. “Recreational joint use agreement” means a written authorization by a local board of education or a school official permitting a public or private entity to access the premises of a public school for the purpose of conducting or engaging in recreational activity and addressing conditions under which the permission is granted.
    1. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(3), neither a local board of education nor a school official owes a duty of care to keep the premises of a public school safe for entry or use by others outside of regularly scheduled school activities or to give warning of unknown dangerous or hazardous conditions, uses, structures or activities on the premises.
    2. Unless otherwise specified in the agreement, if a recreational activity is conducted pursuant to a recreational joint use agreement, the local board of education or school official entering the agreement does not owe a greater duty of care than that which is owed under subdivision (b)(1).
    3. Notwithstanding the duty of care or duty to warn owed pursuant to this subsection (b), the immunity conferred upon a local board of education or school official by the recreational joint use agreement shall not apply to a person who is injured or suffers property damage on school property pursuant to such agreement if the injury or damage was proximately caused by the gross negligence, or willful, wanton or malicious conduct of the local board of education or school official.
  2. Where a local board of education or school official enters a recreational joint use agreement, with respect to persons accessing the premises for recreational activity pursuant to that agreement, neither the local board of education nor a school official shall be construed to have:
    1. Waived any immunity under this chapter;
    2. Extended immunity under this chapter to another entity;
    3. Extended any assurance to any person or entity accessing the premises that the premises are safe for any other purpose than that which is agreed upon;
    4. Conferred upon a person the legal status of a person to whom a duty of care is owed;
    5. Assumed responsibility for or incurred liability for any injury to a person or property caused by a force of nature or by an act or omission of a person who enters upon the premises;
    6. Guaranteed unlimited access to the premises; or
    7. Limited an obligation or duty of a person or entity accessing the premises to exercise due care in the use of the premises and any activity conducted thereon.
  3. When entering into a recreational joint use agreement under rules, regulations, and conditions prescribed by the local board of education pursuant to § 49-2-203(b)(4), the general assembly encourages local boards of education and school officials to require, in the agreement, that the other entity maintain and provide proof of adequate liability and accident insurance coverage as determined by insurance industry standards, and to address, in the agreement, issues including, but not limited to, security, adult supervision of recreational activity, prohibited activity, hours of operation, use of equipment, maintenance, and damage to the premises. Any such joint use agreement entered into shall contain notice of the immunity provided by this section.
  4. This section shall apply to contracts entered or renewed on or after July 1, 2011.

Acts 2011, ch. 368, § 2.

29-20-113. Award of attorneys’ fees and costs to state and local government employees sued in individual capacity.

  1. Notwithstanding § 20-12-119(c)(5)(A), if a claim is filed with a Tennessee or federal court, the Tennessee claims commission, board of claims, or any other judicial body established by the state or by a governmental entity of the state, against an employee of the state or of a governmental entity of the state in the person's individual capacity, and the claim arises from actions or omissions of the employee acting in an official capacity or under color of law, and that employee prevails in the proceeding as provided in this section, then the court or other judicial body on motion shall award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the employee in defending the claim filed against the employee.
  2. For purposes of this section, the employee shall be the prevailing party if:
    1. The employee successfully defends the claim alleging individual liability; or
    2. The claim of individual liability is dismissed with or without prejudice after forty-five (45) days have elapsed after an answer or other responsive pleading is filed in which the employee asserts the employee was not acting within the employee's individual capacity at the time of the matters stated in the complaint.
  3. The inclusion of an additional claim against the employee in official capacity in the same proceeding shall not preclude the employee from obtaining the remedies provided in this section that are related to the claim against the employee in individual capacity.
  4. Attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid to the state, or a governmental entity of the state, if either the state or the governmental entity represents, or retains and agrees to pay for counsel to represent, the employee sued in an individual capacity. If the state has not made such agreement, the attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid to the employee, or to counsel representing the employee. Attorneys' fees shall be calculated at a reasonable rate paid to attorneys of similar experience in private practice in the county where the proceeding is initiated.

Acts 2016, ch. 848, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2016, ch. 848, § 2 provided that the act, which enacted this section, is applicable to claims filed on and after June 1, 2016.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 848, § 2. June 1, 2016.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Attorney Fees.

Because there was an absence of findings about a chef's status under T.C.A. § 29-20-113(a), and due to the dictates of T.C.A. § 20-12-119(c)(3), the matter was remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amount of attorney's fees, if any, to be awarded the chef. Loftis v. Rayburn, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 201 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2018).

State employees satisfied the statute's “individual capacity” requirement because a coworker brought all claims asserted against them in both their individual and official capacities; because the coworker brought all claims against the employees in both their individual and official capacities, all of his claims were so intertwined as to be inseparable for purposes of awarding attorneys'  fees. Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

2. Prevailing Party.

Legislature intended the concept of “successfully defending a claim” for purposes of subsection (b)(1) to refer broadly to how Tennessee jurisprudence has defined the analogous term “prevailing party.” Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

Because Tennessee court precedent defined a “prevailing party” and one who “successfully defended a claim” as effectively one and the same, and state employees met the definition of “prevailing party,” they were “prevailing parties” for purposes of subsection (b)(1); the trial court dismissed the claims against the employees, thereby awarding relief to them and terminating a coworker's lawsuit. Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

Attorney's fee award was reversed and remanded for a recalculation where the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the utility district and some of its officials on the employee's breach of contract and civil conspiracy claims had been reversed on appeal, and thus, the district and the identified officials were no longer prevailing parties. Collins v. Carter, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020).

3. Construction.

Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted fits within the subsection (b)(2) definition of “other responsive pleading,” and the legislature intended as such; the legislature did not intend for state employees to take the unnecessary step of filing an answer in order to be awarded attorneys'  fees when a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion can otherwise dispose of a plaintiff's claim. Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

Statute, which governs the award of attorneys'  fees for state employees when a plaintiff files a claim against the employee in the employee's individual capacity, does not share the purpose of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

Legislature did not limit what constitutes a successful defense in any manner, and it appears that the legislature therefore intended the statute to apply broadly; the courts will not constrain application of a statute when the plain language of the statute evinces an intention to do the opposite. Aylor v. Carr, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2019).

Part 2
Removal of Immunity

29-20-201. General rule of immunity from suit — Exception.

  1. Except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit for any injury which may result from the activities of such governmental entities wherein such governmental entities are engaged in the exercise and discharge of any of their functions, governmental or proprietary.
    1. The general assembly finds and declares that the services of governmental entity boards, commissions, authorities and other governing agencies are critical to the efficient conduct and management of the public affairs of the citizens of this state. Complete and absolute immunity is required for the free exercise and discharge of the duties of such boards, commissions, authorities and other governing agencies. Members of boards, commissions, authorities, and other governing agencies must be permitted to operate without concern for the possibility of litigation arising from the faithful discharge of their duties.
    2. All members of boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, and other governing bodies of any governmental entity, created by public or private act, whether compensated or not, shall be immune from suit arising from the conduct of the affairs of such board, commission, agency, authority, or other governing body. Such immunity from suit shall be removed when such conduct amounts to willful, wanton, or gross negligence.
  2. When immunity is removed by this chapter any claim for damages must be brought in strict compliance with the terms of this chapter.
  3. Notwithstanding this chapter or any other law to the contrary, a governmental entity that places and properly maintains a clearly visible and adequate flood warning sign or barricade at a flooded road area shall be immune from suit for any injury resulting from a violation of § 55-10-205(c). The immunity from suit shall be removed when the governmental entity's conduct amounts to willful, wanton, or gross negligence. It shall be deemed gross negligence if an authorized government employee signaled the motor vehicle operator that it was safe to drive past the sign or barricade and the operator or any passengers in the operator's motor vehicle were injured or killed in the flooded road area due to the employee's signaling the motor vehicle to drive past the sign or barricade.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-3307; Acts 1986, ch. 726, §§ 1, 2; 2008, ch. 986, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2008, ch 986, § 3 provided that the act, which added (d), shall apply to all offenses committed on or after July 1, 2008.

Cross-References. Private company volunteer fire squads, liability under this part, § 63-6-218.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Bridges, § 8; 17 Tenn. Juris., Libel and Slander, § 16; 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, §§ 65, 78.

Law Reviews.

Civil Procedure — Flowers v. Dyer County: The Death of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 409 (1993).

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Policing the Police: Clarifying the Test for Holding the Government Liable Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the State-Created Danger Theory, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 165 (2001).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Torts — Chase v. City of Memphis: The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Meets the Special Duty Doctrine, 29 U. Mem. L. Rev. 507 (1999).

Torts — Matthews v. Pickett County: The Public Duty Doctrine and Its Special Duty Exception in the Face of the Governmental Tort Liabilities Act, 30 U. Mem. L. Rev. 457 (2000).

Attorney General Opinions. Liability for housing inmates, OAG 86-44 (2/26/86).

Immunity of members of Private Industry Councils and officers and directors of Growth Enterprise Nashville, Inc., OAG 87-102 (6/15/87).

Liability for death or injuries arising from the performance of community service work imposed as a condition of parole, OAG 87-121 (7/23/87).

Liability of soil conservation districts and district supervisors, OAG 87-131 (8/4/87).

Liability of Smithville Housing Authority, OAG 89-62 (4/24/89).

Liability of community service agencies and their boards, OAG 97-092 (6/26/97).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The general assembly, following the pattern adopted in a number of other jurisdictions, chose to grant absolute immunity to all local governments, and then to create statutory exceptions thereto. Prior case law does not necessarily bear very greatly upon the construction and interpretation of these statutes, except as historical background. Fretwell v. Chaffin, 652 S.W.2d 755, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. 1983).

The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act is in derogation of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed. Lockhart v. Jackson-Madison County General Hosp., 793 S.W.2d 943, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Local government entities are immune from suit except when the general assembly has, by statute, explicitly permitted them to be sued. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

2. Construction with Other Laws.

The general interest provisions of § 47-14-121 and 47-14-122, because they do not conflict with specific provisions of this chapter, its structure, purpose or intent, apply to action brought under this chapter. Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. 1996).

A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, which always implicates state officials, would present facts amenable to a claim under T.C.A. § 29-20-201. Epps v. Lauderdale County, 139 F. Supp. 2d 859, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).

An inmate in state custody, who was being housed in a county jail, was barred from bringing a claim under the provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., to recover for injuries which the inmate suffered while on a work detail. Trojan v. Wayne Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2018).

County board of education's immunity from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was not removed, when an instructor pulled a stool from beneath a student while the student was sitting on it, causing injury to the student, because the instructor acted outside the scope of the instructor's employment. O'Brian v. Rutherford Cty. Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2018).

Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., does not remove governmental immunity for claims based on common law restraint of trade; thus, the city retains sovereign immunity against tort claims for which immunity has not been removed by the legislature, and the court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of the city concerning any purported claim of common law restraint of trade. H Group Constr., LLC v. City of Lafollette, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2019).

3. Abrogation of Immunity.

To the extent the act covers proprietary functions, it is not an abrogation of immunity, but is an extension of immunity in an area where it otherwise does not exist. Crowe v. John W. Harton Memorial Hospital, 579 S.W.2d 888, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), superseded by statute as stated in, Gordon v. Henderson, 766 S.W.2d 784, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. 1989).

The application of the act to governmental functions merely echoes constitutional doctrine, and, in that sense, the act is an abrogation of sovereign immunity within the damage limits it sets. Crowe v. John W. Harton Memorial Hospital, 579 S.W.2d 888, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), superseded by statute as stated in, Gordon v. Henderson, 766 S.W.2d 784, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. 1989).

The special duty exception to the public duty doctrine applies where deputies failed to arrest estranged husband when husband violated wife's protection order because the deputies' actions were operational in nature and not subject to immunity, but the wife's reliance on the sheriff's department to provide her with protection made the special duty doctrine exception applicable. Matthews v. Pickett County, 996 S.W.2d 162, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. 1999).

Once a governmental entity has had its immunity from suit removed by §§ 29-20-20229-20-205, it may no longer be considered immune for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-20-310(c) even though it is not liable for some portion of the plaintiff's damages. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

Trial court erred in granting a county's motion to dismiss a case brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201 et seq., seeking damages arising from the killing of a decedent by a convicted felon who was placed on house arrest; actions taken by county employees which allowed the charged felon onto house arrest were not discretionary, and the county was not immune pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Brown v. Hamilton County, 126 S.W.3d 43, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004).

4. Constitutionality.

The provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act which extend immunity to municipalities operating in their proprietary capacities is a constitutionally valid legislative enactment. Crowe v. John W. Harton Memorial Hospital, 579 S.W.2d 888, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), superseded by statute as stated in, Gordon v. Henderson, 766 S.W.2d 784, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. 1989).

5. Legislative Intent.

The clear language of the Tennessee Human Rights Act evinces an unmistakable legislative intent to remove whatever immunity the electric power board may have had under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Rooks v. Chattanooga Electric Power Bd., 738 F. Supp. 1163, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8179 (E.D. Tenn. 1990).

The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, enacted in 1973, is premised explicitly on the absolute immunity of the governmental entity. Lockhart v. Jackson-Madison County General Hosp., 793 S.W.2d 943, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

The intent of the general assembly in enacting the Governmental Tort Liability Act was to deny jurisdiction to the courts of this state to entertain a suit against a governmental entity that is immune from suit. City of Lavergne v. Southern Silver, 872 S.W.2d 687, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

6. Liability of Municipal Corporation.

A municipal corporation is liable for nuisance, an inherently dangerous condition, but it is not liable for negligence, an omission of duty. Dean v. Bays Mountain Park Asso., 551 S.W.2d 702, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

The maintenance of a brightly painted chain across an access road in a park does not constitute a nuisance for which the city is liable for resulting injuries. Dean v. Bays Mountain Park Asso., 551 S.W.2d 702, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977).

Any claim sounding in tort for a municipal corporation's award of a public contract to other than the lowest bidder would be barred by this act. Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County, 648 F.2d 1084, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13235 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1981).

A complaint against a governmental entity for tort must overtly allege that the tort was committed by an employee or employees of the governmental entity within the scope of his or their employment. A complaint which does not so state does not state a claim for which relief can be granted because the action is not alleged to be within the class of cases excepted by the statute from governmental immunity. Gentry v. Cookeville General Hospital, 734 S.W.2d 337, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2609 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

In an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of spouse construction worker working for construction company which had contracted with city for a sewer project, the allegations charging the city with failure to inspect the premises falls directly within the exception of § 29-20-205(4) and any action based thereon is barred. Johnson v. EMPE, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 62, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), appeal denied, Johnson v. Empe, Inc., 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. June 22, 1992).

City was immune from liability for damages based on its failure to pave a street abutting property owned by plaintiff and its refusal to issue a building permit until the street was paved since none of the bases for liability were within statutory provisions covering removal of immunity. Paduch v. City of Johnson City, 896 S.W.2d 767, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. 1995).

Local government was not liable on a homeowner's claim of temporary continuous nuisance because the homeowner could not establish that the local government owned and controlled the broken drainage pipe on the owner's property which led to flooding on the owner's property, due to storm water runoff, each time it rained. The State of Tennessee purchased a drainage easement from a previous owner of the property, but someone, other than the local government, connected a stub pipe and enclosed a ditch, which led to the flooding once the pipe broke. Walker v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2018).

7. Dismissal of Teacher.

Board of education was immune from suit for libel based on proceedings for dismissal of teacher. Jacox v. Memphis City Board of Education, 604 S.W.2d 872, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, Jacox v. Memphis City Board of Education, 449 U.S. 1114, 101 S. Ct. 927, 66 L. Ed. 2d 844, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 574 (1981).

8. Regional Planning Commissions.

Regional planning commission, a governmental entity, was immune as a matter of law from joint liability for disrepair of roads which developer failed to maintain. Foley v. Hamilton, 659 S.W.2d 356, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 730 (Tenn. 1983).

9. Breach of Contract.

The Governmental Tort Liability Act (this chapter) had no application in breach of contract cases, and an action against the county for breach of implied warranty of fitness for defects in the construction of a house purchased from the county was an action in contract and not an injury in tort. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

10. Discretionary Function Immunity.

A county, the county sheriff and his employees, including deputies and jailers, are protected by a discretionary function immunity. Willis v. Barksdale, 625 F. Supp. 411, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12938 (W.D. Tenn. 1985).

Trial court properly ruled a school district was not entitled to immunity because the discretionary/planning function exception to the removal of immunity did not apply to shield custodians'  actions; the decision of where to place wet-floor signs was operational, and the custodians'  failure to warn a teacher or place the wet-floor signs in the area around where she fell could not be characterized as a planning decision reflecting a course of conduct by those in charge of formulating the policy. Robertson v. Clarksville-Montgomery Cty. Sch. Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

11. —Waiver.

Where a motorist was injured in a car accident, the government's decision whether to install a traffic control device at the intersection was a discretionary function under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1). However, the court removed sovereign immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-201, because the government had notice of the dangerous condition at the intersection and failed to take remedial action. Mosley v. McCanless, 207 S.W.3d 247, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

12. Wrongful Discharge.

The Governmental Tort Liability Act grants a city immunity from a suit based on wrongful discharge. Montgomery v. Mayor of Covington, 778 S.W.2d 444, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), superseded by statute as stated in, Ivory v. Shelby County Gov't, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26422 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2001).

13. Liability Under the Tennessee Human Rights Act.

Race and age discrimination, which are actionable only by virtue of statutory fiat, are not really torts qua torts. Therefore, it appears that the Governmental Tort Liability Act does not immunize governmental entities from Tennessee Human Rights Act claims in the first instance. Rooks v. Chattanooga Electric Power Bd., 738 F. Supp. 1163, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8179 (E.D. Tenn. 1990).

14. Jurisdiction.

The government tort liability statutes state a limitation on chancery court jurisdiction under subsection (b), to the effect that when immunity is removed by the chapter any claim for damages must be brought in strict compliance with its terms. Section 29-20-307 places exclusive, original jurisdiction in circuit court over any action brought under its terms, and that court shall hear and decide such suits without the intervention of a jury. Flowers v. Dyer County, 830 S.W.2d 51, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 4, 1992).

Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims would ordinarily have conferred supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA) claim because they arose out of the same facts and formed part of the same case or controversy, the TGTLA claims had to be brought in strict compliance with the terms of T.C.A. § 29-20-201(c); the TGTLA gave the state circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to its provisions. The district court exercised its discretion and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of assault, battery, and false arrest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Parker v. Henderson County, 450 F. Supp. 2d 842, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63685 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

Because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over defamation and false light claims brought by high school students who were disciplined for creating fake Internet profiles for a teacher and school administrator on a public website and because the students have not put forth any evidence to support those claims, the student's claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., were dismissed. Barnett v. Tipton County Bd. of Educ., 601 F. Supp. 2d 980, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24003 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2009).

15. Failure to Plead Immunity.

The failure to plead governmental immunity as an affirmative defense does not constitute a waiver of immunity. City of Lavergne v. Southern Silver, 872 S.W.2d 687, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

16. Hospital Authorities.

A county hospital authority, as a political subdivision of the state, was immune to a claim against it for retaliatory discharge under the provisions of this chapter. Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 919 F. Supp. 280, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3469 (E.D. Tenn. 1996).

Statute has no application to intentional torts and therefore protects governmental entity from vicarious liability. Roberts v. Blount Mem. Hosp., 963 S.W.2d 744, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), rehearing overruled, Roberts v. Blount Mem. Hosp., 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (1997), appeal denied, Roberts v. Blount Mem. Hosp., 963 S.W.2d 744, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 484 (1997), overruled on other grounds, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (2001).

In a health care liability action, the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint because the documentation requirement of the Health Care Liability Act was not mandatory, and substantial compliance was sufficient even when the defendant was a governmental entity; and plaintiff substantially complied with the documentation requirement as she satisfied all the statutory requirements except for filing copies of the medical authorizations, and she rectified her mistake at an early stage; defendants suffered no prejudice from the filing delay because they received the authorizations with the pre-suit notice; and allowing the plaintiff to proceed under the circumstances promoted the judicial goal of disposing of a case on its merits. Clary v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

Inclusion of governmental entities in the Health Care Liability Act's definitions of health care liability action and health care provider supports the proposition that governmental health care providers are to be treated the same as non-governmental ones, and strict compliance with the Health Care Liability Act is not required when a defendant is a governmental entity. Clary v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

17. Discovery.

Where governmental entity's business relationships with other entities will not alone be sufficient to destroy immunity under statute, and where there is no showing of other relevance to case, there is no entitlement to court ordered discovery. Roberts v. Blount Mem. Hosp., 963 S.W.2d 744, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), appeal denied, 963 S.W.2d 744, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. 1997), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001).

18. Limitations.

Defendant in tort claim based on auto accident was prohibited from attributing fault to non-party county where plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against the county by the limitations period applicable to governmental entities. Bumgardner v. Vonk, 995 F. Supp. 815, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2912 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).

Although appellants alleged that a city was responsible for repairing and maintaining appellants'  sewer line under the theory of implied-in-fact contract, the trial court properly found that the gravamen of appellants'  complaint was damage to property, which sounded in tort under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and that appellants'  complaint was time-barred under the GTLA. Moore v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

19. Applicability.

Reasonable juror could have entered a verdict for schools on a negligence claim because any injury suffered by a student was caused by the coaches'  intentional infliction of corporal punishment, and a reasonable juror could have concluded that, based on the lack of any complaints regarding the coaches'  conduct, the principal, and therefore the schools, had no reason to foresee that the coaches posed a danger to the student and that the principal exercised reasonable care in protecting the student from improper corporal punishment. Nolan v. Memphis City Sch., 589 F.3d 257, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26975, 2009 FED App. 421P (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2009).

Student's injuries arose from her claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress or her claims of sexual harassment, i.e., a violation of her civil rights; both are specifically enumerated in  T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) and, therefore, even if it were established that the teacher's actions against the student were foreseeable, immunity against the school district and its employees was not removed under the statute. Autry v. Hooker, 304 S.W.3d 356, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Nov. 23, 2009).

County and a county board of education were immune from liability and suit with respect to a teacher's claims of abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and misrepresentation. Blair v. Rutherford County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013), cert. denied, 188 L. Ed. 2d 758, 134 S. Ct. 1797, — U.S. —, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 2452 (U.S. 2014).

Trial court properly granted a city councilor summary judgment on a former city manager's defamation action on legislative immunity grounds where the allegedly slanderous statement that the manager had been discharged due to misappropriating funds was made at a regularly scheduled city council meeting, a majority of the council voted to consider the agenda topic under which the statement arose, and thus the statement arose from the conduct of the city council's affairs. Miller v. Wyatt, 457 S.W.3d 405, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1001 (Tenn. Nov. 20, 2014).

When a passenger on a transit authority bus brought claims for slander and libel, after being arrested as a result of an altercation with the driver, immunity was not removed under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., for a suit based on libel and slander. Poe v. Gist, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2017).

20. Workers' Compensation.

Denial of the municipal corporation's motion to dismiss or transfer the claimant's workers'  compensation action was affirmed because the corporation was subject to the venue provisions of the Workers'  Compensation Act, T.C.A. § 50-6-101 et seq., when it voluntarily entered into the workers'  compensation system pursuant to an express grant of authority from the Tennessee General Assembly, which thus effected a waiver of its sovereign immunity; the specific venue provisions of the Workers'  Compensation Act controlled venue and applied and the corporation could be sued in the claimant's county of residence. Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1047 (Tenn. 2005).

21. Deputy.

Deputy, who had assisted the decedent in calling a wrecking service to tow her stuck vehicle, owed decedent no duty of care because: (1) The deputy never expressly told the decedent to use the ATM or to use the interstate crossover; (2) After pulling away from the location where the decedent's vehicle was stuck the deputy returned to routine patrol; (3) The deputy did not lead the decedent but rather followed her vehicle until they reached the interstate crossover; (4) There was nothing in the record to indicate that, upon reaching the interstate crossover the deputy affirmatively undertook an obligation to protect the decedent in the use of the interstate crossover or that the decedent relied on such undertaking; and (5) The deputy's refusal to enforce T.C.A. § 55-8-126 was a duty that he owed to the public in general. Hurd v. Flores, 221 S.W.3d 14, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 403 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1042 (Tenn. 2006) .

County was not immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., when a parent sued the county after the parent's child committed suicide while in custody at the county jail because, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that it was the intent of a sheriff's deputy to harm the decedent, the failure of the deputy to perform mandated wellness checks at the jail was negligent conduct but not intentional conduct so as to establish the county's sovereign immunity. Holder v. Shelby Cty Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2017).

22. Negligence.

Dismissal of a former inmate's action under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in title 29, chapter 20, alleging negligent supervision was affirmed because neither the county nor a supervisor could foresee the general manner in which the inmate was injured nor through the exercise of reasonable diligence should they have foreseen the general manner in which the inmate was injured. Jones v. Bedford County, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. June 17, 2010).

Finding that a government employer's immunity was removed pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because an operator was acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently injured the employee. The operator was acting within the scope of his employment because he was returning the front end loader as part of his employment with the employer, his primary motivation in operating the front end loader was serving the employer, he was traveling the route prescribed by the employer, and the front end loader had been furnished by the employer; additionally, a civil action for assault required an intent to harm and nothing indicated that the operator intended to harm the employee. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010), rev'd, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011).

In a wrongful death action, as there was disputed material evidence as to whether a police officer assumed a public duty to a decedent, but then discontinued his aid and protection to her, leaving her in a worse position that before he intervened under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-201 and 29-20-205, summary judgment was improper. Lynch v. Loudon County, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

In an invitee's negligence action against a board of education, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding the board had constructive notice of a hole in a high school football field where the invitee fell and was injured and was not entitled to immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201, because the board's employees and agents maintained the football field, they had superior knowledge of the premises and a duty to invitees to inspect and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner, and the hole was of a width and depth that the board or its agents should have discovered it before the invitee's fall. McCormick v. Warren County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2013).

In an invitee's negligence action against a board of education, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that a hole in a high school football field where the invitee fell and was injured was not a latent defective condition within the meaning of the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-204(b), and the board was not entitled to immunity because the board did not contradict testimony by the invitee's daughters that the hole was located in a mowed area and the grass around the hole “wasn't real tall” and was “just like your yard or something.” McCormick v. Warren County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2013).

Trial court did not err in finding the county liable for negligence occurring when plaintiff fell off a four-feet cinder-block wall surrounding a dumpster and severely injured her arm as the evidence allowed a finding that the uneven wall constituted a dangerous condition, that the county had actual notice of the condition because it created the condition, that the county breached its duty of eliminating or warning against the dangerous condition, and that the county's breach was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. Huskey v. Rhea County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

When an employee sued a city for injuries caused when a co-employee hit the employee with a bus, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the co-employee's conduct was negligent, but not grossly negligent, making the city liable for the injuries, while the co-employee was immune, because nothing showed: (1) the co-employee was impaired at the time of the injuries; (2) the impact of substances in the co-employee's drug screen on the co-employee's ability to drive; and that (3) the co-employee drove erratically or that substances in the drug screen impacted the co-employee's activities on the date of the accident. Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014), appeal denied, Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. May 13, 2014).

Trial court properly granted a county fire department summary judgment because the evidence provided by a city fire chief established there was no breach of the duty of care, and a decedent's estate filed no affidavits or evidence refuting that proof or otherwise creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial; therefore, governmental immunity applied. Estate of Quinn v. Henderson, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014).

County hospital was entitled to summary judgment when an accident victim, who was exiting the hospital, was hit by an automatic door, fell, and sustained an injury because the hospital was immune from suit as it had no constructive notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition. In the absence of facts showing that the hospital could have discovered, by a reasonable inspection, the alleged dangerous or defective condition that caused the accident, there was no material evidence that the hospital's immunity was to be removed. Templeton v. Jackson-Madison Cty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017).

County was not immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., when a parent sued the county after the parent's child committed suicide while in custody at the county jail because, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that it was the intent of a sheriff's deputy to harm the decedent, the failure of the deputy to perform mandated wellness checks at the jail was negligent conduct but not intentional conduct so as to establish the county's sovereign immunity. Holder v. Shelby Cty Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2017).

Judgment was vacated because the legal basis for the money judgment awarded to a county employee was not apparent from the judgment and memorandum opinion; the court of appeals could not presume solely from the transcript that the trial court dismissed the employee's contract claim, and the trial court did not state in its order or attached memorandum opinion that its judgment was based on the employee's remaining claim of negligence under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq. Lee v. Hamilton Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2019).

23. Civil Rights Claims.

Because plaintiff widow's proposed claim alleging negligence by defendant city's dispatcher arose out of the same circumstances of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim, it fell within the exception in T.C.A. § 29-20-205, and the city would have immunity as to that proposed claim under T.C.A. § 29-20-201(a), thus, it would have been futile to amend to add that claim. Johnson v. City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864, 2010 FED App. 259P, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17658 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2010).

24. Medical Malpractice Tolling Provision Inapplicable.

Order overruling a county's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice suit brought by a patient was error because, contrary to the trial court's holding, the tolling provision of T.C.A. § 29-26-121 did not apply to claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201 et seq.

25. Judgment for Agency Proper.

Judgment for an agency in a passenger's Governmental Tort Liability Act suit seeking damages arising from the passenger's fall from a van was proper because, although the passenger claimed that the van's driver failed to help her in exiting the van by not offering his hand, the evidence did not establish that the passenger appeared as if she needed additional assistance above that which was already provided, and the driver provided the appropriate level of assistance under the circumstances even if he failed to offer his hand as the passenger descended from the van. Cook v. E. Tenn. Human Res. Agency, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2013).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a police employee's Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claim against a local government because the employee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police department had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition with sufficient time to take corrective action. Butler v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2013), appeal denied, Butler v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 839 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2013).

Summary judgment was properly granted to the hospital on a patient's medical malpractice claim where the hospital had conclusively established that the treating doctor was not its employee, and thus it was immune from suit under T.C.A. § 29-20-201(a) . Rogers v. Blount Mem'l Hosp., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016).

Collateral References.

Claims arising from conduct of governmental employer in administering or failing to administer medical care as within discretionary function exception of Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a)). 172 A.L.R. Fed. 407.

Claims arising from governmental conduct causing damage to plaintiff's real property as within discretionary function exception of Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a)). 167 A.L.R. Fed. 1.

Construction and application of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) exception in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(c), concerning claims arising in respect of assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or detention of goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other law-enforcement officer. 173 A.L.R. Fed. 465.

Immunity of public officer from liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 5 A.L.R.4th 773.

Liability, in motor vehicle related cases, of governmental entity for injury or death resulting from defect or obstruction on roadside parkway or parking strip. 98 A.L.R.3d 439.

Liability, in motor vehicle related cases, of governmental entity for injury or death resulting from design, construction, or failure to warn of narrow bridge. 2 A.L.R.4th 635.

Liability, in motor vehicle related cases, of governmental entity for injury or death resulting from failure to repair pothole in surface of highway or street. 98 A.L.R.3d 101.

Liability of governmental unit or its officers for injury to innocent occupant of moving vehicle, or for damages to such vehicle, as result of police chase. 4 A.L.R.4th 865.

Liability of governmental unit or its officers for injury to innocent pedestrian or occupant of parked vehicle, or for damage to such vehicle, as result of police chase. 100 A.L.R.3d 815.

Liability of municipal corporation for shooting of bystander by law enforcement officer attempting to enforce law. 76 A.L.R.3d 1176.

Liability of United States for failure to warn local police or individuals of discharge, release, or escape of person who is deemed dangerous to public as affected by “discretionary act or duty” exception to Federal Tort Claims Act. 171 A.L.R. Fed. 655.

Liability of United States for failure to warn of danger or hazard not directly created by act or omission of federal government and not in national parks as affected by “discretionary function or duty” exception to Federal Tort Claims Act. 169 A.L.R. Fed. 421.

Liability of United States for failure to warn of danger or hazard resulting from governmental act or omission as affected by “discretionary function or duty” exception to Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a)). 170 A.L.R. Fed. 365.

Liability of United States, under Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2680), for damages caused by ingestion or administration of government-approved drugs, vaccines, and medications. 173 A.L.R. Fed. 431.

Public defender's immunity from liability for malpractice. 6 A.L.R.4th 774.

Sovereign immunity doctrine as precluding suit against sister state for tort committed within forum state. 81 A.L.R.3d 1239.

Wrongful discharge based on public policy derived from professional ethics codes. 52 A.L.R.5th 405.

States 112.1(2).

29-20-202. Removal of immunity for injury from negligent operation of motor vehicles — Exceptions.

  1. Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is removed for injuries resulting from the negligent operation by any employee of a motor vehicle or other equipment while in the scope of employment.
  2. This section shall not act as a repeal of § 55-8-101, § 55-8-108, or § 55-8-132, and the immunities provided by these sections are hereby expressly continued.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 7; T.C.A., § 23-3308.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, §§ 78, 84; 22 Tenn. Juris., State, § 14.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legislative Intent.

Construing this section and §§ 29-20-310 and 29-20-403 together, it would appear that the legislative intent is to hold the governmental entity liable for compensatory damages up to $50,000 or the amount of insurance coverage, whichever is greater and to bar any action for compensatory damages against the employee up to that amount. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Once a governmental entity has had its immunity from suit removed by T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202 to 29-20-205, it may no longer be considered immune for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-20-310(c) even though it is not liable for some portion of the plaintiff's damages.  Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

2. Punitive Damages.

Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, punitive damages are not recoverable from either the governmental entity or the employee in an action arising from the negligence of the employee. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

3. Illustrative Cases.

Finding that a government employer's immunity was removed pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because an operator was acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently injured the employee. The operator was acting within the scope of his employment because he was returning the front end loader as part of his employment with the employer, his primary motivation in operating the front end loader was serving the employer, he was traveling the route prescribed by the employer, and the front end loader had been furnished by the employer; additionally, a civil action for assault required an intent to harm and nothing indicated that the operator intended to harm the employee. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010), rev'd, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011).

Evidence did not preponderate against the finding that the government employee acted within the scope of his employment, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202(a) and 29-20-205. While his operation of the equipment so as to cause fear in others could have been characterized as a personal project, there was no evidence that the employee made such a departure from his duties as an employee that his acts, as a whole, could have been considered a venture of a “purely personal” nature. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011), rehearing denied, Hughes v. Metro. Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. June 14, 2011).

When an employee sued a city for injuries caused when a co-employee hit the employee with a bus, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the co-employee's conduct was negligent, but not grossly negligent, making the city liable for the injuries, while the co-employee was immune, because nothing showed: (1) the co-employee was impaired at the time of the injuries; (2) the impact of substances in the co-employee's drug screen on the co-employee's ability to drive; and that (3) the co-employee drove erratically or that substances in the drug screen impacted the co-employee's activities on the date of the accident. Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014), appeal denied, Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. May 13, 2014).

Collateral References.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit. 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Municipal corporation's safety rules and regulations as admissible in evidence in action by private party against municipal corporation or its officers or employees for negligent operation of vehicle. 82 A.L.R.3d 1285.

Tort liability of public schools and institutions of higher learning for accident involving motor vehicle operated by student. 85 A.L.R.5th 301.

Autos 187.

29-20-203. Removal of immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways — Notice required.

  1. Immunity from suit of a governmental entity is removed for any injury caused by a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway, owned and controlled by such governmental entity. “Street” or “highway” includes traffic control devices thereon.
  2. This section shall not apply unless constructive and/or actual notice to the governmental entity of such condition be alleged and proved in addition to the procedural notice required by § 29-20-302 [repealed].

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 8; T.C.A., § 23-3309; Acts 1983, ch. 199, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Section 29-20-302, referred to in this section, was repealed by Acts 1987, ch. 405, § 7.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Bridges, § 8; 23 Tenn. Juris., Streets and Highways, §§ 29, 32.

Law Reviews.

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1983 (N. L. Resener, J. A. Whitson, K. J. Miller), 50 Tenn. L. Rev. 785 (1983).

Attorney General Opinions. County liability for failure to put up new road signs, OAG 95-032 (4/6/95).

T.C.A. § 54-7-201 does not impose a mandatory duty on a county's chief administrative officer to remove “obstructions,” but a county might be subject to liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act if the county is aware of a potentially dangerous “obstruction,” OAG 00-072 (4/17/00).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Prior Injuries.

In action for wrongful death caused by the condition of county road and bridge, the accident having taken place prior to the date when governmental units which had exempted themselves from tort liability would automatically be subject to the provisions of this statute, court would not accelerate the tort liability, and the county was immune from suit. Cooper v. Rutherford County, 531 S.W.2d 783, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 554 (Tenn. 1975).

2. Any Injury.

Where recovery rests on removal of governmental immunity under this section for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the language in that section removing immunity for “any injury” caused by certain conditions, controls, rather than § 29-20-403 referring only to bodily injury or death. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

3. Defective, Unsafe, or Dangerous Conditions.

The failure to adequately delineate traffic flow, or to warn of the absence of adequate delineation, on a five-lane thoroughfare handling 11,500 cars per day, is a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition under this section. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

A public sewer project construction site, which coincidentally is located on a public street, does not fall within the contemplation or clear meaning of this section which removes immunity for a suit arising out of a defective, unsafe or dangerous condition of any street, alley, sidewalk or highway. Johnson v. EMPE, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 62, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), appeal denied, Johnson v. Empe, Inc., 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. June 22, 1992).

A property owner claiming damages to property arising from flooding produced by runoff crossing an adjacent county road was not within the class of persons covered by the exception to governmental immunity provided by this section; there was no evidence that the runoff of natural surface water rendered the road “defective, unsafe, or dangerous,” nor was there proof that the water problems were caused by a “defective, unsafe, or dangerous” condition in the right-of-way. Britton v. Claiborne County, 898 S.W.2d 220, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 758 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. May 1, 1995).

Failure to install guard rails on a century-old bridge did not render the bridge “defective, unsafe, or dangerous.” Helton v. Knox County, 922 S.W.2d 877, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. 1996).

The decision not to install guard rails on a century-old bridge despite the recommendations of state inspectors fell within the discretionary function exception of this section. Helton v. Knox County, 922 S.W.2d 877, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. 1996).

Comparative fault principles apply to the determination of a municipality's liability under this statute. Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. 1998), overruled in part, Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. 2000).

Dismissal of the individual's action against the state after she fell into a hole in a state park was proper where she failed to show what injustice she suffered after not being permitted to amend her complaint on the day of the trial and where she failed to prove actual and or constructive notice of the dangerous condition pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-203(b). Cornell v. State, 118 S.W.3d 374, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 299 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 968 (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2003).

Where a motorist was injured, the trial court found that a dangerous condition existed at the intersection due to growth of vegetation and a curve in road that impaired the sight distance of motorists. The court removed the government's sovereign immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-203, because the government had notice of the dangerous condition at the intersection and failed to take remedial action. Mosley v. McCanless, 207 S.W.3d 247, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Judgment for a city in a fatal traffic accident case was error because, given the totality of the circumstances, the city had notice of conditions that created safety problems on the road prior to the accident at issue for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-20-203(a); among other things, in the year prior to the fatal accident in this case two other fatal accidents had occurred near the place of the fatal accident at issue, and the city also knew that there had been over 20 reported accidents on the roadway in the last three years. Further, prior to this fatal accident, the city had received a report from a surveyor indicating that banking was lacking on the curves throughout the road and that the road was not adequately banked according to standard design guidelines. Bivins v. City of Murfreesboro, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 437 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2010).

In a pedestrian's suit to recover for injuries he sustained when he fell into an uncovered water meter, it was proper to grant a city utility company summary judgment because there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice to the company of the allegedly dangerous condition of the water meter; any claim of negligence per se under the statute was not excused from the Governmental Tort Liability Act requirement that the company have actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

In a pedestrian's suit to recover for injuries he sustained when he fell into an uncovered water meter, a city utility company was properly granted summary judgment because there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition; the fact the company installed water meter covers that were tampered with by third-parties was insufficient to remove immunity under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-203 and 29-20-204, but the design defect claim fell under T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Local government was not liable on a homeowner's claim of temporary continuous nuisance because the homeowner could not establish that the local government owned and controlled the broken drainage pipe on the owner's property which led to flooding on the owner's property, due to storm water runoff, each time it rained. The State of Tennessee purchased a drainage easement from a previous owner of the property, but someone, other than the local government, connected a stub pipe and enclosed a ditch, which led to the flooding once the pipe broke. Walker v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2018).

City was immune from liability for an alleged injured party's injuries suffered when the party tripped on a public sidewalk because the party did not show the city had constructive notice of the defect due to the defect's frequent occurrence throughout the city because the party did not rebut testimony that no hazard was identified or reported on the sidewalk where the party fell, despite periodic inspections, which was the relevant inquiry, nor did the party show the defect commonly occurred at the same place or near where the party fell. McMahan v. City of Cleveland, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019).

4. Repairs.

A county through its road superintendent was not guilty of gross negligence because of the way in which the guardrail was repaired when the road superintendent was not shown to be conscious of any increased risk resulting from his repair of the guardrail. Thomason v. Wayne County, 611 S.W.2d 585, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 403 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The failure of a county to maintain the surface conditions of a county road in a proper, reasonably safe fashion can lead to liability being imposed upon the county under this section. Baker v. Seal, 694 S.W.2d 948, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3088 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

5. Traffic Control Devices.

The statutory exception to governmental immunity provided in this section embraces street signs and traffic control devices within its terms, as well as the actual surface conditions of streets and sidewalks. Fretwell v. Chaffin, 652 S.W.2d 755, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. 1983).

1983 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 199, expressly providing that traffic control devices are included within the terms “street” and “highway,” while not retroactive, is declaratory of the original legislative intent. Fretwell v. Chaffin, 652 S.W.2d 755, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. 1983).

In action concerning death of child crossing a highway where the motorist did not slow down to posted limits, the county's immunity from suit was not removed under this section by assertions that the traffic control signs were unsafe and defective due to the lack of flashing lights as provided for in § 55-8-152 where there was inadequate proof that the county owned and controlled the signs. Harris v. Williamson County, 835 S.W.2d 588, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

A local government's decision whether to erect traffic control or safety devices may be immune from suit under the discretionary function exception in § 29-20-205, however, the failure to maintain or complete the installation of traffic control devices may result in liability when a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition is created. Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

6. Nuisances.

All claims for injury against a governmental entity must be brought under this chapter, regardless of the label, and this includes actions for damages based on activities historically labeled as nuisances. Collier v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 657 S.W.2d 771, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Britton v. Claiborne County, 898 S.W.2d 220, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 758 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. May 1, 1995).

7. Permissive Obligations.

Chief administrative officer, who had permissive rather than mandatory duty to clear and remove private obstructions that impair road traffic, was not liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for failure to do so. Baker v. Seal, 694 S.W.2d 948, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3088 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

8. Discretionary Functions.

The exception in § 29-20-205 to the removal of governmental immunity from suit where the negligent act or omission of a governmental employee arises out of the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function does not apply where awards are based on this section, removing governmental tort immunity for injuries caused by defective, unsafe, or dangerous conditions of certain streets, alleys, sidewalks or highways, which section does not create an exclusion for discretionary functions. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

This state's courts have removed immunity from suit under this section when a governmental entity has initially exercised its discretion to construct a road or put in a traffic control device and has negligently failed to maintain the road surface in a reasonably safe condition or allowed the traffic control device to be obscured by foliage; however, immunity from suit has not been removed when a governmental entity fails to exercise or perform a discretionary function, such as installing a traffic control device or setting the yellow caution interval on a traffic control device. Butler v. Dyersburg, 798 S.W.2d 776, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Immunity from suit was not removed from county or school board for failing to create a special speed zone near a school. By the terms of § 29-20-205, immunity from suit is not removed for an injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment in the performance of a discretionary act or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function. Harris v. Williamson County, 835 S.W.2d 588, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

9. Notice.

If the governmental entity originally constructs a road and culvert in a defective condition, and it remains in that condition from the time it was first constructed until the plaintiff is injured as a result thereof, then no notice, actual or constructive, is necessary to the governmental entity. Glover v. Hardeman County, 707 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

Notice requirement of this section was inapplicable where evidence established plaintiff's injuries were due to a city employee's negligence and not a dangerous or defective condition of the sidewalk. Morrow v. Madisonville, 737 S.W.2d 547, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

In this case county officials did not have actual notice of missing wheel guards on the bridge. No proof of constructive notice was presented, so there was no actual or constructive notice as required by this section. Kirby v. Macon County, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. 1994).

A police officer's prior inconsistent statement as to whether a stop sign had been down several days with knowledge of the city did not constitute an admission against the city under Tenn. R. Evid. 803 (1.2)(D), and the statement could not be used as substantive evidence of actual notice on behalf of the city. Dailey v. Bateman, 937 S.W.2d 927, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

A city had notice of a defective, unsafe, and dangerous condition in the form of a deviation between the level of a sidewalk and the adjoining pavers leading to the entrance to city hall where the installer of the pavers had brought the deviation to the attention of a city officer at the time the pavers were installed and the city had accepted and continued to maintain the walkway over a period of months while the deviation increased. Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. 1998), overruled in part, Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 343 (Tenn. 2000).

Because a husband failed to show that a city had actual or constructive notice of the conditions that created safety problems on the road where his wife was killed in an automobile accident, T.C.A. § 29-20-203(a) did not apply and judgment was properly entered in the city's favor. Alexander v. City of Murfreesboro, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. July 15, 2011).

Trial court did not err in finding the county liable for negligence occurring when plaintiff fell off a four-feet cinder-block wall surrounding a dumpster and severely injured her arm as the evidence allowed a finding that the uneven wall constituted a dangerous condition, that the county had actual notice of the condition because it created the condition, that the county breached its duty of eliminating or warning against the dangerous condition, and that the county's breach was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. Huskey v. Rhea County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

Appellants' suit against a county, alleging its negligent failure to maintain and inspect its roadways caused a tree to fall on their car, was properly dismissed after trial because appellants did not establish that the county had actual or constructive notice of the tree's decayed condition. Graham v. Bradley County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1053 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

City was entitled to judgment in a motorcyclist's personal injury action against the city because the motorcyclist failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the city had either actual or constructive notice of a pothole which the motorcyclist hit with the motorcyclist's motorcycle so as to lift the city's immunity. Merrell v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 581 (Tenn. July 14, 2014).

10. Loss of Consortium.

Where removal of governmental immunity rests upon this section, removing immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the right to recover for loss of consortium is a right independent of the spouse's right to recover for the injuries themselves, and is not limited by the liability limitations of § 29-20-403. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Where removal of governmental immunity rests upon this section, removing immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the injured person's spouse may, where the damages are proved, recover for the loss of consortium. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

11. Limitations.

Defendant in tort claim based on auto accident was prohibited from attributing fault to non-party county where plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against the county by the limitations period applicable to governmental entities. Bumgardner v. Vonk, 995 F. Supp. 815, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2912 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).

12. Abrogation of Immunity.

Once a governmental entity has had its immunity from suit removed by T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202 to 29-20-205, it may no longer be considered immune for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-20-310(c) even though it is not liable for some portion of the plaintiff's damages. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

13. Tree.

T.C.A. § 29-20-203 does not extend to property near the street which is not owned or controlled by a city; therefore, a city was immune from suit after a death due to a falling tree because the city did not have a duty to maintain or manage a tree belonging to a private landowner. There was no allegation that the leaning tree constituted an obstruction located above the roadway. Raley v. City of Knoxville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

Collateral References.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit. 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Comment Note: Governmental liability for failure to reduce vegetation obscuring view at railroad crossing or at street or highway intersection. 50 A.L.R.6th 95.

Liability of public authority for injury arising out of automobile race conducted on street or highway. 80 A.L.R.3d 1192.

Highways 187.

29-20-204. Removal of immunity for injury from dangerous structures — Exception — Notice required.

  1. Immunity from suit of a governmental entity is removed for any injury caused by the dangerous or defective condition of any public building, structure, dam, reservoir or other public improvement owned and controlled by such governmental entity.
  2. Immunity is not removed for latent defective conditions, nor shall this section apply unless constructive and/or actual notice to the governmental entity of such condition be alleged and proved in addition to the procedural notice required by § 29-20-302 [repealed].

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 9; T.C.A., § 23-3310.

Compiler's Notes. Section 29-20-302, referred to in this section, was repealed by Acts 1987, ch. 405, § 7.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Bridges, § 8.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nuisances.

All claims for injury against a governmental entity must be brought under this chapter, regardless of the label, and this includes actions for damages based on activities historically labeled as nuisances. Collier v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 657 S.W.2d 771, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Local government was not liable on a homeowner's claim of temporary continuous nuisance because the homeowner could not establish that the local government owned and controlled the broken drainage pipe on the owner's property which led to flooding on the owner's property, due to storm water runoff, each time it rained. The State of Tennessee purchased a drainage easement from a previous owner of the property, but someone, other than the local government, connected a stub pipe and enclosed a ditch, which led to the flooding once the pipe broke. Walker v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2018).

2. Dangerous Structures.

Dangerous structure and notice of dangerous condition found. McGaughy v. Memphis, 823 S.W.2d 209, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

There was no evidence that the structure in question was in a defective condition, but this section specifically removes immunity from suit caused by the dangerous condition of a structure. McGaughy v. Memphis, 823 S.W.2d 209, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

City was liable under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., for damages suffered by a child in a fall from a broken swing where the mother established by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-204(a), that the swing was in a dangerous or defective condition at the time of the injury where the S-hook at the bottom of the chain appeared to be stretched out. Wright v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2011), appeal denied, Wright ex rel. Pryor v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 690 (Tenn. July 15, 2011).

City owed a pedestrian a duty of care regarding a pedestrian bridge because (1) the city considered the bridge a potential danger, as the city instructed employees to inspect the bridge and report conditions needing repair, and (2) it was reasonably foreseeable that the bridge's condition could injure persons crossing the bridge. Kee v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

In a pedestrian's suit to recover for injuries he sustained when he fell into an uncovered water meter, it was proper to grant a city utility company summary judgment because there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice to the company of the allegedly dangerous condition of the water meter; any claim of negligence per se under the statute was not excused from the Governmental Tort Liability Act requirement that the company have actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

In a pedestrian's suit to recover for injuries he sustained when he fell into an uncovered water meter, a city utility company was properly granted summary judgment because there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition; the fact the company installed water meter covers that were tampered with by third-parties was insufficient to remove immunity under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-203 and 29-20-204, but the design defect claim fell under T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Causation is not a requirement for the removal of immunity under statute; rather, the statute requires the presence of a dangerous or defective condition on a public improvement owned and controlled by such governmental entity. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

3. Sewer Systems.

Complaint alleging that blockage in city sewer system caused sewage to back up and flow onto plaintiff's business failed to state a cause of action under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and was properly dismissed. Lee v. City of Cleveland, 859 S.W.2d 347, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, Lee v. Cleveland, — S.W.2d —, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. July 6, 1993).

Evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the sewer and stormwater line behind the dentists'  office presented a dangerous condition under the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the combined system contaminated the parking lot behind the office. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

Trial court erred erred in applying T.C.A. § 29-20-205(a)(1), to dentists'  claims against a city because the discretionary function exception to immunity did not apply to claims brought under T.C.A. § 29-20-204, and the city's decision not to correct a dangerous condition in a sewer and stormwater line did not qualify as a discretionary decision, and the city's decision not to correct a dangerous condition in the combined line did not qualify as a discretionary decision. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

4. Latent Defective Conditions.

Where reasonable and customary inspection would have revealed the dangerous condition which is the basis for suit, conditioning removal of governmental immunity upon proof that injury resulted from patently dangerous or defective condition would be contrary to plain language of statute. Hawks v. City of Westmoreland, 960 S.W.2d 10, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. 1997).

In a kitchen manager's personal injury action against the board of education to recover for injuries received in a workplace accident not covered by worker's compensation law, where the kitchen manager was shocked by equipment in a school kitchen, the board of education was not immune from liability under T.C.A. § 29-20-204 of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Immunity Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because the board had been made aware of the defect; hence, the defect was not latent. Keaton v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., 119 S.W.3d 218, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 320 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

In an action by the mother of an injured child against a city under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., the swing on which the child was injured was not in latent defective condition, for which immunity from suit was removed pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-204(b), because the injury occurred when the S-hook at the bottom of the chain opened up, and an open S-hook did not qualify as a hidden or concealed defect. The park staff was trained to look for just that sort of defect, and allegedly did so every day. Wright v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2011), appeal denied, Wright ex rel. Pryor v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 690 (Tenn. July 15, 2011).

In an invitee's negligence action against a board of education, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that a hole in a high school football field where the invitee fell and was injured was not a latent defective condition within the meaning of the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-204(b), and the board was not entitled to immunity because the board did not contradict testimony by the invitee's daughters that the hole was located in a mowed area and the grass around the hole “wasn't real tall” and was “just like your yard or something.” McCormick v. Warren County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2013).

County hospital was entitled to summary judgment when an accident victim, who was exiting the hospital, was hit by an automatic door, fell, and sustained an injury because the hospital was immune from suit as it had no constructive notice of the alleged dangerous or defective condition. In the absence of facts showing that the hospital could have discovered, by a reasonable inspection, the alleged dangerous or defective condition that caused the accident, there was no material evidence that the hospital's immunity was to be removed. Templeton v. Jackson-Madison Cty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017).

5. Construction With Other Sections.

Once a governmental entity has had its immunity from suit removed by T.C.A. §§ 29-20-20229-20-205, it may no longer be considered immune for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-20-310(c) even though it is not liable for some portion of the plaintiff's damages. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

Statute functions only as a condition precedent to an underlying tort claim, and any other interpretation would distort the purpose and misconstrue the basic structure and context of the statute; interpreting the statute as creating a duty would impermissibly alter its nature and negate the plain language and purpose of T.C.A. § 29-20-206, and thus, the statute functions as an initial step to remove liability, which requires a plaintiff to prove the underlying elements of a tort claim. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

6. Constructive Notice.

Resident failed to establish that town had actual notice of any dangerous condition at the park and failed to present any evidence that town had actual knowledge that persons or property were injured by baseballs or softballs flying over the fence at the park, that town had constructive notice that the baseball field was in a dangerous condition, and that town had either actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition; thus, town was not liable. Halliburton v. Town of Halls, 295 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2008).

In an action under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., a city had constructive notice of the defective condition of a swing pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-204(b) where there was no documentation that revealed which swings were checked on particular days and in what manner they were checked, but the park staff was well aware of the tendency of S-hooks to open up or wear over time, each member of the crew knew how to close open S-hooks, and extra S-hooks were kept in the park trucks for easy replacement. Wright v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2011), appeal denied, Wright ex rel. Pryor v. City of Lebanon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 690 (Tenn. July 15, 2011).

In an invitee's negligence action against a board of education, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding the board had constructive notice of a hole in a high school football field where the invitee fell and was injured and was not entitled to immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201, because the board's employees and agents maintained the football field, they had superior knowledge of the premises and a duty to invitees to inspect and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner, and the hole was of a width and depth that the board or its agents should have discovered it before the invitee's fall. McCormick v. Warren County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2013).

Accident victim, who was injured when the victim fell in a public parking lot, was not entitled to summary judgment in the victim's personal injury action against a county because the question of whether the county had constructive notice, under T.C.A. § 29-20-204, of a hole or depression where the victim fell in the parking lot was a disputed issue of fact which was to be determined by the finder of fact in the case. Dickerson v. Rutherford County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2013).

City had constructive notice of a defective pedestrian bridge because readily apparent conditions (1) made the bridge dangerous and defective, and (2) had existed long enough to conclude the city should have been aware of the conditions. Kee v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2015).

7. Liability Properly Found.

Trial court did not err in finding the county liable for negligence occurring when plaintiff fell off a four-feet cinder-block wall surrounding a dumpster and severely injured her arm as the evidence allowed a finding that the uneven wall constituted a dangerous condition, that the county had actual notice of the condition because it created the condition, that the county breached its duty of eliminating or warning against the dangerous condition, and that the county's breach was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. Huskey v. Rhea County, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

Trial court did not err in apportioning 80 percent of the fault to a metropolitan government for a patron's injuries and 20 percent to the patron where the patron had no reason to know of the presence of the drainage cut before he stepped onto a concrete barrier, the patron's prior experience led him to believe that the concrete barrier had no holes, an expert testified that the concrete barrier was a foreseeable walkway, and the metropolitan government had a duty to repair or remove the unsafe condition. Osborne v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2018).

Evidence supported the trial court's finding that the county water authority was liable for the homeowner's injuries that he sustained when the concrete cover on the water meter box he was standing on in his yard moved unexpectedly because a field supervisor acknowledged that a meter box without a structurally sound inner lip was dangerous, four months before the accident he recognized that the meter box was damaged and submitted a work order to replace it, and the water authority did not replace the box during the following four months. Cox v. Water & Wastewater Treatment Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020).

8. Summary Judgment Improperly Denied.

It was error to deny a city's summary judgment motion in a premises liability suit because the city demonstrated that an alleged injured party could not establish the essential element of the city's ownership and control of the allegedly dangerous and defective public improvement. Turner v. City of Bean Station, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

8.5. Summary Judgment Properly Granted.

Trial court did not err by granting the school board summary judgment on the student's premises liability claim because the student conceded that the chair in and of itself did not present an unsafe, dangerous, or defective condition, and the student did not put forth any proof to show that the manner in which the chairs were placed on the tables was precarious or that the chairs themselves were defective, dangerous, or in any way unsafe. Landry v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).

9. No Breach.

In this case where the citizen slipped and fell on ice in the parking area of a county courthouse, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the city did not breach its duty of reasonable care to the citizen; the city had scraped the area where the citizen had parked prior to 7:45 a.m., the city road department put a high priority on the courthouse, and the testimony showed it would have been difficult to keep salt treated areas from refreezing because temperatures ranged from 14 degrees at 7:00 a.m. to 24 degrees just before the citizen's fall. Williams v. City of Jamestown, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 800 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2016).

10. Immunity Not Removed.

Because the city never took any action concerning the drainage structures, the city was not required to maintain the pipes, and there was no evidence that the city performed any construction work or created the situation complained of by the company; the city did not own the drainage structures and an easement, if it existed, and/or right-of-way did not constitute ownership such that the city's immunity would be removed. Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Collateral References.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit. 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Breach of warranty in sale, installation, repair, design, or inspection of septic or sewage disposal systems. 50 A.L.R.5th 417.

Liability of urban redevelopment authority or other state or municipal agency or entity for injuries occurring in vacant or abandoned property owned by governmental entity. 7 A.L.R.4th 1129.

Municipal liability for negligent performance of building inspector's duties. 24 A.L.R.5th 200.

Validity, construction, and application of the uniform fire code. 46 A.L.R.5th 479.

29-20-205. Removal of immunity for injury caused by negligent act or omission of employees — Exceptions — Immunity for year 2000 computer calculation errors.

Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is removed for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment except if the injury arises out of:

  1. The exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function, whether or not the discretion is abused;
  2. False imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional trespass, abuse of process, libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, invasion of right of privacy, or civil rights;
  3. The issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization;
  4. A failure to make an inspection, or by reason of making an inadequate or negligent inspection of any property;
  5. The institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding, even if malicious or without probable cause;
  6. Misrepresentation by an employee whether or not such is negligent or intentional;
  7. Or results from riots, unlawful assemblies, public demonstrations, mob violence and civil disturbances;
  8. Or in connection with the assessment, levy or collection of taxes; or
  9. Or in connection with any failure occurring before January 1, 2005, which is caused directly or indirectly by the failure of computer software or any device containing a computer processor to accurately or properly recognize, calculate, display, sort, or otherwise process dates or times, if, and only if, the failure or malfunction causing the loss was unforeseeable or if the failure or malfunction causing the loss was foreseeable but a reasonable plan or design or both for identifying and preventing the failure or malfunction was adopted and reasonably implemented complying with generally accepted computer and information system design standards. Notwithstanding any other law, nothing in this subdivision (9) shall in any way limit the liability of a third party, direct or indirect, who is negligent. Further, a person who is injured by the negligence of a third party contractor, direct or indirect, shall have a cause of action against the contractor.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 10; T.C.A., § 23-3311; Acts 1999, ch. 458, §§ 3, 4.

Cross-References. Immunity for year 2000 computer calculation errors, § 9-8-307.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Bridges, § 8; 8 Tenn. Juris., Counties, § 28; 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, §§ 65, 81, 84, 98.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee's Adoption of the Planning-Operational Test for Determining Discretionary Function Immunity Under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 633 (1993).

Tennessee's Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Torts — Bowers v. City of Chattanooga: Planning-Operational Distinctions in Determining Discretionary Function Immunity Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (Harold W. Fonville II), 24 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 167 (1993).

Torts — Chase v. City of Memphis: The Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Meets the Special Duty Doctrine, 29 U. Mem. L. Rev. 507 (1999).

Torts — Matthews v. Pickett County: The Public Duty Doctrine and Its Special Duty Exception in the Face of the Governmental Tort Liabilities Act, 30 U. Mem. L. Rev. 457 (2000).

Attorney General Opinions. Sheriff's temporary detention of prisoner, OAG 83-001 (1/3/83).

County liability for failure to put up new road signs, OAG 95-032 (4/6/95).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Planning — Operational Test.

State supreme court adopted the “planning-operational” test to determine which governmental acts are entitled to immunity. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

Under the planning-operational test, decisions that rise to the level of planning or policy-making are considered discretionary acts which do not give rise to tort liability, while decisions that are merely operational are not considered discretionary acts and, therefore, do not give rise to immunity. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

Under the planning-operational test, discretionary function immunity does not automatically attach to all acts involving choice or judgment. Such an analysis recognizes that, to some extent, every act involves discretion. Rather, the underlying policy of governmental immunity is better served by examining: (1) the decision-making process; and (2) the propriety of judicial review of the resulting decision. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

The distinction between planning and operational functions is a standard, rather than a precise rule. The focus must remain on the policy underlying governmental immunity. If the act is one committed to coordinate branches of the government involving policy decisions not reviewable under traditional tort standards of reasonableness, the government is immune from liability even if the act was performed negligently. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

Where a nursing assistant for a medical center's nursing home assaulted a resident, and the medical center had failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures with respect to an earlier incident involving the nursing assistant, application of the planning-operational test precluded the medical center from claiming immunity pursuant to the discretionary function exception, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1). Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001).

Trial court erred in granting a county's motion to dismiss a case brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201 et seq., seeking damages arising from the killing of a decedent by a convicted felon who was placed on house arrest; actions taken by county employees which allowed the charged felon onto house arrest were not discretionary under the planning operational test, and the county was not immune pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Brown v. Hamilton County, 126 S.W.3d 43, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004).

Where a police officer made a determination to let a decedent who was involved in a one-car accident continue driving based on preexisting laws, regulations, etc., and his decision did not rise to the level of planning or policy-making, summary judgment was not proper on the basis of discretionary function immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-205 in a wrongful death action, arising from the decedent's subsequent accident that caused her death. Lynch v. Loudon County, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

Reason for the city's policy not to maintain and repair drainage pipes located on private property was the city lacked the manpower and financial resources to do so, and as the decision to create this policy resulted from assessing priorities and allocating resources, the policy was a planning or policy-making decision and thus a discretionary act for which immunity was not removed. Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

2. Public Duty Doctrine.

The public duty doctrine which shields a public employee from suits for injuries caused by the employee's breach of a duty owed to the public at large was not abolished by the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Ezell v. Cockrell, 902 S.W.2d 394, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. 1995).

In a wrongful death action, as there was disputed material evidence as to whether a police officer assumed a public duty to a decedent, but then discontinued his aid and protection to her, leaving her in a worse position that before he intervened under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-201 and 29-20-205, summary judgment was improper. Lynch v. Loudon County, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

Public duty doctrine, which immunized public employees and governmental entities from liability when their duty was owed to the general public rather than any particular individual, survived the enactment of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-2-101 et seq.Fleming v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019).

While the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-2-101 et seq., did not provide immunity to a city, when a dog bite victim claimed that a city animal control official had a duty to protect citizens from dangerous animals and failed in that duty, the public duty doctrine did because the city's duty was to the public at large and the victim did not establish a special duty exception. Fleming v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019).

Trial court did not err by granting the county's motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) because the public duty doctrine applied and the special duty exceptions did not, and therefore the county was immune. Randolph v. White Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2019).

3. Scope of Employment.

Complaint alleging that blockage in city sewer system caused sewage to back up and flow onto plaintiff's business did not allege act or omission by a governmental entity or employee within the scope of his employment, and thus failed to state a cause of action under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and was properly dismissed. Lee v. City of Cleveland, 859 S.W.2d 347, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, Lee v. Cleveland, — S.W.2d —, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. July 6, 1993).

Evidence did not preponderate against the finding that the government employee acted within the scope of his employment, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202(a) and 29-20-205. While his operation of the equipment so as to cause fear in others could have been characterized as a personal project, there was no evidence that the employee made such a departure from his duties as an employee that his acts, as a whole, could have been considered a venture of a “purely personal” nature. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011), rehearing denied, Hughes v. Metro. Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 603 (Tenn. June 14, 2011).

Coach's complaint supported conflicting conclusions as to whether defendants'  conduct, communicating with the coach's supervisor, communicating with various individuals, and ordering the destruction of a videotape showing an altercation on campus between the coach and his family, was within the scope of their employment and, thus, within the scope of immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Thus, a question of fact existed, and the trial court should not have dismissed the claims for slander, false light, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Byars v. Frazier, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 10, 2012).

Issue of whether an employee acted outside the scope of his or her employment constitutes a fact-intensive inquiry; as such, the scope of employment factors involve factual inquiries that cannot be determined by an examination of the pleadings alone, for dismissal purposes. Holder v. Shelby County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015).

Father's complaint alleged that the negligence of a deputy was committed within the scope of his employment, and this allegation had to be taken as true for purposes of the county's motion to dismiss, and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the basis that the deputy's actions were taken outside the scope of his employment. Holder v. Shelby County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015).

County board of education's immunity from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was not removed, when an instructor pulled a stool from beneath a student while the student was sitting on it, causing injury to the student, because the instructor acted outside the scope of the instructor's employment. O'Brian v. Rutherford Cty. Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2018).

Legal basis for the money judgment awarded to a county employee was not apparent from the judgment and memorandum opinion because in order for immunity to be lifted from the county, a coworker must have been acting in the scope of her employment when she made the comment upon which the employee relied; however, the trial court made no specific finding in its judgment or memorandum opinion concerning whether the coworker was acting within the scope of her employment when she made the comment. Lee v. Hamilton Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2019).

4. False Arrest.

Where complainant was falsely arrested and then beaten by a police officer who was acting as an agent of defendant, complainant's tort action, which claimed negligence on the part of defendant in failing to screen its agents properly, was dismissed because the injuries complained of arose out of the false arrest and the battery, rather than defendant's negligence, and were within the exceptions to municipal liability set forth in subdivision (2) of this section. Potter v. Chattanooga, 556 S.W.2d 543, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 615 (Tenn. 1977), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled in part, Autry v. Hooker, 304 S.W.3d 356, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009).

5. Dismissal Proceedings.

Board of education was immune from suit for libel based on proceedings for dismissal of teacher. Jacox v. Memphis City Board of Education, 604 S.W.2d 872, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1114, 101 S. Ct. 927, 66 L. Ed. 2d 844, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 574 (1981).

6. Retaliatory Discharge.

Retaliatory discharge is not a negligent act or omission and immunity of the employer is not removed. Montgomery v. Mayor of Covington, 778 S.W.2d 444, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), superseded by statute as stated in, Ivory v. Shelby County Gov't, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26422 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2001).

Waiver of immunity did not apply to a teacher's retaliatory discharge claim against a school board, as the claim required intentional acts rather than negligence. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128645 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2014), aff'd, Brown v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23870 (6th Cir. Tenn. Apr. 26, 2016).

When an employee was fired for refusing to reimburse child support payments the employee had misdirected, the employee's claim under T.C.A. § 50-1-304 failed because: (1) the employee did not identify an illegal activity an employer allegedly engaged in; and (2) the employee's alleged immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) from any claim for misdirecting the payments was irrelevant, since no such claim was made. Palmore v. Neal, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 341 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2014).

7. Contract Award.

Any claim sounding in tort for a municipal corporation's award of a public contract to other than the lowest bidder would be barred by this act. Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County, 648 F.2d 1084, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13235 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1981).

8. Zoning Ordinance Enforcement.

A letter notifying plaintiff to conform to a valid zoning regulation, or a charge and prosecution of plaintiff of violating a zoning regulation, or even the oral representation that “you will have to remove those junk cars if you want this case dismissed” did not constitute a legal ground for suit against a city government for negligence of its employees where defendant removed the cars from his property voluntarily but later learned he had a right to keep them there because they were in conformity with the previous zoning ordinance and exempt from the new ordinance. Davis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 620 S.W.2d 532, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

9. Civil Rights Claims.

Subdivision (2) only restores municipal immunity for civil rights claims as such, not those for negligence as a matter of common law. McKenna v. Memphis, 544 F. Supp. 415, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14088 (W.D. Tenn. 1982), aff'd, 785 F.2d 560, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22897 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986).

Negligence claims that were raised against a county had to be dismissed because of the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., and its coverage of governmental entities only; however, the negligence and false imprisonment claims against three law enforcement officers, who were sued in their individual capacities, could proceed in district court in a wife's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the officers that arose from the unlawful arrest of the wife after the officers tried to execute a warrant against the wife, who clearly was not the named individual in the warrant. McCutchen v. Tipton County, 430 F. Supp. 2d 741, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28743 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which an individual alleged that she was forcibly raped by a reserve county deputy and she could not prove that an independent act of negligence by a county or a county employee proximately caused the intentional torts that resulted in her injuries, under T.C.A. § 29-20-205, the county could not be held liable for negligence based merely on the alleged commission of the intentional torts by the reserve deputy. Campbell v. Anderson County, 695 F. Supp. 2d 764, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10659 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2010).

Because plaintiff widow's proposed claim alleging negligence by defendant city's dispatcher arose out of the same circumstances of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim, it fell within the exception in T.C.A. § 29-20-205, and the city would have immunity as to that proposed claim under T.C.A. § 29-20-201(a), thus, it would have been futile to amend to add that claim. Johnson v. City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864, 2010 FED App. 259P, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17658 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2010).

In a case in which an individual was shot and wounded by a city police officer and the trial court awarded the individual damages in the amount of $ 40,000, the city argued unsuccessfully on appeal that it could not be held liable for negligence under the civil rights exception in T.C.A. 29-20-205(c). The city could be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its officers that proximately caused the individual's injury since there was no basis to conclude that the individual's injury arose out of a violation of his federal civil rights as he had neither pled nor argued in his case that the city or its officers violated his federal civil rights. Parker v. Henderson County, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010).

Chief of the Grand Junction Police Department was a proper party defendant and his basis for dismissal was without merit because plaintiff's claims arose from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, immunity of the City would not be removed as to those civil rights claims. Stone v. City of Grand Junction, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34655 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2011).

Plaintiffs'  negligence claim against a county was nothing more than civil rights claim: it was still based upon an underlying claim of “excessive force,” and was identical to plaintiff's “failure to train” claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the claims arose out of the same facts and were based upon the same arguments, the negligence claims against the county were barred under the “civil rights” exception of T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Dillingham v. Millsaps, 809 F. Supp. 2d 820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89369 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 10, 2011).

Plaintiff's suit alleging that defendants violated his civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that their actions constituted violations of the Tennessee Governmental Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., by bringing an unsuccessful criminal case against him was properly dismissed because the suit was barred by judicial immunity and sovereign immunity; the Tennessee Governmental Liability Act expressly excluded claims for violation of civil rights under § 1983. Houston v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. May 23, 2012).

In a civil rights lawsuit by a city parks department sergeant alleging constitutional claims for infringement of her constitutional rights and for discrimination and retaliation related to her sex, race, age, and sexual orientation, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against city were barred because city had not waived its sovereign immunity from such suits. Desoto v. Bd. of Parks & Rec., — F. Supp. 2d —,  2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165714 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2014).

Civil-rights exception was applicable because the several layers of negligence asserted by the family on the part of several actors did not change the fact that the essence of the family's lawsuit remained a civil rights violation. Savage v. City of Memphis, 620 Fed. Appx. 425, — F.3d —, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13887, 2015 FED App. 553N (6th Cir. 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding that a city was immune from an inmate's constitutional claims because the inmate was not in a procedural posture to petition for return of his seized property through a civil action, and no forfeiture proceeding had been initiated against his personal property; therefore, the inmate was asserting a claim against the city for violation of his civil rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Lankford v. City of Hendersonville, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. July 18, 2018).

Nothing indicates that there must be an express finding that a civil rights violation occurred in order for the exception to apply, as the immunity offered by the statute is broad, preserving immunity for negligence claims so long as the injury arises out of civil rights; case law does not indicate that the statute requires the claimant to be successful in his civil rights claim in order for the civil rights exception to apply to corresponding state law claims. Cochran v. Town of Jonesborough, 586 S.W.3d 909, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2019), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2019).

District court's order reflected that appellant's proof as to the excessive force claim was lacking, not that the claim itself was not an alleged civil rights violation. Cochran v. Town of Jonesborough, 586 S.W.3d 909, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2019), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2019).

Premise of appellant's state lawsuit was that he was injured by the way the officer handcuffed him and that the excessive handcuffing was the result of appellee's failure to properly train and supervise the officer; these allegations sounded in civil rights and the injuries appellant alleged stemmed from well-established civil rights, regardless of how he chose to characterize those claims in his state action. T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) was applicable and preserved governmental immunity as to appellee. Cochran v. Town of Jonesborough, 586 S.W.3d 909, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2019), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2019).

Trial court did not err by dismissing the arrestee's claim against the county because the gravamen of her allegations was that the officers at the jail inappropriately punished her for her behavior and were indifferent to her suffering which caused physical and emotional injuries, the claim involved the violation of civil rights, and therefore the county retained sovereign immunity for the claim. Merolla v. Wilson Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019).

10. Waiver of Regulations.

Regional planning commission's decision to waive certain of its own regulations and grant approval of developer's plat does not constitute one of the exceptions provided by legislature which would remove statutory grant of immunity from liability enjoyed by commission. Foley v. Hamilton, 659 S.W.2d 356, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 730 (Tenn. 1983).

11. County Road Superintendent.

Where a county, by private act, set up a policy requiring the county road supervisor to inspect the roads and to insure that those roads were safe, and the county had the state inspect the roads as required by law, but failed to utilize the findings of those inspections, and where the county failed to install the guard rails recommended by the reports, making the bridge unsafe in violation of the county's own regulations, such a decision was “operational” rather than “discretionary,” and the county was thus not immune from liability for injuries resulting from such failure. Watts v. Robertson County, 849 S.W.2d 798, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 893 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

12. Discretionary Function Immunity.

Tennessee law provides an immunity-free remedy for injuries proximately caused by a state employee's negligence in the performance of a nondiscretionary function. However, a county, the county sheriff and his employees, including deputies and jailers, are protected by a discretionary function immunity, whether a plaintiff proceeds under this part or §§ 8-8-302 and 8-8-303(a) or § 41-4-101. Willis v. Barksdale, 625 F. Supp. 411, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12938 (W.D. Tenn. 1985).

The exception in this section to the removal of governmental immunity from suit where the negligent act or omission of a governmental employee arises out of the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function does not apply where awards are based on § 29-20-203, removing governmental tort immunity for injuries caused by defective, unsafe, or dangerous conditions of certain streets, alleys, sidewalks or highways, which section does not create an exclusion for discretionary functions. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Apparent intoxication of firemen, absence of firemen from duty station, and resultant delay of response time, raised sufficient allegations of negligence which, without development of the facts, could not be classified as “discretionary functions.” Gordon v. Henderson, 766 S.W.2d 784, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. 1989).

The decision as to whether or not to place a stop sign or other traffic control device at an intersection is a discretionary decision to be made by the county employee. Even if the county employee abuses his discretion immunity from suit is not removed. O'Guin v. Corbin, 777 S.W.2d 697, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

City's failure to install a traffic control device was discretionary, and the city was immune from suit for damages resulting from the absence of such device due to nonfeasance in the exercise of a discretionary act. Butler v. Dyersburg, 798 S.W.2d 776, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

The decision to leave a door unlocked and unattended for the ingress and egress of school personnel was a performance of a discretionary function within the meaning of this section. Doe v. Board of Educ. of Memphis City Schools, 799 S.W.2d 246, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

The purposes of immunity for “discretionary functions” is not to protect an erring official, but to insulate the decision-making process from the harassment of prospective litigation. The provision of immunity rests on the view that the threat of liability will make governmental officials unduly timid in carrying out their official duties, and that effective government will be promoted if officials are freed of the costs of vexation and often frivolous damages suits. Doe v. Board of Educ. of Memphis City Schools, 799 S.W.2d 246, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Immunity from suit was not removed from county or school board for failing to create a special speed zone near a school. By the terms of this section, immunity from suit is not removed for an injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment in the performance of a discretionary act or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function. Harris v. Williamson County, 835 S.W.2d 588, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Airport officer's actions in failing to take adequate steps to prevent plaintiff with mental disorder from hurting herself were not subject to blanket categorization as immune from suit simply because they involved the subjective use of discretion. Williams v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 803 F. Supp. 1306, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15697 (W.D. Tenn. 1992).

School board's failure to adopt or enforce a sexual abuse policy fell within the discretionary function exception. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

The discretionary function exception was intended to prevent the use of tort actions to second-guess what are essentially executive or legislative decisions involving social, political, economic, scientific, or professional policies or some mixture of these policies. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Conduct specifically required by pre-existing statutes, regulations, policies, or standards cannot give rise to liability because the conduct is not the product of judgment or choice; however, conduct that fails to comply with legal requirements may give rise to liability. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Under the planning-operational test, discretionary function immunity does not automatically attach to all acts involving choice or judgment. Such an analysis recognizes that, to some extent, every act involves discretion. Rather, the underlying policy of governmental immunity is better served by examining: (1) the decision-making process; and (2) the propriety of judicial review of the resulting decision. Kirby v. Macon County, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. 1994).

County's decision to forgo installation of guardrails on the bridge was a discretionary function; because the decision to omit the installation of guardrails was discretionary, governmental immunity was not removed under this section. Kirby v. Macon County, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, 892 S.W.2d 403, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. 1994).

County school system's decision as to placement of school bus stops was discretionary and the system was entitled to immunity in an action involving the death of a child who was struck by a truck near a stop. Hewett v. Miller, 898 S.W.2d 213, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, Hewitt v. Miller, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Feb. 27, 1995).

A school principal's assignment of teachers to specific classes was a discretionary function and, though his decision to assign one male teacher to a mixed gym class may have been unwise, it was not actionable. Chudasama v. Metropolitan Gov't, 914 S.W.2d 922, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

A local government's decision whether to erect traffic control or safety devices may be immune from suit under the discretionary function exception in this section, however, the failure to maintain or complete the installation of traffic control devices may result in liability when a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition is created. Burgess v. Harley, 934 S.W.2d 58, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

In a wrongful death action for the death of a fire fighter, plaintiff's complaint, including an allegation that defendants' failure to comply with written procedures of the fire department caused the death, contained adequate allegations of nondiscretionary, or operational, acts on the part of department personnel to withstand a motion to dismiss. Bridges v. City of Memphis, 952 S.W.2d 841, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

The city's decision to send only one officer to escort a funeral was an operational act to which no immunity attaches. Anderson v. City of Chattanooga, 978 S.W.2d 105, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, 978 S.W.2d 105, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. 1998).

Where two governmental acts are concurrent causes of an injury, one of which arises from a discretionary function, the other of which does not, the exception to the removal of immunity contained in subdivision (1) does not apply. Anderson v. City of Chattanooga, 978 S.W.2d 105, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, 978 S.W.2d 105, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. 1998).

A high school principal's decision not to provide security at a high school football game was a discretionary decision under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1) which did not subject the school board to tort liability when an attendee was injured by a rock thrown by another attendee. Hill v. Lamberth, 73 S.W.3d 131, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Where two governmental acts are concurrent causes of injury, one of which arises from a discretionary function, the other which does not, the exception to the removal of immunity contained in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1) does not apply. Brown v. Hamilton County, 126 S.W.3d 43, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004).

Deputy's actions on the night of the decedent's death were not discretionary because the deputy's decision as to whether to enforce the state law prohibiting a motorist from using the interstate crossover constituted an operational decision, and therefore did not qualify as a discretionary decision under the framework announced by the Tennessee supreme court in Bowers . Hurd v. Flores, 221 S.W.3d 14, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 403 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1042 (Tenn. 2006) .

When the parents of a middle school student who was assaulted at school filed suit against the school board, the trial court erred in finding the board was immune pursuant to the discretionary function exception of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1), because the middle school administrators were implementing existing board policy and procedures, were not engaged in policy making, their decisions were operational in nature, and, as such, immunity was removed; the board's policies and procedures prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and bullying, enacted pursuant to T.C.A. § 49-6-1016 (now § 49-6-4503), were contained in the student handbook. Moore v. Houston County Bd. of Educ., 358 S.W.3d 612, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2012).

In this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 action, the district court correctly recognized that City officials must interpret and implement the Charter's broad guidance in devising fair and effective promotional processes and in the absence of specific regulations confining the City's discretion, Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act immunity shielded this discretionary decision. Johnson v. City of Memphis,  2014 FED App. 271P (6th Cir.), 770 F.3d 464, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20644 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2014).

County was entitled to discretionary decision immunity because it did not have an affirmative duty under a county zoning resolution to notify property purchasers that the property was below the base flood elevation requirements. The resolution did not create a duty on the county or require the county to implement any preexisting laws, regulations, policies, or standards to inform the purchasers that the property was located in a flood prone area. Gibbs v. Gilleland, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2014).

Family's claim that the city failed to train, supervise, and discipline its police department fell within the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act's discretionary-function exception, which prevented courts from questioning decisions of governmental entities that were primarily legislative or administrative. Savage v. City of Memphis, 620 Fed. Appx. 425, — F.3d —, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13887, 2015 FED App. 553N (6th Cir. 2015).

Based upon the plain language of the statute, governmental entities are not immune from suit for injury caused by the negligence of their employees, except where the action of the employee involved the exercise of a “discretionary function” or the failure to make an inspection; under those circumstances, the governmental entity retains governmental immunity and no liability may attach. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Because the trial court's summary judgment order did not appear to address a pedestrian's argument that a city utility company's choice of covers for water meters and their placement was negligent, the appropriate remedy was to vacate the judgment in so far as it dismissed any claim under the statute regarding the allegedly negligent design and installation of the company's water meter covers and remand to the trial court for further consideration. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

City utility company did not waive the discretionary function defense because the company filed a pleading specifically raising the argument that a “design-related claim” involved a discretionary function for which immunity would not be removed, and the pedestrian responded directly to the argument by asserting that his claim did not involve a discretionary function; thus, the parties clearly raised and argued the issue in the trial court and waiver was not applicable. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

In a special education assistant's action against a county for injuries she sustained when two roughhousing students caused her to fall, the court held that the county's immunity was not removed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act because the decision not to assign a teacher in the hallway was a planning decision related to a discretionary function. The assistant's proof was insufficient to prove that gym teachers failed to follow the policy or were negligent in doing so because the absence of a teacher from that area was permitted under the policy. Guthrie v. Rutherford Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 957 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016).

Trial court properly ruled a school district was not entitled to immunity because the discretionary/planning function exception to the removal of immunity did not apply to shield custodians'  actions; the decision of where to place wet-floor signs was operational, and the custodians'  failure to warn a teacher or place the wet-floor signs in the area around where she fell could not be characterized as a planning decision reflecting a course of conduct by those in charge of formulating the policy. Robertson v. Clarksville-Montgomery Cty. Sch. Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2018).

Government Tort Liability Act does not apply to inverse condemnation claims; therefore, the discretionary function test is inapplicable to inverse condemnation claims. Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

13. Concurrent Causes.

Where two governmental acts are concurrent causes of an injury, one of which arises from a discretionary function, the other of which does not, the exception to the removal of immunity contained in subdivision (1) does not apply. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

14. Sheriff's Deputies.

The general provisions of the Governmental Tort Liability Act do not supersede the specific provisions of title 8, ch. 8, part 3 as they relate to misconduct of sheriff's deputies, except to the extent that title 8, ch. 8, part 3 could extend to actions for negligence under this section. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007); Doe v. Sullivan County, 956 F.2d 545, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 864, 113 S. Ct. 187, 121 L. Ed. 2d 131, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 5302 (1992).

Actions for the nonnegligent misconduct of deputies do not arise pursuant to § 29-20-104(b), and may therefore be covered by title 8, ch. 8, part 3 in the appropriate cases. Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987), overruled in part, Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Swanson v. Knox County, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2007).

Sheriff and county enjoyed absolute immunity in an action charging the sheriff with negligence in issuing a permit to carry a weapon to a special deputy. Hensley v. Fowler, 920 S.W.2d 649, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 289 (Tenn. 1996).

County was not immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., when a parent sued the county after the parent's child committed suicide while in custody at the county jail because, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that it was the intent of a sheriff's deputy to harm the decedent, the failure of the deputy to perform mandated wellness checks at the jail was negligent conduct but not intentional conduct so as to establish the county's sovereign immunity. Holder v. Shelby Cty Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2017).

15. Inspections.

Town was not shielded from liability pursuant to subdivision (4) where the duties of the city employee, whose negligence resulted in plaintiff's injuries, were not those of inspector; any inspection was merely incidental to the job. Morrow v. Madisonville, 737 S.W.2d 547, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

In action to recover damages for the wrongful death of spouse construction worker working for construction company which had contracted with city for a sewer project, the allegations charging the city with failure to inspect the premises falls directly within the exception of subdivision (4) and any action based thereon is barred. Johnson v. EMPE, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 62, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), appeal denied, Johnson v. Empe, Inc., 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. June 22, 1992).

Fact that governmental entities are provided immunity for injuries resulting from failure to inspect or for inadequate inspection is not binding in evaluating constructive notice for failure to adequately discharge duty to inspect. Hawks v. City of Westmoreland, 960 S.W.2d 10, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. 1997).

City was immune from liability because the claim that the city's building inspector failed to ensure that a general contractor had the utilities disconnected prior to the commencement of any demolition activities fell under the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(4), and the claim that the city was liable since the inspector negligently failed to issue a stop work order fell under § 29-20-205(3); the decedents'  next of kin did not claim that the city or inspector was responsible for disconnecting the utilities or for hiring a contractor to disconnect them Kemper v. Baker, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 253 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2012).

16. Mental Anguish.

The language of this section is clear and unambiguous that the legislature did not remove governmental immunity for any injury which arises out of mental anguish. Lockhart v. Jackson-Madison County General Hosp., 793 S.W.2d 943, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Subdivision (2) of this section immunized a government human resources agency from a claim for “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Johnson v. South Cent. Human Resource Agency, 926 S.W.2d 951, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

17. School Bus Driver.

A decision left to a school bus driver on where to stop at a particular intersection is an operational act not within the discretionary function exception to governmental immunity. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

A school bus driver has a general duty to see that children safely negotiate the known pathway they must immediately pursue after leaving the school bus. Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W.2d 427, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. 1992), appeal denied, Bowers v. Chattanooga, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Apr. 26, 1993).

18. Firemen.

Whether firemen should become intoxicated while on duty or whether calls should be answered immediately is not a question of discretion. Harper v. Milan, 825 S.W.2d 92, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

The deployment of firefighting resources can involve discretionary decisions, such as determining the amount and type of equipment to deploy in response to a particular call. Harper v. Milan, 825 S.W.2d 92, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

Trial court properly granted a county fire department summary judgment because the evidence provided by a city fire chief established there was no breach of the duty of care, and a decedent's estate filed no affidavits or evidence refuting that proof or otherwise creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial; therefore, governmental immunity applied. Estate of Quinn v. Henderson, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014).

19. Findings of Immunity.

City held immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Hodges v. Reid, 836 S.W.2d 120, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), appeal denied, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. May 18, 1992).

County, school district, and officials were immune from liability in an action by purchasers of a building based on intentional or negligent misrepresentations in the sale of the building. Justice v. Anderson County, 955 S.W.2d 613, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 212 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), appeal denied, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1997).

Federal district court granted a motion to dismiss brought by a county, a county school board, a superintendent, a principal, and a teacher because pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, the defendants were immune from suit for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Moss v. Shelby County, 401 F. Supp. 2d 850, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32873 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).

Student's injuries arose from her claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress or her claims of sexual harassment, i.e., a violation of her civil rights; both are specifically enumerated in  T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) and, therefore, even if it were established that the teacher's actions against the student were foreseeable, immunity against the school district and its employees was not removed under the statute. Autry v. Hooker, 304 S.W.3d 356, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Nov. 23, 2009).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a homeowner's action against a city and the city building and codes department, under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because the city's actions fell under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(3) as the issuance of an order, and it had immunity since the department issued a stop work order on the construction of a home to which a building permit had previously been obtained; if a city retains immunity for the failure to issue a building permit, it also retains immunity for the issuance of an “order” to cease construction under a building permit. Porter v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2010).

In a case in which a landscaper sued a police detective in his official capacity only and a city, alleging claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, and outrageous conduct, which was equivalent to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, he could not prevail on his claims against the detective and the city because they were immune pursuant to the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq.Crowe v. Bradley Equip. Rentals & Sales, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010).

In a case in which an individual sued the Interim Director for the Investigative Division of the Tennessee Department of Human Services in her official capacity, alleging a claim for libel and defamation, the claim was actually against the State of Tennessee, and T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) expressly reserved immunity against suits based upon libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, invasion of right of privacy, or civil rights. Jackson v. Dempsey, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32823 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2010).

County employer was immune from an employee's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because, pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2), a municipality is immune from suit for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Blackburn v. Shelby County, 770 F. Supp. 2d 896, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16851 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2011).

Plaintiffs'  claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a sheriff were dismissed because plaintiffs never had contact with the sheriff. Plaintiffs admitted as much, and clearly, the sheriff was not responsible for any “outrageous” conduct, let alone any “conduct.” Dillingham v. Millsaps, 809 F. Supp. 2d 820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89369 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 10, 2011).

On a negligence claim, plaintiffs failed to show that the sheriff breached a duty owed to them in his individual capacity because the sheriff could not be held liable in his individual capacity for breaching a duty that he only owed in his official capacity. Clearly, the sheriff did not owe plaintiffs a duty in his individual capacity to train his subordinates; that duty only arose under his official status. Dillingham v. Millsaps, 809 F. Supp. 2d 820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89369 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 10, 2011).

Plaintiffs'  claims of assault and battery against the county were dismissed because there was no evidence that the county supervisors committed an independent act or omission of negligence that proximately caused the alleged injuries. First, there was no evidence of complaints that deputy sheriffs misused tasers, and the evidence showed that the deputy received general training on the use of force, and specific training on how to use a taser. Dillingham v. Millsaps, 809 F. Supp. 2d 820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89369 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 10, 2011).

In a wrongful death, medical malpractice (now health care liability), and civil rights action brought by the estate of a deceased inmate against a sheriff, a county, and others, a district court dismissed the medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit against the county asserted under Tennessee law because the county was immune from suit, pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Ramirez-Rosales v. Matheny, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100887 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2011).

Developer's claims against a city for tortious interference with business relationships and interference with contract rights claims were not allowed under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205, because the developer alleged no negligence on the part of any city employee acting in the scope of employment and did not allege any fact that supported the removal of the city's immunity; the developer filed suit after the city enacted an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on development of land within a 250 foot corridor abutting land owned by the developer. Durrett Inv. Co. v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013).

In a case arising out of the alleged wrongful seizure of plaintiff's personal property, mainly cars and trailers, which were removed from his residence, the trial court properly found that defendant city was immune based on T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

In former employee's action against the county and mayor under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, the county lacked immunity as to the former employee's claims of restitution and indemnification, negligence, and workplace harassment, but it was immune from all claims relating to due process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Fitzgerald v. Hickman Cty. Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018).

Trial court did not err by dismissing the claims against the former sheriff and former chief deputy for failure to state a claim because the real party in interest and the one liable for damages would be the county, which was immune under this section. Siler v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

Trial court did not err by granting the county summary judgment on the husband's claim for negligence resulting in his assault and battery because it was a civil rights claim from which the county was immune under this section. Siler v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

Trial court did not err by granting the county summary judgment on the claims of the wife and son brought under the Governmental Tort Liability Act alleging the sheriff's department employees were negligent in providing inadequate training and supervision of the deputies because they fell within this section, and therefore the county's immunity was not waived. Siler v. Scott, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 271 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).

20. Lack of Immunity.

Court erred in granting summary judgment to a school board on a mother's claim that the school was negligent in allowing her child's step-father to sign the child out. The inaction of school employees in not reading the reasons the step-father gave for signing out the child was not a planning decision reflecting a course of conduct by those in charge of formulating the policy; rather, it was a failure in the implementation of the policy, and therefore, the discretionary function exception to the removal of immunity did not apply to shield the actions of the school. Haney v. Bradley County Bd. of Educ., 160 S.W.3d 886, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 299 (Tenn. 2005).

City's motion to dismiss plaintiff's false imprisonment claim, that he was detained by an officer and was groped and fondled by the officer, was denied because the city failed to establish that plaintiff was imprisoned pursuant to a mittimus from a court; thus, the city's immunity was removed for plaintiff's claim of false imprisonment. Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F. Supp. 2d 700, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3513 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).

Where plaintiffs were blocked by police from parking in handicapped spaces at an event center, defendant city was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs'  outrageous conduct and loss of consortium claims because both the policy makers and the officers who denied plaintiffs access to the event center were guided by preexisting laws, regulations, policies, or standards which left the city little room for discretion; thus, the acts in question were operational in nature and the city's governmental immunity was not restored. Obert v. Pyramid, 381 F. Supp. 2d 723, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17174 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).

Where a motorist was injured at an intersection due to another driver's failure to obey a stop sign and to yield, the government's decision whether to install a traffic control device at the intersection was a discretionary function under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1). However, the court removed sovereign immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-203, because the government had notice of the dangerous condition at the intersection and failed to take remedial action. Mosley v. McCanless, 207 S.W.3d 247, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Hamilton County, Tennessee, could not avoid application of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., by adopting a civil service policy that purported to provide a corrections officer with an exclusive remedy for recovering for his work-related injuries: (1) The officer could not recover for his work-related injuries under the workers'  compensation statutes because the county had not opted into the statutes, as provided for in T.C.A. § 50-6-106(6); (2) Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205, the county was liable for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment; (3) As T.C.A. § 5-23-101 made clear, the legislature did not intend to exempt counties from the GTLA when it enacted T.C.A. § 8-8-409, which allows counties to define fringe benefits for their employees, and compensation for work-related injuries did not constitute a fringe benefit in any case; and (4) The county's civil service policy was void, as against public policy, to the extent that it operated to preclude the injured officer from pursuing his statutory remedies under the GTLA. Crawley v. Hamilton County, 193 S.W.3d 453, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 2006).

Public housing authority (PHA) was not immune from a suit alleging it was negligent in failing to evict a violent tenant. In making eviction decisions, the PHA had to exercise its discretion within the confines of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's preexisting policies; therefore, its eviction decisions did not involve planning or policy but were operational in nature and thus were not subject to immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Giggers v. Memphis Hous. Auth., 363 S.W.3d 500, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Apr. 2, 2012), cert. denied, 184 L. Ed. 2d 152, 133 S. Ct. 279, 568 U.S. 884, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 6184 (U.S. 2012).

Given the father's apparent concession that the falsification of log books constituted a negligent or intentional misrepresentation, immunity was not removed for this action. Holder v. Shelby County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015).

County was not immune to an inmate's negligence claim, when an inmate at the county jail fell from a top bunk bed and injured the inmate's shoulder, because the decision to assign the inmate a top bunk was an operational one, not a discretionary one, as the role of the officers and the nurses in making the bunk assignments for inmates was to implement the existing procedure. Parsons v. Wilson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2015).

Immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) does not automatically extend to the governmental employee. Moreover, where the employee is being sued individually, the governmental entity's immunity under § 29-20-205 is inversely related to the immunity of the individual defendant. Taylor v. Harsh, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2020).

21. Hiring of Employees.

Adopting policies and procedures governing the hiring of employees is clearly a planning function that will not give rise to liability under this section; likewise, hiring decisions made in conformance with applicable statutes, ordinances, policies and procedures are not amenable to suit. However, hiring decisions that fail to comply with applicable legal requirements may give rise to liability if the failure to follow the requirements is the proximate cause of injury. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

22. Institution of Judicial or Administrative Proceedings.

City was immune from suit by company alleging that city wrongfully filed complaint against company to stop operation of incinerator, wrongfully sought and obtained temporary injunction, brought false and untrue charges, and harassed company with zoning and code enforcement office. City of Lavergne v. Southern Silver, 872 S.W.2d 687, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

Debtor who failed to pay appellate court costs and whose car was subsequently seized and sold by the sheriff failed to state a claim against the sheriff for “carjacking.” The sheriff was immune from suit under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(5), and the duty to execute and return process under T.C.A. § 8-8-201 was not an operational decision. Millen v. Shelby County Sheriff's Office, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010).

23. Immunity Not Extended to Employees.

Even though the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in this chapter, does, in fact, immunize to a certain extent a governmental employee in instances where the governmental entity is itself liable, the exception to the removal of immunity applicable to the entity has not been extended to the employee. Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).

24. Construction With Other Sections.

T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) precludes the entry of a judgment against the employee when the governmental entity's immunity from suit has been removed pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

Though the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., does not waive a Tennessee county's state law immunity for certain torts, including interference with contract rights and invasion of civil rights, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2), this statutory exception is limited to the claims specified in § 29-20-205(2). The Tennessee supreme court has made it clear that if a specific or special statute provides for a remedy and waiver of immunity for injuries that are expressly excluded from the operation of the TGTLA, then these remedies would not be affected by the TGTLA because they cannot conflict with the statutory scheme of the TGTLA and are separate from it, regardless of whether these statutes were enacted before or after TGTLA. Buchanan v. Williams, 434 F. Supp. 2d 521, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41234 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).

Although sovereign immunity was removed from governmental entities, a county was able to assert a defense of quasi-judicial immunity because quasi-judicial immunity applied to the acts and omissions of agents of the county's pretrial services office, individually, in their carrying out a court order. Therefore, the same immunity extended to protect the county. Davis v. Knox Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 934 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).

Fact that a city utility company installed water meter covers that were tampered with by third-parties was insufficient to remove immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-20-203 and 20-20-204 because that type of “design defect claim” fell more squarely within T.C.A. § 29-20-205. Fowler v. City of Memphis, 514 S.W.3d 732, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2016).

Trial court erred erred in applying T.C.A. § 29-20-205(a)(1), to dentists'  claims against a city because the discretionary function exception to immunity did not apply to claims brought under T.C.A. § 29-20-204, and the city's decision not to correct a dangerous condition in a sewer and stormwater line did not qualify as a discretionary decision, and the city's decision not to correct a dangerous condition in the combined line did not qualify as a discretionary decision. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

25. Intentional Tort Exception.

Potter v. City of Chattanooga, 556 S.W.2d 543, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 615 (Tenn. 1977), is overruled to the extent that it extends immunity from liability to any tort not specifically enumerated in the intentional tort exception under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001).

Where a negligence claim against a medical center arose out of a nursing assistant's assault and battery of a nursing home resident, the medical center could not claim immunity pursuant to the intentional tort exception, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 756 (Tenn. 2001).

In an arrestee's suit alleging that a deputy used excessive force and that the county was liable for the deputy's negligence, the county was entitled to summary judgment as to the negligence claim, because the arrestee's negligence allegations were really allegations of intentional tortious conduct for which the county would be immune. Brooks v. Sevier County, 279 F. Supp. 2d 954, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20768 (E.D. Tenn. 2003).

Considering the ambiguity of the statutory language, the state of the law at the time the statute was enacted, and general principles of statutory construction, the Supreme Court of Tennessee holds that the legislature intended the phrase “infliction of mental anguish” in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), to apply only to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 653 (Tenn. 2005).

In a suit for negligent infliction of emotional distress brought against a police officer after he accidentally discharged his gun, the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's grant of the police officer's motion to dismiss. Because the term “infliction of mental anguish,” as used in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., applied only to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the officer was immune from suit and his employer, the city, would have been the proper party. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 653 (Tenn. 2005).

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which an individual had alleged that a reserve county deputy had forcibly raped her, the individual's attempt failed to circumvent or avoid a county's immunity from suit under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) by couching some of her civil rights claims against the county in the guise of negligence. The underlying acts which she alleged to be negligent, false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, were by their very nature the type of conduct one usually associated with intentional torts; her negligence claim was predicated on intentional tortious conduct involving the violation of her civil rights by an employee of the county. Campbell v. Anderson County, 695 F. Supp. 2d 764, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10659 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2010).

Motion to dismiss was denied in part because to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claims would waste the resources of the parties and the state and federal courts and the TGTLA did not exempt municipalities from liability for assault and battery. Birgs v. City of Memphis, 686 F. Supp. 2d 776, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14908 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2010).

State university had governmental immunity as to an employee's claims based on the acts of his co-workers under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205, since the employee did not state a claim for negligence imputable to the university, but wished to hold the university liable for the co-workers'  intentional acts as co-conspirators seeking to have the employee fired. Phelps v. Newman, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2013).

When a passenger on a transit authority bus brought claims for slander and libel, after being arrested as a result of an altercation with the driver, immunity was not removed under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., for a suit based on libel and slander. Poe v. Gist, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2017).

Trial court properly found that a city, as a governmental entity, was immune from an inmate's claim alleging conversion on the part of a city police officer because conversion was an intentional tort, and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act did not allow plaintiffs to hold governmental entities vicariously liable for intentional torts. Lankford v. City of Hendersonville, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. July 18, 2018).

26. False Imprisonment.

Retention of immunity contained in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) did not apply to false imprisonment claim that an arrestee filed against a county because here was no indication that the arrestee was imprisoned pursuant to a mittimus from a court. Milligan v. United States, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62480 (M.D. Tenn. July 21, 2009), aff'd, 670 F.3d 686, 2012 FED App. 68P (6th Cir.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2012).

27. Negligence.

Plaintiff's battery claim under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, in T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was dismissed because only claims of negligence were actionable, and plaintiff offered no allegations that the city should have been expected to foresee the officer's actions in groping and fondling plaintiff's genitals; moreover, plaintiff did not allege that the city was negligent in hiring, training, retaining, supervising, or disciplining the officer. Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F. Supp. 2d 700, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3513 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).

Under T.C.A. § 29-20-205, a school system was not liable for the injuries suffered by a student attacked on the school bus by another student with a razor provided as part of the school's cosmetology curriculum; the teacher's negligence in permitting students to transport the cosmetology kits was not the proximate cause of the student's injuries. Mason v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 189 S.W.3d 217, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Mason v. Metro. Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2006).

Finding against the government in a driver's action under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because the officers were negligent in the manner in which they assessed the threat posed by the driver and were negligent in the decision to handcuff him in the prone position, causing his injuries. The officers thought that the driver was intoxicated and he instead was in diabetic shock. Timmons v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 307 S.W.3d 735, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Jan. 25, 2010).

Under T.C.A. § 29-20-205(1), a county was not entitled to immunity at the summary judgment stage with respect to an arrestee's claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress because evidence indicating that the county was aware that data entry and radio verification procedures had resulted in prior false arrests created a genuine issue as to whether the county's actions constituted negligence. Milligan v. United States, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62480 (M.D. Tenn. July 21, 2009), aff'd, 670 F.3d 686, 2012 FED App. 68P (6th Cir.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2012).

Reasonable juror could have entered a verdict for schools on a negligence claim because any injury suffered by a student was caused by the coaches'  intentional infliction of corporal punishment, and a reasonable juror could have concluded that, based on the lack of any complaints regarding the coaches'  conduct, the principal, and therefore the schools, had no reason to foresee that the coaches posed a danger to the student and that the principal exercised reasonable care in protecting the student from improper corporal punishment. Nolan v. Memphis City Sch., 589 F.3d 257, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26975, 2009 FED App. 421P (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2009).

Dismissal of a former inmate's action under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in title 29, chapter 20, alleging negligent supervision was affirmed because neither the county nor a supervisor could foresee the general manner in which the inmate was injured nor through the exercise of reasonable diligence should they have foreseen the general manner in which the inmate was injured. Jones v. Bedford County, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2009), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 582 (Tenn. June 17, 2010).

Finding that a government employer's immunity was removed pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was appropriate because an operator was acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently injured the employee. The operator was acting within the scope of his employment because he was returning the front end loader as part of his employment with the employer, his primary motivation in operating the front end loader was serving the employer, he was traveling the route prescribed by the employer, and the front end loader had been furnished by the employer; additionally, a civil action for assault required an intent to harm and nothing indicated that the operator intended to harm the employee. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2010), rev'd, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011).

In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which a district court dismissed the federal claims against a county and a city, it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an individual's state law claims for conversion and negligence. Whether the individual could establish his state law claims against the county and the city under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205, or T.C.A. § 8-8-302 was a novel or complex issue of state law, which was better remanded to the expertise of the Tennessee court. Thomas v. Bivens, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1005 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2011).

Language in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) retaining governmental immunity in cases involving infliction of mental anguish applies only to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, a governmental entity does not retain immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., against claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Marla H. v. Knox County, 361 S.W.3d 518, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1042 (Tenn. Oct. 18, 2011).

In a suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, the trial court properly held that appellant was at least 50 percent at fault for her injuries. It appeared that she simply forgot where she was in relation to the edge of a stage, and the evidence did not support a finding that more or different lighting would have allowed her to avoid the accident. Kyle v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2012).

When an employee sued a city for injuries caused when a co-employee hit the employee with a bus, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the co-employee's conduct was negligent, but not grossly negligent, making the city liable for the injuries, while the co-employee was immune, because nothing showed: (1) the co-employee was impaired at the time of the injuries; (2) the impact of substances in the co-employee's drug screen on the co-employee's ability to drive; and that (3) the co-employee drove erratically or that substances in the drug screen impacted the co-employee's activities on the date of the accident. Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014), appeal denied, Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. May 13, 2014).

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a county 911 communication center because it presented affirmative evidence negating essential elements of an estate's claim of negligent acts by the 911 dispatcher; the estate could not show that the decedent's injury would not have occurred but for the alleged failure of the dispatcher to keep her on the telephone, and the dispatcher acted competently and professionally in attempting to ascertain the severity of the emergency. Estate of Quinn v. Henderson, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014).

Given the father's apparent concession that the falsification of Father's complaint, taken as true, alleged negligent acts or omissions on the part of the deputy, including his failure to make required safety checks of inmates, and the complaint made clear that this inaction was the legal and proximate cause of the father's son's death; there was no allegation from which it could have been concluded that the deputy had the requisite intent to convert the allegation of negligence into an intentional tort, and the amended complaint sufficiently alleged acts of negligence on the part of the deputy to survive the county's motion to dismiss. Holder v. Shelby County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015).

Circuit court properly dismissed an inmate's suit against a city under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act because, while the city's immunity was statutorily removed in cases where an inmate was injured while participating on a work detail, the city was only liable to the inmate, if at all, for medical treatment during the period of his confinement, and the inmate was not entitled to recover additional damages where he did not dispute that the city paid his medical expenses and that there was no outstanding balance owed to providers. Elliott v. City of Manchester, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

County was not immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., when a parent sued the county after the parent's child committed suicide while in custody at the county jail because, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that it was the intent of a sheriff's deputy to harm the decedent, the failure of the deputy to perform mandated wellness checks at the jail was negligent conduct but not intentional conduct so as to establish the county's sovereign immunity. Holder v. Shelby Cty Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2017).

Because an inmate's negligence claim arose from the same set of facts upon which he claimed that his constitutional rights had been violated, the civil rights exception applied, and a city retained immunity against the negligence claim as well. Lankford v. City of Hendersonville, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. July 18, 2018).

Judgment was vacated because the legal basis for the money judgment awarded to a county employee was not apparent from the judgment and memorandum opinion; the court of appeals could not presume solely from the transcript that the trial court dismissed the employee's contract claim, and the trial court did not state in its order or attached memorandum opinion that its judgment was based on the employee's remaining claim of negligence under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Lee v. Hamilton Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2019).

28. Judgment for Agency Proper.

Judgment for an agency in a passenger's Governmental Tort Liability Act suit seeking damages arising from the passenger's fall from a van was proper because, although the passenger claimed that the van's driver failed to help her in exiting the van by not offering his hand, the evidence did not establish that the passenger appeared as if she needed additional assistance above that which was already provided, and the driver provided the appropriate level of assistance under the circumstances even if he failed to offer his hand as the passenger descended from the van. Cook v. E. Tenn. Human Res. Agency, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2013).

29. Board of Education.

County and a county board of education were immune from liability and suit with respect to a teacher's claims of abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and misrepresentation. Blair v. Rutherford County Bd. of Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 913 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013), cert. denied, 188 L. Ed. 2d 758, 134 S. Ct. 1797, — U.S. —, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 2452 (U.S. 2014).

School board was immune from a teacher's libel claim; T.C.A. § 29-20-310 had no effect on governmental immunity from libel suits. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128645 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2014), aff'd, Brown v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23870 (6th Cir. Tenn. Apr. 26, 2016).

30. Tree on Private Property.

City was immune from a claim because, since the city did not own a leaning tree and it was not actually obstructing the roadway, the city had no right or duty to remove it. The fact that the city had notice that the tree was leaning toward the roadway did not give the city the right or duty to remove it from the land of a private citizen. Raley v. City of Knoxville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

31. Service of Mittimus.

County was immune under the Governmental Tort Liability Act as to the citizen's claims regarding her arrest and detention; under the plain language of the statute, immunity is not removed for causes of action arising out of the serving of a mittimus. Luna v. White Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

32. Police Officers.

Dismissal of an arrestee's claims against a city and its police officers for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrageous conduct, and civil rights violations was appropriate because the city was a governmental entity and the officers were sued regarding actions that took place when they were acting in their official capacities. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017).

Trial court did not err in holding that that the sheriff was immune from suit in his individual and official capacity because the county's immunity had been removed by this section. Randolph v. White Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2019).

33. Construction With Other Statutes.

Teacher Tenure Act provision specifically addresses the immunity of school officials involved in investigating and prosecuting school employees alleged to be guilty of misconduct, and this provision governs over the more general immunity provisions of the Government Tort Liability Act. Padgett v. Clarksville-Montgomery Cty. Sch. Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

34. Construction Plat Approval.

City did not develop the business park, and instead, private developers developed the business park with the help of private consultants and a private construction company; the city retained immunity for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission arising out of the issuance of any permit, and thus the city's immunity was not removed merely because it approved the business park's construction plat. Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018).

Collateral References.

Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit. 55 A.L.R.3d 930.

Governmental tort liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 6 A.L.R.4th 1155.

Liability of governmental officer or entity for failure to warn or notify of release of potentially dangerous individual from custody. 12 A.L.R.4th 722.

Liability of municipal corporation for shooting of bystander by law enforcement officer attempting to enforce law. 76 A.L.R.3d 1176.

Liability of municipality or other governmental unit for failure to provide police protection from crime. 90 A.L.R.5th 273.

Municipal liability for damage resulting from obstruction or clogging of drain or sewer. 54 A.L.R.6th 201.

Tort liability of public schools and institutions of higher learning for accidents associated with transportation of students. 23 A.L.R.5th 1.

Tort liability of public schools and institutions of higher learning for accidents occurring during school athletic events. 68 A.L.R.5th 663.

Tort liability of public schools and institutions of higher learning for accidents occurring in physical education classes. 66 A.L.R.5th 1.

Tort liability of public schools and institutions of higher learning for injury to student walking to or from school. 72 A.L.R.5th 469.

Tort liability of schools and institutions of higher learning for personal injury suffered during school field trip. 68 A.L.R.5th 519.

29-20-206. Construction of chapter as to liability — Effect of removal of immunity.

Nothing contained in this chapter, unless specifically provided, shall be construed as an admission or denial of liability or responsibility insofar as governmental entities are concerned. Wherein immunity from suit is removed by this chapter, consent to be sued is granted and liability of the governmental entity shall be determined as if the governmental entity were a private person.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-3312.

Law Reviews.

A Pragmatic Approach to Improving Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2001).

Accidental Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1225 (2001).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Negligence Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 893 (2001).

Duty Rules, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 767 (2001).

Intent and Recklessness in Tort: The Practical Craft of Restating Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1133 (2001).

Interpretive Construction, Systematic Consistency, and Criterial Norms in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1157 (2001).

Legal Cause: Cause-In-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 941 (2001).

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 863 (2001).

Once More Into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution, and the Extent of Legal Responsibility, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1071 (2001).

On Determining Negligence Norms, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 813 (2001).

Purpose, Belief, and Recklessness: Pruning the Restatement's (Third) Definition of Intent, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1165 (2001).

Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 751 (2001).

Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles and the Prescription of Masculine Order, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2001).

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1039 (2001).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

The Duty Concept in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2001).

The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Passing of Palsgraf?, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2001).

The Restatement of Torts and the Courts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1439 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (2001).

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1413 (2001).

The Trouble with Negligence, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1187 (2001).

The Unexpected Persistence of Negligence, 1980 - 2000, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1337 (2001).

Cited: Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Hurd by & Through Hurd v. Woolfork, 959 S.W.2d 578, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Quasi-judicial Immunity.

Although sovereign immunity was removed from governmental entities, a county was able to assert a defense of quasi-judicial immunity because quasi-judicial immunity applied to the acts and omissions of agents of the county's pretrial services office, individually, in their carrying out a court order. Therefore, the same immunity extended to protect the county. Davis v. Knox Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 934 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).

29-20-207. Liability for injury arising out of the provision of emergency services.

Except as may otherwise be provided in the agreement, when any governmental entity is found liable under this part for any injury arising out of the provision of emergency services rendered under a written mutual aid agreement, automatic response agreement, operational agreement, or any other agreement specifically entered into between or among the parties, relating to the providing of emergency services under §§ 5-1-113, 5-16-107, 6-54-601, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, compiled in title 12, chapter 9, or other applicable law, the governmental entity benefiting from the provision of the services under the agreement may pay any judgment or award against the provider, subject to the limits of liability set forth in § 29-20-403.

Acts 2005, ch. 264, § 1.

Cross-References. Provision of copy of annexation ordinance, the plan for emergency services and map designating the annexed area to emergency communications district, § 6-51-119.

29-20-208. Governmental immunity waived for claims against any governmental entity under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).

Immunity from suit of any governmental entity, or any agency, authority, board, branch, commission, division, entity, subdivision, or department of state government, or any autonomous state agency, authority, board, commission, council, department, office, or institution of higher education, is removed for the purpose of claims against and relief from a governmental entity under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4334.

Acts 2014, ch. 574, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2014, ch. 574, § 2 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to all claims against a governmental entity under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4334 accruing on or after July 1, 2014.

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 574, § 2. July 1, 2014.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Preemption.

When a servicemember sued the Tennessee National Guard under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the statute waiving sovereign immunity as to such claims did not violate the supremacy clause by setting an impermissible time limit on such claims because the statute did not actually conflict with 38 U.S.C. § 4327(b), as the statute placed no impermissible limit on the period for filing such a claim when immunity was removed. Smith v. Tenn. Nat'l Guard, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017).

2. Statute of Limitations.

When a servicemember sued the Tennessee National Guard under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, it was error to dismiss the claim as time-barred because state law, including sovereign immunity, governed the claim, and sovereign immunity was not waived until T.C.A. § 29-20-208 was enacted, effective on July 1, 2014, as which time the claim accrued, as the servicemember had no claim before that date. Smith v. Tenn. Nat'l Guard, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017).

3. Construction.

General Assembly is presumed to have known of the many decisions of the supreme court defining accrual when it used that term to limit the waiver of sovereign immunity in the statute to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 claims accruing on or after July 1, 2014; therefore, the term “accruing” is interpreted as used in the waiver of sovereign immunity consistently with prior decisions to avoid inappropriately expanding the waiver beyond its intended scope. Smith v. Tenn. Nat'l Guard, 551 S.W.3d 702, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. June 22, 2018).

General Assembly intended to waive the State's sovereign immunity for Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 claims by enacting T.C.A. § 29-20-208, but it also clearly and unmistakably limited the waiver of sovereign immunity by making it “take effect July 1, 2014” and by applying it only to claims “accruing on or after” July 1, 2014; the General Assembly chose not to make the waiver of sovereign immunity retroactively effective or applicable to past events. Smith v. Tenn. Nat'l Guard, 551 S.W.3d 702, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. June 22, 2018).

4. Claim Barred.

Court of appeals erred in reversing the dismissal of a claim filed by a former Lieutenant Colonel in the Tennessee National Guard pursuant to Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) because the Lieutenant had actual knowledge that he had suffered an injury sometime before August 8, 2011; therefore, his claim remained barred by sovereign immunity because the statute limited the waiver of sovereign immunity to USERRA claims accruing on or after July 1, 2014. Smith v. Tenn. Nat'l Guard, 551 S.W.3d 702, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. June 22, 2018).

29-20-209. Removal of immunity from suit by party adversely affected by local regulation of firearms.

Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is removed for causes of action brought under § 39-17-1314(g)-(i).

Acts 2017, ch. 467, § 2.

Effective Dates. Acts 2017, ch. 467, § 6. July 1, 2017.

Part 3
Claims Procedure

29-20-301, 29-20-302. [Reserved.]

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 13; T.C.A., § 23-3315, repealed by Acts 2011, ch. 368, § 1, effective May 30, 2011.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-20-303 concerned failure to comply with notice requirements.

29-20-304. Approval or denial of claim — Period for answering claim, action or suit.

  1. A governmental entity or employee shall have sixty (60) days in which to answer or otherwise respond to any claim, action, or suit brought pursuant to this chapter.
  2. A claim shall be deemed to have been denied if at the end of the sixty-day period the governmental entity or its insurance carrier has failed to approve or deny the claim.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 14; T.C.A., § 23-3316; Acts 1987, ch. 405, § 8.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 99.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

In a case arising out of the alleged wrongful seizure of plaintiff's personal property, mainly cars and trailers, which were removed from his residence, the trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Because 60 days had not yet run when plaintiff filed his motion for default judgment, the motion was premature. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 776 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

2. Period for Answering Claim.

Denial of an arrestee's motion for default judgment was appropriate because, due to a city's standing as a governmental entity, the city had sixty days to respond to the arrestee's complaint and the city timely filed a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint before the sixty days expired. Olivier v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 564 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017).

Collateral References.

Modern status of the law as to validity of statutes or ordinances requiring notice of tort claim against local governmental entity. 59 A.L.R.3d 93.

29-20-305. Action in circuit court generally — General sessions court in certain counties.

  1. If the claim is denied, a claimant may institute an action in the circuit court against the governmental entity in those circumstances where immunity from suit has been removed as provided for in this chapter; provided, that in counties having a population of more than eight hundred fifty thousand (850,000), according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census, an action under this section may also be instituted in the general sessions court.
  2. The action must be commenced within twelve (12) months after the cause of action arises.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 15; T.C.A., § 23-3317; Acts 1981, ch. 527, § 3; 2011, ch. 180, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Cited: Gray v. East Ridge, 641 S.W.2d 204, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Eason v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 866 S.W.2d 952, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 479 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Greenfield Land & Cattle Co. v. Greene County (In re Large), — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2009); Crowe v. Bradley Equip. Rentals & Sales, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010); Watson v. Bradley County Sch. Bd., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2011); Rajvongs v. Wright, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2012); Johnson v. Floyd, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Suit for Contribution.

A suit for contribution is not ex delicto in nature, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations for tort claims against governmental entities as provided for in this section is not applicable to such a case. Security Fire Protection Co. v. Ripley, 608 S.W.2d 874, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

2. Statute of Limitations.

The one year statute of limitations in this section is tolled by § 28-1-106, relating to persons under a disability such as minors; however, in this case the one year limitation in this section was applicable because § 29-20-104, making § 28-1-106 applicable to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, was not applied retroactively. Collier v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 657 S.W.2d 771, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

The 12-month limitation for bringing suit against a governmental entity pursuant to subsection (b) cannot be extended by the Tennessee saving statute, § 28-1-105. Williams v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 773 S.W.2d 522, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), superseded by statute as stated in, Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011).

Neither § 28-1-105 nor § 28-1-115 can be used to extend the period within which suit must be filed against a governmental entity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Nance v. City of Knoxville, 883 S.W.2d 629, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), overruled, Moore v. Coffee County, 402 Fed. Appx. 107, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23639, 2010 FED App. 715N (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2010).

Section 28-1-105, the saving statute, is not applicable to actions commenced under this chapter. Rael v. Montgomery County, 769 S.W.2d 211, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 675 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

An action for the return of confiscated property brought under § 40-17-118 was subject to the three-year statute of limitations contained in § 28-3-105, not the twelve-month limitation period in this section. Cruse v. City of Columbia, 922 S.W.2d 492, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1996).

Defendant in tort claim based on auto accident was prohibited from attributing fault to non-party county where plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against the county by the limitations period applicable to governmental entities. Bumgardner v. Vonk, 995 F. Supp. 815, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2912 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).

Discovery rule is applicable to causes of action involving the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., and does not conflict with the principle of strictly construing this act, because it simply establishes when the limitations period specified in T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b) begins to run. Sutton v. Barnes, 78 S.W.3d 908, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in, Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011).

A complaint is timely filed under the 12-month statute of limitations of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., if it is filed pursuant to the computation of time set forth in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 and T.C.A. § 1-3-102. Sanders v. Traver, 109 S.W.3d 282, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. 2003).

In a wrongful death action filed by the daughter of the decedent against a county hospital, because the one year anniversary of the accrual of the cause of action occurred on a Sunday, and the following Monday was a legal holiday, the complaint was timely when filed on the following Tuesday. Sanders v. Traver, 109 S.W.3d 282, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. 2003).

In a mother's suit against the school board and an elementary school principal when a teacher raped her son, alleging the principal was negligent in failing to recognize the propensities of the teacher, the suit was time-barred as it was not filed within 12 months of the filing of a similar suit in federal court as required by T.C.A. § 29-20-305; contrary to the mother's assertion, T.C.A. § 49-6-4203 specifically states that it does not waive sovereign immunity or make the state an insurer of public officials and does not provide a savings statute in cases involving abuse of school children under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq. Doe v. Goodwin, 254 S.W.3d 428, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008).

In an action that arose from a fatal fire at an apartment complex, plaintiffs'  claims against defendants, one of which was a government entity, were barred by applicable statutes of limitations where plaintiffs'  counsel intentionally caused the delay of prompt service of summons, which rendered the initial filing of the complaint ineffective. Estate of Butler v. Lamplighter Apts., 278 S.W.3d 321, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2008).

Court of appeals considered the applicability of the Transfer Statute, T.C.A. § 16-1-116, in plaintiff's appeal of an order dismissing his claim under the Government Tort Liability Act as time barred pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b) because the questions before the court of appeals, whether the general sessions court had authority to transfer plaintiff's case to the circuit court and whether plaintiff's claim was time barred, were the central issues before the circuit court; the Transfer Statute was not discussed in the circuit court, but the questions, the issues of subject matter jurisdiction and whether the claim was time barred, were raised. Haynes v. Rutherford County, 359 S.W.3d 585, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 915 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2011).

County was entitled to summary judgment because a ormer employee's causes of action against it under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) were time-barred; the employee voluntarily non-suited her causes of action and re-filed her claim, and that re-filing occurred well after the expiration of the one-year limitation periods of the GTLA, T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b). Whitmore v. Shelby County Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

When a property owner filed suit against a county in 2010 for litigation expenses, under theories of independent tort and libel of title, a trial court properly determined the owner's claim was time-barred by the twelve-month limitation period under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b), because the owner's cause of action arose in 2006 when he learned of the tax assessor's allegedly erroneous assignment of the owner's property. Johnson v. Madison County, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2011).

It was the express intent of the General Assembly that the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act shall apply to all medical malpractice (now health care liability) actions including claims filed under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because this is evident from the stated purpose in both 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 919, § 3 and 2009 Tenn. Pub. Acts 474, § 4; because the General Assembly expressly declared that the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121, applied to notice given on or after July 2, 2009, in all medical malpractice actions, the stated purpose is expressed and clear, and it means what it says. Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011), rev'd, Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. May 9, 2013).

Trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a city was proper in a citizen's action alleging that he was entitled to damages for the removal and disposal of his political signs from public property under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) because he citizen's claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the GTLA, T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b); The city's removal of the citizen's signs ended on May 18, 2006, or at the latest in June or July 2006 when the effort to recall the mayor ended, but the citizen filed his complaint on September 17, 2007. Sides v. Cooper, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 679 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 16, 2012).

Surviving spouse who brought a health care liability action against a governmental entity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations because the statutory amendment of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA), T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq., allowed the GTLA's one-year statute of limitations to be extended by 120 days in cases when the requirements of the HCLA were satisfied. Harper v. Bradley County, 464 S.W.3d 615, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 2015).

Patient's complaint was timely filed because the patient was entitled to the benefit of the 120-day extension that was provided in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 to the statute of limitations in the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, under T.C.A. § 29-20-305, in that the patient complied with the pre-suit notice provisions of T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Wade v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp. Dist., 469 S.W.3d 54, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. May 19, 2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing any medical malpractice or other tort claim within plaintiff's complaint because any claim that plaintiff originally brought under medical malpractice was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statutory requirements that plaintiff provide written notice and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint and with the statute of limitations provided by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); and any other claim of negligence brought by plaintiff was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statute of limitations provided by the GTLA. Kaddoura v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Dismissal of a patient's complaint against a county hospital was appropriate because, by filing suit four days after giving notice to the hospital, the patient did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirement, and the patient did not show extraordinary cause, based upon the statute of limitations in the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., to excuse the non-compliance with the pre-suit notice procedures in the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq.Patterson v. Lincoln Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 878 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2015).

Inmate's state court action against the county was properly dismissed, because it was not filed within the one-year statutory limitations period. Baxter v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 1046 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2015), cert. denied, Baxter v. Tennessee, 196 L. Ed. 2d 225, 137 S. Ct. 307, — U.S. —, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 6210 (U.S. 2016).

Medical malpractice action that was filed on September 8, 2011 by the surviving spouse of a patient was time-barred because the surviving spouse, after giving pre-suit notice of intent to file a claim and relying upon the tolling provision in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), filed the complaint against a regional medical center, which was a government entity, one year and 113 days after the cause of action accrued prior to October 1, 2011. Miller ex rel. Miller v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Trial court did not err in concluding that dentists'  claim for damages against a city based upon a flood event were barred by the statute of limitations because the dentists knew in 2007 that they had sustained an injury as a result of the city's failure to remedy the dangerous condition of the combined sewer; it was not necessary that the dentists know the extent of the city's conduct for the statute of limitations to begin to run. Nickels v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

Although appellants alleged that a city was responsible for repairing and maintaining appellants'  sewer line under the theory of implied-in-fact contract, the trial court properly found that the gravamen of appellants'  complaint was damage to property, which sounded in tort under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and that appellants'  complaint was time-barred under the GTLA. Moore v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2016).

Trial court properly dismissed a property owner's complaint alleging the county register's office failed to exercise reasonable care in allowing a forged deed to be filed because the complaint was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations; the owner was aware of the allegedly negligent actions, and at the absolute latest, in May 2013, he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, an actionable injury had occurred, but he did not file his complaint until 2014. Patton v. Shelby County Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017).

There was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a property owner's mother was of unsound mind when she became aware of the forged deed because the evidence did not demonstrate that the mother was or had been incapable of attending to business or unable to manage her day-to-day affairs such that the statute of limitations would be tolled; an affidavit confirmed that the mother was in good health when the forgery occurred and that she knew what had occurred. Patton v. Shelby County Gov't, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017).

Homeowner's property damage complaint against a county highway department was properly dismissed because the claim was time-barred, as the claim had to be brought within one year and was not. Thigpen v. Trousdale Cty. Highway Dep't, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2017).

When a passenger on a transit authority bus brought claims for slander and libel, after being arrested as a result of an altercation with the driver, denial of the passenger's claims was appropriate because the passenger brought suit outside the 12-month limitations period. Poe v. Gist, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 850 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2017).

Trial court did not err in finding that by the time that an inmate commenced his action, any negligence claim he intended to plead against a city was time-barred because the inmate knew his personal property had been seized within a day of his arrest, any cause of action for negligence would have arisen when the inmate had knowledge of the seizure. Lankford v. City of Hendersonville, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. July 18, 2018).

Trial court did not err in granting a city summary judgment because process was never served on either the city's chief executive officer or city attorney as required; because process was not properly served and was not reissued within one year of issuance, the commencement of the lawsuit did not serve to toll the applicable statute of limitations, and without proper service, the statute of limitations had long since expired. Middleton v. City of Millington, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 713 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018).

Judgment was vacated because the trial court's final order did not sufficiently explain the operation of the statute of limitations set forth in the Governmental Tort Liability Act; pursuant to the discovery rule, the employee's negligence claim would have been timely if she did not discover or could not reasonably have been expected to discover her injury prior to one year before she filed her complaint. Lee v. Hamilton Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2019).

3. Tolling Limitations Period.

The fact that plaintiffs insisted that they did not become fully aware that they had been “emotionally harmed” until some later date was not enough to toll the statute of limitations. Where they had known for quite some time that defendant had injured them; they were not allowed to delay filing suit until they became fully aware of all the injurious effects of defendant's conduct. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Plaintiff-students were unable to take advantage of § 28-1-106 in a suit against a teacher for sexual abuse where they did not repress the memory of the incidents and remained aware of their injuries and the wrongfulness of defendant's conduct. Rather than being incapable of protecting their rights, they consciously chose not to pursue the matter to avoid embarrassment; therefore, their reluctance to come forward could not postpone the commencement of the running of either § 28-3-104(a)(1) or subsection (b) of this section. Jane Doe A v. Coffee County Bd. of Educ., 852 S.W.2d 899, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Section 20-1-119 can not be used to extend the period in which to file suit against a governmental entity under this section. The 12 month period in this section is a condition precedent to a right of action. Daniel ex rel. Daniel v. Hardin County Gen. Hosp., 971 S.W.2d 21, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), superseded by statute as stated in, Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011).

In wrongful death suit brought by decedent's minor children and their parent against city, in whose jail decedent was incarcerated when decedent committed suicide, the statute of limitations for the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liabilities Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was not tolled by the children's minority, nor was it tolled by the pendency of the suit in federal court; trial court properly granted the city's motion to dismiss. Lynn v. City of Jackson, 63 S.W.3d 332, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 858 (Tenn. 2001), overruled, Moore v. Coffee County, 402 Fed. Appx. 107, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23639, 2010 FED App. 715N (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn. 2010).

Trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under the Government Tort Liability Act as time barred pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b) because the case was properly transferred under the Transfer Statute, T.C.A. § 16-1-116; at the time plaintiff filed in general sessions court, his claim could have been brought in the circuit court, and because the case was properly transferred to a court with jurisdiction, the filing of the action in the sessions court on tolled the running of the statute of limitations before the expiration of the limitations period, and the date of transfer related back to the date plaintiff's claim was originally filed. Haynes v. Rutherford County, 359 S.W.3d 585, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 915 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2011).

Trial court erred in dismissing a claim for injuries suffered when a tree fell on a car as untimely where the driver's timely filed notice with the Division of Claims Administration was the original complaint under T.C.A. § 20-1-119, the requirements of T.C.A. § 20-1-119(a) had been met, and as a result, the statute of limitations in T.C.A. § 29-20-305(b) had been extended. Moreno v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014), rev'd, 479 S.W.3d 795, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 741 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2015).

Tort claims arising from a utility company's denial of services, which allegedly resulted in a decedent's death, were not filed within the applicable one-year limitations period; however, there was a factual dispute as to whether the decedent was of “unsound mind” under the version of the tolling statute in effect at the time, as there was evidence that the decedent was mentally disabled, illiterate, and unable to care for himself without help. Johnson v. Memphis Light Gas & Water Div., 777 F.3d 838, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1935, 2015 FED App. 23P (6th Cir. Feb. 6, 2015).

4. Liability of Employee.

Homeowner's property damage complaint against employees of a county highway department was properly dismissed because (1) the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act prohibited such claims, and (2) the complaint did not allege the employees acted in an intentional manner or outside the scope of employment. Thigpen v. Trousdale Cty. Highway Dep't, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 628 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2017).

5. Construction With Other Statutes.

Insurer's property damage claim was appropriately filed within the three-year statute of limitations applicable to private defendants, and the original defendant manufacturer thereafter filed an answer raising the comparative fault of the city, and thus the insurer was afforded a 90-day grace period in which to file an amended complaint naming the city, despite the fact that the one-year statute of limitations applicable to the city under the Governmental Tort Liability Act had lapsed. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas And Water, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2018).

Utilization of the 90-day grace period simply does not shorten nor lengthen the applicable statute of limitations for any cause of action, other than as provided in T.C.A. § 20-1-119(a); to now hold that governmental entities are protected from the provisions of the statute whenever the original claim is governed by a longer statute of limitations than a claim under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) would frustrate the general purpose of the statute and the legislature's specific amendment to bring GTLA defendants within its scope. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas And Water, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2018).

29-20-306. Bond for costs or pauper's oath.

At the time of filing the action the plaintiff shall file a bond for costs or pauper's oath required by chapter 18 of this title.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 19; T.C.A., § 23-3318.

29-20-307. Exclusive jurisdiction — No jury.

The circuit courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over any action brought under this chapter and shall hear and decide such suits without the intervention of a jury, except as otherwise provided in § 29-20-313(b); provided, that in counties having a population of more than eight hundred fifty thousand (850,000), according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census, the general sessions court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with such circuit court over any action brought under this chapter; and provided further, that the jurisdiction conferred upon the general sessions court by this section shall not extend beyond the jurisdictional dollar limit provided in § 16-15-501(d) for such general sessions courts in civil cases generally.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 16; T.C.A., § 23-3319; Acts 1981, ch. 527, § 4; 1994, ch. 789, § 1; 2011, ch. 180, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. For tables of U.S. decennial populations of Tennessee counties, see Volume 13 and its supplement.

Acts 1994, ch. 789, § 3 provided that the amendment to this section by that act shall apply only to actions arising on and after July 1, 1994.

Law Reviews.

Civil Procedure — Flowers v. Dyer County: The Death of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 409 (1993).

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Anderson v. Hayes, 578 S.W.2d 945, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978); McKenna v. Memphis, 544 F. Supp. 415, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14088 (W.D. Tenn. 1982); Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Education, 692 S.W.2d 863, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2802 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Hayes v. Maryville, 747 S.W.2d 346, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3064 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Montgomery v. Mayor of Covington, 778 S.W.2d 444, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Harris v. Williamson County, 835 S.W.2d 588, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); White v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 860 S.W.2d 49, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Johnson v. South Cent. Human Resource Agency, 926 S.W.2d 951, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Woods v. MTC Mgmt., 967 S.W.2d 800, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (Tenn. 1998); Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d 433, 2000 FED App. 224P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15913 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000); Williams v. City of Milan, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011); Cook v. E. Tenn. Human Res. Agency, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The right of sovereign immunity was well established at common law, and a suit against the sovereign is not one that existed under the common law for purposes of U.S. Const., amend. 7. The seventh amendment, therefore, did not at its inception and does not today create a right to a jury in an action against a sovereign, and in light of this finding, there is no constitutional basis to compel the state to submit to a jury trial; the state, having had the right to maintain its immunity, also had the right to preclude claims against it being tried before a jury. Metaljan v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, 752 F. Supp. 834, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16904 (W.D. Tenn. 1990).

Employee was not entitled to a jury trial on his retaliation claim because such claims were not “brought under” the Governmental Tort Liability Act, but were brought under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, an independent statute that established its own rights and remedies, no similar statute of general application afforded the employee a right to trial by jury, the civil procedure rule was merely descriptive of the constitutional right to a jury trial and did not itself confer an independent right to trial by jury, and the employee was not entitled to a jury trial under the state constitution on his claim where the claim did not exist at common law. Young v. City of Lafollette, 479 S.W.3d 785, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 695 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2015).

2. Municipal Nuisance.

This law does not deprive a court of equity of its inherent jurisdiction to abate a nuisance created and maintained by a municipality. Pate v. Martin, 586 S.W.2d 834, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 336 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

3. Effect on Federal Courts.

Federal court, in civil rights action, had no jurisdiction over pendant state-law claims in view of limitations on suability in this section. Beddingfield v. Pulaski, 666 F. Supp. 1064, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7844 (M.D. Tenn. 1987).

Even though Tennessee had the right to retain governmental immunity, once it elected to submit itself to litigation of certain claims it subjected such litigation to the provisions of the United States constitution regarding claims between citizens of different states as set out in art. III, § 2, and the supremacy clause as set out in art. VI; therefore, federal district court did not lack jurisdiction under this section to hear suit against governmental entity of Tennessee. Metaljan v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, 752 F. Supp. 834, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16904 (W.D. Tenn. 1990).

This section provided a compelling reason for the federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction of claims for malicious prosecution brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Spurlock v. Whitley, 971 F. Supp. 1166, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10464 (M.D. Tenn. 1997), aff'd, Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1999 FED App. 48P, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2013 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1999).

Plaintiff's state law claims are within the federal court's supplemental jurisdiction, and the exclusive jurisdiction and venue provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., do not preclude the federal court's jurisdiction. Malone v. Fayette County, 86 F. Supp. 2d 797, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2641 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).

Where it is reasonable to conclude that plaintiffs filed a repetitive lawsuit to protect their interests in light of T.C.A. § 29-20-307's possible obstacle to the federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction, plaintiffs should not be penalized for doing so. Epps v. Lauderdale County, 139 F. Supp. 2d 859, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).

The Supreme Court cautioned federal courts to evaluate whether state court proceedings would be potentially inadequate in protecting the claimant's rights. The foundation of § 1983, the protecting of an individual from state custom and practice that is contrary to federal law, favors adjudication of such rights in a federal forum, outside state mechanisms. Epps v. Lauderdale County, 139 F. Supp. 2d 859, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 (W.D. Tenn. 2000).

Plaintiff's state law claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest against three police officers were dismissed; since the officers were governmental employees, they were immune from suits based on state law except as provided by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-302 et seq. This act provides that the circuit courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims brought under the Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-307, and the court could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “in exceptional circumstances,” there were compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), and the exclusivity provision of the Act provides a compelling reason for a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction of a claim under the Act. Cunningham v. Reid, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20869 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

Because dismissal under T.C.A. § 29-20-307 of state law claims brought by detainees who were robbed by a police officer during a traffic stop would necessitate duplicative litigation which would be wasteful of judicial and litigant resources, a federal district court declined to dismiss and instead chose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Brown v. City of Memphis, 440 F. Supp. 2d 868, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77807 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

Federal district court declined to exercise its discretion by extending pendent jurisdiction over claims brought against a police officer who, because he was a governmental employee, was immune from suits based on state law except as provided by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq. Monroe v. McNairy County, 520 F. Supp. 2d 917, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83885 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 6, 2007).

District court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because T.C.A. § 29-20-307 of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101, et seq., gave the state circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to its provisions. Conner v. City of Jackson, 669 F. Supp. 2d 886,  2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112545 (W.D. Tenn. June 9, 2009).

Motion to dismiss was denied in part because to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., claims would waste the resources of the parties and the state and federal courts and the TGTLA did not exempt municipalities from liability for assault and battery. Birgs v. City of Memphis, 686 F. Supp. 2d 776, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14908 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2010).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the court declined to accept jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because the Tennessee legislature had shown an unequivocal preference that TGTLA claims be handled by its own state courts, giving the state circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to its provisions via T.C.A. § 29-20-307. Smith v. Shelby County, 721 F. Supp. 2d 712, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58701 (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2010).

4. Jurisdiction.

The government tort liability statutes state a limitation on chancery court jurisdiction under § 29-20-201(b), to the effect that when immunity is removed by the chapter any claim for damages must be brought in strict compliance with its terms. This section places exclusive, original jurisdiction in circuit court over any action brought under its terms, and that court shall hear and decide such suits without the intervention of a jury. Flowers v. Dyer County, 830 S.W.2d 51, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 4, 1992).

5. Tennessee Human Rights Act Claims.

Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against municipalities have to be tried in a bench trial because: (1) the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) applies to suits against governmental entities unless the act specifically provides otherwise or is only applicable to governmental entities and provides its own remedy; (2) the THRA provides for suits to be brought in either chancery or circuit court but is silent as to whether claims have to be tried with or without a jury and whether the choice of venue provision specifically applies to claims against governmental entities in contravention of the GTLA; and (3) the GTLA provides that suits have to be brought in the circuit court without a jury. Sneed v. City of Red Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2013), rev'd, 459 S.W.3d 17, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 962 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2014).

Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claim against a municipality had to be tried in a bench trial because: (1) the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) applied to suits against governmental entities unless the act specifically provided otherwise or was only applicable to governmental entities and provided its own remedy; (2) the THRA provided for suits to be brought in either chancery or circuit court but was silent as to whether claims had to be tried with or without a jury and whether the choice of venue provision applied to claims against governmental entities in contravention of the GTLA; and (3) the GTLA provided that suits had to be brought in the circuit court without a jury. Sneed v. City of Red Bank, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2013), rev'd, 459 S.W.3d 17, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 962 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2014).

29-20-308. Venue of actions.

  1. Suits filed under this chapter may be brought in the county in which such governmental entity is located or in the county in which the incident occurred from which the cause of action arises.
  2. A governmental entity operating in more than one (1) county shall be deemed to be located in the county where its principal office is found.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 17; 1980, ch. 828, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-3320.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 100; 24 Tenn. Juris., Venue, § 4.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Malone v. Fayette County, 86 F. Supp. 2d 797, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2641 (W.D. Tenn. 2000); Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1047 (Tenn. 2005).

29-20-309. Settlement of actions.

  1. An officer or body appointed by the governing body of any governmental entity may, subject to such regulations and procedures as may be prescribed by the governing body, compromise and settle any action for damages or relief sought hereunder.
  2. If no such appointment has been made, the chief administrative officer of such governmental entity shall be deemed to have been appointed and to have such power.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 18; T.C.A., § 23-3321.

29-20-310. Determinations to be made by court — Restrictions on claims against employees — Health care liability — Immunity indemnification and insurability of local government employees.

  1. The court, before holding a governmental entity liable for damages, must first determine that the employee's or employees' act or acts were negligent and the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, that the employee or employees acted within the scope of their employment and that none of the exceptions listed in § 29-20-205 are applicable to the facts before the court.
  2. No claim may be brought against an employee or judgment entered against an employee for damages for which the immunity of the governmental entity is removed by this chapter unless the claim is one for health care liability brought against a health care practitioner. No claim for health care liability may be brought against a health care practitioner or judgment entered against a health care practitioner for damages for which the governmental entity is liable under this chapter, unless the amount of damages sought or judgment entered exceeds the minimum limits set out in § 29-20-403 or the amount of insurance coverage actually carried by the governmental entity, whichever is greater, and the governmental entity is also made a party defendant to the action. As used in this subsection (b), “health care practitioner” means physicians licensed under title 63, chapter 6, and nurses licensed under title 63, chapter 7.
  3. No claim may be brought against an employee or judgment entered against an employee for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of the employee within the scope of the employee's employment for which the governmental entity is immune in any amount in excess of the amounts established for governmental entities in § 29-20-403, unless the act or omission was willful, malicious, criminal, or performed for personal financial gain, or unless the act or omission was one of health care liability committed by a health care practitioner and the claim is brought against such health care practitioner. As used in this subsection (c), “health care practitioner” means physicians licensed under title 63, chapter 6, and nurses licensed under title 63, chapter 7.
  4. Local governmental entities shall have the right, as a matter of local option, to elect to insure or to indemnify their employees for claims for which the governmental entity is immune under this chapter arising under state or federal law upon such terms and conditions as the local government may deem appropriate; provided, that such indemnification may not exceed the limits of liability established for governmental entities in § 29-20-403 except in causes of action in which the liability of governmental employees is not limited as provided in this chapter.
    1. As used in this subsection (e), “volunteer” means a person who donates or volunteers that person's time or services to a local governmental entity when the donation of such time or services is at the request of the local governmental entity and under the direction of a local governmental employee.
    2. A local governmental entity may elect to insure or indemnify its volunteers for claims arising under state or federal law for which the governmental entity is immune under this chapter. Such insurance or indemnification shall be upon such terms and conditions as the local governmental entity establishes. However, no such indemnification may exceed the limits of liability established for governmental entities in § 29-20-403. The volunteer shall be liable for any amount in excess of such limits of governmental liability established in § 29-20-403.
    3. Nothing in this subsection (e) may be construed to affect the status of regular members of a voluntary or auxiliary firefighting, police or emergency assistance organization as employees of a governmental entity as provided in § 29-20-107(d), nor to impair any immunity granted to these personnel because of that status.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 20; T.C.A., § 23-3322; Acts 1987, ch. 405, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 406, § 1; 1996, ch. 957, § 1; 2001, ch. 419, § 1; 2012, ch. 798, § 6.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2001, ch. 419, § 2, provided that the amendment to this section would not take effect unless House Bill No. 1184/Senate Bill No. 1347, relating to governmental tort liability limits was also enacted and became effective. House Bill No. 1184/Senate Bill No. 1347 was enacted as Acts 2001, ch. 424, effective July 1, 2001.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability” for “medical malpractice” in the first  two sentences of (b) and in the first sentence of (c).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Cross-References. Governmental tort liability limits, § 29-20-403.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, §§ 81, 84; 22 Tenn. Juris., State, § 14.

Attorney General Opinions. Liability of district public guardians, OAG 88-18 (1/19/88).

Defense of substitute judge designated by Supreme Court, OAG 97-004 (1/24/97).

Claims against general sessions judge for conduct while sitting by interchange, OAG 97-005 (1/24/97).

Liability of state, district attorney general and special prosecutor, OAG 99-173 (9/7/99).

Personal immunity of emergency medical technicians and paramedics from tort suits, OAG 03-093 (7/28/03).

Cited: Security Fire Protection Co. v. Ripley, 608 S.W.2d 874, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980); Cates v. Electric Power Bd., 655 S.W.2d 166, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Kennedy v. Perry, 688 S.W.2d 74, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3308 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987); Corder v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville, 852 S.W.2d 910, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1016 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992); Braswell v. Carothers, 863 S.W.2d 722, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Spurlock v. Whitley, 971 F. Supp. 1166, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10464 (M.D. Tenn. 1997); Conroy v. City of Dickson, 49 S.W.3d 868, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Pinnix v. Pollock, 338 F. Supp. 2d 885, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20521 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); Autry v. Hooker, 304 S.W.3d 356, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009); Cook v. E. Tenn. Human Res. Agency, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legislative Intent.

Construing this section and §§ 29-20-202 and 29-20-403 together, it would appear that the legislative intent is to hold the governmental entity liable for compensatory damages up to $50,000 or the amount of insurance coverage, whichever is greater and to bar any action for compensatory damages against the employee up to that amount. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

The apparent intent of the general assembly in this section is to restrict the personal liability of governmental employees if the governmental entity itself is liable and then only to the extent of the entity's limit of liability by statute or insurance coverage, whichever is greater. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

2. Construction and Interpretation.

“Negligence” and “proximate cause” are concepts of tort, not of contract. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

The term “health care practitioner” must be construed in the context of those individuals who are being sued for malpractice (now health care liability). Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are health care practitioners within the meaning of this section and, therefore, are not entitled to immunity from liability. Mooney v. Sneed, 30 S.W.3d 304, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 572 (Tenn. 2000).

T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) precludes the entry of a judgment against the employee when the governmental entity's immunity from suit has been removed pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 29-20-202 —29-20-205; plaintiff could recover as provided by T.C.A. § 29-20-403 against the city and no judgment could be rendered against the employee. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

The type of immunity contemplated by T.C.A. § 29-20-310(c) is immunity from claim or suit, not immunity from damages. Once a governmental entity has had its immunity from suit removed by T.C.A. §§ 29-20-20229-20-205, it may no longer be considered immune for purposes of subsection (c) even though it is not liable for some portion of the plaintiff's damages. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

While it is not unreasonable to view the award caps of T.C.A. § 29-20-403 as somehow operating to “immunize” a governmental entity from paying damages in excess of the caps, that clearly is not the type of immunity contemplated in T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) or (c). Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

A city was not required by T.C.A. § 29-20-310(d) to insure or indemnify an employee even if it incorrectly determined that its employee's actions for which the employee was forced to defend the employee at the employee's own expense did not arise in the course of the employee's employment absent some finding of fault or wrongdoing by the city. Chambers v. City of Chattanooga, 71 S.W.3d 281, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2002 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Mar. 4, 2002).

In a wrongful death, medical malpractice (now health care liability), and civil rights action brought by the estate of a deceased inmate against a sheriff, a county, and others, a district court dismissed the medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit against the county asserted under Tennessee law because the county was immune from suit, pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Ramirez-Rosales v. Matheny, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100887 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2011).

Medical legal examiner (MLE), who worked at a hospital, was not a “government employee” protected from liability by the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the MLE did not prove she was paid by the governmental entity's payroll department; the MLE was assigned a vendor number rather than an employee number, submitted an invoice for services rendered, received a 1099 at the end of the year, and was paid from the entity's professional services account, not from the payroll account. Baker v. Snedegar, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2013).

School board was immune from a teacher's libel claim; T.C.A. § 29-20-310 had no effect on governmental immunity from libel suits. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128645 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2014), aff'd, Brown v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23870 (6th Cir. Tenn. Apr. 26, 2016).

Counsel for defendant deputy sheriff admitted, for purposes of a defense summary judgment motion, that defendant's statements about plaintiff were intentional acts and that every intentional act is willful. Consequently, under even the more burdensome interpretation of Tenn. Code § 29-20-310(c), it appeared that plaintiff's allegations survived. Taylor v. Harsh, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2020).

3. Liability of Employee.

An injured party would be entitled to a full monetary recovery from the governmental entity up to its limits and then from the employee for any surplus. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Individual defendants could have been liable for any state law award in excess of the cap on the liability of a governmental entity, at the time plaintiff's state law cause of action accrued. Doe v. Sullivan County, 956 F.2d 545, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 864, 113 S. Ct. 187, 121 L. Ed. 2d 131, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 5302 (1992).

Even though the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in this chapter, does, in fact, immunize to a certain extent a governmental employee in instances where the governmental entity is itself liable, the exception to the removal of immunity applicable to the entity has not been extended to the employee. Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).

The legislature limited the exposure of municipal employees while selectively removing the immunity of the municipality itself by giving the employee absolute immunity in cases where the municipality's immunity was removed and by limiting the employee's liability in cases in which the municipality was yet immune to the limits in § 29-20-403 unless the employee's acts were willful, malicious, criminal or performed for personal financial gain. Erwin v. Rose, 980 S.W.2d 203, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 311 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 6, 1998).

In a suit arising out of a shooting death, a city police officer was entitled to summary judgment on a state law negligence claim brought by the decedent's relatives because the city waived its immunity for the negligence claim and, thus, the officer was immune from suit. Robinson v. City of Memphis, 340 F. Supp. 2d 864, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26627 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

In a suit for negligent infliction of emotional distress brought against a police officer after he accidentally discharged his gun, the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's grant of the police officer's motion to dismiss. Because the term “infliction of mental anguish,” as used in T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), applied only to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the officer was immune from suit and his employer, the city, would have been the proper party. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 653 (Tenn. 2005).

When an employee was fired for refusing to reimburse child support payments the employee had misdirected, the employee's claim under T.C.A. § 50-1-304 failed because: (1) the employee did not identify an illegal activity an employer allegedly engaged in; and (2) the employee's alleged immunity under T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) from any claim for misdirecting the payments was irrelevant, since no such claim was made. Palmore v. Neal, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 341 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 907 (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2014).

Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the employees were properly dismissed as plaintiff failed to allege intentional or reckless conduct by the employees or that she had been physically harmed by a neighbor's dog before or after the employees determined that the neighbor was in compliance with the city's leash law ordinance. Greenwood v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2017).

Trial court properly granted the city's motion to dismiss plaintiff's negligence claims against the city employees pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-310(b) where the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., specifically removed governmental immunity, and thus, employees could not be sued in their individual capacity for the same tort. Greenwood v. City of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2017).

Trial court did not err in holding that that the sheriff was immune from suit in his individual and official capacity because the county's immunity had been removed by T.C.A. § 29-20-205(2). Randolph v. White Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2019).

4. Vicarious Liability.

School board was properly dismissed as defendant, because the trustees, while partly appointed by the board, had statutory independence and thus, the board was not vicariously liable for the trustees'  actions. Witty v. Cantrell, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2011).

When an employee sued a city for injuries caused when a co-employee hit the employee with a bus, the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the co-employee's conduct was negligent, but not grossly negligent, making the city liable for the injuries, while the co-employee was immune, because nothing showed: (1) the co-employee was impaired at the time of the injuries; (2) the impact of substances in the co-employee's drug screen on the co-employee's ability to drive; and that (3) the co-employee drove erratically or that substances in the drug screen impacted the co-employee's activities on the date of the accident. Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014), appeal denied, Harp v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. May 13, 2014).

County was not immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., when a parent sued the county after the parent's child committed suicide while in custody at the county jail because, in the absence of any evidence to support a finding that it was the intent of a sheriff's deputy to harm the decedent, the failure of the deputy to perform mandated wellness checks at the jail was negligent conduct but not intentional conduct so as to establish the county's sovereign immunity. Holder v. Shelby Cty Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2017).

Collateral References.

Civil liability in conjunction with autopsy. 97 A.L.R.5th 419.

Malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of meningitis. 51 A.L.R.5th 301.

Medical malpractice in connection with diagnosis, care, or treatment of diabetes. 43 A.L.R.5th 87.

29-20-311. Judgment over limits of insurance policy prohibited.

No judgment or award rendered against a governmental entity may exceed the minimum amounts of insurance coverage for death, bodily injury and property damage liability specified in § 29-20-403, unless such governmental entity has secured insurance coverage in excess of such minimum requirements, in which event the judgment or award may not exceed the applicable limits provided in the insurance policy.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 28; 1976, ch. 656, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3323.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 79.

Cited: Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Brooks v. Memphis & Shelby County Hospital Authority, 717 S.W.2d 292, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3067 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Metaljan v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, 752 F. Supp. 834, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16904 (W.D. Tenn. 1990); McGaughy v. Memphis, 823 S.W.2d 209, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Hutton v. City of Savannah, 968 S.W.2d 808, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Erwin v. Rose, 980 S.W.2d 203, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000); Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

This section refers to the upper limits and not the lower limits of a policy. Cates v. Electric Power Bd., 655 S.W.2d 166, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2. Non-governmental Codefendant.

Section 29-11-105(a)(1) did not establish a bar to the plaintiff's proceeding against the defendant governmental entity where plaintiff had been paid $125,000.00 by another defendant in the original action and the parties had stipulated the maximum potential liability of the remaining defendant was $40,000.00, as established by this section. Buckner v. Cocke County, 720 S.W.2d 472, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

3. Waiver of Liability Limits.

The governmental entity or its insurer will not be held liable for any judgment in excess of the § 29-20-403 limits of liability unless it has waived those limits in accordance with the provisions of § 29-20-404. Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

4. Illustrative Cases.

Plaintiffs were not entitled under their uninsured motorist coverage of their automobile insurance policy to amounts exceeding the limit of liability under this Act. Slutsky v. City of Chattanooga, 34 S.W.3d 467, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Jan. 2, 2001).

Where a fatal collision occurred between a Georgia school bus and a freight train in Tennessee, the school district's liability arising out of this accident was capped by the single-accident limit of three hundred thousand dollars under its vehicle liability insurance policy as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(c). Georgia's law with respect to waiver of immunity was completely in harmony with the public policy of Tennessee. Lemons v. Cloer, 206 S.W.3d 60, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 795 (Tenn. 2006).

Collateral References. Insurance 435.38.

29-20-312. Payment of claims.

  1. Any claim approved for payment by a governmental entity or any final judgment obtained against a governmental entity shall be paid from funds appropriated or reserved for that purpose or in the discretion of the governmental entity may be paid in not more than ten (10) equal annual instalments commencing the next fiscal year or in such other manner as is agreed upon by the claimant and governmental entity.
  2. Installment payments shall bear interest at six percent (6%) per annum on the unpaid balance.
  3. This section shall be discretionary with the court of original jurisdiction and such court is hereby authorized in its discretion to order a lump sum payment of any final judgment.
  4. All judgments below five thousand dollars ($5,000) must be paid in one (1) installment and must be paid as other tort judgments.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 21; T.C.A., § 23-3324.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Although this section specifically refers only to post-judgment interest in the context of installment payments, it does not follow that the general assembly intended to authorize interest only in such cases or that interest cannot be awarded in a General Tort Liability Act case not involving installment payments. Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. 1996).

2. Construction with Other Laws.

The general interest provisions of §§ 47-14-121 and 47-14-122, because they do not conflict with specific provisions of this chapter, its structure, purpose or intent, apply to action brought under this chapter. Lucius v. City of Memphis, 925 S.W.2d 522, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. 1996).

29-20-313. Claim of immunity by employee — Multiple defendants.

  1. When one (1) or more defendants to a lawsuit claim to be employees of a governmental entity as defined by § 29-20-107 and are therefore entitled to the governmental immunity granted by this chapter, it shall be a question of fact whether the defendant or defendants claiming immunity are such employees. If the trier of fact determines that the defendant claiming immunity is not a governmental entity employee, the lawsuit as to that defendant shall proceed like any other civil case. If the trier of fact determines that the defendant claiming immunity is a governmental entity employee, the lawsuit as to that defendant shall proceed in accordance with this chapter.
  2. When suit is brought in circuit court in a case in which there are multiple defendants, one (1) or more of which are a governmental entity or entities or governmental entity employee or employees whose liability or lack thereof is to be determined based upon this chapter and one (1) or more of which are not such governmental entity or entities or governmental entity employee or employees, the case shall be heard and decided by a jury upon the demand of any party. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of any party to a trial by jury otherwise granted by the state or federal constitution or any statute.

Acts 1981, ch. 527, § 2; 1994, ch. 789, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1994, ch. 789, § 3 provided that the amendment to this section by that act shall apply only to actions arising on and after July 1, 1994.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 98; 24 Tenn. Juris., Trial, § 4.

Cited: Murphy v. Schwartz, 739 S.W.2d 777, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3499 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986); Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Severance is Mandatory.

The severance provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act are mandatory. Austin v. County of Shelby, 640 S.W.2d 852, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

2. Jurisdiction.

This provision is a clear indication of the legislative intent to treat an employee's defense as one of immunity and not to remove subject matter jurisdiction from the circuit court. Cain v. Macklin, 663 S.W.2d 794, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 732 (Tenn. 1984).

3. Liability of Employee.

Even though the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in this chapter, does, in fact, immunize to a certain extent a governmental employee in instances where the governmental entity is itself liable, the exception to the removal of immunity applicable to the entity has not been extended to the employee. Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).

Part 4
Funding and Insurance

29-20-401. Creation of reserve or special fund — Pooling agreements with other governmental entities — Election to self-insurer.

  1. Any governmental entity may create and maintain a reserve or special fund for the purpose of making payment of claims against it payable pursuant to this chapter or for the purpose of purchasing liability insurance to protect it from any and all risks created by this chapter.
    1. Any two (2) or more governmental entities are hereby granted the power, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, to enter into an agreement or agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action to pool their financial and administrative resources for the purpose of providing to the participating governmental entities risk management, insurance, reinsurance, which is defined to mean reinsurance by an entity created under this section, self-insurance, or any combination thereof for any and all of the areas of liability or insurability, or both, for such governmental entities, including, but not limited to, the liabilities created by this chapter (including general and professional liabilities), liabilities under the workers' compensation law, liabilities under the unemployment compensation law, and motor vehicle insurance. All such agreements shall be made pursuant to title 12, chapter 9.
    2. The power to enter into agreements hereunder specifically includes the power to establish a separate legal or administrative entity or entities to effectuate such agreements or, if no separate legal or administrative entity or entities are established, to designate an administrator of the pooled financial and administrative resources. An entity so established, or an administrator so designated, shall be deemed to have been appointed by the governing body of the governmental entity for the purposes of § 29-20-309, and this appointment shall not be considered as a violation of the provision of § 12-9-104(a) dealing with the powers, privileges or authority of officers of political subdivisions.
    3. Each such agreement shall be approved by appropriate resolution or as otherwise permitted by the laws of the participating governmental entities before any such agreement shall be effective or binding.
    4. In addition to those items included in any such agreement pursuant to § 12-9-104(c), the agreement may specify: the nature and scope of insurance coverage and coverages to be provided; the method and methods by which coverage and coverages are to be extended, contributions (which term shall include all premiums or assessments) levied and paid, claims administered and defended against; the procedures by which financial reserves shall be established and maintained; and, any other provisions necessary for proper administration of the pooled resources.
    5. Such agreements may provide for the pooling of losses and any other expenses so that any or all of the funds contributed by a participating governmental entity may be used to pay claims against or with respect to any of the other participating governmental entities and any costs or expenses, or both, relative to any entity authorized by this part. The general assembly hereby finds and determines that all contributions of financial and administrative resources made pursuant to an agreement as authorized herein are made for a public and governmental purpose and that all such contributions benefit the contributing governmental entity.
    1. Any governmental entity choosing to create and maintain a special fund, or to enter into an agreement, as authorized in this section for the purpose of insuring against the liabilities created by this chapter, shall be deemed to be electing to self-insure against the liabilities established in this chapter and shall, therefore, have the same limits of liability as if the minimum limits of liability established in § 29-20-403 had been purchased.
    2. Should any governmental entity choose to enter into an agreement for the purpose of insuring for the liabilities of the Workers' Compensation Law, as authorized in this section, it shall be deemed to have accepted the Workers' Compensation Law pursuant to § 50-6-106(5), and it shall be deemed to have insured for such liabilities with an association, organization or corporation authorized to transact the business of workers' compensation insurance pursuant to § 50-6-405(a)(1). Certificates of compliance issued by the legal or administrative entity created by the agreement between the governmental entities for this purpose shall be accepted by the department of labor and workforce development.
    1. No special fund established by an agreement authorized under this section and under title 12, chapter 9, shall be considered as an “insurance company” nor shall any contribution of financial or administrative resources to such a special fund be considered a “premium” or “gross premium” under title 56 for any purpose, including regulation and taxation.
    2. There shall be maintained in any special fund created pursuant to this section such an amount of reserve funds as is deemed adequate by the department in accordance with reserve standards applicable to private insurance companies pursuant to title 56. The department of commerce and insurance is authorized to charge reasonable fees to cover expenses incurred in the course of investigations and audits conducted for the purpose of making this determination, and is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations necessary to accomplish the purposes of this subsection (d).
  2. Any special fund or legal or administrative entity created pursuant to this part shall have the power to reinsure, in whole or in part, any of the areas of liability or insurability of governmental entities or governmental employees. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this power to reinsure may be exercised through the creation, operation, or ownership, in whole or in part, of reinsuring entities, or by entering into contracts or treaties of reinsurance with reinsuring entities, or by any combination thereof; provided, that the reinsuring entity is lawfully created under the laws of its jurisdiction. Any reinsuring entity created pursuant to this part may be created only by governmental entities as defined in this chapter or by an entity created by governmental entities pursuant to this part and the Interlocal Cooperation Act, compiled in title 12, chapter 9. Any such reinsuring entity may reinsure only any areas of liability or insurability of governmental entities or governmental employees.
    1. Any legal or administrative entity created by an agreement between governmental entities to pool their resources to provide workers' compensation coverage is entitled to participate in the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund established in § 50-6-208 upon the payment to the department of labor and workforce development of an annual fee. The annual fee shall be a percentage of the total financial contributions for workers' compensation coverage received from participating governmental entities and earned during a calendar year. The percentage shall equal the percentage of insurance company premiums, as measured by the premium tax, allocated and paid out by the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund pursuant to § 50-6-208(b) and (c), during the same year, subject to a maximum of two percent (2%).
    2. If any such legal or administrative entity participates in the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund as provided herein and then ceases participation, either the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund shall remain liable for a claim for injuries to an employee insured by the entity that occurred prior to the termination of participation and for which benefits had not been paid prior to the termination; provided, that the legal or administrative entity shall promptly reimburse the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund for the actual amount of any such benefits subsequently paid by the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund; or, within thirty (30) days of the cessation of such participation, the legal and administrative entity may elect to assume complete liability for such a claim. This assumption shall release the subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund from any duty to defend or liability, but in either case, the recovery by any employee shall not be reduced or defeated.
    1. An insurance pool, special fund, reserve fund, or legal or administrative entity administering any such pool or fund created and authorized under this section shall be audited annually in accordance with standards established by the comptroller of the treasury. A copy of the audit shall be filed with the comptroller as soon as practical, but in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the end of the pool's or reserve fund's fiscal year. Notwithstanding this subdivision (g)(1), the operations, books and records of any pool or reserve fund shall be subject to audit and review by the comptroller or any person authorized by the comptroller. The commissioner of commerce and insurance shall assist the comptroller in the audit upon the written request by the comptroller.(2)  The comptroller of the treasury is authorized to charge reasonable fees to cover expenses incurred by the comptroller or the commissioner of commerce and insurance in the course of audits or investigations pursuant to this section.

Any information obtained by or disclosed to the commissioner of commerce and insurance pursuant to an examination, audit or investigation conducted under this chapter shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the public. Any information obtained by or disclosed to the comptroller shall be considered working papers of the comptroller and, therefore, are confidential. Furthermore, the commissioner of commerce and insurance shall not disclose any information relating to the reserving of particular claims, if disclosure would likely prejudice the fund in settling the claim; provided, however, that this shall not apply to any examination report, audit or investigative report prepared by the commissioner of commerce and insurance or the comptroller, or to any rebuttal to such reports submitted by or on behalf of the fund examined. However, nothing contained in this subdivision (g)(3) shall be construed as prohibiting the commissioner of commerce and insurance or the comptroller from disclosing the information listed in this subdivision (g)(3), or any matters relating to that information, to state agencies of this or any other state, or to law enforcement officials of this or any other state or agency of the federal government at any time.

Any person knowingly or willfully testifying falsely in reference to any matter material to the investigation, audit, examination or inquiry commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Any director, trustee, officer, agent, or employee of an insurance pool or reserve fund, or any other person who knowingly or willfully makes any false certificate, entry, or memorandum upon any of the books or papers of any insurance pool or reserve fund upon any statement filed or offered to be filed in the department or used in the course of any examination, inquiry or investigation with the intent to deceive the commissioner of commerce and insurance or any person appointed by the commissioner or the comptroller to make the examination, commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 22; 1979, ch. 282, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3325; Acts 1985, ch. 84, §§ 5-9; 1989, ch. 164, §§ 1, 2; 1999, ch. 520, § 35; 2006, ch. 923, § 3; 2013, ch. 289, § 100; 2017, ch. 344, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2013, ch. 289, § 103 provided that the act, which amended the last sentence of subdivision (f)(1), shall be known and may be cited as the “Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013.”

Amendments. The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, substituted “§ 50-6-208(b) and (c)” for “§ 50-6-208(c) and (d)” in the last sentence of (f)(1).

The 2017 amendment substituted “subsequent injury and vocational recovery fund” for “second injury fund” throughout (f).

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 289, § 106. July 1, 2014; provided, that, for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations, making appointments and making necessary provisions for the implementation of the act, the act shall take effect April 29, 2013.

Acts 2017, ch. 344, § 12. May 9, 2017.

Cross-References. Confidentiality of public records, § 10-7-504.

Penalty for Class A misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Law Reviews.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Collateral References. Insurance 13.1.

29-20-401. Creation of reserve or special fund — Pooling agreements with other governmental entities — Election to self-insurer. [Applicable to injuries occurring prior to July 1, 2014.]

  1. Any governmental entity may create and maintain a reserve or special fund for the purpose of making payment of claims against it payable pursuant to this chapter or for the purpose of purchasing liability insurance to protect it from any and all risks created by this chapter.
    1. Any two (2) or more governmental entities are hereby granted the power, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, to enter into an agreement or agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action to pool their financial and administrative resources for the purpose of providing to the participating governmental entities risk management, insurance, reinsurance, which is defined to mean reinsurance by an entity created under this section, self-insurance, or any combination thereof for any and all of the areas of liability or insurability, or both, for such governmental entities, including, but not limited to, the liabilities created by this chapter (including general and professional liabilities), liabilities under the workers' compensation law, liabilities under the unemployment compensation law, and motor vehicle insurance. All such agreements shall be made pursuant to title 12, chapter 9.
    2. The power to enter into agreements hereunder specifically includes the power to establish a separate legal or administrative entity or entities to effectuate such agreements or, if no separate legal or administrative entity or entities are established, to designate an administrator of the pooled financial and administrative resources. An entity so established, or an administrator so designated, shall be deemed to have been appointed by the governing body of the governmental entity for the purposes of § 29-20-309, and this appointment shall not be considered as a violation of the provision of § 12-9-104(a) dealing with the powers, privileges or authority of officers of political subdivisions.
    3. Each such agreement shall be approved by appropriate resolution or as otherwise permitted by the laws of the participating governmental entities before any such agreement shall be effective or binding.
    4. In addition to those items included in any such agreement pursuant to § 12-9-104(c), the agreement may specify: the nature and scope of insurance coverage and coverages to be provided; the method and methods by which coverage and coverages are to be extended, contributions (which term shall include all premiums or assessments) levied and paid, claims administered and defended against; the procedures by which financial reserves shall be established and maintained; and, any other provisions necessary for proper administration of the pooled resources.
    5. Such agreements may provide for the pooling of losses and any other expenses so that any or all of the funds contributed by a participating governmental entity may be used to pay claims against or with respect to any of the other participating governmental entities and any costs or expenses, or both, relative to any entity authorized by this part. The general assembly hereby finds and determines that all contributions of financial and administrative resources made pursuant to an agreement as authorized herein are made for a public and governmental purpose and that all such contributions benefit the contributing governmental entity.
    1. Any governmental entity choosing to create and maintain a special fund, or to enter into an agreement, as authorized in this section for the purpose of insuring against the liabilities created by this chapter, shall be deemed to be electing to self-insure against the liabilities established in this chapter and shall, therefore, have the same limits of liability as if the minimum limits of liability established in § 29-20-403 had been purchased.
    2. Should any governmental entity choose to enter into an agreement for the purpose of insuring for the liabilities of the Workers' Compensation Law, as authorized in this section, it shall be deemed to have accepted the Workers' Compensation Law pursuant to § 50-6-106(5), and it shall be deemed to have insured for such liabilities with an association, organization or corporation authorized to transact the business of workers' compensation insurance pursuant to § 50-6-405(a)(1). Certificates of compliance issued by the legal or administrative entity created by the agreement between the governmental entities for this purpose shall be accepted by the department of labor and workforce development.
    1. No special fund established by an agreement authorized under this section and under title 12, chapter 9, shall be considered as an “insurance company” nor shall any contribution of financial or administrative resources to such a special fund be considered a “premium” or “gross premium” under title 56 for any purpose, including regulation and taxation.
    2. There shall be maintained in any special fund created pursuant to this section such an amount of reserve funds as is deemed adequate by the department in accordance with reserve standards applicable to private insurance companies pursuant to title 56. The department of commerce and insurance is authorized to charge reasonable fees to cover expenses incurred in the course of investigations and audits conducted for the purpose of making this determination, and is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations necessary to accomplish the purposes of this subsection (d).
  2. Any special fund or legal or administrative entity created pursuant to this part shall have the power to reinsure, in whole or in part, any of the areas of liability or insurability of governmental entities or governmental employees. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this power to reinsure may be exercised through the creation, operation, or ownership, in whole or in part, of reinsuring entities, or by entering into contracts or treaties of reinsurance with reinsuring entities, or by any combination thereof; provided, that the reinsuring entity is lawfully created under the laws of its jurisdiction. Any reinsuring entity created pursuant to this part may be created only by governmental entities as defined in this chapter or by an entity created by governmental entities pursuant to this part and the Interlocal Cooperation Act, compiled in title 12, chapter 9. Any such reinsuring entity may reinsure only any areas of liability or insurability of governmental entities or governmental employees.
    1. Any legal or administrative entity created by an agreement between governmental entities to pool their resources to provide workers' compensation coverage is entitled to participate in the second injury fund established in § 50-6-208 upon the payment to the department of labor and workforce development of an annual fee. The annual fee shall be a percentage of the total financial contributions for workers' compensation coverage received from participating governmental entities and earned during a calendar year. The percentage shall equal the percentage of insurance company premiums, as measured by the premium tax, allocated and paid out by the second injury fund pursuant to § 50-6-208(c) and (d), during the same year, subject to a maximum of two percent (2%).
    2. If any such legal or administrative entity participates in the second injury fund as provided herein and then ceases participation, either the second injury fund shall remain liable for a claim for injuries to an employee insured by the entity that occurred prior to the termination of participation and for which benefits had not been paid prior to the termination; provided, that the legal or administrative entity shall promptly reimburse the second injury fund for the actual amount of any such benefits subsequently paid by the second injury fund; or, within thirty (30) days of the cessation of such participation, the legal and administrative entity may elect to assume complete liability for such a claim. This assumption shall release the second injury fund from any duty to defend or liability, but in either case, the recovery by any employee shall not be reduced or defeated.
    1. An insurance pool, special fund, reserve fund, or legal or administrative entity administering any such pool or fund created and authorized under this section shall be audited annually in accordance with standards established by the comptroller of the treasury. A copy of the audit shall be filed with the comptroller as soon as practical, but in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the end of the pool's or reserve fund's fiscal year. Notwithstanding this subdivision (g)(1), the operations, books and records of any pool or reserve fund shall be subject to audit and review by the comptroller or any person authorized by the comptroller. The commissioner of commerce and insurance shall assist the comptroller in the audit upon the written request by the comptroller.
    2. The comptroller of the treasury is authorized to charge reasonable fees to cover expenses incurred by the comptroller or the commissioner of commerce and insurance in the course of audits or investigations pursuant to this section.
    3. Any information obtained by or disclosed to the commissioner of commerce and insurance pursuant to an examination, audit or investigation conducted under this chapter shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to the public. Any information obtained by or disclosed to the comptroller shall be considered working papers of the comptroller and, therefore, are confidential. Furthermore, the commissioner of commerce and insurance shall not disclose any information relating to the reserving of particular claims, if disclosure would likely prejudice the fund in settling the claim; provided, however, that this shall not apply to any examination report, audit or investigative report prepared by the commissioner of commerce and insurance or the comptroller, or to any rebuttal to such reports submitted by or on behalf of the fund examined. However, nothing contained in this subdivision (g)(3) shall be construed as prohibiting the commissioner of commerce and insurance or the comptroller from disclosing the information listed in this subdivision (g)(3), or any matters relating to that information, to state agencies of this or any other state, or to law enforcement officials of this or any other state or agency of the federal government at any time.
    4. Any person knowingly or willfully testifying falsely in reference to any matter material to the investigation, audit, examination or inquiry commits a Class A misdemeanor.
    5. Any director, trustee, officer, agent, or employee of an insurance pool or reserve fund, or any other person who knowingly or willfully makes any false certificate, entry, or memorandum upon any of the books or papers of any insurance pool or reserve fund upon any statement filed or offered to be filed in the department or used in the course of any examination, inquiry or investigation with the intent to deceive the commissioner of commerce and insurance or any person appointed by the commissioner or the comptroller to make the examination, commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 22; 1979, ch. 282, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3325; Acts 1985, ch. 84, §§ 5-9; 1989, ch. 164, §§ 1, 2; 1999, ch. 520, § 35; 2006, ch. 923, § 3.

Cross-References. Confidentiality of public records, § 10-7-504.

Penalty for Class A misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Law Reviews.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Attorney General Opinions. Indemnification of county employees for negligence, errors, OAG 85-141 (4/30/85).

A public housing authority created pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-20-401 et seq. is a government agency and, because it is created by residents within a city, is considered a local government agency. OAG 00-150 (10/5/00).

The Tennessee School Boards Association is not a “governmental entity” for the purpose of participation in an insurance trust organized under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-401 et seq. OAG 05-135 (8/26/05).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Uninsured Motorist Coverage.

County's rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage did not violate this section since the county participated in the Tennessee Risk Management Trust and was deemed to be self insured; the mandatory UM coverage requirement did not apply to self insureds. Harris v. Haynes, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 10, 2013), aff'd, 445 S.W.3d 143, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 625 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2014).

2. Relation to Insurance Statutes.

T.C.A. § 29-20-401(d)(1) plainly exempts special funds created by agreement of governmental entities and consisting of the pooled funds of governmental entities from Tennessee's insurance statutes. Therefore, an injured employee and his wife were unable to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the Tennessee Risk Management Trust. Harris v. Haynes, 445 S.W.3d 143, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 625 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2014).

Collateral References. Insurance 13.1.

29-20-402. Authority to levy tax.

Notwithstanding law or charter to the contrary, all governmental entities having the power to tax shall have authority to levy an annual property tax in the amount necessary to pay all claims, settlements, or judgments secured pursuant to the provisions hereof, or to pay the costs to defend against same, or for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a reserve or special fund as the same may be established pursuant to § 29-20-401 for the payment of such claims, settlements, or judgment as may be reasonably anticipated, or to pay the premium for such insurance as herein authorized, including insurance provided for in § 29-20-406, even though as a result of such levy the maximum levy as otherwise restricted by law is exceeded thereby; provided, that in no event shall the revenues derived therefrom be used for any other purpose than those stipulated herein.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 23; 1979, ch. 282, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-3326.

29-20-403. Liability insurance authorized — Compensation for injury — Limits — Limits of liability for self-insuring entities.

  1. Any governmental entity may purchase insurance to cover its liability under this chapter.
  2. Every policy or contract of insurance purchased by a governmental entity as authorized by this chapter shall provide:
      1. Minimum limits of not less than forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident and not less than eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for bodily injury or death of any two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident; provided, that in cases arising out of the ownership, maintenance, and use of automobiles, the minimum limit shall be not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) because of bodily injury or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident, and to a limit of not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) because of bodily injury or death of two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident, and to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident. In the event the governmental entity is unable to purchase insurance to cover its obligations hereunder, except through an assigned risk pool, then for purposes of § 29-20-311 the limits of liability shall be twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for injury to any one (1) person resulting from one (1) accident and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for all injuries resulting from one (1) accident with a limit of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for property damages resulting from any one (1) accident. If insurance is not purchased through an assigned risk pool then the greater limits above apply; and
      2. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) applies only to actions arising before July 1, 1987; and
      1. Minimum limits of not less than one hundred thirty thousand dollars ($130,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act and not less than three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) for bodily injury or death of all persons in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and in cases arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of automobiles to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act. This subdivision (b)(2)(A) applies to any action arising on or after July 1, 1987, but before July 1, 2002; and
      2. Minimum limits of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), except as provided otherwise in this section, for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident;
    1. Minimum limits of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and not less than six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) for bodily injury or death of all persons in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000) for injury or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act. This subdivision (b)(3) shall apply to any action arising on or after July 1, 2002, but before July 1, 2007;
    2. Minimum limits of not less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for bodily injury or death of any one (1) person in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and not less than seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) for bodily injury or death of all persons in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act, and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for injury or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident, occurrence or act. This subdivision (b)(4) shall apply to any action arising on or after July 1, 2007;
  3. Any governmental entity electing to self-insure its liability shall have the same limits of liability as if insurance had been purchased.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 24; T.C.A., § 23-3327; Acts 1982, ch. 950, §§ 1, 2; 1987, ch. 405, §§ 5, 6; 1992, ch. 821, § 1; 1999, ch. 377, § 1; 2001, ch. 424, §§ 1, 2.

Code Commission Notes.

Former subsection (d), concerning payment for injuries resulting from an October 10, 1997, incident, was deleted as obsolete by the code commission in 2000.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1992, ch. 821, § 2 provided that the amendment by that act applies only to actions arising on and after July 1, 1992.

Acts 2001, ch. 424, § 4, provided that the state share of the cost pursuant to article II, § 24 of the Constitution of Tennessee for any increased expenditure required by a county by the provisions of the act shall be provided from the unallocated tax revenue of state-shared taxes enumerated in § 9-6-301 (now § 9-4-5301).

Acts 2001, ch. 424, § 5, provided that the amendments to this section would not take effect unless House Bill No. 1555/Senate Bill No. 1013, relating to the definition of “health care practitioner” for purposes of the governmental tort liability act was also enacted and became effective. House Bill No. 1555/Senate Bill No. 1013 was enacted as Acts 2001, ch. 419, effective June 27, 2001.

Cross-References. Definition of “health care practitioner” for purposes of governmental tort liability act, § 29-20-310.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 79.

Law Reviews.

State Liability at the Tennessee Claims Commission: Balancing Sovereign Immunity and Individual Rights of Redress (Steven W. Feldman), 37 No. 8 Tenn. B.J. 19 (2001).

Torts — Bowers v. City of Chattanooga: Planning-Operational Distinctions in Determining Discretionary Function Immunity Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (Harold W. Fonville II), 24 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 167 (1993).

Attorney General Opinions. Tennessee Valley Public Power Association insurance program, OAG 84-090 (3/15/84).

Legality and amount of county appropriation to settle litigation, OAG 84-121 (4/10/84).

There is no statutory requirement for volunteer parent-drivers to carry the same amount of liability insurance coverage as the school system; it would be within a local school board's discretion to establish a policy requiring volunteer parent-drivers to have a specific amount of liability insurance when, under the auspices of the school involved, they volunteer to transport students to “away” sporting or other similar events, OAG 04-136 (8/24/04).

Under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-407 and 12-3-1209, a local governmental entity may only purchase liability insurance without the necessity of any legally required public bidding if the liability insurance is purchased through a plan authorized and approved by any organization of governmental entities representing cities and counties.  OAG 13-65, 2013 Tenn. AG LEXIS 68 (8/23/13).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The increased limits of liability in this section of the Governmental Tort Liability Act do not conflict with Tenn. Const., art. II, § 24, providing that no law of general application shall impose increased expenditure requirements on cities or counties unless the general assembly provides that the state share in the cost. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

2. Legislative Intent.

Construing §§ 29-20-202, 29-20-310 and this section together, it would appear that the legislative intent is to hold the governmental entity liable for compensatory damages up to $50,000 or the amount of insurance coverage, whichever is greater and to bar any action for compensatory damages against the employee up to that amount. Johnson v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 570, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

3. Scope of Protection.

Liability insurance protects one from actions ex delicto, not actions ex contractu. Simpson v. Sumner County, 669 S.W.2d 657, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

4. Election to Self-Insure.

By excluding the first $100,000 of liability, Electric Power Board did not preserve its rights to governmental immunity, but constituted itself a self-insured entity under this section above, to the extent of the $100,000 exclusion. Cates v. Electric Power Bd., 655 S.W.2d 166, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

This section provides for self insurance and specifically provides that the self insurance have the same limits of liability as if insurance had been purchased. This is the same as saying that the government is insured by itself. McGaughy v. Memphis, 823 S.W.2d 209, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

5. Illustrations.

Evidence was sufficient to support finding that there were two separate and distinct acts of negligence by two different individuals that occurred on two different dates, albeit that the two negligent actors were employed by the same defendant hospital, and the acts of negligence were perpetrated on a single person rather than on two persons. Brooks v. Memphis & Shelby County Hospital Authority, 717 S.W.2d 292, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3067 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Where city's immunity from suit for negligent act of employee was removed pursuant to § 29-20-205, plaintiff could recover as provided by this section against the city and no judgment could be rendered against the employee. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

Plaintiffs were not entitled under their uninsured motorist coverage of their automobile insurance policy to amounts exceeding the limit of liability under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. 29-20-101 et seq.Slutsky v. City of Chattanooga, 34 S.W.3d 467, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (Tenn. Jan. 2, 2001).

6. Injury from Unsafe Streets and Highways.

Where removal of governmental immunity rests upon § 29-20-203, removing immunity for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the right to recover for loss of consortium is a right independent of the spouse's right to recover for the injuries themselves, and is not limited by the liability limitations of this section. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Where recovery rests on removal of governmental immunity under § 29-20-203 for injury from unsafe streets and highways, the language in that section removing immunity for “any injury” caused by certain conditions, controls, rather than this section referring only to bodily injury or death. Swafford v. Chattanooga, 743 S.W.2d 174, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

7. Government Waiver.

The insurance policy provisions waiving the insurer's defense of sovereign immunity do not effectuate a waiver by the governmental entity of its liability up to the full amount of its insurance coverage. Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

The governmental entity or its insurer will not be held liable for any judgment in excess of this section's limits of liability unless it has waived those limits in accordance with the provisions of § 29-20-404. Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Where a fatal collision occurred between a Georgia school bus and a freight train in Tennessee, the school district's liability arising out of this accident was capped by the single-accident limit of three hundred thousand dollars under its vehicle liability insurance policy as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(c). Georgia's law with respect to waiver of immunity is completely in harmony with the public policy of Tennessee. Lemons v. Cloer, 206 S.W.3d 60, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 795 (Tenn. 2006).

8. Construction With Other Sections.

While it is not unreasonable to view the award caps under this section as somehow operating to “immunize” a governmental entity from paying damages in excess of the caps, that clearly is not the type of immunity contemplated in § 29-20-310 (b) or (c). Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

9. Loss of Consortium Claims.

Loss of consortium damages in a wrongful death claim are wholly contained within the award for wrongful death; thus, where plaintiffs received the maximum allowable award under subdivision (b)(2)(A), loss of consortium damages could not increase the total amount of the award. Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. 2000).

Collateral References.

Validity and construction of statute authorizing or requiring governmental unit to procure liability insurance covering public officers or employees for liability arising out of performance of public duties. 71 A.L.R.3d 6.

Insurance 435.38.

29-20-404. Waiver of immunity or liability limits — Liabilities arising under federal law.

  1. A governmental entity or the insurer of such governmental entity shall not be held liable for any claim arising under state law for which the governmental entity has immunity under this chapter unless the governmental entity has expressly waived such immunity. A governmental entity or the insurer of such governmental entity shall not be held liable for any judgment in excess of the limits of liability set forth in § 29-20-403, unless the governmental entity has expressly waived such limits. The waiver of such immunity or such limits of liability by a governmental entity shall only be valid if such waiver is expressly contained in the provisions or endorsement of a policy or contract of insurance authorized by this chapter to cover its liability under this chapter.
  2. This chapter shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a governmental entity from purchasing a policy or contract of insurance in such amounts of coverage as it deems proper for liabilities which may arise under federal law. If a governmental entity has such policy or contract of insurance for liabilities which may arise under federal law, such policy or contract of insurance shall not be construed or deemed a waiver of any immunity provided in this chapter or of the limits of liability set forth in § 29-20-403, for any claims arising under state law.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 25; T.C.A., § 23-3328; Acts 1985, ch. 301, § 1.

Attorney General Opinions. Limits of liability, OAG 87-18 (1/29/87).

Cited: Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987); York v. Sevier County Ambulance Auth., 8 S.W.3d 616, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 598 (Tenn. 1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Waiver.

The insurance policy provisions waiving the insurer's defense of sovereign immunity do not effectuate a waiver by the governmental entity of its liability up to the full amount of its insurance coverage. Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

The governmental entity or its insurer will not be held liable for any judgment in excess of the § 29-20-403 limits of liability unless it has waived those limits in accordance with the provisions of this section. Coburn v. Dyersburg, 774 S.W.2d 610, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

2. Limits of Liability.

Although the post-judgment interest statute applies to judgments against governmental entities, post-judgment interest cannot be added to a judgment to raise the judgment above the limits set in subsection (a). Erwin v. Rose, 980 S.W.2d 203, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 311 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 6, 1998).

Collateral References. Insurance 435.38.

29-20-405. Construction of liability insurance policy not in compliance with law.

Any insurance policy, rider or endorsement purchased to insure against any risk which may arise as a result of the application of this chapter, and which contains any condition or provisions not in compliance with the terms of this chapter, shall not be rendered invalid, but shall be construed and applied in accordance with the intention of this chapter.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 26; T.C.A., § 23-3329.

Cited: Cates v. Electric Power Bd., 655 S.W.2d 166, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

29-20-406. Liability insurance for employees and sheriffs authorized.

  1. A governmental entity may insure any or all of its employees against all or any part of their liability for injury or damage resulting from a negligent act or omission, and any expenditure for such insurance is herewith declared to be for a public purpose, and may be paid from funds derived from the tax levy authorized in § 29-20-402.
  2. Any sheriff or group of sheriffs is authorized to purchase insurance or enter into agreements to insure such sheriff and any or all of the sheriff's employees against all or any part of their personal liability for injury or damages arising as a result of the act or omission of any such sheriff or employee. This authority to purchase insurance or enter into agreements to insure includes specifically the authority to establish a separate legal or administrative entity to effectuate any such agreements or, if a separate legal or administrative entity is not established, to designate an entity to effectuate the purposes of this subsection (b). Any such purchase or any such agreement which would involve the expenditure of county funds must first be approved by the county legislative body.

Acts 1973, ch. 345, § 27; T.C.A., § 23-3330; Acts 1986, ch. 730, § 1.

Law Reviews.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1986, 54 Tenn. L. Rev. 457 (1987).

Cited: Jenkins v. Loudon County, 736 S.W.2d 603, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1084 (Tenn. 1987).

Collateral References.

Validity and construction of statute authorizing or requiring governmental unit to procure liability insurance covering public officers or employees for liability arising out of performance of public duties. 71 A.L.R.3d 6.

Insurance 435.38.

29-20-407. Authorization for purchase of insurance without bidding.

Any governmental entity may purchase any of the insurance authorized by this chapter, without the necessity of public bidding, as required by any public or private act or charter restriction, if such insurance is purchased through a plan authorized and approved by any organization of governmental entities representing cities and counties.

Acts 1974, ch. 780, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-3331.

Attorney General Opinions. Tennessee Valley Public Power Association insurance program, OAG 84-090 (3/15/84).

Under T.C.A. §§ 29-20-407 and 12-3-1209, a local governmental entity may only purchase liability insurance without the necessity of any legally required public bidding if the liability insurance is purchased through a plan authorized and approved by any organization of governmental entities representing cities and counties.  OAG 13-65, 2013 Tenn. AG LEXIS 68 (8/23/13).

Cited: Johnson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 665 S.W.2d 717, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 745 (Tenn. 1984).

Collateral References. Insurance 13.1.

29-20-408. Catastrophic injuries fund commission created.

  1. There is created a commission to design, develop and propose legislation to the general assembly to enact and implement a catastrophic injuries fund for the purpose of compensating certain specified persons in an amount in excess of the governmental tort liability limits for injuries or death caused by the actions of an employee of a governmental entity and to study other issues relating to governmental tort liability. Such commission shall consist of the following members:
    1. Four (4) members to be appointed jointly by the speaker of the senate and speaker of the house of representatives from a list of eight (8) persons to be submitted jointly by the Tennessee municipal league, the Tennessee county services association, the Tennessee school board association, county-owned hospitals, self-insured municipalities, Tennessee public utilities and the Tennessee municipal league risk management pool by January 1, 2002;
    2. Four (4) members to be appointed jointly by the speaker of the senate and speaker of the house of representatives from a list of eight (8) persons submitted by the Tennessee trial lawyers association by January 1, 2002;
    3. The comptroller of the treasury or the comptroller's designee;
    4. The state treasurer or the treasurer's designee;
    5. The secretary of state or the secretary's designee; and
    6. The chairs of the judiciary, state and local government and finance, ways and means committees of the senate and the judiciary, state government, and finance, ways and means committees of the house of representatives, or such chairs' designees, who shall be ex officio non-voting members of the commission.
  2. If the speakers are unable to appoint four (4) members from the list of eight (8) submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), the speakers shall notify the association or entities submitting the initial list and they shall have no more than forty-five (45) days to submit a new list of eight (8) persons. The speakers may request no more than two (2) such additional lists in making the respective four (4) member appointments.
  3. If for any reason a vacancy occurs in the commission membership appointed pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2), the association or entities making the original appointment shall have no more than thirty (30) days to submit to the speakers a list of two (2) persons to fill each such vacancy. The speakers shall jointly appoint a member to fill the vacancy in the same manner as the initial appointment.
  4. The commission shall first convene at the call of the state treasurer who shall serve as chair and shall coordinate the work of the commission.
  5. The catastrophic injuries fund commission shall design, develop and propose legislation to the general assembly to enact and implement the catastrophic injuries fund by July 1, 2006. The commission may report on and propose legislation, if necessary, on other issues related to governmental tort liability at any time, but no later than July 1, 2006.

Acts 2001, ch. 424, § 3; 2013, ch. 236, § 84; 2019, ch. 345, § 30.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2001, ch. 424, § 4, provided that the state share of the cost pursuant to article II, § 24 of the Constitution of Tennessee for any increased expenditure required by a county by the provisions of the act shall be provided from the unallocated tax revenue of state-shared taxes enumerated in § 9-6-301 (now § 9-4-5301).

Acts 2001, ch. 424, § 5, provided that the amendments to this section would not take effect unless House Bill No. 1555/Senate Bill No. 1013, relating to the definition of “health care practitioner” for purposes of the governmental tort liability act was also enacted and became effective. House Bill No. 1555/Senate Bill No. 1013 was enacted as Acts 2001, ch. 419, effective June 27, 2001.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment substituted  “chairs of the judiciary, state and local government and finance, ways and means committees of the senate and the civil justice, state government, and finance, ways and means committees of the house of representatives, or such chairs' designees” for “chair of the senate and house of representatives state and local government committees, judiciary committees and finance ways and means committees, or such chair's designees” in (a)(6).

The 2019 amendment substituted “judiciary” for “civil justice” following “senate and the” in (a)(6).

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 236, § 94. April 19, 2013.

Acts 2019, ch. 345, § 148. May 10, 2019.

Cross-References. Definition of “health care practitioner” for purposes of governmental tort liability act, § 29-20-310.

Cited: Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 24, 2010); Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. May 24, 2011); Durrett Inv. Co. v. City of Clarksville, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013).

29-20-303. [Repealed.]

Chapter 21
Habeas Corpus

29-21-101. Grounds for writ.

  1. Any person imprisoned or restrained of liberty, under any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in subsection (b) and in cases specified in § 29-21-102, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment and restraint.
  2. Persons restrained of their liberty pursuant to a guilty plea and negotiated sentence are not entitled to the benefits of this writ on any claim that:
    1. The petitioner received concurrent sentencing where there was a statutory requirement for consecutive sentencing;
    2. The petitioner's sentence included a release eligibility percentage where the petitioner was not entitled to any early release; or
    3. The petitioner's sentence included a lower release eligibility percentage than the petitioner was entitled to under statutory requirements.

Code 1858, § 3720; Shan., § 5500; Code 1932, § 9671; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1801; Acts 2009, ch. 420, §§ 1, 2.

Compiler's Notes. This chapter may be superseded as to post-conviction proceedings by title 40, ch. 30. See Rutter v. Wright, 439 F.2d 1002 (6th Cir. 1971), annotated below.

Acts 2009, ch. 420, § 3 provided that the act, which amended subsection (a) and added § 29-21-101(b), shall apply to all habeas corpus petitions filed on or after June 11, 2009.

Cross-References. Allowance of transportation costs, § 8-26-108.

Application on behalf of person held for extradition, § 40-9-119.

Appointment of counsel for indigent petitioner, § 40-14-204.

Habeas corpus on purge of contempt, §§ 21-1-808, 21-1-809.

Juveniles, detention, title 37, ch. 2, part 2.

Petition to take child from orphan asylum, § 71-3-609.

Taking child from institution, § 71-3-304.

Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), §§ 2.39, 2.40, 2.45, 2.47.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 5; 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, §§ 1, 5, 9.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee — Fourteen Years of Judicial Administration Under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act (Gary L. Anderson), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 605 (1981).

The Court in Action: A summary of key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court 2000-2001 (Perry A. Craft and Arshad (Paku) Khan), 37 No. 9 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2001).

Comparative Legislation. Habeas corpus:

Ala.  Code § 15-21-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-112-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-14-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 419.020 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-43-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 532.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-654 et seq.

Cited: Huffman v. Tollett, 321 F. Supp. 58, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (E.D. Tenn. 1970); Jones v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 8, 456 S.W.2d 860, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970); Doyle v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 171, 458 S.W.2d 637, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970); Phillips v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 184, 458 S.W.2d 642, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970); State ex rel. Huskey v. Hatler, 606 S.W.2d 534, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 502 (Tenn. 1980); Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 408, 1982 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982); Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. 1999); Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. 2007); Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2007); Davis v. State, 261 S.W.3d 16, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 31, 2008); Wiggins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2009); Kendrick v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2010); Teal v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 247 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2010); Livingston v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 26, 2010); Ritchie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 474 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 14, 2010); Davis v. Morrow, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2010); Dousay v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 635 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 27, 2010); Lunsford v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 665 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2010); Matthews v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 679 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 17, 2010); Bankston v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 2, 2010); Henderson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1092 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2010); Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2011); Flinn v. Blackwood, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011); Mathis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 19, 2011); Kendrick v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2011); Hayes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 28, 2011); Watkins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 4, 2011); Johnson v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 19, 2011); Helton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 31, 2011); Chance v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2011); O'Guin v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 17, 2011); Amos v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2011); Thurmond v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2011); Benson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2011); Turner v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2012); Transou v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 17, 2012); Williams v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 18, 2012); Stephenson v. Bell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 2012); Hall v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 16, 2012); Allen v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2012); Smith v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 744 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2012); Montague v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2012); Deleon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 841 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2012); Guerrero v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 258 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature of Writ.

The writ of habeas corpus is a highly prerogative writ of ancient origin in common law, the vital purpose of which is to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement, to liberate those who may be confined without sufficient cause and to deliver them from unlawful custody. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965).

The writ of habeas corpus is essentially a writ of inquiry and is granted to test the right under which a person is detained and not to test the guilt or innocence of prisoner but only to ascertain whether he is restrained of his liberty by due process of law. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965).

Declaratory relief is not a function of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W.2d 839, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

The writ of habeas corpus reaches jurisdictional error only; it is not available to serve the purpose of an appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. Anglin v. Henderson, 575 S.W.2d 284, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1979), overruled in part, Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

The office of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of the imprisonment or restraint of one who is being illegally detained. State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2691 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).

A habeas corpus petition may only be utilized to contest void, not voidable, sentences, and a void sentence is one in which the sentence is in direct contravention of a statute in existence at the time the sentence was imposed. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. 1999), cert. denied, Gwin v. Tennessee, 528 U.S. 915, 120 S. Ct. 270, 145 L. Ed. 2d 226, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 6457 (1999).

2. Grounds for Writ.

Averment that petitioner was illegally arrested and searched without a warrant did not allege grounds for issuance of writ of habeas corpus where it was not alleged that illegally obtained evidence was introduced at the trial. State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965).

Where defendant who was on parole pleaded guilty to charge of armed robbery under agreement between his court-appointed attorney and the attorney general that he would receive minimum sentence and that this would run concurrently with sentence under which defendant had been paroled, defendant on habeas corpus proceeding was entitled to have his plea set aside and have a new trial where trial judge under § 40-3620 (now § 40-28-123) was powerless to order concurrent sentence. Henderson v. State, 220 Tenn. 520, 419 S.W.2d 176, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 470 (1967), overruled in part, Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. 2007).

Where indigent made known to court-appointed counsel his desire to appeal even after being advised by counsel of lack of merit of case, such person was improperly denied right of appeal and petition of habeas corpus would be granted, judgment of trial court reversed and new trial ordered. State ex rel. Green v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 551, 421 S.W.2d 86, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 437 (1967).

Petitioner claiming wrongful conviction and sentencing by state court as both a felon and habitual criminal not entitled to federal writ of habeas corpus where it did not appear he had exhausted his state remedies. Frazier v. Tollett, 333 F. Supp. 1317, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10999 (E.D. Tenn. 1971).

A person who is restrained of his liberty by reason of a judgment may attack that judgment upon grounds that it is void and seek his release from custody by means of the writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Anglin v. Henderson, 575 S.W.2d 284, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1979), overruled in part, Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

A judgment based upon a plea of guilty which was not voluntarily and knowingly entered is void and may be attacked by the remedy of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Anglin v. Henderson, 575 S.W.2d 284, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1979), overruled in part, Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

Denial of the right to counsel in a judicial proceeding which may result in the loss of liberty operates to render a judgment against the defendant absolutely void and he may, if imprisoned under such a judgment, obtain his release by habeas corpus. State ex rel. Anglin v. Henderson, 575 S.W.2d 284, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1979), overruled in part, Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

Allegation that trial in the juvenile court by a judge who was not a lawyer has deprived the juvenile relators of their rights under the “law of the land” clause of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 8, raised a fundamental issue which could properly be raised by the remedy of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Anglin v. Henderson, 575 S.W.2d 284, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. 1979), overruled in part, Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

A conditional grant of a writ of habeas corpus required the petitioner's release from custody if new proceedings were not commenced by the state within the prescribed time period; however, the state was not precluded from rearresting petitioner and retrying him under the same indictment, and the state's failure to retry petitioner within a prescribed period did not bar further prosecution. Fisher v. Rose, 757 F.2d 789, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29832 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985).

To obtain relief under the writ, the appellant must show the judgment which causes the restraint of liberty is void. Leonard v. Criminal Court of Davidson County, 804 S.W.2d 891, 1990 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).

Because a court has no jurisdiction to impose a punishment beyond that authorized for a particular crime, an unauthorized punishment may be challenged by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when it appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered that a convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant's sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired. It is not available where the petition alleges only that, upon introduction of further proof and after appropriate findings of fact by the trial judge, the facially valid judgments may be voided. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

Prisoner was entitled to habeas corpus relief because his lack of objection to the aggravated assault jury charge did not constitute an implicit amendment to the attempted first degree murder charge and court was thus without jurisdiction to enter a judgment based upon a crime for which the prisoners was not indicted. State v. Davenport, 980 S.W.2d 407, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).

Habeas Corpus relief is available only when it appears from the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings that a trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence a defendant or that a defendant's sentence of imprisonment or other restraint has expired. Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 431 (Tenn. 2000).

Trial court's checks of boxes on the judgment form ordering petitioner to serve his sentence at 100 percent and 35 percent for only one offense was a mere clerical error, to be remedied by entry of corrected judgments pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36, and was not an illegal sentence sufficient to form the basis of a habeas corpus claim. Stout v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 758 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

To the extent a habeas corpus petitioner being held for theft alleged that he was not afforded a preliminary hearing in a timely manner, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(d)(3), and that he was denied his right to present witnesses at his preliminary hearing, rule 5.1(a)(2), the allegation could not be reviewed because the record contained no pleadings from the prosecution of defendant's case. Moreover, his remedy was simply to request such a hearing. Bryan v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 17, 2011).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's T.C.A. § 29-21-101 habeas corpus petition against the State was proper because, although the inmate claimed that, due to his physical and mental handicaps, he lacked the mental capacity to enter the pleas, he failed to state a cognizable ground for habeas corpus relief; proof that the inmate's pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, for whatever reason, would have rendered the judgment voidable rather than void. Farner v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 613 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 914 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2012), cert. denied, 185 L. Ed. 2d 842, 133 S. Ct. 1833, 569 U.S. 934, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2875 (U.S. 2013).

Petitioner could not rely upon the State's insistence to support a conclusion that he bargained for the gang enhanced sentence, and the evidence failed to establish that he would not have pleaded guilty if the agreement had not included the gang enhancement requirement; as the evidence did not establish that the illegal sentence was material to petitioner's acceptance of the plea agreement, the appropriate remedy was the entry of a corrected judgment imposing a legal sentence and petitioner was entitled to habeas corpus relief. Perry v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2019).

3. Custody Requirement.

Habeas corpus petition failed to comply with the prescribed statutory form in not alleging that petitioner was “imprisoned or restrained of his liberty,” as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-101, and failing to allege grounds for habeas corpus relief as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b): it was not verified by affidavit, failed to name the restraining authority and the place of restraint, failed to state whether the legality of the restraint had been previously adjudicated, and failed to state whether previous applications for the writ had been made. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004).

Where habeas corpus petitioner had not alleged that he presently was serving the 10-day suspended sentence imposed for his 1986 conviction, he clearly was not “imprisoned” under the challenged judgment. Petitioner was not “restrained of liberty” as a direct consequence of the 1986 judgment; the 10-day sentence had long ago expired, and the general sessions judgment did not impose any further restraint upon his physical movement or action. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004).

For as long as a petitioner flouts the court's judgment in the case in which habeas corpus relief is sought, a court may not be required to rule on the merits of the petition and may dismiss it. Moreover, the standard for defining “fugitive” is different and more stringent for extradition purposes than in fugitive disentitlement cases. Searle v. Juvenile Court for Williamson County, 188 S.W.3d 547, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. 2006).

Mother was not entitled to seek habeas corpus relief under T.C.A. §§  29-21-10129-21-130 from a county court's contempt judgment arising from a child custody case under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because she was seeking a favorable judgment on the same matter where she was a fugitive. Searle v. Juvenile Court for Williamson County, 188 S.W.3d 547, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 303 (Tenn. 2006).

Because a petitioner for habeas corpus failed to establish that he was restrained of his liberty by virtue of a conviction as required under T.C.A. § 29-21-101, habeas corpus relief was denied, although the judgment on the conviction was void because under T.C.A. § 40-20-111(b) and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(B) the sentence was required to be consecutive to his earlier sentences, and it was aligned concurrently. Thornton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2010).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-101, petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief as habeas corpus relief could be sought only when the judgment was void, not merely voidable. Petitioner was presently incarcerated in a federal prison on a wholly separate federal conviction, and nothing in the record suggested that he was serving a sentence from any of the challenged judgments concurrently with his federal sentence, notably because the sentences were already expired. Decker v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2011).

Defendant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed under T.C.A. § 29-21-101(a) after defendant had pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. Under T.C.A. § 29-21-101(a), habeas corpus relief was only available if defendant was imprisoned or restrained of liberty, and the record established that he had completed his sentences. Kendrick v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 195 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 15, 2011).

Habeas petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because habeas corpus relief did not lie to address a conviction after the sentence on the conviction had been fully served and the petitioner, in the petitioner's brief, acknowledged that the petitioner had been released from the Tennessee Department of Correction. Deakins v. Westbrooks, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 775 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2014).

Former inmate was not entitled to relief from an expired illegal sentence because (1) Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 did not expand the relief available for illegal sentence claims to include correcting expired illegal sentences, as such relief was traditionally available by way of habeas corpus, requiring a petitioner to be in custody, and (2) the former inmate's motion alleging a failure to award pretrial jail credit stated no colorable claim for relief from an illegal sentence, as this did not render the sentence illegal. State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 933 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015).

4. Effect of Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

For all practical purposes, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, §§ 40-3801 — 40-3824 (now title 40, ch. 30), appears to have superseded this chapter. Rutter v. Wright, 439 F.2d 1002, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11019 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1971).

The trial court could have treated a habeas corpus petition as one filed under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, but it was not required to do so. Ray v. State, 489 S.W.2d 849, 1972 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972).

5. Prisoners Prosecuting Writ.

Where a conviction or order of commitment for contempt is void upon its face, or where the proceedings are wholly void for want of jurisdiction or other cause, relief may be had by habeas corpus proceedings in any court having jurisdiction of the same. State v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1868); State ex rel. Karr v. Taxing Dist. of Shelby County, 84 Tenn. 240, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1886); McLendon v. State, 92 Tenn. 520, 22 S.W. 200, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 8, 21 L.R.A. 738 (1893).

Habeas corpus lies to liberate a person imprisoned under a void judgment, but not where the judgment is merely voidable; and it lies where the term of imprisonment has expired. State ex rel. Karr v. Taxing Dist. of Shelby County, 84 Tenn. 240, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1886); McLendon v. State, 92 Tenn. 520, 22 S.W. 200, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 8, 21 L.R.A. 738 (1893); State ex rel. Conner v. Herbert, 127 Tenn. 220, 154 S.W. 957, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1912).

The fact that a person has been released from jail on her recognizance provided she does not leave the county does not prevent her from bringing a proceeding in habeas corpus or make such proceeding moot. State ex rel. Dillehay v. White, 217 Tenn. 524, 398 S.W.2d 737, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 656 (1966).

The writ of habeas corpus will not lie to challenge the denial of prison privileges and related internal matters, but is only available where a prisoner's sentence is void or his term of imprisonment has expired. State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2691 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).

Petitioner for writ of habeas corpus was entitled to evidentiary hearing to determine whether his 22-year sentence, which had been commuted from life sentence, had expired before governor signed revocation order and restored life sentence. Carroll v. Raney, 868 S.W.2d 721, 1993 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 359 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).

An out-of-state person may seek habeas corpus relief in Tennessee from a Tennessee conviction even though not a prisoner in Tennessee. Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Jan. 4, 1999).

Use of a petitioner's challenged prior criminal convictions to enhance a sentence he is currently serving does not provide adequate grounds to grant habeas corpus relief where said challenged convictions and sentences have expired prior to his filing for habeas corpus relief. Such prior convictions do not comprise a restraint on a petitioner's liberty for purposes of the habeas corpus statute. Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1111 (Tenn. 2004), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2005).

6. Committing Court — Power upon Discharge by Another Court.

Where a person, held in illegal restraint under a void judgment of one court, is discharged by another court under a habeas corpus proceeding, the former court cannot defeat the result of the habeas corpus suit by any orders it may make. McLendon v. State, 92 Tenn. 520, 22 S.W. 200, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 8, 21 L.R.A. 738 (1893).

7. Parent Seeking Custody of Child.

The writ is a purely prerogative one; and, as it affects the custody of infants, it rests on the assumption of a right in the state paramount to the parental right to control a child or to dispose of such. State ex rel. Jones v. West, 139 Tenn. 522, 201 S.W. 743, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1918).

8. Assertion of Right to Property or Services.

The writ is not available as a remedy to restore to the master his apprentice, when illegally detained from him. The object of the writ is not to enable persons to assert a right to property, or to the services of another, but to protect the liberty of the subject. Lea v. White, 36 Tenn. 73, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1856); State ex rel. Bethell v. Kilvington, 100 Tenn. 227, 45 S.W. 433, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 105, 41 L.R.A. 284 (1897).

9. Federal Jurisdiction.

Remedy in the state courts must be exhausted as a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Wooten v. Bomar, 267 F.2d 900, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3655 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 888, 80 S. Ct. 161, 4 L. Ed. 2d 122, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 201 (1959); Rucker v. Rose, 626 F. Supp. 416, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18836 (M.D. Tenn. 1985).

Where petitioners have not prosecuted a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into their unbailed detention before final appellate adjudication, before a Tennessee judge, they have not exhausted the remedies available to them, and a petition for a writ in the United States district court will be denied. Ramey v. Russell, 299 F. Supp. 947, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8599 (E.D. Tenn. 1969).

10. Collateral Attack.

A petition for the writ of habeas corpus, seeking release of one imprisoned under a judgment, is not a direct, but a collateral attack upon such judgment, and cannot prevail unless a judgment is void. State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1963); State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 496 (1964); State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 381 S.W.2d 290, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 499 (1964); State ex rel. George v. Bomar, 216 Tenn. 82, 390 S.W.2d 232, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (1965); State ex rel. Folds v. Hunt, 216 Tenn. 195, 391 S.W.2d 629, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 656 (1965); State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965); State ex rel. Donehue v. Russell, 221 Tenn. 609, 429 S.W.2d 818, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 361 (1967); State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 534 (1968); State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1968).

It is well settled in this state that a petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to review or correct errors of law or fact committed by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1963); State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 534 (1968); State ex rel. Donehue v. Russell, 221 Tenn. 609, 429 S.W.2d 818, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 361 (1967).

When the jurisdiction of a court depends upon the existence of a certain fact or facts, and the court has found such fact or facts, such facts cannot be questioned on a collateral attack or by petition for writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 346 (1963).

Writ of habeas corpus may not be used to make a collateral attack against a valid judgment and conviction and this is especially true where the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court has been reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court of Tennessee and found to be without error. State ex rel. Smith v. Bomar, 212 Tenn. 149, 368 S.W.2d 748, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1963), cert. denied, Smith v. Bomar, 376 U.S. 915, 84 S. Ct. 670, 11 L. Ed. 2d 612, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1849 (1964).

Burden is on person making collateral attack on judgment by habeas corpus to show that such judgment is void and in absence of production of such judgment or a copy thereof there is a conclusive presumption that it is valid in all respects. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 381 S.W.2d 290, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 499 (1964); State ex rel. George v. Bomar, 216 Tenn. 82, 390 S.W.2d 232, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (1965).

Averment by petitioner that he was coerced into pleading guilty of kidnapping for purpose of armed robbery constituted a collateral attack on a valid judgment of a court of general jurisdiction and could not be made by petition for habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965).

Where defendant who was convicted of second degree murder appeared and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and did not prosecute right of appeal, he was not subsequently entitled to raise contention in petition for habeas corpus that he was not afforded an appeal. State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1968).

Habeas corpus may not be employed to raise and relitigate or review questions decided and disposed of in a direct appeal from a conviction. Morgan v. State, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 454, 445 S.W.2d 477, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

The trial court properly declined to rule upon the validity of the Ohio detainer because the jurisdiction of Tennessee courts may not be invoked in habeas corpus actions to challenge the propriety of a sister state's proceedings for the enforcement of its laws. State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2691 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).

Habeas corpus relief is not available where complaint only relates to possible denial of certain privileges because of out-of-state detainer lodged against complainant. State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2691 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).

Defendant was not entitled to collaterally attack his conviction by writ of habeas corpus when it did not appear, either on the face of the judgment or in the original trial record, that the court of conviction lacked territorial jurisdiction. State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. 2000).

Petitioner's failure to find meaningful employment was a collateral consequence of her convictions for obtaining controlled substances by fraud, but habeas corpus relief was not the proper avenue for seeking relief from the collateral consequences of a conviction as habeas corpus relief was limited to a petitioner who was imprisoned or restrained of liberty. Cooley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 965 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Apr. 10, 2014).

11. Substitute for Appeal.

Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for or in lieu of appeal. State ex rel. Smith v. Bomar, 212 Tenn. 149, 368 S.W.2d 748, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 407 (1963), cert. denied, Smith v. Bomar, 376 U.S. 915, 84 S. Ct. 670, 11 L. Ed. 2d 612, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1849 (1964); State ex rel. Dickens v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 493, 381 S.W.2d 287, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (1964); State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 381 S.W.2d 290, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 499 (1964); State ex rel. George v. Bomar, 216 Tenn. 82, 390 S.W.2d 232, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (1965); State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965); State ex rel. Ivey v. Meadows, 216 Tenn. 678, 393 S.W.2d 744, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 614 (1965); State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 534 (1968); State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24, 424 S.W.2d 186, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1968); Richmond v. Barksdale, 688 S.W.2d 86, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3340 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

Alleged failure to impanel jury to hear evidence and fix punishment upon a plea of guilty where punishment was confinement in penitentiary could not be raised in habeas corpus proceeding. State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 534 (1968).

A petition for habeas corpus may not be used to review or correct errors of law or fact committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction and the writ cannot be used as a substitute for or serve the purpose of appeal or writ of error or to obtain a rehearing in the appellate court. State ex rel. Carroll v. Henderson, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 427, 443 S.W.2d 689, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

12. Appeal Pending.

A habeas corpus petition or a petition under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act complaining of the original conviction and sentence may not be maintained while a direct appeal of the same conviction and sentence is being prosecuted. Crain v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 67, 451 S.W.2d 695, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

13. Presumption of Regularity.

In absence of allegation in petition for habeas corpus that defendant was without counsel at time of plea of guilty or that he was indigent at the time, Supreme Court was obliged to presume that if defendant was indigent at time of trial, made that known and requested counsel, such request was granted. State ex rel. George v. Bomar, 216 Tenn. 82, 390 S.W.2d 232, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (1965).

14. Right to Counsel.

Habeas corpus proceeding is a civil proceeding and constitutional right to counsel in criminal cases as guaranteed by state and federal constitutions is inapplicable. State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows, 215 Tenn. 668, 389 S.W.2d 256, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 673 (1965); State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965).

15. Discretion of Trial Court.

Discretion of trial court under § 40-3102 (now § 40-23-101) prior to 1965 amendment in refusing credit for prior time spent in penitentiary pending appeal of first conviction which resulted in reversal and new trial could not be reviewed by habeas corpus after second conviction but was only reviewable by appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. Ivey v. Meadows, 216 Tenn. 678, 393 S.W.2d 744, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 614 (1965).

16. Limitations.

The statute of limitations on the filing of post-conviction petitions is inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings, because the two avenues of collateral attack are theoretically and statutorily distinct. The post-conviction process, set out in title 40, ch. 30, provides for challenges to convictions that are alleged to be either void or voidable because of the abridgment of constitutional rights. The writ of habeas corpus, codified in this chapter, will issue only in the case of a void judgment or to free a prisoner held in custody after his term of imprisonment has expired. A petitioner cannot collaterally attack a facially valid conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding. Potts v. State, 833 S.W.2d 60, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. 1992); Flowers v. Traughber, 910 S.W.2d 468, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 583 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Lewis v. Metropolitan Gen. Sessions Court, 949 S.W.2d 696, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

The mere fact that an appellant designates a pleading as a petition for habeas corpus relief does not mean that the jurisdiction of the habeas corpus statutes had been properly invoked; if the petition is, in fact, a request for relief that may be granted only pursuant to the post-conviction statutes, a court may properly treat that petition as a petition for post-conviction relief and apply the appropriate three-year statute of limitations to its filing. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

17. Petition Denied.

The trial court correctly dismissed appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, where the allegations in the petition in no way suggested that the challenged convictions were void due to the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over either the subject matter of the proceeding or over the person of the appellant, and the petition did not indicate that the record of the proceedings would show that the trial court's actions were unauthorized or that appellant's sentence had expired and that the appellant was thus being restrained illegally. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (Tenn. 1993).

Judgments revoking defendant's probation appeared valid on their face, where the appellate court did not have a transcript of the probation revocation proceedings before it, it had to presume the actions of the trial judge to be correct; therefore, the trial court properly dismissed defendant's petition in so far as it might be considered a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Young v. State, 101 S.W.3d 430, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 822 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2003).

All of the sentences imposed for petitioner's challenged convictions had already been served prior to the filing of his habeas corpus petitions in 2002. Even assuming that those prior convictions were used to enhance the sentences he was currently serving, Hickman v. State  made clear that same was not an adequate basis for habeas corpus relief to be granted. Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1111 (Tenn. 2004), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2005).

Dismissal of habeas corpus petition was affirmed, because the agreed-upon 12-year sentence to a Class C charge of aggravated burglary was not void and was not subject to collateral attack via a petition for writ of habeas corpus, because the sentencing court had jurisdiction to impose the agreed-upon sentence; the sentence designated as Range I in the present case exceeded the six-year maximum sentence for a Range I offender in a Class C offense, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-112(a)(3), but the imposed sentence was less than the maximum, 15-year sentence for Class C offenses through the career offender-classification, T.C.A. § 40-35-111. McChristian v. State, 159 S.W.3d 608, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004).

Although the inmate contended that he was entitled under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 to receive on his 2002 sentence the pretrial jail credits the trial court ordered when it dismissed his post-conviction case and that, upon applying the credits, his sentence has expired, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-211, as a matter of law, the inmate could not have earned credit toward the 2002 sentence before he committed the crime; moreover, according to T.C.A. § 40-23-101, a sentence commenced when the defendant legally came into custody for execution of the judgment of conviction. The statute provided for pretrial credit only for periods that a defendant was incarcerated pending arraignment and trial and for time served after the conviction T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c), and there was no state law provision allowing credit for time served before the crime was committed. Cooper v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1026 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2009).

Judgment summarily dismissing an inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief was affirmed because the inmate failed to show that the trial court was without jurisdiction, as he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on the issues alleging that the counts of which he was convicted were duplicitous or that the jury verdicts lacked unanimity. Farra v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2010).

Defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the trial court illegally enhanced his sentences, was properly denied as a trial court's facially valid judgment could not be collaterally attacked in a petition for habeas corpus relief. Even if defendant could prove the constitutional violations pursuant to Blakely, this would render his judgments voidable, not void. Morris v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 424 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 727 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

Denial of an inmate's habeas petition was proper because, although the inmate complained that his life sentence was illegal because he did not receive pretrial jail credit for time served, a mittimus contained a hand written notation, indicating that the inmate was given pretrial jail credit, and to the extent that the inmate was denied a portion of his jail credit by mistake of calculation or by oversight, the proper avenue for relief was through the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act; the appellate court had earlier reversed several of the inmate's convictions but ruled that the petitioner's remaining convictions supported his status as a habitual criminal, and no court has improperly denied pretrial jail credits upon resentencing the inmate. Therefore, the circumstances of his case did not warrant relief under Henry and Grimes. Matthews v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 522 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 21, 2010), appeal denied, Matthews v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 1027 (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2010).

Inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 was properly denied after he was convicted of possession of 26 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. Even if the inmate proved that he was improperly classified as a career offender, his judgment would not have been rendered void, so there could be no habeas relief. Battle v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2011).

Because defendant's state sentences that he was challenging had expired and he was incarcerated in a federal facility, and because, under T.C.A. § 29-21-101(a), habeas corpus relief was only available if the defendant was imprisoned or restrained of liberty, defendant was not restrained of liberty as statutorily required and was not entitled to relief. McFerren v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2011).

Habeas court properly denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus relief because petitioner did not satisfy his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his convictions are void or that the prison term had expired; petitioner's sentence for attempted burglary was authorized by the applicable statutes at the time of sentencing, the indictments contained the required elements of the charged offenses. Garrett v. Lindamood, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 939 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 21, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. June 20, 2012).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition against a warden was proper because the inmate's allegations of a failure to disclose Brady material, of a failure to instruct a jury concerning lesser included offenses, of Fourth Amendment violations, of ineffective assistance of counsel, and his challenge to the indictments based on their multiplicitous nature were not cognizable under habeas corpus review; further, several of the claims the inmate raised in the current petition were previously decided in earlier proceedings. Lowe v. Fortner, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 214 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 552 (Tenn. Aug. 16, 2012).

Habeas corpus petition was properly denied because the petitioner did not satisfy his burden of showing that his convictions were void or that the prison term had expired. His claim that the jury improperly considered burglary as an aggravating sentencing factor for premeditated murder was addressed in his first habeas corpus petition. Beasley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 25, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because the correct statute for aggravated robbery, T.C.A. § 39-13-402(a), was alleged in the indictment, which stated that money was taken from the victim by putting him in fear and/or by violence, and was accomplished by the use of a knife. Clearly, the factual allegations included the situation of taking the money without the effective consent of the victim. Pittman v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 2, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because the especially aggravated kidnapping count of the indictment clearly set forth allegations, in conformity with all the elements of the offense, to adequately charge the criminal offense and put the inmate on notice of the criminal charge he faced. Pittman v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 2, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because the indictment alleging conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery put the inmate on notice that the State had to prove that there was an agreement between the inmate and his codefendant to commit aggravated robbery. Pittman v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 2, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 762 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2012).

Habeas petition against a warden was properly denied because the first term to be served in the inmate's effective 15-year sentence was a 3-year probation sentence, and, while the inmate was sentenced almost 5 years before the revocation warrants were filed, the sentence was to be served consecutively to other convictions; nothing revealed when the inmate began serving his three-year probation sentence or when the sentence expired. Thus, the inmate failed to show that any part of his 15-year sentence had expired when the revocation warrants were filed or that there was a T.C.A. § 40-36-106(e)(4) violation. Bunton v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 656 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2012).

Summary denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief was appropriate because the petitioner failed to state cognizable habeas corpus claims based upon the judgment forms not reflecting a release eligibility date or percentage of the sentences, the judgments being void related to the plea agreement, the petitioner's classification as an especially aggravated offender, the State of Tennessee's failure to file the proper enhancement notice, and the judgments being void on double jeopardy grounds. Glenn v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2015).

Defendant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because the indictment was sufficient and the trial court had jurisdiction in defendant's case as the marking through “Attorney General” under the signature line on the pages containing the first two counts of the three page, three count indictment and the district attorney general's signature on the last page containing the third and final count in the indictment reflected an intention that the signature apply to all three counts in the indictment. Watkins v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 976 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 9, 2015).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to support his allegations; the record merely contained the cover pages for the indictments, and the indictment itself did not appear in the technical record Delk v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

Habeas corpus relief was properly denied because, even if defects in the transfer hearing were proven, any such defect would not have affected the criminal court's subject matter jurisdiction with regard to convicting the inmate where the juvenile court's order reflected a complete adjudication of the transfer issue and there was no defect on the face of the record. Mosley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 924 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 28, 2018).

18. Want of Territorial Jurisdiction.

When a judgment of conviction is alleged to be void for want of territorial jurisdiction, that fact must appear clearly and indisputably either on the face of the judgment or in the original trial record before a writ of habeas corpus can issue from a Tennessee court. State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. 2000).

19. Cognizable Issue.

Where the trial court ordered defendant to serve his sentence for escape concurrently to his sentences for voluntary manslaughter and aggravated arson, in direct contravention of T.C.A. § 39-16-605(c) (now § 39-16-605(d)) and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(B), he made a threshold showing that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief; the trial court erred by dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus under T.C.A. § 29-21-101. Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 6, 2008).

Allegations of defendant's habeas corpus petition and attached documents failed to establish that the judgment classifying him as a persistent offender and imposing a nine-year, Range III, sentence for burglary was void under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101. Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2008).

At the time he filed his petition, the inmate remained subject to the three year sentences of incarceration on the judgments of conviction of robbery and aggravated robbery. In consequence, the habeas corpus court erred by concluding that the inmate was barred from seeking habeas corpus relief under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 from his convictions on the basis that he had not yet begun to serve his sentences. Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 975 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 2009), rehearing denied, Tucker v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1081 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2009), overruled, State v. Reed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2016).

In a case in which a pro se state inmate appealed a criminal court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus review, his claims regarding the ineffectiveness of counsel and the knowing and voluntary nature of his pleas would, at best, render his judgments voidable, not void; therefore, such allegations were not cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief. Harbison v. Colson, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 651 (Tenn. July 1, 2010).

Petitioner for habeas corpus was entitled to counsel and a hearing because his sentences for two counts of aggravated rape, which reflected a 30 percent release eligibility for each conviction, were illegal on the face of the judgments pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-13-523(a)(2), (b), which required that a multiple rapist serve 100 percent of his sentence. Turner v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 13, 2010).

Summary dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, petition for habeas corpus relief was appropriate because erroneous jury instructions and sufficiency of the evidence claims could not form the basis for habeas relief and the indictment was not defective. Wallace v. Dotson, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 17, 2011).

Dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, habeas corpus petition was proper because he failed to include the first habeas corpus petition with the current petition, brief, or other attachments, in violation of T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4). Further, notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies, the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Roberson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2012).

Although an inmate sought habeas corpus relief, asserting the evidence presented at his 1987 sentencing hearing did not support his offender classification, the trial court properly denied the inmate's fourth habeas corpus petition because the inmate's challenge to his offender classification was not a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Robbins v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 2012).

Inmate's habeas petition was properly dismissed because the inmate's claim that a trial court constructively amended the inmate's indictment without the inmate's consent by striking the word “recklessly” from a first degree felony murder charge did not show the inmate's judgments were void or the inmate's sentences had expired, as required for a habeas petition. Wilson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 2, 2016).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not properly reviewed via a habeas corpus petition; petitioner waived any issue with regard to sufficiency when he entered a guilty plea. Delk v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner's complaint with regard to the calculation of pretrial jail credits was not properly resolved in a petition for habeas relief; even if the jail credits issue were proper in a habeas proceeding, the record was incomplete as it did not contain the corrected judgment about which petitioner complained. Delk v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner's claim that the State breached the plea agreement was not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Delk v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

20. Procedure.

In a case in which a pro se state inmate appealed a criminal court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus review, he acknowledged, the issues regarding the ineffectiveness of counsel and the knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty pleas, were fully litigated in the post-conviction proceeding. Generally, issues previously litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction need not be revisited. Harbison v. Colson, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 651 (Tenn. July 1, 2010).

Habeas court erred in summarily dismissing an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. as moot since the inmate filed his petition before his sentence expired, while he was in constructive custody and restrained of his liberty; although the inmate was released on parole when he filed his petition, his parole was not to expire until almost two months later, and the fact that the petition was not scheduled to be heard until after the inmate's parole had expired was not due to the inmate's failure to act. Herndon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 955 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Apr. 9, 2013).

In habeas corpus proceedings, petitioner established the restrictions of the sexual offender registry, T.C.A. §§ 40-39-211(a), (c), and 40-39-215(a), were a restraint on his liberty, T.C.A. § 29-21-101, because the restrictions relating to petitioner, whose victim was a minor, restricted his location of a residence and choice of employment, particularly in an urban setting, and could adversely impinge upon petitioner's decision to marry when the intended spouse was the parent of a minor child in residence; the restrictions applied during petitioner's lifetime. Doe v. Gwyn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2013).

21. Petition Granted.

Supreme court granted inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus because the inmate's sentence was illegal and void; the inmate entered a guilty plea to child rape, and he could not be granted early release; the sentence was required to be served day by day. Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 837 (Tenn. 2006).

Where homicide was not a crime of infamy at the time petitioner committed the offense, the trial court lacked statutory authority to declare petitioner infamous; the resulting disenfranchisement of petitioner qualified as a restraint on liberty within the meaning of T.C.A. § 29-21-101, and therefore petitioner was entitled to limited habeas corpus relief. May v. Carlton, 245 S.W.3d 340, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2008).

Habeas court did not err in finding that petitioner's escape conviction was void but did not render the entire plea agreement void because petitioner did not prove that the sentence for his escape charge was “bargained-for” or a “material element” of the guilty plea; the record did not prove, on its face, that the illegal provision of a concurrent sentence for misdemeanor escape was a bargained-for element of petitioner's plea because petitioner agreed to plead guilty to aggravated arson, sale of cocaine, and misdemeanor escape, and he agreed to plead nolo contendre to voluntary manslaughter and receive a sentence of six years instead of facing first degree murder charges and a possible life sentence. Summers v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Aug. 30, 2010).

Petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release because the sentencing court failed to give him mandatory credit for time served on community corrections, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-36-106(e)(3)(B), following revocation of community corrections. Petitioner was not required to follow administrative procedures. Jackson v. Parker, 366 S.W.3d 186, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2011).

22. Sentence Legal.

Defendant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 because he failed to show that his plea-bargained sentence requiring him to serve 22 years pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-17-432 with no possibility of early release on parole was not within the trial court's jurisdiction to impose, or that he was on an expired sentence. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. May 7, 2010), cert. denied, Davis v. Tennessee, 562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 423, 178 L. Ed. 2d 330, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8233 (U.S. 2010).

Habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petitions because they failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The inmate's one-year probationary sentence had not expired at the time the probation revocation warrant was issued; because the judgment revoking probation was facially valid and the record did not show that the judgment was void, the claim was not a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Morton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2012).

Taking into account the inmate's jail credit of 325 days, as well as the 351 days that he served prior to filing his brief, the inmate had 419 days remaining on his three-year sentence. Accordingly, the sentence had not expired, and he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on that basis. Morton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. as the inmate was not sentenced under both the 1982 and 1989 Tennessee Sentencing Reform Acts since: (1) a check mark beneath the Pre-1982 section of the judgment form was nothing more than a clerical error because the box indicating the use of the 1989 Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act was clearly marked; (2) the offense date for the inmate's conviction was May 2, 1993; (3) the judgment form reflected that the inmate was sentenced on February 7, 1995; and (4) the inmate provided no indication of why he would have been sentenced under the 1982 Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act since, at the time of his offense and sentencing, the 1989 Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act was in effect. Gayles v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 961 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2012).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. as his life sentence was a determinate sentence under T.C.A. § 40-35-211(1), and the sentence was not void since the trial court had authority to sentence the inmate to life imprisonment. Gayles v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 961 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2012).

State's motion under Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20 to affirm the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted because petitioner failed to establish that his sentences were illegal and that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief; violations under Blakely  do not render a judgment void. Braxton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2013).

23. Habeas Relief Unavailable.

Inmate was not entitled to habeas relief because, although the inmate's first degree murder sentence contravened T.C.A. § 40-35-501(i), he entered an open guilty plea, and his sentences were not part of the negotiation or settlement; what occurred was a clerical error which trial court should have remedied by entry of corrected judgments. Jeffries v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 971 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 17, 2010).

Inmate's habeas petition was properly summarily dismissed as the inmate pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping and his habeas petition was filed in 2010, after the effective date of the amendment to T.C.A. § 29-21-101, which limited the right to habeas relief where a petitioner pled guilty and his sentence included a release eligibility percentage where the petitioner was not entitled to any early release; § 29-21-101 disentitled the inmate to habeas corpus relief. Brewer v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 837 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 7, 2012).

Judgment granting a habeas corpus writ was reversed because the general sessions court, regardless of any legal error, had the authority to summarily hold defendant in contempt and under T.C.A. § 16-15-713, the general sessions court judge was authorized to impose a punishment of five days imprisonment upon finding defendant in contempt; although the general sessions court failed to provide the required notice and hearing, nothing in either the judgment or the record showed that the general sessions court lacked jurisdiction. The claimed illegality regarding the failure to provide notice and a hearing rendered the contempt judgment merely voidable, which did not entitle defendant to habeas corpus relief. Lambert v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Aug. 15, 2012), cert. denied, Lambert v. Tennessee, 184 L. Ed. 2d 740, 133 S. Ct. 950, 568 U.S. 1131, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 860 (U.S. 2013).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. as the inmate relied on handwritten copies of the Tennessee Constitution and portions of the Tennessee Senate and House journals that were not part of the record in the convicting court and were beyond the face of the judgment to support his claim that the aggravated robbery statute, T.C.A. § 39-13-402, was unconstitutional as it did not contain an enacting clause; the inmate failed to establish that his judgment was facially invalid because the trial court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment. Herndon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 955 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Apr. 9, 2013).

Inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 as the inmate did not complain that the trial court sentenced him to an illegal sentence, but complained about actions taken by the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) after the trial court imposed sentence; TDOC's actions did not render the inmate's judgments void or render illegal the sentences imposed by the trial court. Neal v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2013).

Although petitioner established the restrictions of the sexual offender registry were a restraint on his liberty, petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because petitioner's three-year sentence had expired, the restraints imposed by the sexual offender registration laws did not equate to an extension of petitioner's sentence, and petitioner did not allege the judgment was void; petitioner's victim was a minor. Doe v. Gwyn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2013).

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief in a case where it was contended that he was illegally sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403, 542 U.S. 296, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4573 (2004); even if a violation of Blakely was shown, this rendered the judgments voidable, rather than void. Thompson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 207 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 21, 2016).

Trial court properly dismissed petitioner's motion for “Ex Parte Injunction and/or Show Cause Order,” which was considered as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, because the evidence did not preponderate against its finding that petitioner's conviction was voidable; the trial court found the judgment form was entered on the record and into the minutes of the court, and thus, it was presumed to have been received by the clerk's office but not properly file-stamped, which was a clerical error. State v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 324 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 26, 2018).

Judgment did not provide for a sentence including community supervision for life, which rendered petitioner's sentence illegal, and because the judgment was void, the trial court had jurisdiction to amend or correct that judgment; however, the amended judgment, which properly provided for community supervision for life, was not void, and the fact that petitioner was unaware of the amendment did not render the amended judgment void, and he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Fish v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 27, 2019).

24. Petition Properly Dismissed.

Dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. and Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 was proper as the inmate argued that due to a constructive amendment of the indictment, he was convicted of possession of over 300 grams of cocaine for which he was not originally indicted, but he failed to include the superseding indictments that he alleged were defective in the record; the inmate did not show that the convictions were void or that the prison term had expired. Turner v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (Tenn. May 16, 2012).

Habeas corpus petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-101 was properly dismissed as petitioner had not proven that his conviction was void or that the confinement was illegal. Even if the judgment was amended to include the community supervision for life requirement, it would not be void as the convicting court could properly amend the judgment to include the requirement. Panzini v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 28, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Sept. 19, 2012).

Summary denial of an inmate's habeas petition against a warden was proper because, although there was a discrepancy between the cover of the indictment and the actual charge as set forth in the indictment, this did not entitle the inmate to habeas relief; the indictment satisfied all of the criteria of T.C.A. § 40-13-202. The count alleging attempted first degree premeditated murder set forth in text the essential elements of the offense and referred to the attempt statute, and the reference to the reckless endangerment statute on the cover sheet was, at most, harmless surplusage. Woods v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 652 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2012).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing an inmate's habeas corpus petition against a warden because, although the judgment incorrectly reflected a conviction for count 2, rather than count 1, while the plea agreement provided for a guilty plea to count 1, this was nothing more than a clerical error; mere clerical errors did not give rise to a void judgment, and, pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36, such errors may have been corrected at any time. Carlton v. Easterling, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2012).

Petitioner's claim that the trial court erred in allowing him to plead guilty was not reviewable in a habeas corpus proceeding because the proper mechanism for challenging the voluntariness or knowledge of the plea would have been through a post-conviction proceeding; the court of criminal appeal could not address the merits of petitioner's argument under a post-conviction framework because the petition was untimely under T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a). Lewis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 15, 2013).

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on the basis of a defective indictment on a charge of rape of a child because, under State v. Hill , the indictment was not fatally defective for failing to allege a culpable mental state; moreover, the application of Hill , which was decided after petitioner committed his offense, to petitioner's indictment did not violate due process or the prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Hill v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2013).

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on the basis of a trial court's failure to award pretrial jail credits because petitioner failed to exhibit to his petition sufficient documentation from the record to establish that he was indeed entitled to pretrial jail credit under T.C.A. § 40-23-101 and that the trial court erroneously failed to award it. Hill v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2013).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition was affirmed as although the inmate's concurrent sentences were improper under T.C.A. § 40-20-111 and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3) because he was released on bond in the earlier cases when he committed the latter offenses, T.C.A. § 29-21-101(b) provided that persons restrained of their liberty pursuant to a guilty plea and negotiated sentence were not entitled to habeas relief on any claim that the inmate received concurrent sentencing where there was a statutory requirement for consecutive sentencing. Childress v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2013).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was proper since the inmate did not file the petition in the proper court under T.C.A. § 29-21-105 and did not show how the Hamilton County court records were necessary for his claims of an improper indictment, a double jeopardy violation and a violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-404(d). McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was properly summarily dismissed as the inmate's claim that his convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary violated T.C.A. § 39-14-404(d) was waived as it was raised for the first time on appeal, and was essentially a double jeopardy claim that did not entitle the inmate to habeas relief. McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was properly summarily dismissed as the inmate's conviction for felony murder and the underlying felony did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V, and Tenn. Const. art. I, § 10. McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was properly summarily dismissed as the inmate's convictions were not void since the indictment language satisfied T.C.A. § 40-13-202 since it showed that the grand jurors were from Hamilton County, where the offenses took place. McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was proper as: (1) The inmate's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that his sentence for statutory rape included a requirement that he comply with Tennessee's sexual offender registration act, T.C.A. § 40-39-201 et seq., did not render his guilty plea void as the requirement was a collateral consequence of his guilty plea; (2) Such claims were not cognizable claims for habeas relief; and (3) The petition could not be construed as a post-conviction petition as the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a) had long expired. Lanier v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2013).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was proper where: (1) The indictment charging the inmate with rape properly vested subject matter jurisdiction with the trial court; (2) The inmate signed a waiver of a jury trial and request for entry of a guilty plea and understood that he was pleading guilty to statutory rape rather than rape; (3) The judgment of conviction reflected that the charge was amended to statutory rape; (4) the inmate consented to the amendment of his charge to statutory rape; and (5) his judgment of conviction was not void under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 7(b). Lanier v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2013).

Summary dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper because the judgment form did not impose an illegal sentence in that, although both the standard offender and the child rapist boxes were marked on the judgment form, the form clearly required 100 percent service of the sentence and did not contravene any statute. Shipley v. Lester, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1051 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Mar. 12, 2015).

Habeas corpus court's summary dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief was proper because the petitioner did not establish that the petitioner's judgment was void or that the petitioner's sentence had expired. Kotewa v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2015), appeal denied, Kotewa v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. May 19, 2015).

Habeas corpus court did not err when it summarily dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which the petitioner alleged that the trial court improperly considered the petitioner's status as a parolee to enhance the petitioner's sentence, because the appellate court was unable to ascertain any illegality in the sentencing procedure of the trial court. Moreover, a challenge to the trial court's application of an enhancement factor was not a proper subject for habeas corpus relief. Crawford v. Holloway, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 26, 2015).

Indictment charging defendant with especially aggravated kidnapping was valid and, thus, the summary dismissal of defendant's second petition for habeas corpus relief was warranted, because the victim was defendant's stepchild, and, as such, defendant was not a “parent” as statutorily defined, and the Goodman allegations were not required in the indictment; even if defendant was a “parent,” the superseding indictment included the language articulated in Goodman of “force, threat, or fraud.” Mitchell v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 876 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 226 (Tenn. Mar. 22, 2016).

Circuit court did not err by summarily denying petitioner habeas corpus relief because petitioner's claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial did not constitute cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief; petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction relief, and the denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2017).

Habeas court properly dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirement that he file with his third petition for writ of habeas corpus copies of the previous petitions and the proceedings thereon, and petitioner failed to give satisfactory reasons for the failure to do so. Malone v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2017), appeal denied, Malone v. Lindamood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. July 20, 2017).

Habeas court properly dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner's claims that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial and that his being charged with more than one theft-related offense violated principles of double jeopardy were not cognizable grounds for habeas corpus relief. Malone v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2017), appeal denied, Malone v. Lindamood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. July 20, 2017).

Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to habeas corpus relief because he simply repackaged his prior arguments regarding venue, which were fully addressed by the court of criminal appeals in petitioner's prior appeal affirming the habeas corpus court's dismissal. Rivas v. Lee, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 13, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. May 17, 2018).

It was proper to dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner could not establish that his judgments were void; the guilty plea proceedings took place in the Criminal Court for Hancock County, and the trial court addressed the matters in Hancock County and informed petitioner he was charged and pleading guilty in two counts in Hancock County. Rivas v. Lee, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 13, 2018), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (Tenn. May 17, 2018).

It was no error to summarily dismiss defendant's second habeas corpus petition because (1) a claim that it was an ex post facto violation to retroactively apply sex offender registration requirements had been rejected on appeal of the dismissal of a first petition, in which it was held Tennessee's 1994 Sexual Offender Registration and Monitoring Act was nonpunitive in nature, and the Tennessee Supreme Court had so held in another case, and (2) the judgment in the case did not reflect an illegal or void sentence was imposed. Wiggins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2019).

Trial court did not err in denying the inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her guilty plea conviction because the inmate failed to state a cognizable claim since the failure to comply with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11 was not a cognizable claim in such an action. State v. Kirby, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 573 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2019).

25. Sentencing Credits.

Dismissal of an inmate's habeas corpus petition against a warden was proper because the inmate's T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) pretrial jail credits were correctly applied to his first sentence for armed robbery, and properly omitted from the consecutive sentence for assault with intent to commit first degree murder; the robbery sentence had been fully served, and, because the inmate was no longer restrained for that conviction, he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on that judgment. Dulworth v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 9, 2012).

Failure of the trial court to credit the petitioner with the credits mandated under the statute contravenes the requirements of that statute and results, therefore, in an illegal sentence, an historically cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Belcher v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2014).

Trial court is statutorily required to credit the defendant with all time spent in confinement pending arraignment and trial on the offense or offenses that led to the challenged convictions; the failure of the trial court in this case to credit petitioner prisoner with the credits mandated under the statute contravened the requirements of that statute and resulted in an illegal sentence, which was a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Belcher v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2014).

Although the habeas corpus court did not expressly award pretrial jail credits on both judgments, its order to amend the judgments in both counts two and three was ambiguous as to its intent, and thus the court vacated the order and remanded with instructions to enter a new order directing the trial court to amend the judgment to reflect the proper amount of pretrial jail credits. Belcher v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2014).

Petitioner who claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief from a sentence rendered illegal by the trial court's failure to award mandatory pretrial jail credits must exhibit to his petition sufficient documentation from the record to establish that he is indeed entitled to pretrial jail credit and that the trial court erroneously failed to award it. Belcher v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2014).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because none of the sentences imposed upon petitioner was an “illegal” sentence, which had to be imposed in direct contravention of a statute or be a sentence not authorized by the applicable statutes; the sentencing court followed statutory dictates by granting pre-trial jail credit, did not violate any statute or rule in doing so, and did nothing that was unauthorized by a statute or rule. Jackson v. Donahue, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 848 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2014).

Properly-filed petition for writ of habeas corpus remains a viable avenue for relief on a claim that the trial court failed to award pretrial jail credit as so long as the petitioner makes the required showing from the face of the record. Anderson v. Washburn, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2019).

Trial court erred in denying petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus relief because petitioner stated entitlement to habeas corpus relief in the form of the application of pretrial jail credit, and he had no direct appeal avenue to challenge the denial of pretrial jail credit; the trial court awarded pretrial jail credit, but there was no indication on the judgment forms that petitioner was credited for the 13 days he was detained in the juvenile court detention center. Anderson v. Washburn, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2019).

Habeas corpus relief is available when the sentence under which a petitioner is held has expired; a flat rule that habeas corpus could never be used to address a denial of pretrial jail credit would defeat a petition filed by an incarcerated petitioner whose sentence would have expired had the pretrial jail credit been properly awarded. Anderson v. Washburn, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2019).

26. Justiciability.

Petitioner's claim that T.C.A. § 29-21-101(b) was an unconstitutional ex post facto law was moot as petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 1999 to an effective term of nine years that had expired several years previously, and was no longer in custody on the charges; although petitioner was in federal custody awaiting sentencing on a federal charge and the Tennessee convictions would be used to drastically raise his potential sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines, he was not entitled to habeas relief as the restraint was merely a collateral consequence of the Tennessee judgment. Childress v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2013).

27. Legality of Sentence.

In an aggravated statutory rape case, because sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, petitioner was not eligible for determinative relief; moreover, petitioner was correct that interpretations of T.C.A. § 40-35-306(a) seemed to say that consecutive sentences were to be considered as one aggregate sentence, and only one term of a maximum one-year could have been imposed. Accordingly, a remand was necessary to determine whether petitioner was entitled to habeas corpus relief based on an illegal sentence. State v. Barnett, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 23, 2014).

Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence because, while the trial court erred in relying on the habeas corpus statute and the concurrent sentences he received were illegal where the offenses were committed while he was out on bond, all of the sentences that were run concurrently with defendant's life sentence had expired during the pendency of his appeal and concurrent sentencing, i.e., “the illegal aspect,” was clearly to defendant's benefit given the vast sentence he would have received had he been sentenced consecutively. State v. Cohen, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 552 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 28, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 28-34, 117, 122, 146.

39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 6, 7, 23, 25, 26, 35.

Alibi or absence from demanding state, right to prove. 51 A.L.R. 797, 61 A.L.R. 715.

Appeal from conviction, power to grant writ of habeas corpus pending. 52 A.L.R. 876.

Appeal from conviction, right to, as affected by discharge on habeas corpus. 18 A.L.R. 873, 74 A.L.R. 638.

Arresting one who has been discharged on habeas corpus. 62 A.L.R. 465.

Assistance of counsel, habeas corpus for violation of accused's right to, as affected by other remedies. 146 A.L.R. 374.

Attorney, habeas corpus as remedy for infringement of right of accused to communicate with. 5 A.L.R.3d 1360.

Availability of habeas corpus as affected by federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 2255) dealing with vacation, by direct attack, of sentence in criminal case on ground that it violated Constitution or laws, or exceeded jurisdiction, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 20 A.L.R.2d 976.

Bar of limitations as proper subject of investigation in habeas corpus proceedings for release of one sought to be extradited. 77 A.L.R. 902.

Change of judicial decision as ground of habeas corpus for release of one held upon previous conviction. 136 A.L.R. 1032.

Charge of crime, determination of sufficiency of. 40 A.L.R.2d 1151.

Child custody provisions of divorce or separation decree as subject to modification on habeas corpus. 4 A.L.R.3d 1277.

Conviction offense other than that charged in indictment or information, habeas corpus as remedy. 154 A.L.R. 1135.

Court's power in habeas corpus proceedings relating to custody of child to adjudicate questions as to child's support. 17 A.L.R.3d 764.

Defective title to office of judge, prosecuting attorney, or other officer participating in petitioner's trial or confinement as ground for habeas corpus. 158 A.L.R. 529.

Delay, right to, of one arrested on extradition warrant, to enable him to present evidence that he is not subject to extradition. 11 A.L.R. 1410.

Demanding papers in extradition proceedings as making out prima facie case in habeas corpus proceedings that accused was present in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime or that he is a fugitive. 135 A.L.R. 973.

Denial of relief to prisoner on habeas corpus as bar to second application. 161 A.L.R. 1331.

Disqualification of judge who presided at trial, or of juror as ground of habeas corpus. 124 A.L.R. 1079.

Existence of other remedy as affecting habeas corpus on ground of restoration to sanity of one confined as an incompetent other than in connection with crime. 21 A.L.R.2d 1004.

Federal court, discharge on habeas corpus in, from custody under process of state court for acts done under federal authority. 65 A.L.R. 733.

Fine and imprisonment, habeas corpus in case of sentence which is excessive because imposing both. 49 A.L.R. 494.

Former jeopardy as ground for habeas corpus. 8 A.L.R.2d 285.

Habeas corpus as remedy for delay in bringing accused to trial or to retrial after reversal. 58 A.L.R. 1512.

Habeas corpus on ground of denial of right to counsel in relation to right to appeal. 19 A.L.R.2d 789.

Habeas corpus on ground of deprivation of right to appeal. 19 A.L.R.2d 789.

Habeas corpus to review commitment for contempt for failure to obey court order or decree either beyond power or jurisdiction of court or merely erroneous. 12 A.L.R.2d 1059.

Habeas corpus to test constitutionality of ordinance under which petitioner is held. 32 A.L.R. 1054.

Habeas corpus to test validity of confinement under statutes relating to sexual psychopaths. 24 A.L.R.2d 350.

Illegal or erroneous sentence as ground for habeas corpus. 76 A.L.R. 468.

Insanity of accused at time of commission of offense (not raised at trial) as ground for habeas corpus after conviction. 29 A.L.R.2d 703.

Insanity of one convicted of crime, habeas corpus as remedy in case of. 136 Fla. 246, 186 So. 448, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1547, 121 A.L.R. 270.

Invalidity of prior conviction or sentence as ground of habeas corpus where one is sentenced as second offender. 171 A.L.R. 541.

Jury list, habeas corpus as remedy for exclusion of eligible class or classes of persons from. 52 A.L.R. 927.

Limitations, right to discharge on ground that prosecution was barred by, where defendant had pleaded guilty after statute had run. 37 A.L.R. 1116.

Mistreatment of prisoner lawfully in custody as ground for habeas corpus. 155 A.L.R. 145.

Motive or ulterior purpose of officials demanding or granting extradition as proper subject to inquiry on habeas corpus. 94 A.L.R. 1496.

Nonresidence as affecting one's right to custody of child in habeas corpus proceedings. 15 A.L.R.2d 432.

Pending suit for annulment, divorce or separation as affecting remedy by habeas corpus for custody of child. 82 A.L.R. 1146.

Plea of guilty, failure to examine witnesses to determine degree of guilt before pronouncing sentence upon. 134 A.L.R. 968.

Prisoner of war or interned alien enemy, right of, to habeas corpus. 137 A.L.R. 1353, 147 A.L.R. 1303, 149 A.L.R. 1453, 151 A.L.R. 1453.

Prohibition against contempt proceedings, other remedy by habeas corpus as adequate or inadequate for purposes of. 136 A.L.R. 731.

Release of one committed to institution as consequence of acquittal of crime on ground of insanity. 95 A.L.R.2d 54.

Relief available for violation of right to counsel at sentencing in state criminal trial. 65 A.L.R.4th 183.

Review by federal civil courts of court martial convictions—modern states. 95 A.L.R. Fed. 472.

Right of one detained pursuant to quarantine to habeas corpus. 2 A.L.R. 1542.

Right to try one brought within jurisdiction illegally or as a result of a mistake as to identity. 165 A.L.R. 947, 25 A.L.R.4th 157, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 685.

Sanity or insanity or pendency of lunacy proceedings as matters for consideration in extradition proceedings. 114 A.L.R. 693.

Statutory remedy as exclusive of remedy by habeas corpus otherwise available. 73 A.L.R. 567.

Sufficiency of indictment or information as regards the offense sought to be charged, habeas corpus to test. 57 A.L.R. 85.

Suppression of evidence by prosecution in criminal case as ground for habeas corpus. 34 A.L.R.3d 16.

Validity, construction, and application of concurrent-sentence doctrine—state cases. 56 A.L.R.5th 385.

When is a person in custody of governmental authorities for purpose of exercise of state remedy of habeas corpus—modern cases. 26 A.L.R.4th 455.

Habeas corpus 24-33.

29-21-102. Federal prisoners.

Persons committed or detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge thereof, in cases where such judges or courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts, are not entitled to the benefits of this writ.

Code 1858, § 3721; Shan., § 5501; Code 1932, § 9672; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1802.

Cross-References. Federal prisoner as witness in state criminal proceedings, § 40-17-212.

Cited: Leonard v. Criminal Court of Davidson County, 804 S.W.2d 891, 1990 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); Lewis v. Metropolitan Gen. Sessions Court, 949 S.W.2d 696, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004); Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 975 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 2009); Thornton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2010); Bankston v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 2, 2010); Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2011); Watkins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 4, 2011); Allen v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Persons Held Under Color of Federal Authority.

This section excepts from the jurisdiction of the state judges the case of a party detained in custody under federal judicial authority. State judges have no power to issue a writ for the discharge of a person held under the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States, by its officer. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, 16 L. Ed. 169, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 676 (1859); United States v. Tarble, 80 U.S. 397, 20 L. Ed. 597, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1353 (1871).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-101, petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief as habeas corpus relief could be sought only when the judgment was void, not merely voidable. Petitioner was presently incarcerated in a federal prison on a wholly separate federal conviction, and nothing in the record suggested that he was serving a sentence from any of the challenged judgments concurrently with his federal sentence, notably because the sentences were already expired. Decker v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2011).

2. Prisoner's Remedies in Federal Court.

The party thus held in restraint must apply for relief by habeas corpus to a federal court or judge. The federal courts and judges have authority to grant the writ, to inquire into the cause of restraint of liberty; and, if the prisoner had been remanded into custody by the United States circuit court, he may, in a second habeas corpus proceeding before the United States Supreme Court, have a review of this action, and obtain a discharge, if it be deemed erroneous, this being in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of that court. Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85, 19 L. Ed. 332, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1085 (1869).

An inmate serving a state sentence in federal custody concurrent with a federal sentence was permitted to file for habeas corpus relief, and a trial court should not have dismissed his petition based on jurisdictional grounds; however, since he failed to document his assertion that a state sentence imposed was illegal due to the fact that he was on parole when the offenses were committed, summary dismissal of the petition was proper. Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2007).

3. Federal Officer's Duty.

Where the party is held under federal authority, it is the duty of the officer so holding him to make known that fact to the state court, by due return to the writ of habeas corpus, but he should not produce the prisoner, and should resist the state court jurisdiction, and obey the mandates of the federal government. When the facts are so made known by the return and the state judge is so judicially informed, he should proceed no further. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, 16 L. Ed. 169, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 676 (1859); United States v. Tarble, 80 U.S. 397, 20 L. Ed. 597, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1353 (1871).

4. Petition for Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum.

Federal prisoner was without standing to file petition for habeas corpus ad testificandum seeking to testify in pending case in this state in view of this section and of fact that no authorities in this state had sought his testimony and where there was other ample statutory procedure to obtain his testimony if it should be sought. Putt v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 443, 455 S.W.2d 161, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).

5. Petition Properly Dismissed.

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing an inmate's habeas corpus petition against a warden because, although the judgment incorrectly reflected a conviction for count 2, rather than count 1, while the plea agreement provided for a guilty plea to count 1, this was nothing more than a clerical error; mere clerical errors did not give rise to a void judgment, and, pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36, such errors may have been corrected at any time. Carlton v. Easterling, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2012).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 110.

39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 145.

Habeas Corpus 38.

29-21-103. Judges authorized to grant writ.

The writ may be granted by any judge of the circuit or criminal courts, or by any chancellor in cases of equitable cognizance.

Code 1858, § 3723; Shan., § 5503; mod. Code 1932, § 9674; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1803.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 665.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. LeClercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Cited: Goforth v. State, 176 Tenn. 489, 144 S.W.2d 739, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1940); State ex rel. Hockett v. Hatler, 567 S.W.2d 472, 1977 Tenn. App. LEXIS 323 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977); Lewis v. Metropolitan Gen. Sessions Court, 949 S.W.2d 696, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judgment on Habeas Corpus.

Where criminal court had jurisdiction of writ of habeas corpus and defendant, unappealed judgment of court voiding conviction of defendant was binding even if it were erroneous. Stinson v. State, 208 Tenn. 159, 344 S.W.2d 369, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (1961), superseded by statute as stated in, State v. Gray, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 1994).

2. Jurisdiction.

Inmate's claim that the summary dismissal of his habeas petition was void because the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction was rejected as the Shelby County Criminal Court clearly had jurisdiction over the inmate's habeas petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-103. Herndon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 955 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Apr. 9, 2013).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 105 — 110.

39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 143.

Child, jurisdiction acquired by court in divorce suit over custody of, as precluding habeas corpus by another court to recover custody. 146 A.L.R. 1164.

Contempt in disobeying writ as affected by lack of jurisdiction to issue it. 84 A.L.R. 816.

Jurisdiction of habeas corpus proceeding for custody of child having legal domicile in another state. 4 A.L.R.2d 7.

Military service, discharge of minor from. 137 A.L.R. 1483, 147 A.L.R. 1311, 151 A.L.R. 1455, 153 A.L.R. 1420, 155 A.L.R. 1451, 157 A.L.R. 1449.

Habeas corpus 47(1).

29-21-104. Issuance of writ without application.

Whenever any court or judge, authorized to grant this writ, has evidence, from a judicial proceeding, that any person within the jurisdiction of such court or officer is illegally imprisoned or restrained of liberty, it is the duty of such court or judge to issue, or cause to be issued, the writ as aforementioned, although no application be made therefor.

Code 1858, § 3730; Shan., § 5510; Code 1932, § 9680; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1804.

Cited: Brown v. Rose, 362 F. Supp. 1003, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15337 (D. Tenn. 1973); Brown v. Rose, 378 F. Supp. 902, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15336 (E.D. Tenn. 1973); Luttrell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 408, 1982 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 472 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982); Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Habeas Relief Improperly Granted.

Habeas relief granted to petitioner under T.C.A. § 29-21-104 because the appellate court had held that the sentences in two Sullivan County cases expired in 2003, and petitioner was unlawfully detained for a parole violation on those sentences was reversed since the language in the appellate opinion that stated that the Sullivan County sentences had been ordered to be served concurrently and that the sentences had expired was clearly erroneous and the appellate court was not bound by its erroneous prior decision. Calhoun v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 6, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 437 (Tenn. June 19, 2012).

Collateral References. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 10.

Habeas corpus 52-57.

29-21-105. Place of application for writ.

The application should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not applying to such court or judge.

Code 1858, § 3724; Shan., § 5504; Code 1932, § 9675; C. Supp. 1950, § 9675; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1805.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 9.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Cited: Beaty v. Neil, 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 86, 467 S.W.2d 844, 1971 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971); Leonard v. Criminal Court of Davidson County, 804 S.W.2d 891, 1990 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); Lewis v. Metropolitan Gen. Sessions Court, 949 S.W.2d 696, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. 2000); Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2008); Middlebrook v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1012 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 2009); Thornton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2010); Bankston v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 2, 2010); Henderson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1092 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2010); Watkins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 4, 2011); Benson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2011); Panzini v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 28, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Release From State Penitentiary.

Criminal Court of Davidson County was the appropriate forum for the filing and disposition of petition to obtain release from state penitentiary. Rhea v. Edwards, 136 F. Supp. 671, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2474 (D. Tenn. 1955), aff'd, 238 F.2d 850, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4105 (6th Cir. 1956).

Under this section one filing petition for writ of habeas corpus is required to file such petition with the court or judge nearest him, which would generally mean within the county, unless sufficient reason be given in the petition for not doing so. State ex rel. Leach v. Avery, 215 Tenn. 425, 387 S.W.2d 346, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 506 (1965).

Where relator did not file petition for writ of habeas corpus in county where he was being held nor before a court or judge nearest to him in point of distance and did not give any reason in his petition for failing to do so, the petition should have been dismissed. State ex rel. Leach v. Avery, 215 Tenn. 425, 387 S.W.2d 346, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 506 (1965).

2. Sufficient Reason.

Where it was averred in petition for writ of habeas corpus that there was no judge residing in Sequatchie County qualified to hear the cause and that application was made to circuit judge in Hamilton County as the most convenient judge in point of distance, such petition showed on its face that the circuit judge in Hamilton County had jurisdiction to issue the writ even though the parties were residing in Sequatchie County. Goforth v. State, 176 Tenn. 489, 144 S.W.2d 739, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1940).

Habeas petitioner presented sufficient reason for filing his petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-105 in the criminal court of the county where he was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual battery, rather than in the criminal court of the county where he was incarcerated, as the criminal court of the county where he was convicted possessed the relevant records regarding his allegedly illegal sentence and retained the authority to correct his sentence. Davis v. State, 261 S.W.3d 16, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 31, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. June 30, 2008).

Habeas corpus petitioner complied with T.C.A. § 29-21-105 by giving his reasons for filing in Gibson County, although he was incarcerated in Hickman County, because the petition was filed with the convicting court, which possessed the relevant records and had the potential authority to correct petitioner's sentence at any time. Myers v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 24, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

Inmate's illegal sentence claim based on a failure to award pretrial jail credits under T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) was cognizable in a habeas petition and an evidentiary hearing was required as: (1) the judgment forms attached to the petition did not reflect any jail credit; (2) the inmate attempted to supplement the record with a detention center document reflecting his pretrial jail credits; and (3) if the habeas court summarily dismissed the petition for lack of documentation, it was error as the inmate's lack of records was a sufficient reason for filing the petition in the convicting court under T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Montague v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Jan. 8, 2013).

Petitioner explained that he filed his habeas corpus petition in the convicting court because that court possessed the judgments and records in two cases, had personal knowledge of both cases, and was in the best position to adjudicate the issues raised; accordingly, petitioner provided a sufficient reason to file his documents in the convicting court, as opposed to the court in the county of his incarceration. Cowart v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 5, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. May 14, 2015).

3. Out-of-State Petitioner.

When an out-of-state resident seeks habeas corpus relief from a Tennessee conviction as a void restraint on his liberty, a court of the county of the original conviction has jurisdiction to rule upon the petition and normally would be the most fitting forum. Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Jan. 4, 1999).

4. Compliance with Procedures Not Found.

Habeas corpus petition of an inmate who was incarcerated in Hickman County but filed his petition for habeas corpus relief in Giles County, the sentencing court, which was not the court most convenient in point of distance to the inmate as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105, was properly dismissed. His claims did not require documents more accessible to the sentencing court, and he failed to cite facts establishing Giles County as the proper venue. McCaslin v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2010).

Habeas court properly dismissed an inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief because it was filed in a county other than the county in which he was being detained, so it was not the court most convenient in point of distance to the inmate, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Dousay v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 635 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 27, 2010).

Habeas corpus court acted properly in summarily dismissing defendant's habeas corpus petition because defendant was incarcerated at a correctional facility in one county and filed his writ in another, contrary to the requirement of T.C.A. § 29-21-105 that the application had to be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant. Ali v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 11, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. Aug. 24, 2011).

Court did not err by dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief, because the petitioner admitted that he failed to include with his petition a copy of the judgments of conviction under which he claimed he was illegally detained, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2), and the petitioner had not provided evidence to establish that he was incarcerated in Shelby County or any evidence of his location at the time he filed his petition in January 2011. Thomas v. Trauber, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2012), appeal denied, Thomas v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. May 16, 2012).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 and T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. was proper since the inmate did not file the petition in the proper court under T.C.A. § 29-21-105 and did not show how the Hamilton County court records were necessary for his claims of an improper indictment, a double jeopardy violation and a violation of T.C.A. § 39-14-404(d). McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Sumner County convictions in Davidson County, which was the improper court, as an application for habeas corpus relief should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant, unless a sufficient reason can be given in the petition for not applying to such court or judge. Cooley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 965 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 327 (Tenn. Apr. 10, 2014).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for initiating a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus relief; petitioner filed the writ in Putnam County, Tennessee but he was incarcerated in Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Soimis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Petitioner did not file his petition in the court most convenient in point of distance as required; he was incarcerated in Wayne County, and the Wayne County Circuit Court was the closest court to petitioner, and he had not shown sufficient reasons for also filing the petition in the court of conviction. Dominquez v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 2017).

Petition for habeas corpus relief could have and probably should have been dismissed for failing to comply with the procedural requirements because petitioner provided no reason for filing in Davidson County, much less a sufficient one; petitioner was convicted in Shelby County and had at all relevant times been incarcerated in Lake County. Thomas v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 26, 2019).

5. Compliance With Procedures Found.

Failure of the trial court to credit the inmate with the credits mandated under T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) contravened the requirements of that statute and resulted, therefore, in an illegal sentence, a historically cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief; moreover, in accordance with T.C.A. § 29-21-105, the judgment forms supported the inmate's claim that he was erroneously deprived of pretrial jail credits in contravention of § 40-23-101(c) and the court surmised from the forms that the inmate was incarcerated at the same time on the offenses that led to the convictions of aggravated burglary and robbery. Therefore, the inmate was entitled to full pretrial jail credit on both judgment forms, and although T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) empowered the trial court to award pretrial jail credits, the habeas corpus court, by virtue of its power to correct sentencing illegality, had the power to order the award of pretrial jail credits under the circumstances presented. Tucker v. Morrow, 335 S.W.3d 116, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 975 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 2009), rehearing denied, Tucker v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1081 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2009), overruled, State v. Reed, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2016).

6. Petition Dismissed.

Inmate's habeas petition was properly dismissed because the court where it was filed was not the most convenient court in terms of distance to the inmate as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105; a conclusory statement alleging an “over-congested docket” was not a sufficient reason for the failure to file the writ in the proper court. Fritts v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 122 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. May 25, 2011).

Denial of a habeas petition against the state was proper because the inmate failed to adhere to the T.C.A. § 29-21-107 requirements for habeas petitions; the inmate failed to file his petition in the court most convenient in point of distance to the application as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Further, without documentation, and appellate court was not able to determine whether jail credits were appropriately applied. Chance v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2011).

Dismissal of an inmate's habeas corpus petition against a warden was proper because Johnson County was the proper county for the proceeding, being the county of the inmate's incarceration. Metcalf v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 20, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 844 (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012), cert. denied, 184 L. Ed. 2d 772, 133 S. Ct. 995, 568 U.S. 1149, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1011.

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 119, 120.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 165.

29-21-106. Habeas corpus proceedings in municipal courts, corporation courts and courts of general session jurisdiction.

  1. The judges of the municipal courts or corporation courts and/or the judges of the courts of general sessions of the state of Tennessee are hereby vested with the jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus in all cases wherein any person is being unreasonably held or detained by any municipal official or authority without a warrant of arrest having been issued prior to such detention and against whom no formal charges have been made or placed and who has not been taken before a committing magistrate.
  2. The petition for such writ of habeas corpus shall be sworn to and shall recite generally that the petitioner is presently being detained without charges; that the petitioner is being held by municipal authorities and/or officials; that petitioner was arrested without a warrant and has not been docketed or charged with any offenses and has not been brought before a committing magistrate.
  3. It is the expressed intention of the general assembly to confer on the municipal or corporation courts and general sessions courts of this state, and the judges thereof, the jurisdiction to inquire into the detention of any person being held by municipal authorities and/or officials wherein no warrant for arrest has been issued or any formal charges have been made.
  4. No application for habeas corpus made under this section shall be required to be brought pursuant to § 29-21-105, it being the legislative intent that habeas corpus petitions pursuant to this section shall not be required to be brought before the general sessions or municipal courts but that such petitions may be permitted to be brought before such courts.

Acts 1974, ch. 562, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-1849.

Collateral References. Courts 188.

29-21-107. Petition — Affidavit.

  1. Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed either by the party for whose benefit it is intended, or some person on the pertitioner's behalf, and verified by affidavit.
  2. The petition shall state:
    1. That the person in whose behalf the writ is sought, is illegally restrained of liberty, and the person by whom and place where restrained, mentioning the name of such person, if known, and, if unknown, describing the person with as much particularity as practicable;
    2. The cause or pretense of such restraint according to the best information of the applicant, and if it be by virtue of any legal process, a copy thereof shall be annexed, or a satisfactory reason given for its absence;
    3. That the legality of the restraint has not already been adjudged upon a prior proceeding of the same character, to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief; and
    4. That it is first application for the writ, or, if a previous application has been made, a copy of the petition and proceedings thereon shall be produced, or satisfactory reasons be given for the failure so to do.

Code 1858, §§ 3722, 3725; Shan., §§ 5502, 5505; Code 1932, §§ 9673, 9676; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1806, 23-1807.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 9.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Cited: Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1968); Middlebrook v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1012 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 2009); Thornton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 15, 2010); Davis v. Morrow, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2010); Matthews v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 679 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 17, 2010); Flinn v. Blackwood, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011); Decker v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2011); Ware v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2011); Murdock v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2011); Hayes v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 304 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 28, 2011); Ali v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 11, 2011); Brewer v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 837 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2011); Turner v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 30, 2012); Cooper v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2012); Herndon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 955 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2012); McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Provisions Mandatory.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus for purpose of regaining custody of small child was demurrable where petition failed to show compliance with requirements imposed by subsection (b). Bateman v. Smith, 183 Tenn. 541, 194 S.W.2d 336, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 235 (1946).

The provisions of subsection (b) are mandatory. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 500, 381 S.W.2d 290, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 499 (1964); State ex rel. George v. Bomar, 216 Tenn. 82, 390 S.W.2d 232, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 655 (1965); State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965); State ex rel. Allen v. Johnson, 217 Tenn. 28, 394 S.W.2d 652, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (1965); State ex rel. Autwell v. Johnson, 218 Tenn. 142, 401 S.W.2d 773, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (1966); State ex rel. Goss v. Heer, 220 Tenn. 36, 413 S.W.2d 688, 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (1967).

Requirement of this section that copy of any legal process by which petitioner is restrained be attached to petition or satisfactory reason given for its absence is mandatory and petition may be dismissed for failure to comply with such requirement. State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson, 216 Tenn. 531, 393 S.W.2d 135, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 662 (1965); Johnson v. Russell, 218 Tenn. 443, 404 S.W.2d 471, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 581 (1966), superseded by statute as stated in, State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. 1999).

While reaffirming its previous holdings that the provisions of this section are mandatory, supreme court nevertheless would choose to dispose of case on the merits where it desired to clarify some of the points at issue. State ex rel. Reed v. Heer, 218 Tenn. 338, 403 S.W.2d 310, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 640 (1966).

Where petition for prisoner and answer of state failed to comply with mandatory requirements of this section and § 29-21-116, respectively, criminal court properly treated petition as petition under Post-Conviction Procedure Act as authorized by § 40-3808 (now § 40-30-108, repealed) where that procedure was adequate. Trolinger v. Russell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 525, 446 S.W.2d 538, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

Where defendant did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-21-107, defendant failed to present a habeas corpus petition, the denial of which could be reviewed on appeal as a matter of right. Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because he failed to include in the appellate record a copy of the judgment form as required under T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2). He had been informed of this requirement in a prior appeal. Kendrick v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2010).

Denial of a habeas petition against the state was proper because the inmate failed to adhere to the T.C.A. § 29-21-107 requirements for habeas petitions; the inmate failed to file his petition in the court most convenient in point of distance to the application as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Further, without documentation, and appellate court was not able to determine whether jail credits were appropriately applied. Chance v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2011).

Petitioner failed to verify his petition for habeas corpus by affidavit, state that the legality of his imprisonment had not already been adjudged in a prior proceeding, or state that this was his first application for the writ of habeas corpus, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(a), (b)(3), (4). Additionally, his claims were meritless. Curry v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2011), appeal denied, Curry v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Jan. 10, 2012), cert. denied, 182 L. Ed. 2d 657, 132 S. Ct. 1874, 566 U.S. 929, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2692 (Apr. 2, 2012).

Inmate failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedural requirements, by failing to state whether the legality of the restraint was previously adjudicated and failing to state whether or not previous applications had been made. O'Neal v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (Tenn. May 5, 2016).

2. Previous Applications.

The former petition for a writ of habeas corpus, decided adversely to the petitioner, was compared with a later second petition alleging the presentation of certain new issues not raised and adjudicated in the former petition, and it was held that no new issues were presented or raised in the later petition. State ex rel. Conner v. Herbert, 127 Tenn. 220, 154 S.W. 957, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1912).

Where prisoner's petition for habeas corpus did not show four previous petitions, petition was properly dismissed. State ex rel. Allen v. Johnson, 217 Tenn. 28, 394 S.W.2d 652, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (1965).

Because a habeas corpus petitioner had raised the same issue regarding his sentence for possession with intent to sell in a prior habeas corpus petition, previous adjudication of the issues, including the fact that the trial court had the authority to enhance his sentence pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-17-432(c), barred petitioner from raising the same issues again. Jackson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 1, 2011).

3. Procedure.

Habeas corpus petition failed to comply with the prescribed statutory form in not alleging that petitioner was “imprisoned or restrained of his liberty,” as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-101, and failing to allege grounds for habeas corpus relief as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b), where it was not verified by affidavit, failed to name the restraining authority and the place of restraint, failed to state whether the legality of the restraint had been previously adjudicated, and failed to state whether previous applications for the writ had been made. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004).

Rooker-Feldman  doctrine did not apply to a prisoner's facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Tennessee collateral review statutes, T.C.A. § 29-21-107, T.C.A. § 40-26-105, and T.C.A. § 40-30-117; a district court thus erred in summarily dismissing his facial challenge to those Tennessee statutes. Carter v. Burns, 524 F.3d 796, 2008 FED App. 114P, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5690 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2008).

Inmate failed to attach the 1999 judgment of conviction to his habeas corpus petition or provide a reason for its absence as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107, and therefore, the appellate court was unable to conclusively determine the merits of the petitioner's claim that this sentence has expired. Accordingly, the inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief regarding that sentence; however, the inmate did attach to his habeas corpus petition a copy of the 2002 judgment of conviction. Cooper v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1026 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2009).

Habeas corpus court properly summarily dismissed an inmate's petition because the inmate failed to attach his first petition or set out a reason for his failure to do so and under T.C.A. § 29-21-107, this failure in and of itself was a sufficient basis upon which to summarily dismiss the petition. Buford v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 25, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. May 13, 2010).

Habeas court's summary dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper because petitioner failed to follow the procedural requirement in T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2) since he did not attach the judgment sheet from a case to his petition; petitioner failed to include any information documenting his release on bail for the charges against him, which was essential to his claim that his convictions were void because the shoplifting and first degree burglary and the sale of marijuana and driving under the influence charges were ordered to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Patterson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 5, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

Habeas corpus petitioner complied with T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(3) and (4) by asserting that the application was his first application for writ of habeas corpus, and that the legality of his restraint had not been previously adjudged. Myers v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 24, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2010).

Summary dismissal of defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking convictions from 1986 was proper as defendant failed to follow the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief, he did not include an affirmation of whether the application was his first application or whether the legality of the restraint had been adjudged in a prior proceeding, and he failed to state cognizable claims for relief. It was also unclear whether he was still being restrained by the sentence for his 1986 convictions. Wallace v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1045 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2010).

Summary dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, habeas corpus petition was appropriate because the inmate had again attacked his convictions based upon his allegation that he was impermissibly sentenced under the 1982 Sentencing Act and the issue had been addressed both on direct appeal and in one of his previous convictions. Therefore, under the law of the case doctrine, the appellate court was not permitted to consider issues that had been previously determined on appeal. Edwards v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 5, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1180 (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2011).

Court did not err by dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief, because the petitioner admitted that he failed to include with his petition a copy of the judgments of conviction under which he claimed he was illegally detained, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2), and the petitioner had not provided evidence to establish that he was incarcerated in Shelby County or any evidence of his location at the time he filed his petition in January 2011. Thomas v. Trauber, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 48 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2012), appeal denied, Thomas v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. May 16, 2012).

State's motion under Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20 to affirm the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted because petitioner failed to attach to his application a copy of the judgments of conviction leading to his restraint or provide a satisfactory reason for their absence pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2); although petitioner attached copies of the complete judgments to his brief, they were not presented to the trial court, were not included in the appellate record, and were not properly for the court of criminal appeals for consideration under Tenn. R. App. P. 28(a). Braxton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 338 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2013).

4. Failure to Attach Documents to Petition.

Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief for his conviction for sale of cocaine under 0.5 grams. He failed to demonstrate that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him following entry of his guilty plea or that his sentence had expired, and failed to attach necessary documents as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107. Green v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2010).

Dismissal of a habeas petition was proper because, although the inmate claimed that a prior plea was improperly vacated, the inmate did not attach the judgment of his murder conviction nor did he include the postconviction proceedings during which plea was set aside; under T.C.A. § 29-21-107, the procedural provisions of the habeas statutes were mandatory. Mathis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 19, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 532 (Tenn. May 26, 2011).

Habeas petition was properly dismissed because the inmate failed to attach a copy of the judgment for the DUI where he argued he received improper sentence, and failed to attach copies of plea agreement or transcript of plea hearing, and thus failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4); further, the involuntary entry of a guilty plea or an allegation of double jeopardy would have rendered the judgment voidable rather than void. Finally, a challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentencing was not a proper basis for habeas corpus relief. Hill v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 24, 2011).

Inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed based upon a failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of a habeas corpus petition because the inmate failed to attach to his petition the judgment by which he was retrained or give a reason for its absence, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107. Battle v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2011).

Besides the fact that defendant's state sentences that he was challenging had expired and he was incarcerated in a federal facility, defendant failed to attach a copy of the judgments and, thus, failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b). Therefore, his habeas petition was properly dismissed. McFerren v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 342 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2011).

Dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, habeas corpus petition was proper because he failed to include the first habeas corpus petition with the current petition, brief, or other attachments, in violation of T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4). Additionally, even notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies, the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Roberson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 22, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2012).

Habeas court properly dismissed an inmate's petition for relief because the inmate alleged in his petition that it was his “second” application for habeas corpus relief on a certain issue but the inmate failed to attach copies of the prior petition as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4), and the petition was not verified under oath by affidavit. Settle v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 63 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 3, 2012), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus because petitioner did not fail to scrupulously follow the requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107 since the habeas corpus court received the full copies of the judgments well in advance of its order denying the petition; when petitioner learned of the error in his application he quickly sought to cure the defect by sending copies of the full judgment forms to the habeas corpus court and the State, and all the information necessary to adjudicate his claims could be found on the original copies of the judgments. Dykes v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2012).

Inmate did not fulfill the procedural requirement in T.C.A. § 29-21-107(a) because he failed to verify by affidavit his first and second petitions for habeas corpus relief. In addition, the Petitioner did not fulfill the procedural requirement in T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2) because he failed to attach to his first and second petitions copies of the judgments that were the cause of his restraint and the habeas corpus court could have dismissed these petitions based on those grounds alone. Morton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2012).

Summary dismissal of a habeas petition was appropriate where the prisoner failed to include copies of his prior petitions as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4), his statement that the copies were lost was not a satisfactory reason for failing to attach the copies, and he failed to include sufficient documentation to demonstrate that he did not receive proper pretrial jail credits. Settle v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1170 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

Summary dismissal of defendant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus was justified because of defendant's failure to meet the mandatory procedural requirements, as defendant failed to attach defendant's prior habeas petition to the petition then before the court, and defendant did not give a satisfactory reason for the failure to do so. Howard v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 968 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 4, 2015), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

Habeas court properly dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirement that he file with his third petition for writ of habeas corpus copies of the previous petitions and the proceedings thereon, and petitioner failed to give satisfactory reasons for the failure to do so. Malone v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2017), appeal denied, Malone v. Lindamood, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. July 20, 2017).

Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the statute because he did not include copies of the four prior applications for writ of habeas corpus; petitioner's explanation did not provide a satisfactory reason for not including the prior applications. Smith v. Parris, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 991 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

5. Summary Dismissal.

Summary dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition was proper as petitioner did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-21-107 in that: (1) petitioner did not allege that he was illegally restrained of his liberty or mention the person by whom and place where restrained; (2) although petitioner challenged the sufficiency of his indictments, he did not attach copies of the indictments, or give a reason for their absence; (3) petitioner did not allege that the legality of the restraint had not already been adjudged upon a prior proceeding of the same character; and (4) petitioner did not state whether the petition was his first habeas application. McKinney v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 831 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 14, 2011).

Summary dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, petition for habeas corpus relief was proper because he failed to attach a copy of all judgments as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2); although he attached copies of the judgments that were entered following his trial in 1995, he failed to attach copies of the amended judgments for his convictions for attempted aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery. Since he challenged all of his convictions, he was required to include all relevant judgments in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thurmond v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Mar. 9, 2012).

Dismissal of an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the state was proper because, although the inmate challenged the judgment revoking his probation, he failed to attach copies of those judgments as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2); the petition also failed to state that the legality of the restraint had not already been adjudged upon a prior proceeding of the same character. Further, while the inmate acknowledged the petition was his third, he failed to attach copies of the previous petitions and failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. Transou v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 17, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Sept. 19, 2012).

Dismissal of an inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State was proper under T.C.A. § 29-21-107 because, with regard to his pretrial jail credit issue, the inmate failed to demonstrate that his sentence was void or that the confinement was illegal; further, with regard to his argument that the judgment entered was incorrect, the inmate also failed to demonstrate that his sentence was void or that the confinement was illegal. Stafford v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2012).

Inmate's habeas petition was properly summarily dismissed due to procedural defects where: (1) the petition was not the inmate's first habeas petition; (2) the inmate claimed that the petition was the first habeas petition advancing the arguments raised; (3) the inmate did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-21-107(a)(4); and (4) the inmate did not meet his burden to show that the judgment was void or that the sentence had expired under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Leach v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 716 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2013).

Summary dismissal of a habeas petition filed under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 was proper as the petition did not comply with the procedural requirements for a habeas petition set forth in T.C.A. § 29-21-107 where: (1) the petition and supporting memorandum of law were not verified by affidavit; (2) the petition did not state that the inmate was illegally restrained of liberty; and (3) the petition did not state whether this was the inmate's first application for a writ. Gayles v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 961 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2012).

Order dismissing an inmate's second petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-109 was proper because the inmate failed to establish that his judgment was void or illegal; the inmate's claim that his indictments were somehow fatally flawed was not accompanied by explanation or support, other than the inclusion of documents from his initial habeas corpus petition, the inmate's blanket complaints, without more, did not establish that his judgment was void or illegal, and a review of the indictments indicated that they met constitutional requirements. The inmate's additional allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and illegal arrest were previously determined by the appellate court. Clark v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1020 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2012).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 was improper where the inmate attached the judgments to his petition, which constituted the legal process alleged to cause the inmate's restraint as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2). Hoover v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2013).

Court properly summarily dismissed the habeas corpus petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-109; petitioner inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 because the inmate violated the procedural requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107 by failing to file a complete copy of the petition for habeas corpus relief or the judgments from which he was appealing. Beene v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 208 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2013), appeal denied, Been v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. June 19, 2013).

Where the record shows that defendant properly attached the judgment to his petition showing that his sentence is illegal, he was entitled to some remedy in the form of habeas corpus relief and the habeas court erred in summarily dismissing the petition. Ross v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 791 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 13, 2014), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1067 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 17, 2015).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for initiating a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus relief; petitioner failed to have his petition verified by affidavit or notarized. Soimis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus because nothing in the record indicated that petitioner's convictions or sentence was void; the repeat violent offender statute does not violate constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. Sandridge v. Parris, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 843 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 15, 2015).

6. Sufficiency of Indictment.

Petitioner did not fulfill the procedural requirement in T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(3) because he failed to state whether the illegality of his restraint had been adjudicated in a prior proceeding; accordingly, the habeas court could have properly dismissed his petition based on that ground alone. Robinson v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 894 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2011).

7. Adjudication on Merits.

Despite an inmate's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for a habeas corpus petition, the habeas corpus court did not dismiss the petition for procedural noncompliance under T.C.A. § 29-21-107, and addressed the petition on the merits; thus, the appellate court chose to adjudicate the petition on its merits under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Deleon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 841 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 121-125.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 167-169.

Habeas corpus 52-57.

29-21-108. Duty of court — Wrongful failure to grant writ.

  1. It is the duty of the court or judge to act upon such applications instanter.
  2. A wrongful and willful refusal to grant the writ, when properly applied for, is a misdemeanor in office, besides subjecting the judge to damages at the suit of the party aggrieved.

Code 1858, § 3729; Shan., § 5509; Code 1932, § 9679a; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1808.

Compiler's Notes. The misdemeanor provisions in this section may have been affected by the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. See §§ 39-11-114, 40-35-110, 40-35-111.

Cited: Horne v. Wilson, 316 F. Supp. 247, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10513 (E.D. Tenn. 1970); Flinn v. Blackwood, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011); Thurmond v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Judges.

T.C.A. § 29-21-108(b) did not relate to judges who concluded in their judicial capacity that the facts or law did not warrant relief but who were determined on appeal to be in error; in any event, there was nothing contained in the inmate's allegation that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Thurmond v. Carlton, 202 S.W.3d 131, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2006), appeal denied, Thurmond v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 798 (Tenn. Aug. 28, 2006).

2. Federal Courts.

Where there are obstacles in the state judicial procedure which work to deny a state prisoner his federal right to due process of law, federal courts have no choice but to grant appropriate procedural relief in a collateral proceeding. Morgan v. Tennessee, 298 F. Supp. 581, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8986 (E.D. Tenn. 1969).

3. Necessity of Hearing.

While a full evidentiary hearing may not be warranted or proper for every petition for habeas corpus in this state, nevertheless a petition alleging sufficient facts to establish that petitioner's conviction was void because of alleged denial of constitutional rights, federal or state, necessitates a trial of those facts. State ex rel. Reed v. Heer, 218 Tenn. 338, 403 S.W.2d 310, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 640 (1966).

4. Timely Action Required.

Where the criminal court failed to act on a habeas corpus petition in a timely manner and, as a result, the defendant was deprived of a remedy, the supreme court had authority under Rule 36(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to allow defendant to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 27 (Tenn. 1995).

Court had a duty to grant a writ of habeas corpus when properly applied for; and from the face of the record it appeared that the judgment was void due to a violation of the sentencing act. McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 764 (Tenn. 2001), overruled in part, Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. 2007), overruled in part, Brown v. Lewis, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 22, 2007), overruled in part, Nevilles v. United States, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40237 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2015), overruled in concurring opinion at State v. Taylor, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 13, 2015).

5. Liability.

Dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was appropriate because a judge's failure to act immediately upon the petition did not constitute a wrongful and willful failure to grant the writ so as to subject the judge to a suit for damages. Arnold v. Kennedy, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2013).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 131.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 175.

Liability for statutory penalty of judge, court, administrative officer or other custodian of person in connection with habeas corpus proceedings. 84 A.L.R. 807.

29-21-109. Refusal of writ.

If, from the showing of the petitioner, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief, the writ may be refused, the reasons for such refusal being briefly endorsed upon the petition, or appended thereto.

Code 1858, § 3726; Shan., § 5506; Code 1932, § 9677; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1809.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 10.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Cited: State ex rel. Jordan v. Bomar, 217 Tenn. 494, 398 S.W.2d 724, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (1965); Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Davenport, 980 S.W.2d 407, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004); Davis v. State, 261 S.W.3d 16, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 31, 2008); Middlebrook v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1012 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 2009); Gaines v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1051 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2009); Harris v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 2010); Murdock v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2011); Pendleton v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 10, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Dismissal Without Hearing.

Where there was nothing in habeas corpus petition to indicate that conviction of petitioner might have been void, trial court could properly dismiss petition without a hearing. State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 381 S.W.2d 280, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 496 (1964).

A full evidentiary hearing may not be required for every petition for habeas corpus and unless facts sufficient to establish the void character of the proceedings which led to imprisonment are alleged an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. Russell v. Willis, 222 Tenn. 491, 437 S.W.2d 529, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 455 (1969).

Inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed based upon a failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of a habeas corpus petition because the inmate failed to attach to his petition the judgment by which he was retrained or give a reason for its absence, as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107. Battle v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2011).

Habeas petition was properly dismissed because the trial court thoroughly reviewed and responded to the petition, and T.C.A. § 29-21-109 merely required the reasons for refusing the petition to be briefly endorsed on the petition, or appended thereto; the petition failed to establish that the judgment was void. The indictment was sufficient. Williams v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 18, 2012).

Dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition without a hearing under T.C.A. § 29-21-109 was proper as the inmate's life sentence for first-degree felony murder was a determinate sentence under T.C.A. § 40-35-211, which defined a determinate sentence as one that was for a term of years or months or life. Allen v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2012).

Dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition without a hearing under T.C.A. § 29-21-109 was proper as the inmate's life sentence for first-degree felony murder was not illegal since: (1) A first-degree felony murder conviction was not a Class A felony, but was in a class by itself, and was an offense classified even higher than a Class A felony; (2) The Tennessee 1989 Sentencing Act provided that the punishment for first-degree felony murder was punishment by death or by imprisonment for life under T.C.A. § 39-13-202(b); and (3) The inmate's life sentence was authorized by statute. Allen v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 5, 2012).

Circuit court properly dismissed petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing because the constitutional violations alleged by petitioner were not cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief. Thomas v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2017).

2. Summary Dismissal Appropriate.

In a habeas corpus proceeding based upon defendant's contention that his concurrent sentence for escape and the underlying crimes was illegal and therefore resulted in a void judgment, although the judgment on defendant's escape conviction stated that the sentence was to be served concurrently with his sentences for the underlying crimes, the judgment was silent as to whether defendant committed the escape while being held for the other charges, and therefore no illegality of the sentence was evident on the face of the judgment; because the escape judgment was facially valid and defendant failed to support his factual assertions with pertinent documents from the record of the underlying proceedings, summary dismissal was proper. Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. 2007).

Habeas corpus court properly summarily dismissed an inmate's petition because the inmate failed to attach his first petition or set out a reason for his failure to do so and under T.C.A. § 29-21-107, this failure in and of itself was a sufficient basis upon which to summarily dismiss the petition. Buford v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 25, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 491 (Tenn. May 13, 2010).

Inmate convicted of four counts of rape who was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to a total effective sentence of 80 years rather than as a multiple rapist under T.C.A. § 39-13-523, was not entitled to habeas corpus relief based on the sentence being illegal and void. The multiple rapist designation arose by operation of law, so the error was merely clerical, and the habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing the inmate's petition. Cantrell v. Easterling, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 10, 2010), rev'd, 346 S.W.3d 445, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2011).

Habeas petition was properly dismissed because the inmate failed to attach a copy of the judgment for the DUI where he argued he received improper sentence, and failed to attach copies of plea agreement or transcript of plea hearing, and thus failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4); further, the involuntary entry of a guilty plea or an allegation of double jeopardy would have rendered the judgment voidable rather than void. Finally, a challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentencing was not a proper basis for habeas corpus relief. Hill v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 24, 2011).

Because a habeas corpus petitioner had raised the same issue regarding his sentence for possession with intent to sell in a prior habeas corpus petition, previous adjudication of the issues, including the fact that the trial court had the authority to enhance his sentence pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-17-432(c), barred petitioner from raising the same issues again. Jackson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 1, 2011).

Habeas petition was properly dismissed because the issues raised had been previously determined in the inmate's postconviction petition and appeal. Fritts v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 122 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. May 25, 2011).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas petition was proper because the court where it was filed was not the most convenient court in terms of distance to the inmate as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Fritts v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 122 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. May 25, 2011).

Summary dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, petition for habeas corpus relief was appropriate because erroneous jury instructions and sufficiency of the evidence claims could not form the basis for habeas relief and the indictment was not defective. Wallace v. Dotson, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 17, 2011).

Denial of a habeas petition against the state was proper because the inmate failed to adhere to the T.C.A. § 29-21-107 requirements for habeas petitions; the inmate failed to file his petition in the court most convenient in point of distance to the application as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-105. Further, without documentation, and appellate court was not able to determine whether jail credits were appropriately applied. Chance v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 489 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2011).

Habeas petition was properly dismissed because venue was properly waived by the inmate's plea; because the inmate signed a waiver of venue and pled nolo contendere to charge, he was not allowed to claim that the conviction was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction based on venue. Under T.C.A. § 40-35-214(a), a written document was unnecessary. King v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 508 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 7, 2011).

Summary dismissal of petitioner's, an inmate's, habeas corpus petition was appropriate because the inmate had again attacked his convictions based upon his allegation that he was impermissibly sentenced under the 1982 Sentencing Act and the issue had been addressed both on direct appeal and in one of his previous convictions. Therefore, under the law of the case doctrine, the appellate court was not permitted to consider issues that had been previously determined on appeal. Edwards v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 5, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1180 (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2011).

Inmate's habeas petition was properly summarily dismissed as the inmate pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping and his habeas petition was filed in 2010, after the effective date of the amendment to T.C.A. § 29-21-101, which limited the right to habeas relief where a petitioner pled guilty and his sentence included a release eligibility percentage where the petitioner was not entitled to any early release; § 29-21-101 disentitled the inmate to habeas corpus relief. Brewer v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 837 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 7, 2012).

Habeas court properly dismissed an inmate's petition for relief because the inmate alleged in his petition that it was his “second” application for habeas corpus relief on a certain issue but the inmate failed to attach copies of the prior petition as required by T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(4), and the petition was not verified under oath by affidavit. Settle v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 63 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 3, 2012), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's pro se T.C.A. § 29-21-109 petition for a writ of habeas corpus against a warden was proper because, while the inmate attempted to couch his arguments in new terms, the appellate court had previously determined the issues presented; the issues were previously determined on direct appeal. Johnson v. Bell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. June 20, 2012).

Summary dismissal of an inmate's habeas corpus petition against a warden was proper because the indictment provided the inmate proper notice of the offense charged, and for which he was ultimately convicted, first degree felony murder; the indictment's failure to list the mens rea of “intentionally” and “knowingly” did not make it fatally defective. Erroneous jury instructions did not meet the requirements for habeas corpus relief and the judgment was not facially invalid or void. Montgomery v. Bell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2012).

Summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition was proper because the inmate's convictions for driving under the influence and aggravated assault did not involve second prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense; thus, they did not violate constitutional double jeopardy protections. Scott v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2012).

Summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition was proper because, although the inmate claimed that the aggravated assault conviction was void because he did not execute a written waiver to plead nolo contendere to aggravated assault instead of the indicted charge of attempted murder, his agreement to plead guilty was, in effect, his consent to an amendment to the indictment under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 7(b); thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to enter judgment on the amended charge. Further, such allegations would merely have rendered the judgment voidable, not void. Scott v. Osborne, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 265 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2012).

Habeas court properly dismissed petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus because the indictment charging petitioner with felony murder was valid since it referenced the statute defining felony murder, T.C.A. § 39-13-202, and described the offense, which provided notice to petitioner of the charged offense; because the indictment set forth the specific underlying felony supporting the felony murder charge, the requisite mental state was obtainable by reviewing the robbery statute, T.C.A. § 39-13-401, providing adequate notice to petitioner of the charge against him. Cooper v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 560 (Tenn. Aug. 20, 2012), cert. denied, Cooper v. Sexton, 185 L. Ed. 2d 203, 133 S. Ct. 1260, 568 U.S. 1171, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1298 (U.S. 2013).

Dismissal of an inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State was proper under T.C.A. § 29-21-107 because, with regard to his pretrial jail credit issue, the inmate failed to demonstrate that his sentence was void or that the confinement was illegal; further, with regard to his argument that the judgment entered was incorrect, the inmate also failed to demonstrate that his sentence was void or that the confinement was illegal. Stafford v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2012).

Upon exclusion of TOMIS reports, petitioner inmate failed to provide sufficient proof that clearly indicated a void or illegal sentence due to the alleged failure to properly provide him with pretrial jail credit pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c); accordingly, summary dismissal of the inmate's habeas corpus petition was proper under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Borum v. Stewart, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 708 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 6, 2012).

Inmate's habeas petition was properly summarily dismissed due to procedural defects where: (1) the petition was not the inmate's first habeas petition; (2) the inmate claimed that the petition was the first habeas petition advancing the arguments raised; (3) the inmate did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-21-107(a)(4); and (4) the inmate did not meet his burden to show that the judgment was void or that the sentence had expired under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Leach v. Barbee, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 716 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2013).

Denial of an inmate's habeas corpus petition pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-109 was proper because the trial court exercised its authority to correct clerical mistakes regarding the order of consecutive sentences, and the order in which the sentences were imposed by virtue of the judgments and corrected judgments was not illegal; the judgments reflected that the inmate's two-year sentence had expired but that the eight-year sentence had not expired. Because the judgments did not reflect that the eight-year sentence had expired, habeas relief was not available. Fisher v. Lester, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 804 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 2013).

Habeas court properly dismissed an inmate's petition without an evidentiary hearing; because his liberty was restrained as a result of 2001 judgments of conviction and not a 1990 conviction for armed robbery, his challenge to the robbery conviction could not be redressed via a writ of habeas corpus. Turner v. Westbrooks, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 24, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 222 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2013).

Habeas court properly dismissed an inmate's petition without an evidentiary hearing, as none of his claims of error rose to the level of rendering any of the indictments so defective as to have deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. Turner v. Westbrooks, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 24, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 222 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2013).

Order dismissing an inmate's second petition for writ of habeas corpus against the State pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-21-109 was proper because the inmate failed to establish that his judgment was void or illegal; the inmate's claim that his indictments were somehow fatally flawed was not accompanied by explanation or support, other than the inclusion of documents from his initial habeas corpus petition, the inmate's blanket complaints, without more, did not establish that his judgment was void or illegal, and a review of the indictments indicated that they met constitutional requirements. The inmate's additional allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and illegal arrest were previously determined by the appellate court. Clark v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1020 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2012).

Court properly summarily dismissed the habeas corpus petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-109; petitioner inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief under Tenn. Const. art. I, § 15 because the inmate violated the procedural requirements of T.C.A. § 29-21-107 by failing to file a complete copy of the petition for habeas corpus relief or the judgments from which he was appealing. Beene v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 208 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2013), appeal denied, Been v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (Tenn. June 19, 2013).

Where petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to thirty-two years as a Range II multiple offender, he was not entitled to habeas relief based on the trial court's imposition of enhancement factors and a 100% release eligibility; because a Blakely violation rendered a judgment merely voidable as opposed to void, it was not subject to attack through a writ for habeas corpus. The trial court did not err by summarily dismissing his petition under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Coleman v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 216 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2013).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner did not established a void judgment; second degree murder was a lesser-included offense of first degree murder and was thus encompassed by the indictment. Soimis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for initiating a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus relief; petitioner filed the writ in Putnam County, Tennessee but he was incarcerated in Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Soimis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for initiating a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus relief; petitioner failed to have his petition verified by affidavit or notarized. Soimis v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 24, 2015).

Summary denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief was appropriate because the petitioner failed to state cognizable habeas corpus claims based upon the judgment forms not reflecting a release eligibility date or percentage of the sentences, the judgments being void related to the plea agreement, the petitioner's classification as an especially aggravated offender, the State of Tennessee's failure to file the proper enhancement notice, and the judgments being void on double jeopardy grounds. Glenn v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2015).

Trial court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus because nothing in the record indicated that petitioner's convictions or sentence was void; the repeat violent offender statute does not violate constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. Sandridge v. Parris, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 843 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 15, 2015).

Summary dismissal of defendant's pro se writ for habeas corpus relief was appropriate because defendant did not present an issue that was appropriate for habeas corpus relief as defendant did not allege that the judgment of conviction was void on its face or that defendant was serving an expired sentence. Howard v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 968 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 4, 2015), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

Habeas corpus court was entitled to summarily dismiss defendant's petition without a hearing because defendant's argument that defendant's conviction for simple possession was void in that the trial court unlawfully relied on convictions from other states to enhance the sentence, was not cognizable as defendant raised a sufficiency argument regarding the increase in classification for defendant's conviction. Graham v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 867 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2016).

Circuit court did not err by summarily denying petitioner habeas corpus relief because petitioner's claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial did not constitute cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief; petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction relief, and the denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Thomas v. Perry, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2017).

Criminal court properly dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to raise a cognizable claim; a trial court's failure to award pretrial jail credits does not render the sentence illegal. McFarland v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 28, 2017).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the clerical error on the verdict form did not void the conviction or strip the trial court of jurisdiction; even with the clerical error, the verdict form clearly showed that petitioner had a jury trial and that the offense for which he was convicted was aggravated rape. Smith v. Parris, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 991 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

Habeas court did not err in summarily dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner's claim that the habeas corpus court erred in holding that the district attorney general was not required to sign each count of the indictment was barred by the law of the case doctrine; the facts supporting the claim were substantially the same as the facts that the court of criminal appeals addressed in a prior appeal, and that prior ruling was binding. Smith v. Parris, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 991 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2017).

Habeas corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for relief because petitioner's claim that cocaine was obtained through an illegal Terry stop in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights did not entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Young v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Habeas corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for relief because petitioner's judgment and plea agreement were facially valid, and thus, he did not establish that his judgment was void or that his sentence had expired; petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Young v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Habeas corpus court did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner's application for relief because petitioner's claim that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary due to coercion would render the judgment voidable rather than void and did not present a cognizable claim for relief. Young v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Petition for habeas corpus relief could have and probably should have been dismissed for failing to comply with the procedural requirements because petitioner provided no reason for filing in Davidson County, much less a sufficient one; petitioner was convicted in Shelby County and had at all relevant times been incarcerated in Lake County. Thomas v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 26, 2019).

3. Writ Denied.

Inmate was not entitled to habeas corpus relief where neither the trial court's imposition of concurrent sentences for inmate's 1985 convictions nor the trial court's failure to explicitly order that these sentences be served consecutive to sentence for inmate's 1981 conviction rendered the sentence illegal under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3). Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. July 25, 2005).

Habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for relief under T.C.A. § 29-21-109 (2000) because, even if even if Blakely could have been applied retroactively, it would have rendered the judgment merely voidable, and not void. There was no basis upon which to presume that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence. Sawyer v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 743 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2012).

Denial of habeas corpus petition against a warden was proper because the indictment satisfied the overriding purpose of providing notice to the inmate that he was charged with especially aggravated robbery; although the indictment cited T.C.A. § 39-14-403, aggravated burglary, the text of the indictment provided the definition of especially aggravated robbery, T.C.A. § 39-13-403, putting inmate on notice of the charged offense. The error was clerical and did not render the judgment void. Beasley v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 781 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2012).

Trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under T.C.A. § 29-21-109; petitioner was not entitled to pretrial jail credit under T.C.A. § 40-23-101(c) because his pretrial confinement was not due to the charges from which his conviction arose. Arnold v. Lindamood, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 10, 2013).

Criminal court did not err in summarily dismissing the inmate's motion as it related to a claim for writ of habeas corpus, as the allegation that the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary would only render the judgment voidable, not void, and such a claim was not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Driver v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 954 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2015).

Habeas corpus court did not err by denying petitioner habeas corpus relief because his issues had been previously determined by the court of criminal appeals; the facts presented in the first two habeas corpus petitions and the present petition were the same, and petitioner's issues were necessarily decided in those appeals. Thomas v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 26, 2019).

4. Grounds for Refusal.

Petitioner's contention that the trial court improperly sentenced him as a Range III, career offender because the state failed to file a timely notice of enhanced punishment as required by T.C.A. § 40-35-202(a) was not a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. The remedy for untimely notice was the option of a continuance for the defense, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3(a), not preclusion of the state from seeking enhanced punishment. Ross v. Steward, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 385 (Tenn. May 23, 2012).

Inmate failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief where he argued that his conviction was void because the procedure used to implement the death penalty was unconstitutional, instead of showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to death, which would have raised a jurisdictional defect in the original trial. Hall v. Bell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2012), cert. denied, Hall v. Colson, 185 L. Ed. 2d 829, 133 S. Ct. 1813, 569 U.S. 928,  2013 U.S. LEXIS 3127 (U.S. 2013) .

Inmate failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief by arguing that his confinement before his pending execution violated double jeopardy principles as an allegation of double jeopardy did not render a conviction void, but merely voidable. Hall v. Bell, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 184 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 706 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2012), cert. denied, Hall v. Colson, 185 L. Ed. 2d 829, 133 S. Ct. 1813, 569 U.S. 928,  2013 U.S. LEXIS 3127 (U.S. 2013) .

Despite petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for a habeas corpus petition, the habeas corpus court did not dismiss the petition for procedural noncompliance, but it's order noted the difficulty petitioner had in filing his petition in the appropriate county and that the habeas corpus court was choosing to address the petition on the merits; therefore, the court of criminal appeals likewise addressed the merits of petitioner's complaints. Young v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

6. Remand for Evidentiary Hearing.

Criminal case was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of appointing a habeas petitioner counsel and for conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the lack of a mandatory community supervision for life provision was a material, bargained-for element of his plea because his conviction was illegal in that the judgment did not contain the mandatory community supervision for life provision as required by T.C.A. § 39-13-522. Benson v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2011).

7. Adjudication on Merits.

Despite an inmate's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for a habeas corpus petition, the habeas corpus court did not dismiss the petition for procedural noncompliance under T.C.A. § 29-21-107, and addressed the petition on the merits; thus, the appellate court chose to adjudicate the petition on its merits under T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Deleon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 841 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 238 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 129. Givens v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1145 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 23, 2003).

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 160, 171-175.

Habeas corpus 64.

29-21-110. Issuance of writ — Form — Formal defects.

  1. If the petition show a sufficient ground for relief, the writ shall be forthwith allowed, and may be substantially as follows:

    State of Tennessee,     To the sheriff, etc. [or to A B, as the case may be]:

    County

    You are hereby commanded to have the body of C B, who is alleged to be unlawfully detained by you, before the  court, [or before me, or before E E, Judge, etc., as the case may be], at  , on  [or immediately after being served with this writ], to be dealt with according to law, and have you then and there this writ, with a return thereon of your doings in the premises.

    This  day of  , 20  . G H, Judge, etc.

  2. The writ of habeas corpus shall not be disobeyed for any defect of form, or misdescription of the plaintiff or defendant, provided enough is stated to show the meaning and intent of the writ.
  3. When the writ is allowed by a court in term, it is issued by the clerk, but in other cases the judge or chancellor issues the writ, signing it officially.

Code 1858, §§ 3727, 3728, 3741; Shan., §§ 5507, 5508, 5521; Code 1932, §§ 9678, 9679, 9691; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1810 — 23-1812.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 157.

Cited: Weatherly v. State, 704 S.W.2d 730, 1985 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 3205 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985); Ritchie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 474 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 14, 2010).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 129, 132.

39, 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 141, 176.

Habeas corpus 65.

29-21-111. Person by whom writ served.

  1. The writ may be served by the sheriff, coroner, or constable, or any other person appointed for that purpose by the court or judge by whom it is issued or allowed.
  2. If served by any other person than the sheriff, that person possesses the same power, and is liable to the same penalty for nonperformance the duty performed by that person, as though the person were the sheriff.

Code 1858, § 3731; Shan., § 5511; Code 1932, § 9681; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1813.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Person to Serve Writ.

Objection that writ of habeas corpus issued by circuit judge of Hamilton County was addressed to any lawful officer of Hamilton County and was executed by an officer of Hamilton County within the bounds of Sequatchie County was without merit. Goforth v. State, 176 Tenn. 489, 144 S.W.2d 739, 1940 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1940).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 133.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 177.

29-21-112. Mode of service — Persons served.

  1. The proper mode of service is by leaving a copy of the original writ with the defendant, and making the return upon the original.
  2. Any person served with the writ is presumed to be the person for whom it is intended, although it may be directed to the person by a wrong name or description, or to another person.
  3. If the defendant cannot be found, or, if the defendant have not the plaintiff in custody, the service may be made upon any person having the plaintiff in custody, in the same manner and with the same effect as though that person had been made a defendant therein.

Code 1858, §§ 3732, 3733, 3742; Shan., §§ 5512, 5513, 5522; Code 1932, §§ 9682, 9683, 9692; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1814 — 23-1816.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Cited: Bankston v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 2, 2010); Watkins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 4, 2011).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 133.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 176, 177.

29-21-113. Arrest of defendant.

If the defendant refuses admittance to the person attempting to serve the writ, hides, or attempts wrongfully to carry the plaintiff out of the county or state, the defendant may be arrested by the person having the writ, and brought, together with the plaintiff, immediately before the officer or court before whom the writ is returnable. In order to make such arrest, the sheriff, or other person having the writ, has the same power as is given to a sheriff for the arrest of a person charged with a felony.

Code 1858, §§ 3734, 3735; Shan., §§ 5514, 5515; Code 1932, §§ 9684, 9685; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1817.

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 176, 177.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 187.

Habeas corpus 68.

29-21-114. Taking plaintiff into custody.

If the person in whose name the application is made can be found, and no one appears to have the charge or custody of the plaintiff, the person having the writ may take the plaintiff into custody, and make return accordingly, and, to get possession of the plaintiff's person in such case, the person possesses the same power as is given by § 29-21-113 for the arrest of the defendant.

Code 1858, § 3736; Shan., § 5516; Code 1932, § 9686; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1818.

Collateral References. 39, 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 136, 179, 187.

29-21-115. Precept.

  1. The court or judge to whom the application for the writ is made, if satisfied that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury before the plaintiff could be relieved by the proceedings as authorized in §§ 29-21-112 — 29-21-114, may issue a precept to the sheriff, or other person selected, commanding the sheriff or other person to bring the plaintiff forthwith before such judge or court.
  2. When the evidence is further sufficient to justify the arrest of the defendant, for a criminal offense committed in connection with the illegal detention of the plaintiff, the precept shall also contain an order for the arrest of the defendant.
  3. The officer or person to whom the precept is directed shall execute the same by bringing the defendant, and also the plaintiff, if required, before the court or judge issuing it, and thereupon the defendant shall make return to the writ of habeas corpus in the same manner as if the ordinary course had been pursued. The defendant may also be examined and committed, bailed or discharged, according to the nature of the case.

Code 1858, §§ 3737 — 3740; Shan., §§ 5517 — 5520; Code 1932, §§ 9687 — 9690; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1819 — 23-1821.

Collateral References. Habeas corpus 112.

29-21-116. Defendant's appearance and return — Answer.

  1. Service being made in any of the modes provided for in this part, the defendant shall appear at the proper time, and make due return of the writ, and answer the petition, if required.
  2. The person served with the writ shall state in the return, plainly and unequivocally:
    1. Whether the person then has, or at any time has had, the plantiff in the person's control or restraint, and, if so, the authority and cause thereof, setting out the same fully;
    2. If the party is detained under a writ, warrant, or other written authority, a copy thereof shall be annexed to the return, and the original shall be produced and exhibited to the court or judge, if required; and
    3. If the person on whom the writ has been served, has had the plaintiff in the person's custody or power or under the person's restraint, at any time before or after the date of the writ, but has transferred the plaintiff to another person, that person shall state the facts explicitly, and to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such transfer was made.
  3. The return shall be signed by the person making it, and verified by the oath; unless the person is a sworn public officer, and makes the return in an official capacity.

Code 1858, §§ 3743 — 3745; Shan., §§ 5523 — 5525; Code 1932, §§ 9693 — 9695; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1822 — 23-1824.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Criminal Law in Tennessee in 1968 — A Critical Survey (Josephe G. Cook), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 221.

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Cited: Brown v. State, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 462, 445 S.W.2d 669, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 335 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969); Douglas v. Easterling, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1096 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 29, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Provisions Mandatory.

The provisions of subsection (b) are mandatory. Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1968); State v. Carroll, 713 S.W.2d 92, 1986 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2335 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).

Where petition of prisoner and answer of state failed to comply with mandatory requirements of §§ 29-21-107 and 29-21-116, respectively, criminal court properly treated petition as petition under Post-Conviction Procedure Act as authorized by § 40-3808 (now § 40-30-108, repealed) where that procedure was adequate. Trolinger v. Russell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 525, 446 S.W.2d 538, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

2. Proof of Authority to Detain.

Proof of authority to detain was required to be made in accordance with this section and where warden's return did not have copy of written authority to detain attached thereto such proof could not be made by proof of minutes of court. Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1968).

3. Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

Where prisoner's petition was properly treated as petition under Post-Conviction Procedure Act rather than petition for habeas corpus, state's answer did not have to comply with this section. Trolinger v. Russell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 525, 446 S.W.2d 538, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969); Richmond v. Russell, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 345, 454 S.W.2d 155, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 420 (1970); Porter v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 437, 455 S.W.2d 159, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).

The mandatory provisions of this section are not applicable to a petition seeking relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Shiflet v. Tollett, 448 S.W.2d 681, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969); Porter v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 437, 455 S.W.2d 159, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970); Doyle v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 171, 458 S.W.2d 637, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 453 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970); Phillips v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 184, 458 S.W.2d 642, 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).

4. Application.

Court rejected petitioner's claim that the state failed to comply with T.C.A. § 29-21-116(b). The state was only served with the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and not an actual writ of habeas corpus; therefore, this statute was not implicated. Duncan v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 926 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2010).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 135-141.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 180, 181.

Habeas corpus 65, 83.

29-21-117. Production of plaintiff by defendant.

  1. At the time of making the return, the person on whom the same has been served shall also produce the body of the person detained according to the command of the writ, or show good cause for not doing so.
  2. If the cause shown for not producing such person be sickness or infirmity, the fact shall be verified by affidavit, and other evidence if required.
  3. The court may thereupon proceed as if the party were produced, or adjourn to the place where such party then is, or to some other time and place, according to circumstances.

Code 1858, §§ 3746-3748; Shan., §§ 5526-5528; Code 1932, §§ 9696-9698; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1825.

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 144.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 185.

Habeas corpus 82.

29-21-118. Waiver of plaintiff's right to be present.

The plaintiff, in writing, or the plaintiff's attorney, may waive the right to be present at the examination, in which case the proceedings may be had in the plaintiff's absence.

Code 1858, § 3753; Shan., § 5533; Code 1932, § 9703; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1826.

Collateral References. 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 185.

Habeas corpus 82.

29-21-119. Proceedings after defendant's return.

The plaintiff may demur or reply to the return, and all issues shall be tried by the court or judge in a summary way, the examination being adjourned from time to time, if necessary to the proper administration of justice, and all such orders being made for the custody of the plaintiff, in the meantime, as the nature of the case requires.

Code 1858, § 3749; Shan., § 5529; Code 1932, § 9699; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1827.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. “Summary Way.”

The phrase “summary way” means that the trial should proceed to a speedy termination without the usual formalities, trial to be by the judge without a jury. State ex rel. Daugherty v. Rose, 167 Tenn. 489, 71 S.W.2d 685, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1934), superseded by statute as stated in, Nilsen v. Black, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 1997).

2. Motion for New Trial Not Required.

In habeas corpus proceedings a motion for a new trial is not required in order to review in appellate court. State ex rel. Daugherty v. Rose, 167 Tenn. 489, 71 S.W.2d 685, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1934), superseded by statute as stated in, Nilsen v. Black, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 1997).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 140, 141.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 160, 182, 185, 189, 190.

Assistance of counsel, burden of proof as to denial of, on habeas corpus. 146 A.L.R. 413.

Attorney's compensation for services in habeas corpus, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 850, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Charge of crime, burden of overcoming presumption of sufficiency of, raised by warrant of arrest or indictment. 40 A.L.R.2d 1151.

Custody of child, power of court in habeas corpus proceedings relating to, to adjudicate amount which shall be paid for child's support or to modify agreement in that regard. 17 A.L.R.3d 764.

Denial of relief to prisoner on habeas corpus as bar to second application. 161 A.L.R. 1331.

Disposition of habeas corpus on ground of deprivation of right to appeal. 19 A.L.R.2d 789.

Divorce suit, jurisdiction of court in, to award custody of child as affected by orders in proceedings in habeas corpus for custody of child. 110 A.L.R. 745.

Extradition proceedings, discharge on habeas corpus of one held in, as res judicata precluding rearrest or subsequent extradition proceedings. 33 A.L.R.3d 1443.

Extradition proceedings, statements in demanding papers in, as making out prima facie case in habeas corpus proceedings on issues of presence of accused in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime or whether he is a fugitive. 135 A.L.R. 973.

Participation in suit by one not a party of record or privy to a party, rule of conclusiveness based on, as applied in action involving custody of children. 139 A.L.R. 72.

Relief which may be awarded on habeas corpus to one unlawfully treated while lawfully in custody. 155 A.L.R. 145.

Right to aid of counsel in application or hearing for habeas corpus. 162 A.L.R. 922.

29-21-120. Adjustment of bail.

The plaintiff may also, in any case, be committed, let to bail, or the plantiff's bail diminished or increased, as justice may require.

Code 1858, § 3750; Shan., § 5530; Code 1932, § 9700; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1828.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 5.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Right to Bail.

2. —Appeal from Dismissal of Petition.

Prisoner was not entitled to bail upon appeal from dismissal of petition upon writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965).

3. —Appeal from Discharge of Petitioner.

In absence of statute, trial court may in its discretion admit habeas corpus petitioner to bail where petitioner is discharged and state appeals. Leighton v. Henderson, 219 Tenn. 108, 407 S.W.2d 177, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (1966).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 145.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 186.

Court's power and duty, pending determination of habeas corpus proceeding on merits, to admit petitioner to bail. 56 A.L.R.2d 668.

Habeas corpus 85.5(3).

29-21-121. Subpoena of witnesses.

  1. Subpoena for witnesses in all proceedings under this chapter may be issued by the court or judge granting the writ, or before whom the same is returnable, or by any general sessions judge.
  2. Witnesses thus summoned are subject to the same penalties and entitled to the same privileges and fees as other witnesses.
  3. Upon failure of the witness to attend, the fact shall be noted by the officer before whom the subpoena is returned, on the back thereof, and transmitted to the clerk of the circuit court of the county, who shall issue scire facias, as in other cases.

Code 1858, §§ 3756-3758 (deriv. Acts 1823, ch. 15, §§ 1, 2); Shan., §§ 5536-5538; Code 1932, §§ 9706-9708; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1829.

Cross-References. Federal prisoner as witness in state criminal proceedings, § 40-17-212.

Prisoner as witness in criminal proceedings outside state in which incarcerated, § 40-17-211.

Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 23.10.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

Although inmate claimed that he was constrained in his state postconviction proceedings by state trial court's failure to provide funding and adequate time for preparation, T.C.A. § 40-30-109 provided for discovery in postconviction proceedings, and pursuant to T.C.A. 29-21-121(a) the inmate could have petitioned the state trial court to issue subpoenas; moreover, certain FBI records relating to inmate's conviction were subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. Hodges v. Bell, 548 F. Supp. 2d 485, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25780 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 27, 2008), aff'd, Hodges v. Colson, 711 F.3d 589, 2013 FED App. 75P, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013).

Collateral References. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 159, 207, 209-214, 223.

Witnesses 18.

29-21-122. Discharge of plaintiff or remand to custody.

  1. If no sufficient legal cause of detention is shown, the plaintiff shall be discharged.
  2. The party detained shall be remanded to custody:
    1. If it appears the party is detained by virtue of process issued by a court or judge of the United States, in a case where such court or judge has exclusive jurisdiction;
    2. Where the time during which such party may be legally detained has not expired; or
    3. In every case in which the detention is authorized by law.

Code 1858, §§ 3751, 3761; Shan., §§ 5531, 5541; Code 1932, §§ 9701, 9711; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-1830, 23-1831; modified.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 5.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Criminal Law in Tennessee in 1968 — A Critical Survey (Joseph G. Cook), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 221.

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Cited: Wright v. Trammell, 647 F. Supp. 1, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19942 (M.D. Tenn. 1985); Weatherly v. State, 704 S.W.2d 730, 1985 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 3205 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985); Taylor v. Morgan, 909 S.W.2d 17, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); Church v. State, 987 S.W.2d 855, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 370 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2007).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Second Proceeding to Prevent Remanding into Custody.

Supreme Court may, by certiorari, quash and restrain a second habeas corpus proceeding, before a final decision in the lower court acting without jurisdiction, where the object of the second proceeding was to prevent the remandment of the petitioner or prisoner into custody or to prevent his extradition authorized by the prior judgment of the Supreme Court. State ex rel. Conner v. Herbert, 127 Tenn. 220, 154 S.W. 957, 1912 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1912).

2. Appeal from Discharge of Petitioner.

In absence of statute, trial court may in its discretion admit habeas corpus petitioner to bail where petitioner is discharged and state appeals. Leighton v. Henderson, 219 Tenn. 108, 407 S.W.2d 177, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (1966).

3. Bail Pending Appeal from Dismissal of Petition.

Petitioner was not entitled to bail pending appeal from dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus but was to be remanded to custody as provided by this section. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965).

4. Time of Filing Petition.

Where petitioner is serving two consecutive sentences and only attacks the validity of one, petition for writ of habeas corpus should be filed when he has completed serving the valid sentence. Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1968).

Trial court did not err by denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging petitioner's extradition from Tennessee to Mississippi where his appeal was moot, as he filed his petition long after he was extradited to Mississippi and was tried and convicted of the crimes for which he was extradited, at the time of the filing petitioner was no longer in the custody of Tennessee, and there was no available relief for the trial court to provide him. Logan v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 23, 2016).

5. Duty to Remand.

Where petitioner was serving two sentences which were to run consecutively and only one sentence was attacked by habeas corpus proceeding, court was under duty to remand petitioner to penitentiary even if the one sentence were void where period of second sentence had not expired. Ussery v. Avery, 222 Tenn. 50, 432 S.W.2d 656, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1968); Pulley v. Hunt, 1 Tenn. Cr. App. 278, 440 S.W.2d 622, 1968 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 112 (1968).

6. Dismissal Without Hearing.

Where petition for habeas corpus showed that the time during which prisoner might be legally detained had not legally expired, that he was lawfully detained and there was nothing to indicate that his conviction was void or expired, trial court could properly dismiss petition without hearing. State ex rel. Wade v. Norvell, 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 447, 443 S.W.2d 839, 1969 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 156, 157.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 221-228, 234.

Habeas corpus 109, 111.

29-21-123. Effect of irregular commitment.

Although the commitment of the person detained may have been irregular, still, if the court or judge is satisfied, from the examination, that the person ought to be held to bail, or committed, either for the offense charged, or any other, the order shall be made accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3752; Shan., § 5532; Code 1932, § 9702; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1832.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 6.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Petitioner Subject to Extradition — Effect of Irregularities.

Notwithstanding alleged irregularities in the warrant and mittimus issued by a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge), if petitioner was subject to extradition, the trial judge committed no error in passing the irregularities alleged against the preliminary proceedings before the magistrate and remanding petitioner to custody. State ex rel. Knowles v. Taylor, 160 Tenn. 44, 22 S.W.2d 222, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (1929).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 64-72.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 192-206, 221, 225, 226, 228.

Habeas corpus 21, 22, 30(3), 102, 104-106.

29-21-124. Filing of records — Costs.

The proceedings under a writ of habeas corpus, including all the papers in the cause, and the final order, shall be returned by the judge to the nearest court served by that judge, to be filed there by the clerk, as other records, a brief memorandum thereof, duly indexed, being made upon the judgment or execution docket, and such clerk taxing the costs and issuing execution therefor, as in other cases.

Code 1858, § 3760; Shan., § 5540; Code 1932, § 9710; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1833.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 27, 30; 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 10.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Record of Proceedings Necessary.

The proceedings upon the writ, whether had before the judge at chambers or in open court, are to be made matters of record. State ex rel. Karr v. Taxing Dist. of Shelby County, 84 Tenn. 240, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1886); In re Vanvaver, 88 Tenn. 334, 12 S.W. 786, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1890).

29-21-125. Costs — General rule.

The costs of proceedings under this chapter, except when otherwise expressly provided, shall be adjudged as the court or judge may think right, and taxed and collected as in other cases.

Code 1858, § 3762; Shan., § 5542; Code 1932, § 9712; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1834.

Cross-References. Clerk's fees, § 8-21-401.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

In habeas corpus cases, the costs may be adjudged as the court or judge may think right. State ex rel. Blair v. Forrest, 3 Shan. 727 (1876).

2. Guides in Adjudging Costs.

The costs in habeas corpus cases may be adjudged according to the general statutory provisions and the analogies of the law, as between petitioner on the one hand and the state and county on the other. Henderson v. Walker, 101 Tenn. 229, 47 S.W. 430, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1898).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 164-167.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 235, 236.

Habeas corpus 116.

29-21-126. Costs on discharge of criminal defendant.

  1. Where the defendant in a criminal prosecution is brought before any circuit or criminal judge on a writ of habeas corpus, and discharged by the judge, the costs shall be paid as in other state cases, when the defendant is tried and acquitted by a jury.
    1. When the defendant in the cases provided for in this section is charged with a felony, the judge shall make out and certify the bill of costs, and deliver the same to the clerk of the circuit court before which the defendant is bound to appear, by whom the costs shall be collected and paid out as in other cases.
    2. If the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor, the judge shall deliver the bill of costs, made out and certified as before, to the court of general sessions of the county in which the defendant was charged with committing the offense, by whom the same shall be allowed as in other cases.

Code 1858, §§ 3763-3765 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 40, §§ 1-3); Shan., §§ 5543-5545; Code 1932, §§ 9713-9715; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1835.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. State and County — Respective Liability for Costs.

In habeas corpus cases, where the costs are not adjudged otherwise than against the state or county, the state must pay the costs when the charge is a felony, and the county when it is a misdemeanor. This method is not changed by §§ 40-3333, 40-3335 (now §§ 40-25-131, 40-25-133). Henderson v. Walker, 101 Tenn. 229, 47 S.W. 430, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1898).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 164-167.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 235, 236.

Habeas corpus 116.

29-21-127. Appeal.

  1. Any party, either relator or defendant, in any habeas corpus case shall have the right of appeal to the proper appellate court from any judgment or decree rendered against such party by an inferior court.
  2. The party so appealing shall give bond and security for the costs of such appeal except where the relator or defendant is under confinement and serving a prison sentence on final judgment.
  3. This section shall not apply to parties held in custody in criminal cases.

Acts 1887, ch. 157; Shan., § 5546; mod. Code 1932, § 9716; Acts 1959, ch. 49, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1836.

Cross-References. Appeal as of right by state in criminal actions, T.R.A.P. 3.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 30, 45, 63, 66; 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 5; 14 Tenn. Juris., Habeas Corpus, § 11.

Law Reviews.

Appellate and Post-Conviction Relief in Tennessee (Ronald W. Eades), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 1.

Cited: State ex rel. Potter v. Bomar, 209 Tenn. 577, 354 S.W.2d 767, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 389 (1962).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction — “In Custody.”

“In custody in a criminal case” means in a pending case, where one is held upon a criminal charge. In re Vanvaver, 88 Tenn. 334, 12 S.W. 786, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1890); State ex rel. Guy v. Foster, 160 Tenn. 285, 23 S.W.2d 660, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1930).

The appeal or writ of error lies, whether the judgment be at chambers or in open court, where the person suing out the writ is held under a judgment of conviction, but not when he is held in custody for trial upon criminal charges pending. In re Vanvaver, 88 Tenn. 334, 12 S.W. 786, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1890).

One held in custody under a judgment of conviction does not fall within the meaning of the phrase. State ex rel. Guy v. Foster, 160 Tenn. 285, 23 S.W.2d 660, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1930).

2. Right to Appeal.

3. —Extradition Proceedings.

Petitioner for habeas corpus, resisting extradition to answer charge of receiving stolen property in another state and contending that he was not in the other state at time of alleged offense, is entitled to an appeal. State ex rel. Guy v. Foster, 160 Tenn. 285, 23 S.W.2d 660, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1930).

4. —Certiorari Not Remedy.

Since appeal is provided for, certiorari is not proper practice to secure relief in appellate court. State ex rel. Sullivan v. Cocke, 167 Tenn. 253, 68 S.W.2d 933, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1934).

5. Appeal Bond.

6. —Provisions Mandatory.

Under this section, the filing of an appeal bond is a mandatory requisite for review. State ex rel. Britt v. Burns, 192 Tenn. 514, 241 S.W.2d 551, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (1951).

7. —Pauper Oath.

Appeal cannot be prosecuted on pauper's oath. Tanksley v. State ex rel. Tanksley, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 356 (1910).

Under this section there is no right to appeal on the pauper's oath notwithstanding § 20-12-127. State ex rel. Strong v. Strong, 175 Tenn. 291, 133 S.W.2d 996, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1939).

8. Oral Testimony Not Preserved.

Where judgment shows that the proceeding was heard upon oral testimony, and no bill of exceptions preserved the evidence, the recitation as to oral proof is conclusive and the facts found and recited cannot be impeached in the Supreme Court. State ex rel. Sullivan v. Cocke, 167 Tenn. 253, 68 S.W.2d 933, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1934).

9. Habeas Corpus in Federal Court.

Where petitioner in habeas corpus proceeding brought in state court sought to obtain release from state prison under unconstitutional provision of Habitual Criminal Law and was unable to appeal from denial of the petition because he was unable to furnish the cost bond required by this section, he thereby exhausted his remedies in the state court within the meaning of the federal statutes and by virtue of such statutes was entitled to bring habeas corpus in federal court. Rhea v. Edwards, 136 F. Supp. 671, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2474 (D. Tenn. 1955), aff'd, 238 F.2d 850, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4105 (6th Cir. 1956).

10. Record of Original Proceeding.

On appeal from dismissal of habeas corpus petition, supreme court could look to record of petitioner's direct appeal to supreme court from the original conviction. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 577 (1965).

11. Proper Appellate Court.

Cases which are essentially criminal in that they involve detention for the commission of a crime are to the court of criminal appeals while those which are essentially civil are made to the court of appeals. Tragle v. Burdette, 222 Tenn. 531, 438 S.W.2d 736, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (1969).

12. Appeal of Sentence.

Appeals via certiorari should rarely be granted to review motions that assert sentencing infirmities which do not rise to the level of illegality or voidness. Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 168, 174.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 184, 238-260.

Supersedeas, stay, or bail, upon appeal in habeas corpus. 63 A.L.R. 1460, 143 A.L.R. 1354.

Habeas corpus 113, 115.

29-21-128. Disobedience of writ or order.

Disobedience of the original writ, or any subsequent order thereon, subjects the defendant to commitment for contempt, and also to a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the party aggrieved, besides rendering the defendant liable for all damages sustained in consequence of such disobedience.

Code 1858, § 3754; Shan., § 5534; Code 1932, § 9704; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1837.

Collateral References. 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 176, 177.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 187.

Liability for statutory penalty of judge, court, administrative officer or other custodian of person, in connection with habeas corpus proceedings. 84 A.L.R. 807.

29-21-129. Evasion of service.

The attempt to elude the service of the writ of habeas corpus, or to avoid the effect thereof by transferring the plaintiff out of the jurisdiction or to another person, or by concealing the plaintiff, or the place of the plaintiff's confinement, is a Class C misdemeanor.

Code 1858, § 3755; Shan., § 5535; mod. Code 1932, § 9705; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1838; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Collateral References. 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 177.

Habeas corpus 67.

29-21-130. Refusal of officer to deliver copy of process.

Any officer refusing to deliver a copy of any legal process by which the officer retains a party in custody to a person who demands such copy, and tenders the fees therefor, forfeits two hundred dollars ($200) to the person so detained.

Code 1858, § 3759; Shan., § 5539; Code 1932, § 9709; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1839.

Cited: Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 828 (Tenn. 2004); Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (Tenn. 2007); Wiggins v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 992 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2009); Thompson v. Parker, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1007 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 9, 2009); Farra v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 5, 2010); Davis v. Morrow, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 592 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2010); Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Aug. 1, 2011); Wallace v. Dotson, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 17, 2011); Thurmond v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2011); Robbins v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 2012); Turner v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 252 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2012); Herndon v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 955 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2012); Gayles v. Carlton, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 961 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2012); Doe v. Gwyn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2013); McDaniel v. Sexton, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2013); Lanier v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2013).

Collateral References. Habeas corpus 67.

Chapter 22
Hospitals' Liens

29-22-101. Lien created — Application — Priority.

  1. Every person, firm, association, corporation, institution, or any governmental unit, including the state of Tennessee, any county or municipalities operating and maintaining a hospital in this state, shall have a lien for all reasonable and necessary charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of ill or injured persons upon any and all causes of action, suits, claims, counterclaims or demands accruing to the person to whom such care, treatment or maintenance was furnished, or accruing to the legal representatives of such person in the case of such person's death, on account of illness or injuries giving rise to such causes of action or claims and which necessitated such hospital care, treatment and maintenance.
  2. The hospital lien, however, shall not apply to any amount in excess of one third (1/3) of the damages obtained or recovered by such person by judgment, settlement or compromise rendered or entered into by such person or such person's legal representative by virtue of the cause of action accruing thereto.
  3. The lien herein created shall be subject and subordinate to any attorney's lien whether by contract, suit or judgment upon such claim or cause of action and shall not be applicable to accidents or injuries within the purview of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, compiled in title 50, chapter 6. Any such lien arising out of a motor vehicle accident shall not take priority over a mechanic's lien or prior recorded lien upon a motor vehicle involved in such accident.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3201.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Hospital Lien Law — A Potential Pitfall for the Unwary (E. Patrick Hull), 35 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 12 (1999).

Attorney General Opinions. Hospital liens on criminal injuries compensation awards, OAG 88-29 (2/10/88).

Criminal injuries compensation awards are not subject to hospital liens arising under T.C.A. § 29-22-101, OAG 00-139 (9/1/00).

Comparative Legislation. Hospitals' liens:

Ala.  Code § 35-11-370 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-46-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 44-14-470 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 216.140 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 430.230 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44-49 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-66.2 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

0.5. In General.

If there is any ambiguity or uncertainty as to whether a hospital may bill a patient, or a third party, for the patient's debt, courts cannot assume that the debt is foreclosed by law for purposes of the hospital lien. A patient's debt to a hospital is extinguished for purposes of a hospital lien placed upon a settlement between a patient and an insurer covering a tortfeasor's liability, if it ever is, only when the hospital is legally barred from ever billing the patient, either directly or indirectly (through a third party). West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Based on the clear language of the Tennessee Hospital Lien Act, T.C.A. § 29-22-101 et seq., and the focus on the patient, the debt owed by the patient to the hospital is the foundation of the hospital's lien right. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Underlying debt to which a lien attaches is an obligation owed by the person receiving medical services from the hospital, and T.C.A. § 29-22-107 does not give the hospital an independent cause of action against the third party tortfeasor. Instead, it authorizes the hospital to attach a lien for the reasonable and necessary charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of injured persons and states that the lien shall be upon any and all causes of action accruing to the person to whom such care was furnished on account of injuries giving rise to such causes of action and which necessitated such hospital care; because the lien seeks to compensate the hospital for services provided to the patient, the use of the term “charges” presumably refers to the charges incurred and made to the patient or his health insurer. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Wrongful death settlement proceeds were subject to a hospital lien because it had been held that T.C.A. § 20-5-106(a), exempting such proceeds from creditors'  claims, did not bar such attachment. Blackburn v. McGee, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. June 20, 2014).

Hospital was unable to use a hospital lien to recover from third-party tortfeasors the unadjusted costs of the medical services it provided to patients whose injuries were caused by a third party because, except for the unpaid co-pays and deductibles, which were a patient's responsibility, neither the Tennessee Hospital Lien Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-22-101 to 29-22-107, nor the hospital's contracts with patients' insurance companies authorized the hospital to maintain its lien after the insurance companies paid an adjusted bill. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Neither hospitals nor the filing of hospital liens are listed under the exemptions to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); therefore, the TCPA may apply, assuming the act or practice in question falls within the scope of its application, as the TCPA's broad provisions are supplementary to other remedies otherwise provided by law and nothing in the language of the Hospital Lien Act prohibits the TCPA's application. The Hospital Lien Act did not prohibit plaintiff from bringing a claim under the TCPA. Franks v. Sykes, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

1. Arbitration.

Arbitration provision in a contract between a hospital and health insurance company was enforceable against a patient, as a third-party beneficiary of that contract, who had filed a cause of action against the hospital seeking to enforce the contract after the hospital had filed a statutory notice of hospital lien against any monetary recovery the patient might have received from a personal injury suit. Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 617 (Tenn. 2004).

2. Lien Impairment.

It was incumbent on a court to construe T.C.A. § 29-22-104(b)(1) in pari materia with T.C.A. § 29-22-101(b). Accordingly, a hospital should have recovered only the damages that were attributable to the impairment of its lien by the insurers, in light of the fact that, had the hospital's lien been honored, the hospital would have received only one-third of the amounts paid to the patients by the insurers. Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Baumgartner, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2011).

3. TennCare Payments.

Merely because TennCare is the “payor of last resort” does not, ipso facto, mean that a hospital gains a right to pursue subrogation on behalf of Medicaid. Therefore, a hospital was not entitled to a lien against a patient because the patient's debt was extinguished by the hospital's acceptance of TennCare. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Once a hospital accepts payment from TennCare at the rate prescribed in the hospital services agreement, the hospital has received the benefit of its bargain-a price certain payment; as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between the provider and the government, the patient's debt is extinguished by payment of the agreed-upon amount and the hospital may not hold its lien open pending possible larger payment at some future date. The hospital has the choice of accepting sure payment, or foregoing that payment in favor of the possibility of a larger payment later, but it cannot do both; therefore, a hospital was unable to obtain a lien where it had already accepted payment from TennCare since the patient's debt was extinguished, and federal law controlled over Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1200-13-01-.04(17), (18) to the extent that it allowed the hospital to balance bill or substitute bill. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

4. Insurance Payments.

Patient, as a third-party beneficiary of a services contracts, is entitled to the benefit of the adjusted rates if the hospital chooses to accept the insurance payment; in accepting such payment, the hospital has agreed to extinguish the patient's debt. Therefore, a hospital was not able to obtain a lien against patients in car accident cases where insurance payments had been accepted. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

5. Reasonableness.

Court rejects any assertion that the Tennessee Supreme Court meant for its holding in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, standing alone, to control all determinations of reasonableness with regard to medical expenses under Tennessee law. Dedmon v. Steelman, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 2016), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017).

Plaintiff may present the testimony of a physician who testifies that the amount of medical expenses billed or charged to a plaintiff was reasonable, which plaintiffs did in this case, and as the expert's testimony was admissible, its exclusion was improper; however, defendants were permitted to offer proof contradicting the reasonableness of the medical expenses, and if the Tennessee Supreme Court intended to extend case law to personal injury litigation, it could do so, but the law had to be applied as it currently stood. Dedmon v. Steelman, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 2, 2016), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017).

Definition of “reasonable charges” under the Hospital Lien Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-22-101 to 29-22-107, set forth in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp. does not apply directly to determinations of reasonable medical expenses in personal injury cases; the West definition of “reasonable charges” is limited in application to interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act. Dedmon v. Steelman, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2017).

Collateral References. 51 Am. Jur. 2d Liens §§ 14, 36-39, 57, 68, 70, 72, 74.

41 C.J.S. Hospitals § 7.

Hospitals 5.

29-22-102. Perfecting lien — Filing and notice — Contesting — Effect of settlement or payment.

  1. In order to perfect such lien, the agent or operator of the hospital, before or within one hundred twenty (120) days after any such person shall have been discharged therefrom, shall file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which the hospital is located, and in the county wherein the patient resides, if a resident of this state, a verified statement in writing setting forth the name and address of the patient as it appears on the records of the hospital, and the name and address of the operator thereof, the dates of admission and discharge of the patient therefrom, the amount claimed to be due for such hospital care, and to the best of the claimant's knowledge, the names and addresses of persons, firms or corporations claimed by such ill or injured person or by such person's legal representative, to be liable for damages arising from such illness or injuries.
  2. A copy of the claim shall, within ten (10) days from the filing thereof be sent by registered mail, postage prepaid, to each person, firm or corporation so claimed to be liable on account of such illness or injuries, at the address given in the statement, and to the attorney, or attorneys, representing the person to whom services were rendered by the hospital if such attorney, or attorneys, are known to the claimant or could, with reasonable diligence, be known to the claimant.
  3. The filing of the claim shall be notice thereof to all persons, firms or corporations who may be liable on account of such illness or injuries, whether or not they are named in the claim or lien and whether or not a copy of the claim shall have been received by them.
  4. Any person desiring to contest such a lien or the reasonableness of the charges thereof may do so by filing a motion to quash or reduce the same in the circuit court of the county in which the lien was perfected, making all other parties in interest respondents thereto. Any such motion may be heard in term time or vacation and at such time and place as may be fixed by order of the court.
    1. If at the time an insurance carrier or other person, corporation or entity reaches a settlement and obtains a release of liability on or pays a claim filed by a policyholder or other person against such carrier, person, corporation or other entity, the hospital providing treatment to such policyholder or person has not perfected a lien as set out in this section, any lien perfected subsequent to such settlement or payment shall not apply to or create any additional liability on the part of the insurance carrier or other person, corporation or entity paying the settlement or claim.
    2. This subsection (e) shall not apply until thirty (30) days after any such person is discharged from the hospital.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-3202; Acts 1987, ch. 262, § 1; 1991, ch. 254, § 1.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Hospital Lien Law — A Potential Pitfall for the Unwary (E. Patrick Hull), 35 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 12 (1999).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

0.5. In General.

Underlying debt to which a lien attaches is an obligation owed by the person receiving medical services from the hospital, and T.C.A. § 29-22-107 does not give the hospital an independent cause of action against the third party tortfeasor. Instead, it authorizes the hospital to attach a lien for the reasonable and necessary charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of injured persons and states that the lien shall be upon any and all causes of action accruing to the person to whom such care was furnished on account of injuries giving rise to such causes of action and which necessitated such hospital care; because the lien seeks to compensate the hospital for services provided to the patient, the use of the term “charges” presumably refers to the charges incurred and made to the patient or his health insurer. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Wrongful death settlement proceeds were subject to a hospital lien because it had been held that T.C.A. § 20-5-106(a), exempting such proceeds from creditors'  claims, did not bar such attachment. Blackburn v. McGee, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. June 20, 2014).

1. Actual Knowledge.

Hospital did not have a duty under T.C.A. § 29-22-102 to conduct an inquiry into the identity of potential third-party tortfeasors in order to perfect its hospital lien because the phrase “the best of the claimant's knowledge” in T.C.A. § 29-22-102(a) referred to a hospital's actual knowledge at the time a lien was filed. Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Baumgartner, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2011).

Hospital's notice of lien was enforceable because (1) the hospital met T.C.A. § 29-22-102(a) when the notice stated: “The person(s), firm(s), or corporation(s) claimed by the patient or his/her representative to be liable for damages from the illness or injuries by the hospital are: -Unknown at this time-,” and (2) the hospital met T.C.A. 29-22-102(b)' s “reasonable diligence” requirement when the hospital sent the notice to the address in the patient record, since the hospital did not have to search the clerk's record and nothing showed the hospital's actual knowledge of the correct address. Blackburn v. McGee, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. June 20, 2014).

2. Exclusive Remedy.

Treatment of plaintiff's injuries from a motor vehicle accident epitomized a doctor's practice of the profession, and because the hospital lien was a collection activity and the underlying transaction was not covered by the Tennessee Collection Protection Act, the filing of the hospital lien was not a consumer transaction. While the definition of consumer transactions is broad, it did not extend to the present case, and thus the Hospital Lien Act was not an exclusive remedy. Franks v. Sykes, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Collateral References. Hospitals 5.

29-22-103. Duties of circuit court clerk — Hospital lien book — Fee.

  1. The clerk of the circuit court shall endorse on such claim the date and hour of filing and at the expense of the county shall provide a hospital lien book with proper index in which the clerk shall enter the date and hour of such filing, the name and address of the hospital, the operator thereof and of such patient, the amount claimed and the names and addresses of those claimed to be liable for damages.
  2. The clerk shall be paid the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) as the fee for filing the claim.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-3203; Acts 1988, ch. 666, § 1.

29-22-104. Impairment of lien — Damages.

  1. No release or satisfaction or any action, suit, claim, counterclaim, demand, judgment, settlement or settlement agreement, or any of them, shall be valid or effectual as against such lien unless the lienholder shall join therein or execute a release of the lien.
    1. Any acceptance of a release or satisfaction of any such cause of action, suit, claim, counterclaim, demand or judgment and any settlement of any of the foregoing in the absence of a release or satisfaction of the lien referred to in this chapter shall prima facie constitute an impairment of such lien, and the lienholder shall be entitled to an action at law for damages on account of such impairment, and in such action may recover from the one accepting such release or satisfaction or making such settlement the reasonable cost of such hospital care, treatment and maintenance.
    2. Satisfaction of any judgment rendered in favor of the lienholder in any such action shall operate as a satisfaction of the lien.
    3. Any action by the lienholder shall be brought in the court having jurisdiction of the amount of the lienholder's claim and may be brought and maintained in the county of residence of the lienholder.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-3204.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Hospital Lien Law — A Potential Pitfall for the Unwary (E. Patrick Hull), 35 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 12 (1999).

Cited: West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

Apart from attorney fees, the language of T.C.A. § 29-22-104(b)(1) did not preclude the inclusion of consequential damages and other damages in an award for damages for impairment of a hospital lien. Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Baumgartner, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2011).

It was incumbent on a court to construe T.C.A. § 29-22-104(b)(1) in pari materia with T.C.A. § 29-22-101(b). Accordingly, a hospital should have recovered only the damages that were attributable to the impairment of its lien by the insurers, in light of the fact that, had the hospital's lien been honored, the hospital would have received only one-third of the amounts paid to the patients by the insurers. Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Baumgartner, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2011).

2. Impairment of Lien.

District court improperly construed a hospital's action for impairment of its lien as a claim to enforce a hospital lien; remand was warranted because issues remained unaddressed, including whether the lien attached to wrongful death settlement proceeds and whether Tennessee's or Arkansas's medical lien law applied. Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., — F.3d —, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14262 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2015).

Collateral References. Hospital 5.

29-22-105. Release of lien — Fee.

  1. To release a perfected lien as described under this chapter, the operator of the hospital to whom the lien has been duly paid shall execute a certificate to the effect that the claim filed by such hospital for treatment, care and maintenance therein has been duly paid or discharged and authorizing the clerk in whose office the notice of hospital lien has been filed, to release the same, such release to be at the expense of the hospital.
  2. The clerk shall thereupon enter upon the margin of the hospital lien book in which the lien has been entered, a memorandum of such filing and the date when such certificate of payment or discharge was filed in the clerk's office, which certificate and entry shall constitute a release of lien, for which the clerk shall receive the sum of two dollars ($2.00).

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 5; T.C.A., § 23-3205; Acts 1988, ch. 666, § 2.

Cited: West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013).

Collateral References. Hospital 5.

29-22-106. Lienholder not to be named on checks or drafts.

No person, firm, or corporation, paying a claim, demand, or judgment shall include the name of any lien claimant, under this chapter, as a payee on any drafts or checks issued to settle such claims, demands, or judgments.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-3206.

Attorney General Opinions. Payment of hospital lien from settlement funds, OAG 94-067 (5/13/94).

Cited: West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013).

29-22-107. Limitations on hospital.

This chapter shall not be construed as giving any hospital an independent right of action to determine liability for injuries sustained by any person covered herein nor shall any settlement or compromise of a claim entered into on behalf of such person require the approval of the hospital.

Acts 1970, ch. 527, §§ 7, 8; T.C.A., § 23-3207.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Underlying debt to which a lien attaches is an obligation owed by the person receiving medical services from the hospital, and T.C.A. § 29-22-107 does not give the hospital an independent cause of action against the third party tortfeasor. Instead, it authorizes the hospital to attach a lien for the reasonable and necessary charges for hospital care, treatment and maintenance of injured persons and states that the lien shall be upon any and all causes of action accruing to the person to whom such care was furnished on account of injuries giving rise to such causes of action and which necessitated such hospital care; because the lien seeks to compensate the hospital for services provided to the patient, the use of the term “charges” presumably refers to the charges incurred and made to the patient or his health insurer. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

Chapter 23
Injunctions

Part 1
Injunction to Stay Proceedings on Money Judgment

29-23-101. Decree on dissolution of injunction to stay proceedings on money judgment.

Upon the dissolution of an injunction to stay proceedings on a judgment for money, in whole or in part, the decree, interlocutory or final, shall be entered against the complainant and the complainant's sureties for such amount as the court may order, and the clerk and master shall issue executions thereon.

Code 1858, § 4447 (deriv. Acts 1817, ch. 119, § 1); Shan., § 6264; Code 1932, § 10550; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1909.

Cross-References. Injunctions, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 612.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 41.

Cited: Long v. Gilbert, 59 S.W. 414, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 94 (1900).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose of Section.

The only object of this section is to authorize the same judgment by motion in the chancery case as the judgment creditor would be entitled to recover in a suit at law on the bond. The rule remains that, upon the dissolution of the injunction in such case, the judgment creditor may proceed to enforce his execution as if no injunction had been granted. Puckett v. Richardson, 74 Tenn. 49, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 210 (1880). See Hansard v. Bank of Tenn., 24 Tenn. 53, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1844); Kelly v. Gordon, 40 Tenn. 683, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1859).

2. Loss of Property Without Complainant's Fault.

Where improvements on land were lost by fire while under an injunction against disturbing the possession of complainant, see Davenport v. Harbert, 2 Shan. 287 (1877).

3. Defendant's Rights After Dissolution.

Where the injunction is dissolved on motion before the final hearing, the defendant may act at his peril, as if the injunction had not been issued, but he does not act under and by virtue of the order dissolving the injunction. McMinnville & M. R. Co. v. Huggins, 47 Tenn. 217, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1869).

4. Judgment.

5. —Summary Judgment — When Permissible.

Summary judgment on injunction bond is allowed only on dissolution of an injunction to stay proceedings on a judgment for money, in which case the judgment cannot exceed the penalty of the bond except on proof of malice and want of probable cause. In all other cases, defendant can maintain independent suit or have reference to ascertain damages. Phillips v. Landess, 152 Tenn. 682, 280 S.W. 694, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1926).

6. —Necessary Recitals.

A judgment entered upon an injunction bond in the cause in which it was taken is, in legal effect, a judgment by motion, and void unless it contains on its face a recital of facts sufficient to show that the court had jurisdiction to render it. Coltart v. Ham, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 356 (1875).

7. —Master's Duty to Enter.

The injunction bond is taken in lieu of the deposit of money with the master, whose duty it is made, upon the dissolution of the injunction, to enter judgment, upon the injunction bond, against the principal debtor and his sureties on the bond. Conway v. Jett, 11 Tenn. 481, 1832 Tenn. LEXIS 100 (1832); Chester v. Apperson, 51 Tenn. 639, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1871). See Black v. Caruthers, Harris & Co., 25 Tenn. 87, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1845).

8. —When Injunction Perpetual.

Judgment on injunction bond, where the injunction is made perpetual, is erroneous. Meek v. Mathis, 48 Tenn. 534, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1870).

9. —Operation of Dissolution as Judgment on Bond.

Where an injunction against the execution of a judgment for money is dissolved by the chancellor, then an interlocutory decree against complainant and his sureties follows as a necessary legal consequence, and is not the result of any positive or affirmative order of the chancellor. By operation of law, the judgment becomes part of the interlocutory decree dissolving the injunction. Allen v. Nelson, 66 Tenn. 343, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 140 (1874).

10. Liability of Surety.

11. —Discharge in Bankruptcy.

Where the complainant sought to enjoin an execution on a money judgment, and gave an injunction bond, and after injunction was issued, he was adjudged a bankrupt and discharged in bankruptcy, his discharge did not discharge the liability of his surety on the injunction bond, upon the dissolution of the injunction. Martin Furniture Co. v. Massey, 135 Tenn. 338, 186 S.W. 451, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1916).

12. —Death of Principal Debtor.

Death of principal debtor did not amount to dissolution of injunction, hence judgment against surety on motion without notice was invalid. Patterson v. Stewart, 14 Tenn. 26, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1834).

13. —Release of Complainant.

Any act on the part of the defendants, amounting to a voluntary release or relinquishment of legal liability of any complainant, would have the effect of discharging the surety on the injunction bond. Kelly v. Gordon, 40 Tenn. 683, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1859).

14. —Abatement as to One Cocomplainant.

Abatement as to one of several complainants does not release surety on injunction bond, because the undertaking of the surety on the injunction bond for several complainants is joint and several. Kelly v. Gordon, 40 Tenn. 683, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1859). See McCabe v. Sutton, 75 Tenn. 248, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 105 (1881); Renkert v. Elliott, 79 Tenn. 235, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1883).

15. —Right of Partial Exoneration.

Where the injunction was to prevent the sale of land, levied on under execution against complainant, upon the dissolution of the injunction, the sureties on the injunction bond, though liable for the entire judgment debt enjoined, are entitled to have the property levied on sold first for their exoneration, or in discharge of their liability to that extent. Wood v. McFerrin, 61 Tenn. 493, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 217 (1873); Hubbard v. Fravell, 80 Tenn. 304, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 173 (1883).

16. —Formal Dismissal Unnecessary.

To subject the obligors on an injunction bond to costs and damages “on dismissing the bill,” a formal dismissal is not necessary. It is sufficient if the court refuses to grant the relief sought upon the matter to which injunction relates. Coltart v. Ham, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 356 (1875); Baxter v. Washburn, 76 Tenn. 1, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1881).

17. —Unenjoined Codefendant — Rights on Bond.

Where an injunction has been obtained against one defendant, and the suit has been successfully prosecuted against him, another defendant, who has not been enjoined, is not entitled to a judgment on the injunction bond. Meek v. Mathis, 48 Tenn. 534, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1870).

18. Appeal.

19. —Interlocutory Dissolution Unappealable.

No appeal lies from an interlocutory decree dissolving an injunction. Humphreys County v. Houston County, 63 Tenn. 591, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 311 (1874). But see Kearney v. Jackson & Smith, 9 Tenn. 293, 9 Tenn. 294, 1830 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1830); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

20. —Decree Restoring Dissolved Injunction.

An appeal from the final decree restoring the injunction dissolved by interlocutory decree leaves the interlocutory decree in force, and the injunction not in force; and a decree granting application for reinstatement of an injunction dissolved by an interlocutory decree, made at the same term and on the next day after a final decree reserving the right to complainant to make such application, is a final decree or part of the final decree, and an appeal will lie from it. Humphreys County v. Houston County, 63 Tenn. 591, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 311 (1874). But see Kearney v. Jackson & Smith, 9 Tenn. 293, 9 Tenn. 294, 1830 Tenn. LEXIS 25 (1830); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883).

21. —Authority of Appellate Court.

The appellate court cannot supersede the grant of an injunction, nor an interlocutory decree dissolving an injunction, nor a judgment rendered upon the injunction bond as a legal consequence of such dissolution. McMinnville & M. R. Co. v. Huggins, 47 Tenn. 217, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1869); Mabry v. Ross, 48 Tenn. 769, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1870); Allen v. Nelson, 66 Tenn. 343, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 140 (1874); Redmond v. Redmond, 68 Tenn. 561, 1877 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1877); Park v. Meek, 69 Tenn. 78, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1878); Baird v. Cumberland & Stones River Tpk. Co., 69 Tenn. 394, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1878); Enochs v. Wilson, 79 Tenn. 228, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 48 (1883); Downing v. Dunlap Coal, Iron & R.R., 93 Tenn. 221, 24 S.W. 122, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1893).

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions §§ 322, 335, 336-340.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 275, 276.

Appealability of order refusing to grant or dissolving temporary restraining order. 19 A.L.R.3d 459.

When preliminary order or temporary injunction deemed to have been dissolved within contemplation of statute providing for recovery of damages where injunction is dissolved. 123 A.L.R. 1235.

Injunction 207-212.

29-23-102. [Reserved.]

Where an injunction to stay proceedings on a judgment is dissolved on a final hearing, the court may decree six percent (6%) on the amount of the judgment enjoined as damages, if of the opinion that the injunction was obtained for delay.

Code 1932, § 10554; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1912.

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions §§ 366-371, 378, 379.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 275, 276.

Judgment 403-469.

29-23-104. Assessment of penalty for injurious injunction.

  1. In cases where the court is of the opinion that the party enjoined has suffered a substantial injury, but that damages are speculative or incapable of ascertainment under legal rules, it may, on dissolution, in its sound discretion, assess and decree against the party suing out the writ a penalty in favor of the party enjoined.
  2. If this discretion is exercised by the chancellor it shall be reviewable on appeal.

Code 1932, § 10555; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1913.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 612.

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions §§ 368, 370, 371, 378.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 320-323.

Liability apart from bond and in absence of elements of malicious prosecution, for wrongfully suing out injunction. 45 A.L.R. 1517.

Malicious prosecution based on wrongful obtaining of injunction, right to bring action for, as affected by giving of injunction bond. 150 A.L.R. 907.

Proceedings for injunction or restraining order as basis of malicious prosecution action. 70 A.L.R.3d 536.

Injunction 185-188.

29-23-105. Delivery of attached property — Payment of penalty.

The court has power, upon final decree, to order the property which may have been attached to be delivered to the party entitled, and, in case of failure, that the persons liable upon original, replevy, or delivery bonds, shall pay all or such portion of the penalty as the court may order. Or, where the property is not forthcoming in conformity to the final decree, the court may enter judgment on motion, and execution may issue thereon for the whole, or any portion, of the penalty, as the court may direct, against all or any of the parties thereto.

Code 1858, §§ 4449, 4450; Shan., § 6266; Code 1932, § 10556; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1914.

Part 2
Injunction Against Sale Under Trust Deed or Mortgage

29-23-201. Injunction against sale under trust deed or mortgage — Notice required.

  1. No judge or chancellor shall grant an injunction to stay the sale of real estate conveyed by deed of trust or mortgage, with a power of sale, executed to secure the payment of a loan of money, unless the complainant gives five (5) days' notice to the trustee or mortgagee of the time when, place where, and of the judge or chancellor before whom, the application for injunction is to be made.
  2. No judge or chancellor shall act upon the application unless the same is accompanied by proof, evidenced by return of a sheriff, constable, or attorney, that notice has been served on the trustee or mortgagee, or that the trustee or mortgagee is not to be found in the county of usual residence, or is a nonresident.

Acts 1873, ch. 10, § 1; Shan., § 6248; Code 1932, § 10535; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 10535; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2401.

Cross-References. Conditions to granting of injunction, title 29, ch. 1.

Redemption from sale, title 66, ch. 8.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 463, 575, 581.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 29; 19 Tenn. Juris., Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 51.

Law Reviews.

Forms of Relief, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 400.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee: A Section 1983 Trap (Jack Jones and J. Michael Ivens), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 279 (1984).

Simple Real Estate Foreclosures Made Complex: The Byzantine Tennessee Process (John A. Walker, Jr.), 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 231 (1995).

Cited: Potts v. Coffman, 146 Tenn. 282, 240 S.W. 783, 1922 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1922); Doty v. Federal Land Bank, 169 Tenn. 496, 89 S.W.2d 337, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1936); Clack v. Standefer, 24 Tenn. App. 556, 147 S.W.2d 764, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940); Impac, Ltd. v. Third Nat'l Bank, 541 S.W.2d 139, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. 1976); Kershaw v. Federal Land Bank, 556 F. Supp. 693, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19393 (M.D. Tenn. 1983); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Drake, 410 S.W.3d 797, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose.

This provision was designed to prevent interference with prompt sales by means of frivolous pretexts upon ex parte statements. Plowman v. Satterwhite, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 1 (1875).

2. Application.

Provision in this section for notice did not apply where defendant was not a trustee in a mortgage or deed of trust with power of sale, but held property as a trustee under a trust instrument. Smalling v. Cox, 13 Tenn. App. 425, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

Where a foreclosure sale had taken place prior to complainant's application for an injunction, complainant's bill can be treated as a bill to set aside the foreclosure as opposed to a bill to enjoin the foreclosure, and compliance with the notice provisions of this section will be unnecessary. Held v. Tennessee Title Co., 223 Tenn. 545, 448 S.W.2d 413, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1969).

3. Verification of Bill.

To entitle a party to enjoin the sale of land under a deed of trust to secure borrowed money, all the material facts upon which the application is based should be verified by the oath of a person having knowledge of them, either by the complainant or by someone knowing the facts better than he. Smith v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. (Cooper's) 599 (1876).

4. Postponement.

If the application cannot be heard on the very day when the statutory period expires it may be heard on such other day as the chancellor may appoint, and should an event happen to postpone the day, such as the death of a party or the removal of the case to the federal court, that postponement would not affect the force of the stay order. Hamilton v. Fowler, 83 F. 321, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2850 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1897), modified, 99 F. 18, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2790 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1899).

5. Waiver of Delay.

Where an application was made for an injunction and a circuit judge granted an order staying the sale for statutory period until an injunction could be formally applied for, the defendants could voluntarily appear at once, without waiting for the notice, and file their answer and bring the case on for hearing before the chancellor of the court, where the bill was filed, because the notice was intended for the benefit of the defendants alone, and they have a right to waive it and bring the matter to a hearing. Plowman v. Satterwhite, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 1 (1875).

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions §§ 228, 271; 55 Am. Jur. 2d Mortgages §§ 763-772.

43 A C.J.S. Injunctions §§ 68, 189, 190, 260, 261.

Financial depression or lack of market as grounds for enjoining sale under mortgage or deed of trust to secure debts. 82 A.L.R. 976, 90 A.L.R. 1330, 94 A.L.R. 1352, 96 A.L.R. 853, 97 A.L.R. 1123, 104 A.L.R. 375.

Injunction 114(2).

29-23-202. Contents of application for injunction.

The party applying for relief in such case shall distinctly state how, when, and to whom the debt or any part of the debt secured aforementioned has been paid, or any circumstances of fraud which vitiate the contract.

Acts 1873, ch. 10, § 2; Shan., § 6250; Code 1932, § 10536; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2402.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 29.

Law Reviews.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee: A Section 1983 Trap (Jack Jones and J. Michael Ivens), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 279 (1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Allegations of Bill.

A bill to enjoin sale of land under deed of trust should state the facts from which the judge can see that the allegations are well founded, so that he can determine the amount of credits with reasonable certainty; and it is not sufficient for complainant to allege that he has made payments, and has an unliquidated account against the defendant, who is claiming more interest than he is entitled to. Plowman v. Satterwhite, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 1 (1875).

2. Pleadings And Procedure.

Dismissal of a complaint by a borrower, who sought to enjoin several banks and a corporation from pursuing any further judicial or non-judicial foreclosure action against the borrower, was appropriate because the complaint failed to allege either payment or fraud in connection with the execution of any agreement between the borrower and the banks and the corporation. Crockett v. Mut. of Omaha, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed the borrower's petition to enjoin the foreclosure sale because she failed to “distinctly state” either payment of the debt or fraud vitiating the mortgage contract. Goodman v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2018).

3. Injunction Denied.

Borrower failed to show that he was entitled to injunctive relief against the successor lender where its was uncontested that the borrower had defaulted on the note, and MERS was properly involved as an agent for the original lender in transferring the deed of trust to the successor lender. Ross v. Orion Fin. Grp., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2019).

Collateral References. Injunction 114(2).

29-23-203. Answer — Delay in hearing on injunction.

After the reading of the bill in the hearing of the trustee or mortgagee, if the trustee or mortgagee chooses to appear before the judge or chancellor, the trustee or mortgagee may have the right to a delay of proceedings not more than ten (10) days, during which time the trustee or mortgagee may file an answer before the same judge or chancellor.

Acts 1873, ch. 10, § 2; Shan., § 6251; Code 1932, § 10537; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2403.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 29.

Law Reviews.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871.

Collateral References. Equity 373.

29-23-204. Decree.

The judge or chancellor may then, upon such bill and answer, hear such cause, at chambers, as upon motion to dissolve the injunction, the judge's or chancellor's decision to be in a written decree, which decree, together with the bill, answer, and exhibits, shall be enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the clerk of the court in which the bill is filed, such decree to constitute a part of the record in the cause, in conformity to the terms of which, the clerk may take bonds from either party, or execute any other order as adjudged in such decree.

Acts 1873, ch. 10, § 2; Shan., § 6252; mod. Code 1932, § 10538; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2404.

Cross-References. Terms of decree, § 21-1-803.

Law Reviews.

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871.

Collateral References. Equity 143.

29-23-103. Penalty for delay of judgment.

Chapter 24
Libel and Slander

29-24-101. Charge of adultery or fornication.

Any words written, spoken, or printed of a person, wrongfully and maliciously imputing to such person the commission of adultery or fornication, are actionable, without special damage except as otherwise provided in § 29-24-105.

Code 1858, § 3400 (deriv. Acts 1805, ch. 6, § 1); Shan., § 5155; Code 1932, § 9310; Acts 1957, ch. 240, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2601.

Cross-References. Abatement of action, §§ 20-5-102, 20-5-103.

Limitation of action for libel, § 28-3-104.

Limitation of action for slander, § 28-3-103.

Prosecution in forma pauperis, § 20-12-127.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 17 Tenn. Juris., Libel and Slander, §§ 6, 33; 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 18.

Law Reviews.

A Pragmatic Approach to Improving Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2001).

Accidental Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1225 (2001).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Negligence Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 893 (2001).

Defamation — Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders: Clarifying a Limitation on the Constitutional Requirement of Actual Malice, 15 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 655 (1985).

Duty Rules, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 767 (2001).

Intent and Recklessness in Tort: The Practical Craft of Restating Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1133 (2001).

Interpretive Construction, Systematic Consistency, and Criterial Norms in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1157 (2001).

Legal Cause: Cause-In-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 941 (2001).

Liability and Damages in Libel and Slander Law, 47 Tenn. L. Rev. 814.

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 863 (2001).

Once More Into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution, and the Extent of Legal Responsibility, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1071 (2001).

On Determining Negligence Norms, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 813 (2001).

Purpose, Belief, and Recklessness: Pruning the Restatement's (Third) Definition of Intent, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1165 (2001).

Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 751 (2001).

Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles and the Prescription of Masculine Order, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2001).

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1039 (2001).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

Slander — Necessity for Proof of Special Damages — Publication, 18 Tenn. L. Rev. 396.

The Duty Concept in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2001).

The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Passing of Palsgraf?, see 54 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2001).

The Restatement of Torts and the Courts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1439 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (2001).

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1413 (2001).

The Trouble with Negligence, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1187 (2001).

The Unexpected Persistence of Negligence, 1980 - 2000, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1337 (2001).

Tort Liability for Abusive and Insulting Language (John W. Wade), 4 Vand. L. Rev. 63.

Comparative Legislation. Slander and libel:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-180 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 51-5-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.045 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 95-1-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.110 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 18.2-417.

Cited: Kivett v. Nevils, 190 Tenn. 12, 227 S.W.2d 39, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (1950); Revis v. McClean, 31 S.W.3d 250, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Defamation in General.

Defamatory matter incorporated in a pleading, if pertinent to the issue, is privileged, even though it be concerning a stranger to the record. Crockett v. McLanahan, 109 Tenn. 517, 72 S.W. 950, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 90, 61 L.R.A. 914 (1903).

Whether defamatory matter in a pleading is pertinent to the issue is a question of law. Crockett v. McLanahan, 109 Tenn. 517, 72 S.W. 950, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 90, 61 L.R.A. 914 (1903).

2. Purpose of Section.

The purpose of the section was to put all imputations of unchastity upon the plane of all other libelous and slanderous charges. Cohen v. Pinson, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 93 (1910).

3. Imputation of Unchastity.

It is necessary that the words impute unchastity, but not a specific act. Cohen v. Pinson, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 93 (1910).

The use of the word “bitch” in connection with other expressions and amid some surroundings is capable of conveying the imputation of unchastity, and is actionable. Cohen v. Pinson, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 93 (1910).

Without evidence of some false and injurious statement, plaintiff could not sustain defamation claims; accordingly, defendants were granted summary judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-24-101. Brock v. Positive Changes Hypnosis, LLC, 589 F. Supp. 2d 974, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49281 (W.D. Tenn. June 26, 2008).

4. Statements Not Imputing Moral Turpitude.

Statement by defendant that plaintiff, a woman, was a hermaphrodite was not actionable per se since statement did not impute an offense involving moral turpitude. Huckaby v. Winchester, 7 Tenn. Civ. App. (7 Higgins) 66 (1917).

5. Damages.

Where the plaintiff in an action for slander, based upon this section, failed to show that the words were spoken within the six months next preceding the institution of the suit, he was not allowed to prove that they were spoken more than six months before that time, in aggravation of damages, because, if the words were spoken within the six months, there were no damages to be aggravated by the speaking of the words more than six months before the suit. Robinson v. Baker, 78 Tenn. 402, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1882).

Where suit was brought by both husband and wife for slander upon the wife, without any averment of special damages to the husband, plaintiffs should not have been permitted to introduce testimony as to the effect of the slander upon the feelings of the husband. Butler v. Stites, 7 Tenn. App. 482, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

6. —Pleading Special Damages — Necessity.

Special damages need not be pleaded, in action of slander, under this section. Beasley v. Hills, 1 Tenn. Civ. App. (1 Higgins) 285 (1910).

7. —Mitigation of Damages.

In an action of slander under this section refusal to charge the jury that if the slanderous words were uttered in the heat of passion or anger that fact could be looked to in mitigation of damages was error. Hackett v. Brown, 49 Tenn. 264, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1871).

8. Jury Question.

Where a newspaper article read and construed in the sense in which the reader would ordinarily understand it, implied that female plaintiff and third party had an adulterous relationship and were discovered by third party's wife, thus precipitating a shooting incident, and if so read, it could hardly be doubted that plaintiff's reputation would be injured, whether or not such article was understood by readers in its defamatory sense was ultimately a question for the jury. Memphis Pub. Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 618 (Tenn. 1978).

Collateral References. 50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander §§ 60-63.

53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander §§ 30, 73.

Clergyman, charge of immorality against. 53 A.L.R. 639.

Imputation of criminal, abnormal, or otherwise offensive sexual attitude or behavior as defamation — post-New York Times cases. 57 A.L.R.4th 404.

Imputation of homosexuality as defamation. 3 A.L.R.4th 752.

Labor union's liability to member for defamation. 100 A.L.R.3d 546.

Libel and slander: Actionability of charge of being a “slut,” “bitch,” or “son of a bitch.” 13 A.L.R.3d 1286.

Libel and slander: charging one with breach or nonperformance of contract. 45 A.L.R.5th 739.

Libel and slander: Dictation to defendant's secretary, typist, or stenographer as publication. 62 A.L.R.3d 1207.

Libel and slander: False news reports as to births, betrothals, marriages, divorces, or similar marital matters. 9 A.L.R.3d 559.

Venereal disease, imputation of, as actionable per se. 45 A.L.R. 1115.

Who is “public figure” for purposes of defamation action. 19 A.L.R.5th 1.

Who is “public official” for purposes of defamation action. 44 A.L.R.5th 193.

Libel 7(17).

29-24-102. Costs on nominal recovery.

Where the verdict in slander is under five dollars ($5.00), the plaintiff shall recover no more costs than damages.

Code 1858, § 3402 (deriv. Acts 1715, ch. 27, § 8); Shan., § 5157; Code 1932, § 9313; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2604.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

This section applies to libelous publications, written or printed, as well as to slanderous words spoken. Rosenfeld v. Guggenheim, 3 Shan. 46 (1878).

2. Section Not to Affect Verdict.

The amount of costs to be recovered should depend on the amount of the verdict, rather than the amount of the verdict depend on the question who should pay the costs. Smith v. Tune, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. (2 Higgins) 503 (1911).

3. Instructions of Court.

The defendant is not entitled to a reversal on account of the court's error in charging that the verdict must be for more, instead of as much as $5.00 damages, in order to carry full costs against the defendant, where the damages were assessed at only $5.10. De minimis non curat lex. Fox v. Boyd, 104 Tenn. 357, 58 S.W. 221, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1900).

It was error to instruct the jury that they might award such nominal damages as would carry the costs without further instructing that a verdict for less than five dollars would not carry the costs. Mullins v. Hudson, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. (2 Higgins) 352 (1911).

Collateral References. Libel 129.

29-24-103. Notice of action against periodical — Effect of retraction.

  1. Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five (5) days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article and the statements therein which the plaintiff alleges to be false and defamatory.
    1. If it appears upon the trial that the article was published in good faith, that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in the article were true, and that within ten (10) days after the service of such notice, or in the next regular edition of such newspaper or periodical, if more than ten (10) days from date of notice, a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was published in the same editions, and in the case of a daily newspaper, in all editions of the day of such publication, or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which the article appeared; and in the case of newspapers on the front page thereof, and in the case of other periodicals in as conspicuous a place as that of the original defamatory article, and in either case, in as conspicuous a plat or type as was the original article, then the plaintiff shall recover only actual, and not punitive, damages.
    2. The exemption from punitive damages shall not apply to any article about or affecting a candidate for political office, published within ten (10) days before any election for the office for which the person is a candidate.

Acts 1955, ch. 47, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-2605.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, § 116; 17 Tenn. Juris., Libel and Slander, §§ 29, 30.

Law Reviews.

A Quarter Century of Libel Law (John P. Williams), 25 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 14 (1989).

Conditional Privilege in Tennessee (Donald F. Paine), 30 Tenn. L. Rev. 569.

Liability and Damages in Libel and Slander Law, 47 Tenn. L. Rev. 814.

Reopening Tennessee's Open Courts Clause: A Historical Reconsideration of Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution, 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 333 (1997).

Tortious Invasion of Privacy in Tennessee (Phillip A. Fleissner), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 260.

Torts — 1956 Tennessee Survey (John W. Wade), 9 Vand. L. Rev. 1137.

Cited: McNabb v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., 55 Tenn. App. 380, 400 S.W.2d 871, 1965 Tenn. App. LEXIS 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965); Shipley v. Knoxville Journal Corp., 670 S.W.2d 222, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Purpose.

The intention of the legislature as implied from the provisions of this section and its purpose was to give the section a retrospective effect as to barring right to punitive damages for failure to give the required notice. Langford v. Vanderbilt University, 199 Tenn. 389, 287 S.W.2d 32, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 337 (1956).

2. Constitutional Considerations.

The United States Supreme Court decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 88 (1974) restricted damages to compensation for actual injury, and unless actual malice is shown, punitive damages are not to be permitted and compensatory damages must be proved, not presumed. Memphis Pub. Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 618 (Tenn. 1978).

3. Retrospective Effect.

Since punitive damages are in the nature of a penalty and a penalty never vests but remains executory, retrospective effect of this section in barring punitive damages in cause of action arising before the enactment of this section did not deprive plaintiff of a vested right. Langford v. Vanderbilt University, 199 Tenn. 389, 287 S.W.2d 32, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 337 (1956).

4. Burden of Proof.

On motion for summary judgment where plaintiff is a public figure, it is incumbent upon him to show actual malice with convincing clarity. Trigg v. Lakeway Publishers, Inc., 720 S.W.2d 69, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

5. Hyperbole.

An article written using “rhetorical hyperbole” could not be reasonably construed as stating actual facts about the plaintiff, and was not defamatory. Stilts v. Globe Int'l, 950 F. Supp. 220, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21351 (M.D. Tenn. 1995).

Collateral References.

Actionability of false newspaper report that plaintiff has been arrested. 93 A.L.R.3d 625.

Defamation: publication of letter to editor in newspaper as actionable. 54 A.L.R.5th 443.

Liability of Newspaper for Libel and Slander - 21st Century Cases. 22 A.L.R.6th 553.

Libel and slander: Privileged nature of communications made in course of grievance or arbitration procedure provided for by collective bargaining agreement. 60 A.L.R.3d 1041.

Libel and slander: Privileged nature of communications to other employees or employees' union of reason for plaintiff's discharge. 60 A.L.R.3d 1080.

Publication of “letter to editor” in newspaper as actionable. 99 A.L.R.3d 573.

Who is protected by statute restricting recovery unless retraction is demanded. 84 A.L.R.3d 1249.

Who is “public official” for purposes of defamation action. 44 A.L.R.5th 193.

Libel 92, 105(1).

29-24-104. Broadcasting stations.

  1. The owner, licensee, or operator of a visual or sound radio broadcasting station or network of stations, and the agents or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator, shall not be liable for any damages for any defamatory statement published or uttered in or as a part of a visual or sound radio broadcast, by one other than such owner, licensee, or operator, or agent or employee thereof, unless it shall be alleged by the complaining party that such owner, licensee, operator, or such agent or employee, has failed to exercise due care to prevent the publication or utterance of such statement in such broadcast.
  2. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, licensee or operator to show that due care was used.
  3. In no event, however, shall any owner, licensee, or operator, or the agents or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator of any such a station or network of stations, be held liable for any damages for any defamatory statement uttered over the facilities of such station or network by any candidate for public office, unless such statement is made by an agent or employee of the owner, licensee, or operator in the course of employment.

Acts 1955, ch. 12, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., §§ 23-2606, 23-2607.

Law Reviews.

Conditional Privilege in Tennessee (Donald F. Paine), 30 Tenn. L. Rev. 569.

Torts — 1959 Tennessee Survey (Dix W. Noel), 12 Vand. L. Rev. 1350.

Collateral References.

Defamation by radio or television. 50 A.L.R.3d 1311.

Liability of internet service provider for internet or e-mail defamation. 84 A.L.R.5th 169.

29-24-105. Commercial printers and printing establishments relieved of liability for libel under certain conditions.

  1. For the purpose of this section, “commercial printer or commercial printing establishment” includes any person or establishment producing printed products by any and all processes, and suppliers of type, stencils, plates and/or negatives from which such printing is produced.
  2. The right of action heretofore existing against a commercial printer or commercial printing establishment engaged in the business of printing for others to recover sums of money as damages for the publication of a libel is hereby abolished where the copy for the libelous matter was furnished by the customer to the commercial printer or commercial printing establishment, and no part of the libelous matter was written, edited or otherwise authored by the commercial printer or commercial printing establishment or their agents, servants or employees.
    1. The benefits of this section shall not inure to the commercial printer or printing establishment, where the copy is libelous per se or where the commercial printer, or commercial printing establishment, its agents, servants or employees knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the falsity of the matter contained in such copy.
    2. The benefit of this section shall not inure to the benefit of any commercial printer or any commercial printing establishment unless such printer or printing establishment requires the person furnishing such copy to place the provider's true name, address and organization represented, if any, on such copy or in a permanent record book kept for such purpose, such information to be available to the person allegedly libeled upon the libeled party's written request.

Acts 1957, ch. 240, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., §§ 23-2608, 23-2609.

Law Reviews.

Conditional Privilege in Tennessee (Donald F. Paine), 30 Tenn. L. Rev. 569.

Collateral References.

Who is protected by statute restricting recovery unless retraction is demanded. 84 A.L.R.3d 1249.

Chapter 25
Mandamus

29-25-101. Power to issue writ.

Circuit judges and chancellors have power to issue writs of mandamus, upon petition or bill, supported by affidavit.

Code 1858, § 3567 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 1); Shan., § 5331; mod. Code 1932, § 9491; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2001.

Cross-References. Action by holders of state school bonds, § 49-3-1110.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 509.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Mandamus, §§ 1, 22, 25.

Law Reviews.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Rights of Minority Stockholders in Tennessee (William I. Henderson), 27 Tenn. L. Rev. 261.

Survey of Civil Procedure in Tennessee — 1977, IV. Pretrial Procedure (John L. Sobieski, Jr.), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 308.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Comparative Legislation. Mandamus:

Ala. RAP 21.

Ark.  Code § 16-115-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-6-20 et seq.

Ky. CR 81.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-41-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 529.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-32.

Va. Code § 8.01-644 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction.

Criminal court judges do not have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. State ex rel. Jordan v. Bomar, 217 Tenn. 494, 398 S.W.2d 724, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 550 (1965).

2. —Special Courts.

The common law and chancery court at Memphis was a special court, created and vested with the general jurisdiction of civil cases, as other circuit and chancery courts of the state, and the judge of that court was invested with the same powers as other circuit judges or chancellors, and he might properly issue writs of mandamus. Saffrons v. Ericson, 43 Tenn. 1, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1866).

3. —Appellate Courts.

The supreme court has jurisdiction by mandamus to compel a circuit judge to vacate his illegal and arbitrary action taken out of term time, and the existence of other adequate remedies does not defeat or affect such jurisdiction by mandamus to control the action of inferior courts and judges in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and as a necessary incident to its effective exercise. State ex rel. Shaw v. Cooper, 107 Tenn. 202, 64 S.W. 50, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1901).

Jurisdiction of court of appeals is appellate only and it has no power to entertain petitions for, or to issue, statutory writs of mandamus, but in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, it may then use the remedy. State ex rel. Gill v. Corum, 123 Tenn. 394, 131 S.W. 861, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1910); Hyde v. Dunlap, 3 Tenn. App. 368, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926); Blanton v. Tennessee Cent. Ry., 4 Tenn. App. 335, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 189 (1926).

4. Issuance of Writ.

5. —Discretion.

Mandamus will not be granted where it would be unavailing, for want of power in the defendants, as where they have exercised the power vested in them, and have not the right and power to review their own acts and undo the same. White's Creek Turnpike Co. v. Marshall, 61 Tenn. 104, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1872); State v. Miller, 69 Tenn. 596, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1878); State ex rel. Lyle v. Willett, 117 Tenn. 334, 97 S.W. 299, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1906); State ex rel. Spratlin v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S.W. 349, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1 (1907); State ex rel. Millsaps v. Board of Educ., 122 Tenn. 161, 121 S.W. 499, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1909); State ex rel. Woolen v. Pearson, 137 Tenn. 253, 192 S.W. 164, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 159 (1917).

The granting of a writ of mandamus, even where the right thereto is clear, lies in the sound discretion of the court; and where the court can see, upon a review of the whole case, that public interest and business will be thereby prejudiced and hindered, or the rights of third persons injuriously affected, without reasonable expectation of compensating benefits, the writ will be denied. Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896).

Chancery court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus T.C.A. § 16-11-102 vests chancery courts with concurrent jurisdiction over all civil causes of action including petitions for writs of mandamus, this statute separately grants chancellors the power to issue writs of mandamus, and the language of T.C.A. § 5-1-107 that duties made incumbent by law upon the county may be enforced by mandamus from the circuit court is permissive rather than exclusionary. State ex rel. Aina-Labinjo v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013).

6. —Absence of Other Remedy.

To obtain the writ of mandamus, it is essential that the applicant show a specific and complete right which is to be enforced; and there must be no other specific remedy adequate to enforce the right. The remedy that would exclude the writ of mandamus must not only afford adequate, but specific relief. Winters & Cross v. Heirs of Burford, 46 Tenn. 328, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1869); Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wisdom, 52 Tenn. 125, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 245 (1871); Memphis Appeal Publishing Co. v. Pike, 56 Tenn. 697, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1872); Morley v. Power, 73 Tenn. 691, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1880); Warner Iron Co. v. Pace, 89 Tenn. 707, 15 S.W. 1077, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1891).

It is a general rule that whenever a statute gives a power to, or imposes an obligation on, a particular person, to do some particular act or duty, and provides no specific remedy on nonperformance, a mandamus will be granted. Winters & Cross v. Heirs of Burford, 46 Tenn. 328, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1869); Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wisdom, 52 Tenn. 125, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 245 (1871); State v. Miller, 69 Tenn. 596, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1878); State ex rel. Richards v. Sneed, 105 Tenn. 711, 58 S.W. 1070, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1900), overruled, Shelton v. Wade, 139 Tenn. 685, 203 S.W. 253, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 138 (1918).

The writ of mandamus does not award damages as compensation for an injury, but it seeks to give the thing itself, the withholding of which constitutes the injury complained of. It is the supplementary remedy when all others fail. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wisdom, 52 Tenn. 125, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 245 (1871); Morley v. Power, 73 Tenn. 691, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1880).

7. —Purpose of Writ.

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that can be resorted to only when other remedies fail, and will not lie to compel the issuance of execution when the judgment is invalid, nor when the judgment has been vacated, nor when the party against whom the judgment stands is not made a party. State ex rel. Spratlin v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S.W. 349, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1 (1907); Brown v. Crystal Ice Co., 122 Tenn. 239, 122 S.W. 84, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1909).

The office of mandamus is to execute, not adjudicate, as in the determination of mutual claims or rights as between parties. If the matter be doubtful, it is necessary that it be determined in another form of action. Peerless Constr. Co. v. Bass, 158 Tenn. 518, 14 S.W.2d 732, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (1929); Moore v. Chandler, 675 S.W.2d 153, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 771 (Tenn. 1984).

Mandamus does not lie to compel a county to pay for an improvement until its disputed liability therefor is adjudicated. State use of Morristown v. Hamblen County, 161 Tenn. 575, 33 S.W.2d 73, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1930), rehearing denied, 161 Tenn. 575, 34 S.W.2d 715 (1930). See State ex rel. Groce v. Martin, 155 Tenn. 322, 292 S.W. 451, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1927).

A former city employee reemployed without being required to pass new civil service examination, as required by charter, cannot compel reinstatement by mandamus. To do so would be to violate the law of the charter. State ex rel. Baker v. Knoxville, 166 Tenn. 563, 64 S.W.2d 17, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1933).

Equity will not compel a county, against the will of its county court (now county legislative body), to bring a suit for back taxes against the property of a corporation so induced to construct its plant in the county, when to sue would be an act of bad faith, detrimental to the county, morally and materially. State ex rel. Allen v. American Glanzstoff Corp., 167 Tenn. 597, 72 S.W.2d 775, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1934).

Damages for delay in doing the thing mandamus seeks to command cannot be sought in the mandamus action. Hayes v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of Metro. Gov't, 907 S.W.2d 826, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

8. Duties Enforceable.

9. —Levy of Tax.

Mandamus granted to compel the levying and collection of a tax to satisfy a judgment of the court is in the nature of an ordinary execution of the judgment, and is not an original proceeding. Merchants of Memphis v. Memphis, 68 Tenn. 76, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1876). See City of Memphis v. Brown, 97 U.S. 300, 24 L. Ed. 924, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1777 (1877); State ex rel. Bond v. Taylor, 119 Tenn. 229, 104 S.W. 242, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Sep. 1907); State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

10. —Execution on Judgment.

A writ of mandamus will lie to compel a justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) to issue an execution on a judgment before him, especially where he is insolvent. Pace v. Mayor Strouse, 42 Tenn. 1, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (1865).

Mandamus will not lie against the clerk of a court to compel him to issue an execution on a judgment upon default set aside by the court at a subsequent term by consent of the parties. State ex rel. Spratlin v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S.W. 349, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1 (1907).

11. —To Test Availability of Funds for Payment of Bonds.

Mandamus is proper remedy by which holder of matured but unpaid bond obligation may have determined whether funds in the hands of collecting trustee are available for their payment. State ex rel. First Nat'l Bank v. Dunlap, 167 Tenn. 585, 72 S.W.2d 771, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1934).

12. —Examination of Municipal Records.

Mandamus lies to enforce a taxpayer's right to examine a city's books for either a general or specific purpose, when such right is not sought for a corrupt purpose or to further an animosity, and the commencement of proceedings fixes the right to the mandamus, which cannot be affected by subsequent acts of the defendant; the writ of mandamus must be directed to the mayor as custodian of the city's books. State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

13. —Railroad Assessments.

The state officials composing the state board of examiners of assessments of the distributable property of railroads could, as relators, maintain mandamus in the name of the state, against the state comptroller and the members of the state board of assessors and equalizers, to compel the performance by them, respectively, of the duties enjoined by statute. Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896).

Mandamus by counties to compel the assessment of a railroad's property for taxation will be refused where its grant would be detrimental to the state. State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

14. —Elections.

Where the election returns were regular and proper, the board of inspectors and canvassers could be compelled, by mandamus, to perform the ministerial duty of counting the votes and declaring the result, or giving a certificate of election. Saffrons v. Ericson, 43 Tenn. 1, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 6 (1866); State ex rel. Stewart v. Marks, 74 Tenn. 12, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 208 (1880).

Mandamus does not lie to compel compensation of election offices where his claim is not liquidated. State ex rel. Carr v. Wallace, 168 Tenn. 591, 79 S.W.2d 1027, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1935).

15. —Right to Public Office.

While a chancellor has no jurisdiction of an election contest, he has jurisdiction by mandamus to compel an officer to recognize one as an officer, which incidentally involves the determination of a contest. State ex rel. Brumit v. Grindstaff, 144 Tenn. 554, 234 S.W. 510, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1921).

16. —Judicial Officers.

Where a judicial officer fails or refuses to act, he can be compelled to render some judgment in the case before him; but if it be an act judicial in its character, the court cannot direct what judgment he shall render. Williams v. Saunders, 45 Tenn. 60, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1867); Morley v. Power, 73 Tenn. 691, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1880); State ex rel. Puckett v. McKee, 76 Tenn. 24, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1881); State ex rel. Williams v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 93 Tenn. 619, 27 S.W. 1019, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1894); North British & Mercantile Co. v. Craig, 106 Tenn. 621, 62 S.W. 155, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 197 (1901); State ex rel. Bond v. Taylor, 119 Tenn. 229, 104 S.W. 242, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Sep. 1907).

The state could not maintain writ against justices of the peace refusing to attend a quarterly session of county court. State ex rel. Thompson v. Read, 152 Tenn. 442, 278 S.W. 71, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1925).

Rules governing laid down in Hill v. Laughlin, 17 Tenn. App. 367, 67 S.W.2d 568, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Requests for declaratory and mandamus relief were proper ways for plaintiffs to challenge the judge's refusal, under the local rule, to release the requested recordings, but for either form of relief to be appropriate, the local rule had to conflict with the statute; the judge's decision did not violate the statute and the claims were properly dismissed. Reguli v. Guffee, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 810 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017).

When a judge acting in accordance with a local rule nevertheless acts in clear violation of a statute, a plaintiff with standing may seek a writ of mandamus from a superior court ordering the lower court to comply with the statute. Reguli v. Guffee, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 810 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017).

17. —Public Officers in General.

If the law plainly prescribes a specific act, which is due in point of time, but has been refused on demand, if simply affecting a private right, or only omitted if of a public concern, the court will interpose at the instance of the proper party, and by mandamus set such officer in motion, leaving him free exercise of his own judgment and discretion in the manner of performance; or if he assumes to act without lawful authority, as under an unconstitutional act, a court of equity will restrain him by injunction to prevent irreparable injury. North British & Mercantile Co. v. Craig, 106 Tenn. 621, 62 S.W. 155, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 197 (1901); Hyde v. Dunlap, 3 Tenn. App. 368, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

Mandamus is allowable to compel a county superintendent of education to deliver his records to his successor. State ex rel. Thomas v. Davis, 159 Tenn. 693, 21 S.W.2d 623, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1929).

18. —Governor.

Mandamus will not lie to compel the governor to do any act, however ministerial it may be, for the power to issue such writ includes the power to enforce the judgment by his imprisonment, and the judicial department has no power to control the executive department in this way. Jonesboro, F. B. & B. G. Turnpike Co. v. Brown, 67 Tenn. 490, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1875); Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tenn. 319, 11 S.W. 266, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 3 L.R.A. 316 (1888); State ex rel. Latture v. Board of Inspectors, 114 Tenn. 516, 86 S.W. 319, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1904).

Where the governor submits to the jurisdiction of the court, and expresses a willingness for the court to pass upon the matter, and to perform the judgment of the court, the court will act as upon an agreed case. State ex rel. Stewart v. Marks, 74 Tenn. 12, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 208 (1880); Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tenn. 319, 11 S.W. 266, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 3 L.R.A. 316 (1888) (but the jurisdiction does not exist without the governor's consent).

19. —Ministerial and Discretionary Duties.

The writ did not lie to compel the judge or chairman of county court to issue warrant for claim due by account, the correctness of which he disputed. Whitesides v. Stewart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S.W. 245, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1892).

The writ of mandamus will not lie to control official judgment or discretion, nor judicial acts, but it will lie to control ministerial acts. Whitesides v. Stewart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S.W. 245, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1892). See Connell v. County Judge of Davidson, 39 Tenn. 189, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 276 (1858); White's Creek Turnpike Co. v. Marshall, 61 Tenn. 104, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 348 (1872); Morley v. Power, 73 Tenn. 691, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1880); Hawkins v. Kercheval, 78 Tenn. 535, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 220 (1882); State ex rel. Williams v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 93 Tenn. 619, 27 S.W. 1019, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 7 (1894); State ex rel. Millsaps v. Board of Educ., 122 Tenn. 161, 121 S.W. 499, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1909); Peerless Constr. Co. v. Bass, 158 Tenn. 518, 14 S.W.2d 732, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (1929) (adjudication of title to office is apparently an exception to the rule); State ex rel. Thomas v. Davis, 159 Tenn. 693, 21 S.W.2d 623, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 31 (1929).

Where the law prescribes a duty or act to be performed mandamus will lie against a public official to perform, he being left discretion as to the manner of performance. State ex rel. Harned v. Meador, 153 Tenn. 634, 284 S.W. 890, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1926); State ex rel. Groce v. Martin, 155 Tenn. 322, 292 S.W. 451, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1927). See State ex rel. Millsaps v. Board of Educ., 122 Tenn. 161, 121 S.W. 499, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1909).

The writ does not lie to compel a county court (now county legislative body) to levy a tax for high school purposes, discretion on its part existing. Smith v. Groce, 158 Tenn. 255, 12 S.W.2d 715, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 147 (1929).

Mandamus is a summary remedy, extraordinary in nature, to be applied only when the right has been clearly established so that there remains only a positive ministerial duty to be performed. It will not lie when the necessity or propriety of the act is a matter of discretion. Peerless Constr. Co. v. Bass, 158 Tenn. 518, 14 S.W.2d 732, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (1929); Moore v. Chandler, 675 S.W.2d 153, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 771 (Tenn. 1984); State ex rel. Weaver v. Ayers, 756 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. 1988).

With the apparent exception of adjudicating title to public office, the writ lies to control only ministerial acts of public officers, not within their discretion. Peerless Constr. Co. v. Bass, 158 Tenn. 518, 14 S.W.2d 732, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (1929).

The writ lay to compel commissioner of highways to pay a judgment for rights-of-way out of moneys under his control. Baker v. Donegan, 164 Tenn. 625, 47 S.W.2d 1095, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1932).

A taxpayer relator cannot maintain mandamus to force a county to collect taxes, past due, from corporations induced to build plants in the county by resolutions of the county court (now county legislative body) undertaking to remit county taxes on such property. Citizens may not compel a county's authorities to take action, unless the authorities are acting illegally and the effect of their illegal action will occasion specific injury, not merely injury in common with the body of the citizenship. State ex rel. Allen v. American Glanzstoff Corp., 167 Tenn. 597, 72 S.W.2d 775, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1934).

Where general sessions judges revoked power of bail bondsman and bondsman in order to review such decision obtained certiorari from the circuit court and there was a difference of opinion as to whether permitting the giving of bonds was a ministerial or discretionary power of the court the Supreme Court on appeal considered it as having been brought to the circuit court by certiorari rather than by mandamus which would have been the proper remedy if the duty to permit bond had been ministerial. Taylor v. Waddey, 206 Tenn. 497, 334 S.W.2d 733, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 388 (1960).

Where the city charter stipulated that civil service positions were to be filled by appointment from among the three applicants who rated the highest as certified by the civil service board, where one of those applicants withdrew his name from consideration there was no discretion in the civil service board to certify any other individual, and hence a writ of mandamus requiring the appointment to be made from among the original list of the three highest-ranking individuals was appropriate. Blair v. State, 555 S.W.2d 709, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1977).

Writ of mandamus was not proper to compel county commissioners to appropriate funds to construct new, replacement school. State ex rel. Weaver v. Ayers, 756 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. 1988).

Trial court did not err in refusing to issue a writ of mandamus requiring a sheriff to return the records of wrestling program participants seized during the search of the building on the grounds of a middle school where the club conducted their activities, as the club offered no proof that the sheriff's duty to return the records was ministerial in nature. Rutherford Wrestling Club, Inc. v. Arnold, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2015).

20. Procedure and Practice.

21. —Parties to Action.

A mandamus suit must be prosecuted in the name of the state, on the relation of the petitioner, and not in the name of an individual. Whitesides v. Stewart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S.W. 245, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1892).

Mandamus suit may be maintained by a county without the use of the state's name in a suit to compel an assessment of railroad property; the county may sue in its own name, it being the real party plaintiff. State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

No statute authorizes mandamus suit by state in behalf of counties to compel tax assessments. State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

A mandamus bill should be in the name of the state, but amendment inserting the name of the state may be made when objection is made for its absence. Brown v. Crystal Ice Co., 122 Tenn. 239, 122 S.W. 84, 1909 Tenn. LEXIS 20 (1909).

22. —Verification of Petition or Bill.

A petition in chancery may be sworn to before the clerk. State ex rel. McMurray v. Arnwine, 138 Tenn. 227, 197 S.W. 564, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1917).

A petition in chancery may be sworn to before a notary public. State ex rel. Brumit v. Grindstaff, 144 Tenn. 554, 234 S.W. 510, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1921).

At the time this section was originally enacted, the term “affidavit” was used interchangeably with “sworn petition” and therefore the intent of the statute is simply that the facts alleged in a bill or petition for the writ of mandamus be supported by oath or affidavit. Blair v. State, 555 S.W.2d 709, 1977 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 1977).

23. —Demurrer to Petition or Bill.

In a mandamus action by a county relative to compelling an assessment of railroad property the effect, on the state, of a favorable ruling for the county should be considered. State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

A demurrer to petition or bill admits the truth of the allegations. Dietler v. Kincannon, 151 Tenn. 652, 270 S.W. 984, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1925).

24. —Enforcement by Contempt.

While implict obedience to a writ of mandamus is required, a strict and literal compliance is not required, as where a change has been made in the law requiring the performance of the particular act which has been commanded by mandamus, and the officer, to whom the writ is directed, acting in good faith according to his best judgment as to the effect of such change, in his legal liability, refuses further obedience, he shall not be punished for contempt, although mistaken in his judgment. An alias mandamus is the proper remedy to compel obedience, where the first order has not been fully complied with. State ex rel. Bethel v. City of Memphis, 2 Shan. 185 (1876).

25. Appeal.

From the judgment of the circuit court awarding a peremptory mandamus to induct a person into the office of constable, the respondent may appeal, and if the appeal be refused, he may sue out a writ of error. Beasley v. Ferriss, 69 Tenn. 461, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 118 (1878).

An appeal lies direct from chancery court to the Supreme Court as having jurisdiction. State ex rel. Brumit v. Grindstaff, 144 Tenn. 554, 234 S.W. 510, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1921).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 15.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 240, 260.

Adequacy of remedy in equity for refusal of corporation or its agent to register or effectuate transfer of stock. 22 A.L.R.2d 12.

Allowance of damages to successful plaintiff or relator in mandamus. 73 A.L.R.2d 903, 34 A.L.R.4th 457.

Another state or country, review by mandamus of decision upon application for license to practice within state by physician or surgeon from. 136 A.L.R. 742.

Appeal erroneously dismissed, mandamus to compel a court to reinstate or proceed with hearing of. 4 A.L.R. 655.

Apportionment of representatives or election districts, mandamus to compel legislature to make. 46 A.L.R. 964.

Appropriation for payment of salary of public officer or employee, mandamus to compel. 81 A.L.R. 1253.

Attorney's compensation for services in mandamus action, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 787, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Availability of mandamus or prohibition to compel or to prevent discovery proceedings. 95 A.L.R.2d 1229.

Availability of mandamus or prohibition to review order of reference to master or auditor. 76 A.L.R.2d 1120.

Bids for public contract, mandamus to compel consideration, acceptance, or rejection of. 80 A.L.R. 1382.

Bond of public officer, approval of, or refusal to approve, as subject of review by mandamus. 134 A.L.R. 1361.

Bond proffered in legal proceedings, mandamus to compel court or official to approve bond. 92 A.L.R. 1211.

Building permit, right to compel issuance of, as affected by provisions of zoning ordinance for administrative relief. 136 A.L.R. 1388.

Civil rights statute, mandamus to enforce private rights based on. 171 A.L.R. 928.

Civil service commission, mandamus to review action of, in classifying or grading positions in civil service. 134 A.L.R. 1116.

Collection of taxes, mandamus to compel. 58 A.L.R. 117.

Compelling election officers to withdraw or change returns, as affected by nonexistence of power of officer to withdraw or change. 168 A.L.R. 864.

Corporation, mandamus by creditor of, to reach fund or securities deposited with state official as security for corporate obligations. 101 A.L.R. 500.

Corporation, mandamus to compel delivery of papers and records to. 93 A.L.R. 1061.

Court's control over mandamus as means of avoiding enforcement of strict legal right, to detriment of the public. 113 A.L.R. 209.

Default as condition of right to compel governmental body to pay, or make provision for payment of, its obligations. 175 A.L.R. 648.

Delay in bringing accused to trial or to retrial after reversal, mandamus as remedy for. 58 A.L.R. 1510.

Determination of canvassing board or election official as regards counting or exclusion of ballots as subject of review by mandamus. 107 A.L.R. 618.

Execution, remedy by mandamus of creditor against officer who fails to levy under. 57 A.L.R. 836.

Federal control, mandamus to compel railroad under, to repair overhead crossing. 4 A.L.R. 1719, 8 A.L.R. 969, 10 A.L.R. 956, 11 A.L.R. 1450, 14 A.L.R. 234, 19 A.L.R. 678, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Federal officer or employee, jurisdiction of state court to enforce or control performance by, of duties imposed by federal statute. 138 A.L.R. 1200.

Federal statute denying appeal or writ of error from decision remanding to state court case removed to federal court, availability under, of remedy of mandamus. 114 A.L.R. 1482.

Free transportation of school pupils, mandamus to compel action regarding. 63 A.L.R. 425, 118 A.L.R. 806, 146 A.L.R. 625.

Full payment of claim, right to mandamus to compel, when fund out of which obligation is payable is insufficient to pay all obligations of equal dignity. 90 A.L.R. 717, 171 A.L.R. 1033.

Gambling purposes, obligation to furnish ticker service for. 1 A.L.R. 1295, 45 A.L.R. 1379.

Inadequacy of remedy by appeal or writ of error as affecting right to mandamus to inferior court. 4 A.L.R. 632.

Inspection of public records, enforceability of right by mandamus. 60 A.L.R. 1356, 169 A.L.R. 653.

Joinder of several having similar interests as relators in mandamus proceeding. 87 A.L.R. 528.

Jurisdiction, to mandamus to compel court to assume or exercise, where it has erroneously dismissed cause or refused to proceed on ground of lack of jurisdiction. 4 A.L.R. 582, 82 A.L.R. 1163.

Jury list, mandamus as a remedy for exclusion of eligible class or classes of persons from, in criminal case. 52 A.L.R. 928.

Labor union, mandamus to compel reinstatement of suspended or expelled members of. 141 A.L.R. 617.

Legislature, mandamus to member or officer of. 136 A.L.R. 677.

Legislature's express denial of right of appeal as affecting right to review on the merits by mandamus. 174 A.L.R. 194.

License, mandamus to restore, where professional license has been wrongfully revoked. 95 A.L.R. 1424.

Limitation, statute of, as bar to mandamus proceeding to establish right to or to recover benefit from pension. 136 A.L.R. 809.

Loss of other remedy, right to mandamus as affected by. 145 A.L.R. 1044.

Mandamus as proper remedy to compel service by public utility. 83 A.L.R. 947.

Mandamus in matters relating to minutes, journals, or other records. 136 A.L.R. 681.

Mandamus to compel ascertainment of compensation for property taken or for injuries inflicted under the power of eminent domain. 91 A.L.R.2d 991.

Mandamus to compel disciplinary investigation or action against physicians or attorney. 33 A.L.R.3d 1429.

Mandamus to compel grant of diploma or other evidence of pupil's completion of course. 6 A.L.R. 1533, 11 A.L.R.4th 1182.

Mandamus to compel judge or other officer to grant accused bail or to accept proffered sureties. 23 A.L.R.2d 803.

Mandamus to enforce stockholder's right to inspect books and records. 15 A.L.R.2d 11.

Mandamus to governor. 105 A.L.R. 1124.

Mandamus to member or officer of legislature. 136 A.L.R. 677.

Mandamus to prevent clerk from continuing to permit use of his office by abstract company. 80 A.L.R. 784.

Mandamus to protect charitable or eleemosynary corporation against use of same or similar name by another corporation. 37 A.L.R.3d 277.

Mandamus to put one in possession of office, title to which is in dispute. 84 A.L.R. 1114, 136 A.L.R. 1340.

Partner's right to maintain mandamus against copartners. 21 A.L.R. 21, 58 A.L.R. 621, 168 A.L.R. 1088.

Payment of salary of public officer or employee, mandamus to compel. 5 A.L.R. 574.

Payment of state, county, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation warrants, mandamus to compel. 98 A.L.R. 442.

Penalty, fine, or imprisonment, officer's liability to, as affecting right to mandamus to enforce performance of public duty by him. 19 A.L.R. 1382.

Prohibition or mandamus as appropriate remedy to review ruling on change of venue in civil case. 93 A.L.R.2d 802.

Public property, mandamus to enforce payment of special assessment against. 95 A.L.R. 700, 150 A.L.R. 1394.

Records, mandamus to enforce right of abstractor or insurer of titles to inspect or make copies of. 80 A.L.R. 784.

Registration list, mandamus as remedy for purging of. 96 A.L.R. 1050.

Relief in mandamus for expulsion from professional association. 20 A.L.R.2d 531.

Relief in mandamus for expulsion from social club or similar society. 20 A.L.R.2d 344.

Relief in mandamus for suspension or expulsion from a church or religious society. 20 A.L.R.2d 421.

Remedies for exclusion of eligible class of persons from jury list in civil case. 166 A.L.R. 1422.

Removal of public officer, mandamus to compel institution of proceedings for purpose of. 51 A.L.R. 561.

Requiring successor judge to journalize finding or decision of predecessor. 4 A.L.R.2d 868.

Resignation of officer, mandamus to compel performance of duties after. 19 A.L.R. 48.

Right-of-way, mandamus as remedy for interference with. 47 A.L.R. 557.

Right or duty to refuse telephone, telegraph, or other wire service in aid of illegal gambling operations. 30 A.L.R.3d 1143.

Right to go behind money judgment against public body in a mandamus proceeding to enforce it. 155 A.L.R. 464.

Right to writ of mandamus as affected by a pending action or proceeding, or existence of injunction, to which relator is not a party. 148 A.L.R. 210.

School building, mandamus to compel construction or repair of. 1 A.L.R. 1559.

Soldier's bounty, mandamus as proper remedy to compel payment of. 13 A.L.R. 604, 35 A.L.R. 791, 22 A.L.R.2d 1134.

State school or university, mandamus to compel enrollment of pupil in. 39 A.L.R. 1019.

Stay or supersedeas on appellate review in mandamus proceeding. 88 A.L.R.2d 420.

Stipulation of parties that mandamus is proper remedy. 92 A.L.R. 673.

Street or highway, mandamus against municipality to compel improvement of. 46 A.L.R. 257.

Taxation, right to mandamus to correct valuation of property for, as affected by existence of other remedy. 131 A.L.R. 376.

Taxes, power to compel production of corporate books to aid in assessing holder of stock or his estate. 23 A.L.R. 1351.

Tax illegally or erroneously exacted, existence of other remedy as affecting right to mandamus to compel return of. 93 A.L.R. 589.

Unincorporated association or its officers, mandamus against. 137 A.L.R. 311.

Valuation of property for taxation, mandamus as taxpayer's remedy in respect of. 131 A.L.R. 360.

Witnesses, mandamus to compel court or judge to require witness to testify. 41 A.L.R. 436.

Worker's Compensation Act, remedy at law as affecting right to mandamus to compel consideration, allowance, or payment of claim under. 82 A.L.R. 1075.

Mandamus 141.

29-25-102. Alternative and peremptory writs.

  1. The writ is either alternative or peremptory.
  2. The alternative writ commands the defendant to do the act required to be performed or show cause before the court forthwith, or at a specified time and place, why the defendant has not done so, and that the defendant then and there return the writ.
  3. The peremptory writ commands the defendant to do the act and return the writ accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3569; Shan., § 5333; Code 1932, § 9493; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2002.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Return of Alternative Writ.

The alternative writ of mandamus must be returned to court and cannot be returned before the judge and heard at chambers, although issued in vacation. Whitesides v. Stewart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S.W. 245, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1892).

Where a petition was filed in the chancery court, praying for an injunction to restrain interference with the right to exercise the duties as an officer and also for an alternative writ of mandamus, an objection that the alternative writ should be dismissed because made returnable to the chancellor instead of to the next term of court was of no force, where, in the proceedings had before him, the chancellor required an answer to the writ at a subsequent rule day, which was the proper practice. State ex rel. Brumit v. Grindstaff, 144 Tenn. 554, 234 S.W. 510, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1921).

2. Alternative Writ Prerequisite to Peremptory Writ.

The peremptory writ has not ever been issued before the return of the alternative writ. This always insures notice to the adverse party and a hearing. State ex rel. Brumit v. Grindstaff, 144 Tenn. 554, 234 S.W. 510, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1921).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 425, 426, 428 — 430, 475, 476.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 2, 312, 343.

Alias writ of mandamus, right to, where peremptory writ previously granted has been disobeyed wholly or in part. 114 A.L.R. 1286.

Assessment for taxation, sufficiency of allegations as regards omitted or under assessed property in petition for mandamus to compel. 85 A.L.R. 1315.

Mandamus to compel ascertainment of compensation for property taken or for injuries inflicted under the power of eminent domain. 91 A.L.R.2d 991.

Provisional or alternative writ or order to show cause as condition of granting peremptory or absolute writ. 116 A.L.R. 659.

Right to, and necessity of, amendment of alternative writ of mandamus to conform to peremptory writ. 100 A.L.R. 404.

Mandamus 158-161.

29-25-103. Court to which writ returnable.

The writ is returnable to the court of the county in which the land lies, in all cases where land is the subject of controversy, and in all other cases to the court of the county where the defendant resides, or, if against a public officer or corporation, in the county in which the office is kept or corporation does business.

Code 1858, § 3568 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 2); Shan., § 5332; mod. Code 1932, § 9492; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2003.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 121.

Cited: Hawkins v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Common Law Practice.

The power to issue mandamus, and the practice under it, is to some extent regulated by statute, by which the return to the writ is made traversable, and averments of the petition may be put in issue by a denial in the return or answer, in which event the case will be determined by the court, or tried by the jury on evidence. With these exceptions, the proceeding is one largely controlled by the rules of pleading established by the common law. State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

2. Public Officers or Departments.

Situs and official residence of Tennessee real estate commission as a division of the department of insurance and banking (now department of commerce and insurance) was Davidson County under § 4-4-104 and writ of mandamus to compel commission to renew real estate broker's license was returnable only in that county. Chamberlain v. State, 215 Tenn. 565, 387 S.W.2d 816, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 634 (1965).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 381.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 240.

Mandamus 142.

29-25-104. Notice to and intervention by third person.

The defendant in the writ shall notify any third person claiming title to or interest in the matter in controversy, and such third person may, upon application, be made a defendant, and permitted to file an answer, upon giving security for costs.

Code 1858, § 3571 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 3); Shan., § 5335; Code 1932, § 9495; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2004.

Cross-References. Intervention, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-24.02-1.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Absence of Necessary Parties — Refusal of Decree.

This section and § 29-25-105 make provision for the presence of third persons interested in the mandamus proceedings, or at least for the service of notice upon them, and the offer of an opportunity to defend; and where the persons, whose right to register as voters was involved, are not before the court, by appearance or service of notice upon them, the peremptory writ of mandamus will not be awarded to compel the erasure of their names from the registration books. State ex rel. Lyle v. Willett, 117 Tenn. 334, 97 S.W. 299, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (1906); State ex rel. Spratlin v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S.W. 349, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1 (1907). See Winters & Cross v. Heirs of Burford, 46 Tenn. 328, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1869); Memphis Appeal Publishing Co. v. Pike, 56 Tenn. 697, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1872).

A mandamus to compel the issuance of an execution on a judgment upon default will be refused, where the party in default, and against whom the judgment stands, is not made a party. State ex rel. Spratlin v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S.W. 349, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 65, 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 1 (1907).

2. Intervenor Securing Affirmative Relief.

Where candidate for the office of mayor received the majority of the votes cast according to the face of the election returns but a rival candidate instituted proceedings for mandamus to compel the county election commission to count absentee ballots rejected by the judges of the election, the candidate who had received the majority of the votes was entitled to file an intervening petition in the mandamus proceedings and to appear in the cause and seek to have a certificate of election issued the rival candidate declared null and void and compel the election commission to issue a certificate to him notwithstanding the fact that he had an election contest pending. State ex rel. Caldwell v. McQueen, 178 Tenn. 478, 159 S.W.2d 436, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1942).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 409-412.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 253, 273.

Mandamus 157.

29-25-105. Failure of third person to appear.

If such third person is a nonresident or unknown, publication shall be made as in other cases against nonresidents; and, on the nonresident's failing to appear and answer according to the requirements of the order of publication, the petition or bill may be taken for confessed, and proceeded with ex parte.

Code 1858, § 3573 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 5); Shan., § 5337; Code 1932, § 9497; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2005.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

Collateral References. 55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 83, 308, 340.

29-25-106. Filing of answer.

On the return day of the alternative writ, or on such further day as the court may allow, the party on whom the writ has been served may show cause by a sworn answer, and issue may be made thereon, and tried accordingly.

Code 1858, § 3570; Shan., § 5334; Code 1932, § 9494; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2006.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Mandamus, § 25.

Cited: Hillhaven Corp. v. State, 565 S.W.2d 210, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. 1978).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Petition — Allegations Not Controverted.

Every intendment and presumption will be made against the return to a writ of mandamus which fails to answer the material allegations of the petition. Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896); State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

Allegations in a petition for mandamus, not denied or confessed and avoided, are taken to be true. Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896); State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

2. Answer — Necessity.

Unless a prima facie case be stated the defendant need not answer. Jellicorse v. Russell, 156 Tenn. 411, 1 S.W.2d 1011, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1928).

3. Motion for Peremptory Writ.

A motion by a relator for a peremptory writ of mandamus is equivalent to a demurrer to the return for not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense. Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896); State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

Motion for peremptory writ based upon pleadings is equivalent to a demurrer to the return and raises a question of law on the facts presented. State v. Killough, 156 Tenn. 131, 299 S.W. 805, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1927).

4. Hearing.

5. —Answer Treated as True.

Where, in a proceeding in the chancery court, the cause is set down for hearing by the complainant or petitioner, on the bill or petition and the answer of the defendant, every fact properly set out and averred in the answer must be treated as proved and as true. State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

6. —Answer in Equity.

Though statute extended jurisdiction in mandamus to courts of equity, the allegations of the bill in equity, though not denied, must be proved. State ex rel. Warren v. King, 62 S.W. 314, 1901 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 39 (1901).

7. Practice in Appellate Court.

The appellate court, upon overruling a demurrer to a bill or petition for the writ of mandamus, will inspect the affidavits or sworn answer or answers submitted, or allowed to be filed, with a view to deciding whether they present any such contention as will justify the court in withholding the issuance of a peremptory writ, upon the ground that a reasonable defense is offered. If a reasonable defense is offered, the cause will be remanded for further proceedings. State ex rel. Collier v. Enloe, 121 Tenn. 347, 117 S.W. 223, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1909).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 432-440.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 272-281.

Payment of salary of public officer or employee, defenses to mandamus suit to compel. 5 A.L.R. 579.

Payment of state, county, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation warrants, defenses to mandamus to compel. 98 A.L.R. 455.

Unconstitutionality of statute as defense to mandamus proceeding. 30 A.L.R. 378, 129 A.L.R. 941.

Unfitness as affecting right to restoration by mandamus to office from which one has been illegally removed. 36 A.L.R. 508.

Mandamus 164.

29-25-107. Issues of fact.

If the answer deny any material facts stated in the petition, the court may determine the issues upon evidence, or cause them to be submitted to a jury.

Code 1858, § 3572 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 4); Shan., § 5336; Code 1932, § 9496; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2007.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Mandamus, § 25.

Law Reviews.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Pleadings Governed by Common Law.

The power to issue mandamus and the practice under it and in making up the issues is, to some extent, regulated by statute; but with these exceptions, the pleadings are governed by the common law. State ex rel. Stewart v. Marks, 74 Tenn. 12, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 208 (1880); Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S.W. 1017, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1896); State ex rel. Wellford v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 78, 64 L.R.A. 418 (1903).

2. Petition as a Pleading.

This section recognizes the petition as a pleading, the denial of the averments of which, by the answer, raises issues to be determined. State ex rel. Stewart v. Marks, 74 Tenn. 12, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 208 (1880).

Chancery court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus compelling a board of education to hear an appeal of the termination of a non-teaching employee because there was no testimony or other evidence introduced as to what, if any, policy the board had developed with respect to the dismissal of employees as required by the Education Improvement Act of 1991; a declaratory judgment proceeding was the more appropriate procedure since the board's answer denied salient allegation of the petition. State ex rel. Aina-Labinjo v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 377 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013).

3. Peremptory Writ on Admissions in Return.

If the defendant makes a return to the alternative writ, by answer under oath, as required by law, the relator is entitled to the benefit of all admissions contained in the return, and to a peremptory writ, if the facts stated are not sufficient to constitute a defense. State ex rel. Stewart v. Marks, 74 Tenn. 12, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 208 (1880).

4. Jury Trial.

Right to jury trial in mandamus cases is discretionary with the trial judge, and the absolute right thereto is not given by this section. Marler v. Wear, 117 Tenn. 244, 96 S.W. 447, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1906).

At common law, no jury was impaneled in mandamus cases, and the constitutional provision declaring that the right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate protects only the right of trial by jury as it existed at common law. Marler v. Wear, 117 Tenn. 244, 96 S.W. 447, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1906); State v. Sexton, 121 Tenn. 35, 114 S.W. 494, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1908).

5. Right To Offer Evidence.

Parties to mandamus proceedings have a right to offer evidence on the factual issues. Hillhaven Corp. v. State, 565 S.W.2d 210, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. 1978).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 432-440.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 277, 324-327.

Mandamus 164.

29-25-108. Judgment.

  1. When the defendant makes default, or a decision is made against the defendant after appearance, the court shall direct a peremptory mandamus to issue forthwith.
  2. Should the decision be adverse to the petitioner, the petition or bill shall be dismissed with costs.

Code 1858, § 3574 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 7); Shan., § 5338; Code 1932, § 9498; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2008.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 510.

Cited: Hillhaven Corp. v. State, 565 S.W.2d 210, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 545 (Tenn. 1978); State ex rel. Matthews v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 679 S.W.2d 946, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 881 (Tenn. 1984).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 470-479, 495, 499-502.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 340.

Contempt for disobedience of mandamus. 30 A.L.R. 148.

Court's control over mandamus as means of avoiding the enforcement of strict legal right to the detriment of the public. 113 A.L.R. 209.

Degree of proof necessary in contempt proceeding based on violation. 49 A.L.R. 984.

Summary judgment in mandamus or prohibition cases. 3 A.L.R.3d 675.

Mandamus 178.

29-25-109. Costs.

The costs and fees in mandamus cases are the same as those prescribed by law for similar services in chancery proceedings.

Code 1858, § 3575 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 51, § 8); Shan., § 5339; Code 1932, § 9499; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2009.

Cross-References. Costs, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Bond or Pauper Oath.

A prosecution bond for costs must be made, or the oath in forma pauperis must be taken. Whitesides v. Stewart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S.W. 245, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1892).

2. Defendant Judge.

Where, in a proceeding by mandamus against a judge of an inferior court, it appears that his action has been wholly unwarranted and arbitrary, and manifests a partisan spirit on his part, he will be taxed with all the costs of the proceeding. State ex rel. Richards v. Sneed, 105 Tenn. 711, 58 S.W. 1070, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 125 (1900), overruled, Shelton v. Wade, 139 Tenn. 685, 203 S.W. 253, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 138 (1918).

Collateral References. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 495, 499-502.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 375.

Mandamus 190.

Chapter 26
Health Care Liability

Part 1
General Provisions

29-26-101. Part definitions.

  1. As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:
    1. “Health care liability action” means any civil action, including claims against the state or a political subdivision thereof, alleging that a health care provider or providers have caused an injury related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to a person, regardless of the theory of liability on which the action is based;
    2. “Health care provider” means:
      1. A health care practitioner licensed, authorized, certified, registered, or regulated under any chapter of title 63 or title 68, including, but not limited to, medical resident physicians, interns, and fellows participating in a training program of one of the accredited medical schools or of one of such medical school's affiliated teaching hospitals in Tennessee;
      2. A nongovernmental health care facility licensed under title 68, chapter 11;
      3. A nongovernmental health facility licensed under the Mental Health, Developmental Disability, and Personal Support Services Licensure Law, compiled in title 33, chapter 2, part 4;
      4. The employee of a health care provider involved in the provision of health care services, including, but not limited to, physicians, nurses, licensed practical nurses, advance practice nurses, physician assistants, nursing technicians, pharmacy technicians, orderlies, certified nursing assistants, technicians and those physicians and nurses employed by a governmental health facility; or
      5. A professional corporation or professional limited liability company established pursuant to title 48, a registered limited liability partnership rendering professional services under title 61 and which consists of one (1) or more health care practitioners licensed, authorized, certified, registered, or regulated under any chapter of title 63 or title 68, or any legal entity that is not itself required to be licensed but which employs one or more health care practitioners licensed, authorized, certified, registered, or regulated under any chapter of title 63 or title 68;
    3. “Licensee” means a health care provider licensed, authorized, certified, registered, or regulated under title 33, 63, or 68 that is legally responsible for all health care services provided;
    4. “Management company” means an individual or entity that contracts with, or receives a fee from, a licensee to provide any of the following services to or for a licensee:
      1. Directly hiring or firing the administrator or other managing employees of the licensee;
      2. Directly controlling or having control over the staffing levels at the licensee;
      3. Directly controlling the budget and expenditures of the licensee; or
      4. Directly implementing and enforcing the policies and procedures of the licensee; and
    5. “Passive investor” means an individual or entity that has an ownership interest in a licensee but does not directly participate in the day-to-day decision making or operations of the licensee.
  2. Health care services to persons includes care by health care providers, which includes care by physicians, nurses, licensed practical nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy interns or pharmacy technicians under the supervision of a pharmacist, orderlies, certified nursing assistants, advance practice nurses, physician assistants, nursing technicians and other agents, employees and representatives of the provider, and also includes staffing, custodial or basic care, positioning, hydration and similar patient services.
  3. Any such civil action or claim is subject to this part regardless of any other claims, causes of action, or theories of liability alleged in the complaint; provided, that no provision of this part shall apply to claims against the state to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with or conflicts with the Tennessee Claims Commission Act, compiled in title 9, chapter 8, part 3.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 8; 2015, ch. 254, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-26-10129-26-114 (Acts 1975, ch. 299, §§ 1-13, 20; 1976, ch. 759, §§ 1-14; 1976, ch. 806, § 1(33); 1977, ch. 324, §§ 1-5; 1978, ch. 576, §§ 1-4; 1980, ch. 852, §§ 1-7; T.C.A., §§ 23-3401 — 23-3413, 23-3420), concerning the medical malpractice review board, were repealed by Acts 1985, ch. 184, § 4.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1, provided that the act  shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24, provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4 provided that the act, which added (a)(3)-(5), shall apply to causes of action arising on or after April 24, 2015.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment added the definitions of “Licensee”, “Management company” and “Passive investor”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4. April 24, 2015.

Law Reviews.

Enough with the White Lie-ability: Decreasing Frivolous Health Care Liability Actions in Tennessee with Time and Transparency, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 503 (2015).

HIPAA Violations on Social Media: Will HHS Continue to Ignore?, 45 U. Mem. L. Rev. 633 (2015).

Physician-Patient Confidentiality in Health Care Liability Actions: HIPAA's Preemption of Ex Parte Interviews with Treating Physicians Through the Obstacle Test, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 97 (2013).

The Standard of Care: The Road Not Taken-Using County Size to Determine the Standard of Care, 43 U. Mem. L. Rev. 767 (2013).

Uncovering the Silent Victims of the American Medical Liability System, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 151 (2014).

United States v. Caronia: How True Does “Truthful” Have to Be?, 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 157 (2014).

Attorney General Opinions. Doctors or pharmacists are not held harmless if a patient is addicted or becomes addicted to medication prescribed by a doctor or dispensed by a pharmacist. While doctors and pharmacists may be sued for negligently prescribing or dispensing medication to a patient who is, or becomes, addicted to that medication, the question of actual liability would depend on the specific facts of each case. OAG 16-32, 2016 Tenn. AG LEXIS 32 (8/23/2016).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

0.5. Constitutionality.

Circuit court properly upheld the constitutionality of the Health Care Liability Act and granted summary judgment to a doctor in a health care liability action by a patient and his wife (jointly, the patient) because, inter alia, there was no violation of the right to privacy since pursuing a health care liability action constituted a voluntary waiver, the patient failed to provide written notice of the suit within the limitations period and could not rely on the savings statute where the initial action was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, and the disclosure of medical records was based on the patient's choice to sue the providers to whom the records would be given. Webb v. Magee, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2019).

1. Medical Malpractice Claim.

Trial court did not err by ruling that the gravamen of an estate's complaint sounded in medical malpractice and in dismissing the complaint based upon the estate's failure to comply with the requirements of the medical malpractice statute. The nuclear medicine technologists, whose alleged negligence formed the basis for the complaint, were called upon to make decision regarding how the decedent should be positioned and secured to the table for the scan, and they made such decision relying upon their training, expertise, and experience, which involved knowledge and judgment that would be outside the realm of that possessed by ordinary laypersons. Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2013), appeal denied, Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (Tenn. June 12, 2013).

Wife's loss of consortium claim was a “health care liability claim” subject to pre-suit notice requirements because the claim was a civil action against a health care provider under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act arising from a physician's alleged negligence and failure to recognize injuries caused. Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).

Administratrix's healthcare liability action against governmental entities was commenced timely because the 2011 amendments to the Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) extended the Governmental Tort Liability Act's one-year statute of limitations by 120 days, and the administratrix complied with the HCLA's pre-suit notice requirements. Banks v. Bordeaux Long Term Care, 465 S.W.3d 141, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 786 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Apr. 10, 2015).

Trial court erred in denying defendants'  motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim that defendants were negligent by failing to remove a sponge from plaintiff because plaintiff's claim should have been classified as a health care liability action as the health care liability statute designated claims involving custodial or basic care as health care liability claims; expert testimony was required to establish the elements of the claim; plaintiff did not comply with pre-suit notice provisions; plaintiff did not file the required certificate of good faith with his complaint; and failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement mandated dismissal with prejudice. Smith v. Testerman, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. June 15, 2015).

Gravamen of the sister's claims alleged a cause of action based on the negligent provision of adequate, and appropriate medical care, making this a Tennessee Health Care Liability Act action; while a jail's duty to provide access to medical care is not a health care liability issue, the record showed that the sister's brother did receive significant access to medical care during his incarceration. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

By providing that a health care liability claim under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act includes a claim against the state or a political subdivision thereof reveals that the General Assembly intended the requirements and benefits of the Act to apply to claims brought under Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act against a county. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

To prevail on the sister's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, she had to prove the element that the county was liable for the brother's injuries, and thus, her alleged injuries arose from the provision of, or failure to provide, health care service; when the claim is based on the injurious conduct of individuals that is related to the provision of health care, the requirements of the Health Care Liability Act apply. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Plaintiffs' allegations met the definition of a health care liability action, as they alleged that the social worker, who was considered a health care provider, was negligent in providing services to their child, and expert testimony would be required to prove the allegations; plaintiffs failed to provide pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith, and dismissal with prejudice was warranted. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Complaint alleged that the hospital owed the patient a duty of care and was vicariously liable for its employees'  failure to properly support the patient as they attempted to transfer her from a stretcher to her automobile; the alleged conduct constituted a health care service involving the positioning of the patient, and thus the complaint alleged negligence and was subject to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Estate of Thibodeau v. St. Thomas Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).

Home medical-equipment provider's respiratory therapists were not covered by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act because patients did not visit the provider's locations and the provider did not employ anyone who could provide medical services without oversight. Kelley v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, — F. Supp. 2d —,  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15136 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2017).

When a parent and the parent's juvenile child alleged that an employee of a trauma-focused residential treatment facility where the child was residing pushed or pulled the child to the ground and stomped on the child's foot during an altercation, the assault and battery claims by the parent and the child were not a health care liability action, but their negligent supervision and/or training claim against the facility was a health care liability action. C.D. v. Keystone Continuum, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2018).

Petition brought by a deceased former patient's children and the patient's estate for a declaratory judgment against a doctor—alleging that the doctor was to be compelled to arbitrate their claims—was barred by the statute of limitations for a health care liability action because the case was actually a health care liability action in that the claims against the doctor concerned the doctor's conduct and responsibilities as the patient's primary physician that required medical expertise and the rendition of medical treatment. Estate of Myers v. Questell, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2018).

Claims Commissioner erred in denying the State's motion to dismiss a surviving spouse's wrongful death claim where the allegations involved the mental and physical capacities of the attacking patient and the decedent, the question of whether and how to restrain and/or supervise a potentially dangerous mental patient involved knowledge and understanding of his diagnosis and medical history, as a result, the allegations involved health care services under T.C.A. § 29-26-101(b) and the wife's action was a health care liability action under T.C.A. § 29-26-101(a)(1), and thus, the good-faith certification requirements of T.C.A. § 29-26-122 applied. Since the wife had not complied with those requirements, her action should have been dismissed. Newman v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2019).

Trial court did not err by determining that the patient's action was a health care liability action, and therefore the trial court properly granted the medical facility's motion to dismiss based on the patient's failure to provide pre-suit notice under T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(1), because the patient alleged that while he was at the facility he fell off an examination table and into a wall, and the provision of an examination table for an appointment with a doctor was a “health care service” as defined by § 29-26-101(b) as it fell under custodial or basic care, positioning and similar patient services. Johnson v. Knoxville HMA Cardiology PPM, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2020).

Claims disputing the validity of medical records would require a determination as to whether the disputed records were an accurate representation of the health care services received by a father's children; as such, the documentation of health care services clearly related to the provision of health care services. Cathey v. Beyer, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Because a father's claims related to and arose out of the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to his children, his claims constituted a health care liability action; thus, the circuit court properly dismissed the father's complaint against counselors for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Cathey v. Beyer, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

2. Certificate of Good Faith.

While a plaintiff files a “civil warrant” in order to commence a civil action in general sessions court, T.C.A. § 16-15-716, the certificate of good faith requirement under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122, applies to any medical malpractice action filed in any court of the State, not only those actions commenced by filing a “complaint” in circuit court. West v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013).

In an action regarding injury allegedly caused by an emergency medical technician (EMT) in the course of rendering medical aid, plaintiff's action was improperly dismissed with prejudice based on his failure to file a certificate of good faith as plaintiff's claims were subject to the common knowledge exception because it would be within the common knowledge of a layperson whether an EMT's alleged negligent, reckless, or intentional striking of plaintiff's face while he was strapped to a gurney would fall below the standard of care, and that act would not require expert proof to aid in the understanding of the issue; thus, plaintiff's claims should have been dismissed with prejudice based on that ground. Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., 531 S.W.3d 698, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Sept. 20, 2017).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an executor's claim against a hospital for failure to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith because the claim was a health care liability complaint under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; the executor alleged a hospital employee failed to monitor of a patient and his cup of hot coffee, and even if the coffee did not qualify as a “vehicle” of hydration, it fell within the general statutory definition of similar patient services. Youngblood ex rel. Estate of Vaughn v. River Park Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

3. Applicability.

Although the trial court, in dismissing a complaint against a social worker for providing counseling to a child in violation of a court order, reasoned that the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act encompassed all claims involving the provision of health care services or treatment by a health care provider, this determination must be nuanced, and nothing in the trial court's written order or oral ruling indicated that it considered the standard outlined in Estate of French in dismissing the complaint. Rather, it appeared the trial court relied on the gravamen of the complaint standard rejected in Estate of French. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2014), rev'd, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011, which amended the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), statutorily abrogated the decision in Estate of French v. Stratford House , 333 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011) and the nuanced approach for distinguishing ordinary negligence and health care liability claims as outlined in that case, by providing that any such civil action or claim is subject to the THCLA regardless of any other claims, causes of action, or theories of liability alleged in the complaint. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Patient's ordinary negligence claim alleging a health care provider's radiology technician provided the patient with a faulty stool in connection with taking an x-ray at the provider's hospital was a “health care liability action” to which the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act applied because (1) the technician was a “health care provider,” and the provision of the stool was a “health care service.” Osunde v. Delta Med. Ctr., 505 S.W.3d 875, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016).

Complaint and responsive pleadings alleged specific acts of negligence, namely the failure to order an MRI or other diagnostic test and a neurological or neurosurgical consult; these allegations sound in medical malpractice, not breach of contract or ordinary negligence, and were governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Gilreath v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2016).

Trial court correctly determined that a widower's claims against a doctor and a hospital fit within the framework of medical malpractice, as opposed to negligence, because the claims pertained to examining the deceased for signs of internal bleeding and his subsequent treatment; analyzing each of the allegations would require specialized medical knowledge that a lay person would not ordinarily possess. Cright v. Overly, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2016), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).

Plaintiff was required to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements in advancing a health care liability claim; because plaintiff failed to do so, the trial court properly dismissed the claim. Lacy v. Mitchell, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 904 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

As it was not apparent from the face of the complaint that plaintiff's second claim was a health care liability action governed by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), the second claim was not subject to dismissal based on plaintiff's failure to comply with the THCLA at this stage of the proceedings. Lacy v. Mitchell, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 904 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

Hospital's motion to dismiss was granted because plaintiffs failed to provide the required, pre-suit, written notice for their health care liability action under Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act as plaintiffs'  claims constituted a health care liability action because their claims of abuse of process, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of the duty of care, conversion and assault were all related to the provision of health care services to the patient and were governed by the Act. Mullin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106947 (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017).

Complete dismissal of a patient's pro se complaint against health care providers for noncompliance with the procedural requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act erred, in part, because, while claims related to a physician's electro-diagnostic testing and being burned during a magnetic resonance imaging test were health care liability claims, allegations that the physician and a technician physically beat the patient were not. Lacy v. St. Thomas Hosp. West, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2017).

As here, any claim describing a doctor's failure to analyze a diagnostic test result and to properly document the result in a patient's medical records clearly related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services, and thus the dismissal of the patient's claim based on her failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements under T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121(a)(1), 29-26-122(a) was proper. Lacy v. Meharry Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017).

It could not be concluded that the doctor's handshake related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services, as defined in T.C.A. § 29-26-101(b); one reasonable inference was that the patient extended her hand merely as a greeting, and the doctor shook the patient's hand either with the same intent or to cause harm, and while further evidence might demonstrate otherwise, at this stage of the proceedings, the court could not find that the Health Care Liability Act applied to the patient's handshake claim. Lacy v. Meharry Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017).

When a patient sued medical providers, it was not error to dismiss the patient's claims alleging the patient was misdiagnosed while receiving medical treatment, due to a failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act's (THCLA) procedural requirements, because those claims were related to the provision of health care services to which the THCLA's procedural requirements applied. Lacy v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2017).

When a patient sued medical providers, it was error to entirely dismiss the patient's complaint due to the patient's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) because claims alleging “beatings” by hospital staff were not related to the provision of health care services, as the patient's position in a hospital bed at the time of alleged injury did not alone determine whether the act causing the injury was related to the provision of health care services, so the THCLA's procedural requirements did not apply to those claims. Lacy v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2017).

Despite the broad definition of a health care liability action found in the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, proper interpretation dictated that the county's claim against a medical provider with whom it contracted to provide medical services for inmates be treated as a contractual indemnity claim, and thus, the trial court erred in dismissing the claim. Johnson v. Rutherford Cty., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2018).

Customer brought negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims against the salon, which were subject to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and because the customer failed to file a certificate of good faith with her complaint, the trial court properly granted the salon summary judgment. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019).

Customer's claims of assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment were clearly not related to the provision of, or the failure to provide, health care services and thus the customer's intentional tort claims against the massage therapist were not subject to the requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act and a certificate of good faith was not necessary. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019).

Because patients'  complaint against pharmacies stated a cause of action pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), the provisions of that statute prevailed as to all matters and questions growing out of the subject matter of that title or chapter; as such, the seller shield defense contained within the Tennessee Products Liability Act was applicable only to product liability actions and could not be used as a defense to the patients'  THCLA claims. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Seller shield defense found in the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) is inapplicable to claims made under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; a natural and reasonable reading of the language of the TPLA, T.C.A. § 29-28-106, demonstrates that it only applies to product liability actions, and the THCLA applies to all health care providers, including pharmacies and pharmacists, without limitation based on any type of product seller immunity. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) defines a “health care provider” as, inter alia, a health care practitioner licensed, authorized, certified, registered, or regulated under any chapter of title 63 or title 68, and pharmacies and pharmacists are regulated under Title 63, Chapter 10 of the Tennessee Code; as such, pharmacists and pharmacies clearly come within the THCLA's definition of health care providers. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Trial court properly determined that the complaint filed by the patients was a health care liability action because pharmacies conceded the applicability of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THLCA) to the cause of action when they identified the issue as whether Tennessee law allowed the seller shield defense to be asserted as a defense to claims asserted against a pharmacist under the THCLA; thus, the seller shield defense contained within the Tennessee Products Liability Act could not apply. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

4. Statute of Limitations.

Surviving spouse who brought a health care liability action against a governmental entity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations because the statutory amendment of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA), T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq., allowed the GTLA's one-year statute of limitations to be extended by 120 days in cases when the requirements of the HCLA were satisfied. Harper v. Bradley County, 464 S.W.3d 615, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 2015).

Amendment to T.C.A. § 29-26-101(a)(1) requires that courts provide plaintiffs with a 120-day extension to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act statute of limitations when the plaintiff complies with the T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Wade v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp. Dist., 469 S.W.3d 54, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. May 19, 2015).

5. Patient.

Dead body cannot be a patient to whom health care services can be rendered. By their very nature, health care services are designed to prolong, continue, or enhance life, and a dead body is, obviously, not alive. As such, a body simply cannot be a patient after death has occurred. Therefore, actions taken or refused with regard to a dead body cannot constitute rendering or failing to render health care services to a person for purposes of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Phillips v. Rural Metro of Tenn., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2017).

6. Construction with Products Liability Act.

Provisions of the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) and Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) maintain some overlap in coverage when the product involved has a medical use or application; the terms “any” and “related” emphasize the expansive nature of the THCLA, and the TPLA provides expansive coverage governing all actions brought for or on account of personal injury, death, or property damage caused by or resulting from any product under any theory in tort or contract whatsoever. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

29-26-102. Permissible defendants in health care liability action — Determining statute of limitations.

  1. Except as provided in this section, a health care liability action against a licensee may be brought only against the licensee, the licensee's management company, the licensee's managing employees, or an individual caregiver who provided direct health care services, whether an employee or independent contractor. A passive investor shall not be liable under this part. A health care liability action against any other individual or entity may be brought only pursuant to subsection (b).
  2. A cause of action may not be asserted against an individual or entity other than the licensee, the licensee's management company, the licensee's managing employees, or an individual caregiver who provided direct health care services, whether an employee or independent contractor, unless, after a hearing on a motion for leave to amend, the court or arbitrator determines that there is sufficient evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant to establish a reasonable showing that:
    1. The individual or entity owed a duty of reasonable care to the claimant and that the individual or entity breached that duty; and
    2. The breach of that duty is a legal cause of loss, injury, death, or damage to the claimant.
  3. When determining the statute of limitations in a health care liability action, the date of the original pleading shall control regardless of whether there are amended pleadings or substituted or added parties.

Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after April 24, 2015.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4. April 24, 2015.

29-26-103. Use of results of survey, inspection or investigation of health care provider conducted by state or federal department or agency.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the results of a survey, an inspection, or an investigation of a health care provider that is conducted by any state or federal department or agency, including any statement of deficiencies and all findings and deficiencies cited in the statement of deficiencies on the basis of the survey, inspection, or investigation, all proposed or implemented plans of correction submitted by the health care provider, and statements of or records of interviews with employees or independent contractors of the health care provider, shall not be:
    1. Admissible in evidence in any health care liability action in any court or arbitration proceeding on the basis that it satisfies an exception to the Tennessee rules of evidence governing hearsay; or
    2. Used in an advertisement, unless the advertisement includes all of the following:
      1. The date the survey, inspection, or investigation was conducted;
      2. If a finding or deficiency cited in the statement of deficiencies has been corrected, a statement that the finding or deficiency has been corrected and the date the finding or deficiency was corrected; and
      3. A statement that the advertisement is neither authorized nor endorsed by the department of health, department of mental health and substance abuse services, or any other government agency.
  2. Nothing in this section prohibits the results of a survey, an inspection, or investigation being used in an administrative proceeding, a state civil or criminal proceeding, or a federal civil or criminal proceeding initiated by a state or federal department or agency, or an appeal of any such proceeding.
  3. Nothing in this section prohibits the results of a survey, an inspection, or investigation being used to impeach a witness in a health care liability action.

Acts 2015, ch. 399, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 399, § 2. May 8, 2015.

29-26-104 — 29-26-114. [Reserved.]

  1. In a health care liability action, the claimant shall have the burden of proving by evidence as provided by subsection (b):
    1. The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred;
    2. That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with such standard; and
    3. As a proximate result of the defendant's negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred.
  2. No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required to be established by subsection (a), unless the person was licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state a profession or specialty which would make the person's expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case and had practiced this profession or specialty in one (1) of these states during the year preceding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred. This rule shall apply to expert witnesses testifying for the defendant as rebuttal witnesses. The court may waive this subsection (b) when it determines that the appropriate witnesses otherwise would not be available.
  3. In a health care liability action as described in subsection (a), there shall be no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant; provided, that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was negligent where it is shown by the proof that the instrumentality causing injury was in the defendant's (or defendants') exclusive control and that the accident or injury was one which ordinarily doesn't occur in the absence of negligence.
  4. In a health care liability action as described in subsection (a), the jury shall be instructed that the claimant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the negligence of the defendant. The jury shall be further instructed that injury alone does not raise a presumption of the defendant's negligence.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 14; 1976, ch. 759, § 15; 1980, ch. 852, § 9; T.C.A., § 23-3414; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 7.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability action” for “malpractice action” in the introductory paragraph of (a) and in (c) and (d).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Cross-References. Health care liability, claims against, immunity of local government employees, § 29-20-310.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Evidence, § 164; 20 Tenn. Juris., Physicians and Surgeons, §§ 9, 11.

Tennessee Law of Evidence (2nd ed., Cohen, Paine and Sheppeard), § 702.3.

Law Reviews.

As a Matter of Law: Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Litigation in Tennessee, 15 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 55 (1984).

Constitutional Challenge to Medical Malpractice Review Boards, 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 607.

Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Tennessee's Appellate Standard of Review of Expert Witness Qualifications in Health Care Liability Actions, 48 U. Mem. L. Rev. 545 (2017).

Do you believe in magic? (John A. Day), 38 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 33 (2002).

Fly in the Buttermilk: Tennessee's Desire to Dispense With Layperson Common Sense and the Medical Malpractice Locality Rule, 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 385 (2002).

Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far? The Status of the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Cases in Tennessee, 30 U. Mem. L. Rev. 625 (2000).

Informed Consent (D. Scott Porch IV), 36 No. 8 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2000).

In Search of a Standard of Care for the Medical Profession — The “Accepted Practice” Formula (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 28 Vand. L. Rev. 1213.

Loss of Chance in Medical Malpractice Cases: A Contra View With an Examination of Tennessee's Current Position, 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 81 (1989).

Malpractice in Dealing with Medical Malpractice, 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 437.

Managed Care Liability: The Coming Wave in Medical Malpractice (Stephen E. Roth and Jeffrey H. Wicks), 36 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 14 (2000).

Medical Malpractice Cases Not to File (Lewis L. Laska), 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 27 (1989).

Medical Malpractice: Five Years after Going Under The Knife, Med Mal Law Is Still Feeling The Effects, 49 Tenn. B.J. 12 (2013).

Physician-Patient Confidentiality in Health Care Liability Actions: HIPAA's Preemption of Ex Parte Interviews with Treating Physicians Through the Obstacle Test, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 97 (2013).

Poor Policy Stunts Tennessee Tort Law Again: The Need for Tennessee's Adoption of the Loss of Chance Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Litigation (Brie D. Wallace), 40 U. Mem. L. Rev. 215 (2009).

“Qualifying the Expert in Medical Malpractice Cases in Tennessee” (Patrick Johnson), 24 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 14 (1988).

Respecting Our Elders: Can Tennessee Do More to Protect its Elder Population from Institutional Abuse and Neglect?, 66 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1999).

The Law of Informed Consent (John A. Day), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 33 (2000).

The Pharmacist's Duty to Warn When Dispensing Prescription Drugs: Recent Tennessee Developments, 22 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 517 (1992).

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

The Standard of Care for Veterinarians in Medical Malpractice Claims (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 58 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1990).

Torts — Medical Malpractice — Loss of Chance Not a Cognizable Cause of Action in Tennessee, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 375 (1995).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

The requirement of this section that a medical expert witness be a licensed practitioner in Tennessee or a contiguous state does not violate the due process and/or equal protection rights of a party proffering a medical expert from a non-contiguous state. Sutphin v. Platt, 720 S.W.2d 455, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. 1986).

Subsection (b) is not unconstitutional as applied to causation-only expert witnesses under the due process and equal protection clauses. Ralph v. Nagy, 749 F. Supp. 169, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14104 (M.D. Tenn. 1990), aff'd, 950 F.2d 326, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28511 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991).

2. In General.

The plaintiffs have the burden of proving, by expert testimony (1) the standard of care, (2) that defendant deviated from that standard, and (3) that as a proximate result of the defendant's negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred. Dolan v. Cunningham, 648 S.W.2d 652, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Parker v. Vanderbilt University, 767 S.W.2d 412, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987), rehearing denied, 767 S.W.2d 412, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Hurst v. Dougherty, 800 S.W.2d 183, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 650 (Tenn. App. 1990), appeal denied, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 462 (Tenn. Dec. 3, 1990).

In subsection (b), a trial court has the opportunity to utilize its discretion in the interest of equity and justice. Childress v. Bennett, 816 S.W.2d 314, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. 1991).

Any want of skillful care or diligence on a physician's part that sets back a patient's recovery, prolongs the patients illness, increases the plaintiff's suffering, or, in short, makes the patient's condition worse than if due skill, care, and diligence had been used, constitutes injury for the purpose of a medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim failed on its merits since no evidence suggested that the doctor did not exercise his best judgment in ordering a transfusion based on the available information; two experienced obstetricians testified that the doctor's decision to transfuse the patient was an appropriate course of treatment. Doe v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 2d 459, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15250 (M.D.N.C. 2003).

Tennessee Adult Protection Act, T.C.A. § 71-6-101 et seq., did not apply to patient's son's action seeking damages from the nursing home for the patient's fall and the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act was the son's exclusive remedy. Cannon v. McKendree Vill., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 278, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-115 and Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 703, summary judgment on the husband's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action against the doctor and employer was vacated as the husband's expert was qualified to offer his expert opinion and the weight to be afforded the expert's testimony was to be determined by the finder of fact. Jackson v. Joyner, 309 S.W.3d 910, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009).

3. Purpose.

The legislative purpose in directing the admission of the formal statements of medical malpractice review boards as provided in § 29-26-112 (repealed) was to encourage settlements, and not to permit use of such statements as an evidentiary substitute for expert testimony, as required by case law, augmented by § 29-26-115(b). Baldwin v. Knight, 569 S.W.2d 450, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. 1978).

4. Necessity for Expert.

Where the act of alleged malpractice (now health care liability) lies within the common knowledge of a layman, expert testimony is not required. Baldwin v. Knight, 569 S.W.2d 450, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. 1978).

In medical malpractice (now health care liability) cases, negligence and causation are ordinarily required to be proved by expert medical testimony. Stokes v. Leung, 651 S.W.2d 704, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

Where the unrefuted evidence indicated that the hospital failed to use reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances which caused the injury to the plaintiff, expert testimony as to the standard of care required in a hospital is not required. Keeton v. Maury County Hospital, 713 S.W.2d 314, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2862 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Defendant university was not engaged in the practice of medicine when it decided not to implement a policy to notify former patients who had received blood transfusions during a certain period that the blood was not tested for the HIV virus, thus, plaintiffs were not required to present expert proof to comply with the Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act. Estate of Doe v. Vanderbilt Univ., 958 S.W.2d 117, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 383 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Informed consent cases require expert evidence to establish whether the information provided to the patient deviated from the usual and customary information given to patients to procure consent in similar situations. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

To determine the adequacy of the information provided in an informed consent case, a court must consider the nature of the medical treatment, the extent of the risks involved and the applicable standard of care. These determinations require expert testimony and are outside the common knowledge of a lay witness. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

Where lack of informed consent in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action operates to negate the patient's authorization for the procedure, thereby giving rise to cause of action for battery, there is no prior authorization or consent to be negated by expert testimony. The primary consideration in a medical battery case is simply whether the patient knew of and authorized the procedure, and this determination does not require the testimony of an expert witness. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as codified in subsection (c), is applicable in medical malpractice (now health care liability) cases where the plaintiffs must rely upon expert testimony to prove the elements of causation, standard of care, and that the injury does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W.3d 86, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1999), review or rehearing denied, 9 S.W.3d 86, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 695 (Tenn. 1999).

Leaving gauze sponges similar in nature and purpose to a tampon in a patient's vagina after post-delivery repair of lacerations was not so obviously negligent that a lay person could identify the conduct as negligence without expert testimony. Kennedy v. Holder, 1 S.W.3d 670, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), overruled in part, Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W.3d 86, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 695 (Tenn. 1999).

Tennessee claims commission did not err in holding that a patient of a state-employed doctor failed to introduce the required expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of negligence under res ipsa loquitur that the accidental severing of a vein during a vasectomy could occur in the absence of negligence, although the commission correctly noted that it was common knowledge that a vasectomy was a delicate surgical procedure; beyond that, a layperson did not know what risks were inherent in a vasectomy. McConkey v. State, 128 S.W.3d 656, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2004).

In an executor's suit against a nursing home after the decedent was injured by a nursing home resident, the executor failed to state a claim because the decision to admit and retain the resident fell within the scope of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, which precluded a claim under the Tennessee Adult Protection Act; the key decision, whether the resident was appropriate for placement in the general population of the nursing home, involved matters of the medical arts and/or sciences, requiring specialized skills not ordinarily possessed by a lay person. Conley v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 236 S.W.3d 713, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2007), appeal denied, Conley v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 18, 2007).

Pro se patient's claims against his doctor for medical malpractice (now health care liability) arising out of the doctor's completion of disability forms provided by the U.S. Department of Education for cancellation of the patient's student loans, failed based on the patient's failure to obtain an expert as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-115. Watson v. Fogolin, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 963 (Tenn. Oct. 12, 2010).

In this medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the denial of plaintiffs'  motion for a new trial was affirmed because plaintiffs conceded the fact that they had not presented any expert witness testimony to adequately establish both a standard of care applicable to the hospital concerning neurology coverage — that was, what level of neurology coverage was required at a community hospital in a medical community like Cleveland, Tennessee in 2004 — and that the hospital had deviated from this standard. Poteet v. Nat'l Healthcare of Cleveland, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2011).

For purposes of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1) in a patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action and under Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 703, it was properly determined that the patient's expert's testimony was sufficiently reliable, that his testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining the facts at issue, and that the facts and data underlying his testimony was sufficiently trustworthy, as he had the requisite experience and qualification; accordingly, admission of his testimony was not an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Shea, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a patient to use an expert from a non-contiguous state under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) in her medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, as more than a dozen potential experts in Tennessee and contiguous states had declined to testify, and the decision by the trial court was “within the range of acceptable alternatives.” McDonald v. Shea, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012).

Trial court erred in denying defendants'  motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim that defendants were negligent by failing to remove a sponge from plaintiff because plaintiff's claim should have been classified as a health care liability action as the health care liability statute designated claims involving custodial or basic care as health care liability claims; expert testimony was required to establish the elements of the claim; plaintiff did not comply with pre-suit notice provisions; plaintiff did not file the required certificate of good faith with his complaint; and failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement mandated dismissal with prejudice. Smith v. Testerman, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. June 15, 2015).

In an action brought pursuant to the Health Care Liability Act, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to provide plaintiff yet another opportunity to prepare his case for trial when he waited until five days before trial to assert that the trial court should wait to see if he would be able to “emergently arrange” for another expert to appear at trial. Weatherspoon v. Minard, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 965 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015).

Dismissal of a patient's health care liability action against a hospital and an employee of the hospital was appropriate as the patient failed to file the required certificate of good faith. The patient, despite application of the common knowledge exception when appropriate to the breach of duty by the hospital and its employee, would have been unable to prove the patient's claim without expert proof that the alleged damages were proximately caused by the fall of the patient that was at issue in the lawsuit. Redick v. St. Thomas Midtown Hosp., 515 S.W.3d 853, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 795 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

Trial court properly granted a medical doctor summary judgment in a son's health care liability action alleging the doctor's supervision of a physician assistant fell below the standard of care, which resulted in the injury and death of his mother, because the son failed to proffer competent expert testimony linking his allegations of medical negligence to the mother's injuries and death; causation is an essential element of a health care liability claim pursuant to the statute. Franklin-Mansuo v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2017).

Summary judgment for health care providers was appropriate because, while testimony regarding the providers'  negligence would necessarily have included testimony regarding a standard of care, a patient did not indicate that either of the patient's purported expert witness had familiarity with the providers'  field of practice and the standard of care required in dealing with punch biopsies. Therefore, the patient did not show that the patient could establish the elements of a professional liability claim through competent expert testimony. Akers v. Heritage Med. Assocs., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019).

Ordinary layman did not possess the knowledge required to determine whether or not the salon violated the massage industry standard in retaining or supervising the massage therapist, expert proof was required, and the common knowledge exception was inapplicable. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019).

5. Examination of Witness.

Expert witnesses who testify at trial may be examined or cross-examined to determine if they agree or disagree with the recommendations contained in the formal statement of the medical malpractice review board [repealed], with appropriate questioning to elicit the specifics of any disagreement. Baldwin v. Knight, 569 S.W.2d 450, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 623 (Tenn. 1978).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting a medical expert's testimony, regarding the standard of care in an informed consent health care liability action, to only those risks that actually materialized, because any risks which did not ripen into an injury were legally without consequence. White v. Beeks, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 794 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2013), rev'd, 469 S.W.3d 517, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 18, 2015).

Trial court did not err in limiting appellants' ability to cross-examine appellees' expert regarding the basis of his standard of care opinion, which appellants argued was the “best possible care” standard; the excluded portion created confusion as to the proper standard under the statute and did not assist the jury in determining whether the doctor met the objective standard of care required, and even if appellees'  references to the doctor's best efforts constituted error, reversible error was not shown, as the excluded evidence would have only bolstered appellees' case. Bradley v. Bishop, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2017).

6. Affidavits.

In suit against physician and clinic for injuries resulting from alleged malpractice (now health care liability) in an abortion operation, witness' affidavit containing general allegations to the effect that physician's care and treatment “was not in conformance with the recognized standards of acceptable professional practice” did not meet the applicable burden of proof, i.e., did not show (1) the standard of care applicable to ambulatory care facilities, (2) that defendant deviated from that standard, and (3) that plaintiff suffered injuries as a proximate result of such deviation. Roddy v. Volunteer Medical Clinic, 926 S.W.2d 572, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), appeal denied, Tenn. Roddy v. Volunteer Medical Clinic, 1996 LEXIS 457 (Tenn. July 1, 1996).

Affidavit of plaintiff's expert that defendant breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose, treat or intervene to provide plaintiff with timely and competent care, without pointing out the diagnosis, treatment or intervention that should have occurred, was not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Estate of Henderson v. Mire, 955 S.W.2d 56, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), appeal denied, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 454 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1997).

Lawyers should couch their medical experts' conclusions in the language of T.C.A. § 29-26-115 to avoid summary judgment problems. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

In a malpractice (now health care liability) action, the state of Georgia does not qualified as a “community” within the meaning of the statutory locality rule, nor did the state of Tennessee; no factual basis was asserted in the affidavit of the wife's expert to establish the expert's familiarity with the standard of care in Williamson County, Tennessee. Totty v. Thompson, 121 S.W.3d 676, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. June 2, 2003).

Medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim may not survive a summary judgment motion even when the patient files an opposing affidavit, it is now commonplace for medical practitioners to challenge the qualifications of the patient's expert; these challenges most frequently focus on the ability of the patient's medical expert to satisfy the mandatory qualifications in T.C.A. § 29-26-115. Decisions regarding the qualifications or competency of an expert are entrusted to the trial court's discretion, accordingly, appellate courts reviewing a trial court's decision regarding the qualifications or competency of a patient's medical expert employ the “abuse of discretion” standard. Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Kenyon v. Handal, M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. 2003).

Analysis of the qualifications of a patient's medical expert most often entails examining the expert's recitation of his or her qualifications either in an affidavit opposing the motion for summary judgment or in a deposition, if one has been taken, even though the court of appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has repeatedly urged lawyers to couch their medical experts' affidavits in the language of T.C.A. § 29-26-115, the appellate court does not require rigid adherence to the statute; rather, it examines the substance of the statements to determine whether they are based on trustworthy facts or data. Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Kenyon v. Handal, M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. 2003).

T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) contains a two-fold requirement that must be met before a medical expert may render an opinion in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case. It requires, in part, that a physician must be licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state “and must have practiced this profession in one of these states during the year preceding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred.” A testifying physician must have been licensed and practicing at some time during the year preceding the date of the alleged injury or wrongful act. The physician to have been licensed and practicing for the entire year. Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Kenyon v. Handal, M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. 2003).

Physician was properly granted summary judgment in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action where the physician's affidavit negated the essential element of proximate cause, the affidavit proffered by the patient and the patient's spouse failed to establish proximate cause, there was no excuse for the failure by the patient and the spouse to initially submit the evidence sought to be included in an amended affidavit, and no explanation was offered for the failure to exercise due diligence in including the missing evidence. Chambliss v. Stohler, 124 S.W.3d 116, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1235 (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2003).

Summary judgment in favor of the physicians' was affirmed because the presumption against any genuine issue of material fact remained, when the affidavits submitted by the physicians in support of their motion for summary judgment created a presumption that no genuine issue of material fact existed, the burden then fell to appellants to rebut that presumption, through expert opinion that established each element of a malpractice (now health care liability) claim enumerated in T.C.A. § 29-26-115, and the expert affidavits proffered by appellants failed to satisfy that burden. Fitts v. Arms, 133 S.W.3d 187, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Expert's affidavit in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was legally insufficient because the bare assertion of familiarity with the standard of care was insufficient; the affidavit contained no information regarding the basis for the doctor's familiarity with the standard of care in Memphis, Tennessee, nor did it contain a basis for finding that the standard of care in Memphis was identical to that in the community in which the expert practiced. Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. 2006).

Circuit court properly granted a hospital's motion to dismiss an administrator's action for health care liability for failure to attach a certificate of good faith because, while the administrator attached the original certificate of good faith to the amended complaint, he failed to file a new certificate when a nursing home asserted a comparative fault affirmative defense against the hospital. Peatross v. Graceland Nursing Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016), appeal denied, Peatross v. Graceland Nursing Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2017).

7. Proof of Standard of Care.

The issue of alleged negligence in the treatment given plaintiff by the hospital after an injection was a nonissue where there is no proof as to what the hospital was supposed to do to reasonably treat plaintiff. German v. Nichopoulos, 577 S.W.2d 197, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978), overruled, Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W.3d 86, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1999).

This section contains no requirement that an expert witness' knowledge of the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice has been gained by treating patients in private practice. If it is shown that such knowledge has been gained by other means, that is sufficient. Searle v. Bryant, 713 S.W.2d 62, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 761 (Tenn. 1986).

The testimony of a physician as to what he would do or his opinion of what should have been done does not prove the statutory standard of medical practice. Lewis v. Hill, 770 S.W.2d 751, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

Plaintiff failed to controvert testimony that the standard of care in the practice of ophthalmology is to accord the anesthetic team the supervision and control of the patient's sedation and failed to controvert that the defendant ophthalmologist conformed to that standard. Goodman v. Phythyon, 803 S.W.2d 697, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

In a case where two doctors are involved in the same surgical procedure — one identifying the location of the abnormality and the other performing the surgery to excise it — the standards of care must necessarily overlap. One doctor's testimony may be relevant to the standard of care of the other, even where the testimony is not expressly addressed to that point. Walker v. Bell, 828 S.W.2d 409, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 806 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

Exclusion of American Medical Association opinions was not error since the standard of care in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action is determined by competent expert medical testimony, not by reference to ethical opinions. Hartsell v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Ctr., 905 S.W.2d 944, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, Hartsell v. Fort Sanders Regional Med. Ctr., S.W.2d, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Aug. 28, 1995), cert. denied, Hartsell by Upton v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Ctr., 517 U.S. 1120, 116 S. Ct. 1352, 134 L. Ed. 2d 521, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 2190 (1996).

Plaintiff's tendered expert must be familiar with the standard of care in the community in which the defendant practices or a similar community, and without such threshold evidence of the locality's standard of practice, plaintiff cannot demonstrate a breach of duty. Mabon v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp., 968 S.W.2d 826, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

In matters of informed consent, the plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) What a reasonable medical practitioner of the same or similar community would have disclosed to the patient about the risk posed by the proposed procedure or treatment and (2) that the defendant departed from the norm. Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2000).

Prisoner's allegations of malpractice (now health care liability) by prison medical staff were properly dismissed on summary judgment because he did not present any evidence of the standard of care for his problem or any evidence that the prison medical staff violated that standard of care. Howse v. State, 994 S.W.2d 139, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 161 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), dismissed, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 314 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2004).

Patients seeking damages for lack of informed consent must prove that the physician's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care and that reasonably prudent persons in the patient's position would not have consented to the procedure if they had been suitably informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

A prescription drug's labeling or its Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), when introduced along with other expert evidence on the standard of care, is admissible to assist the trier of fact to determine whether the drug presented an unacceptable risk to the patient. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Manufacturer's policies regarding indications and contraindications for using an infusion pump, its guidelines for determining which patients were candidates for using the pump, and its procedures for implementing infusion pump therapy were relevant and admissible; while the policies and protocols did not by themselves establish a physician's standard of care for determining when the infusion pump should be used, they could materially assist the trier of fact in determining whether the physician acted negligently by ordering that patient continue to receive drug by infusion pump after the patient complained that the drug was causing chest pain. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Patient's expert was familiar with the standard of care where the expert practiced, and claimed that the city, where the surgery took place would have a similar standard of care; the court erred in disregarding this evidence, as the expert also had direct experience of the standard of care in the city where the surgery took place from the expert's testimony in malpractice (now health care liability) cases there. Wilson v. Patterson, 73 S.W.3d 95, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

As the expert's statements that there was a national standard of care for performing laparoscopies, and that the expert was familiar with the standard of care for performing them in Memphis were not inherently contradictory, the trial court erred in applying the cancellation rule and disregarded both statements. Wilson v. Patterson, 73 S.W.3d 95, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Trial court properly dismissed an inmate's medical malpractice (now health care liability) complaint against an orthopedic surgeon who operated on the inmate's ankle when the inmate's expert could only testify as to the national standard of care; the applicable standard of care was that of the local community where the physician practiced. Robinson v. Lecorps, 83 S.W.3d 718, 2002 Tenn. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. 2002).

In a suit by an executor against a nursing home, the court properly allowed the executor's expert witnesses to testify regarding the applicable standard of care because the experts had significant expertise in geriatric medicine and nursing home protocol in rural communities, and they were sufficiently knowledgeable about the relevant information concerning the geographic region around Centerville, Tennessee and health care center protocols in that region. Conley v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 236 S.W.3d 713, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2007), appeal denied, Conley v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 18, 2007).

Tennessee's medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a), contemplates that the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice for physician assistants is that of physician assistants, not physicians. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Tennessee agrees with those authorities who differentiate between the standard of care that must be met by physicians and the standard of care which must be met by physician assistants. Cox v. M.A. Primary & Urgent Care Clinic, 313 S.W.3d 240, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 553 (Tenn. June 21, 2010).

Finding in favor of the hospital in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was appropriate because the testimony of an expert witness was supported by the evidence and the trial judge, as the trier of fact, gave credit to her testimony over that of another expert as to the standard of care regarding alarms and bed rails. Flatt v. Claiborne County Hosp. & Nursing Home, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, a physician's experts were qualified to testify to the standard of care for neurosurgeons because: (1) One expert's testimony was clearly relevant to the physician's care of the patient in question and the physician's expectations of the nursing staff at the hospital where the patient was being treated; and (2) The other expert's testimony was clearly relevant to allegations that the physician deviated from the standard of care in transferring a patient out of intensive care and that the physician did not properly read computerized axial tomography scans. Stanfield v. Neblett, 339 S.W.3d 22, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2011).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, a physician's experts were qualified to testify to the standard of care in the physician's community, under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a), because the experts demonstrated a familiarity with the physician's community, as well as the hospital at which the physician practiced. Stanfield v. Neblett, 339 S.W.3d 22, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2011).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of a clinic and supervising physician in the patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of a physician assistant's failure to diagnose the patient's condition was appropriate because the professional standard of care applicable to physician assistants was distinct from that applicable to physicians and the patient introduced no expert proof as to any violation of the applicable standard of care. A physician assistant must be held to the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession of physician assistants and any specialty thereof, and not to a standard applied to physicians. Cox v. M.A. Primary & Urgent Care Clinic, 313 S.W.3d 240, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 553 (Tenn. June 21, 2010).

In this negligence action, the judgment finding direct liability on the part of the management company was reversed because there was no material evidence to support a conclusion that any staffing deficiency proximately caused decedent's death; plaintiffs did not identify any evidence that connected understaffing with the deviations from the standard of care found by the trial court. Wilson v. Americare Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2012), rev'd, ricare Sys, 397 S.W.3d 552, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 212 (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2013).

Plaintiff's medical malpractice suit under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a), alleging a claim of negligence per se, was properly dismissed on summary judgment. By alleging that the doctor breached the standard of care applicable to him because he violated a state regulation, plaintiff was attempting to establish the relevant standard of care in a medical malpractice claim by using the regulation, which was not permitted. Plaintiff could not sustain his negligence per se claim where the conduct complained of involved medical treatment decisions. Watkins v. Affiliated Internists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2012), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 721 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2013).

Estate of French was properly applied retroactively to plaintiff's medical malpractice suit. “Prospective only” applications of an overruling decision are limited to a case where hardship on a party who has relied on the old rule outweighs the hardship on the party denied the benefit of the new rule. Watkins v. Affiliated Internists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 654 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2012), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 721 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) required only that the proposed expert practice a profession or specialty that would make his or her testimony relevant to the issues in the case, not that the proposed expert practice the same profession or specialty as the defendant; in the instant case, the plaintiffs contended the defendants were negligent in their monitoring of the patient and in prescribing the medications the patient was given after her surgery. The doctor's affidavits established that he was familiar with a general standard of care concerning the benefits, risks and general uses for Lovenox; therefore, since the doctor was competent to provide expert testimony on the claims at issue in the case, the plaintiffs established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the defendants'  motions for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants'  negligence. Westmoreland v. Bacon, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2013).

Medical expert's testimony should have been admitted in a health care liability action because the expert met the competency requirements, as well as the admissibility requirements. Although the expert had no first-hand knowledge of the standard of care in a particular county during a particular time, the expert was familiar with pertinent statistical information about the community, the hospital, and the medical services and practices available in the area at that time. Evans v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 381 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2014).

Trial court erred in finding that the patient failed to present evidence establishing the standard of care where an expert testified that he was familiar with the standard of care in Memphis for eye surgeons, described the appropriate standard during the patient's LASIK procedure, and the use of the phrases “during surgery” and “in the patient's Case” would not have prevented a jury from determining the time period involved, and thus, the expert's testimony was sufficient under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a). Dickson v. Kriger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

Because of the trial court court's exclusion of a patient's witness as an expert witness, a decision that was not to be an abuse of the trial court's discretion, the patient's had no expert evidence to establish the standard of care for a doctor its breach, and causation. Mikheil v. Nashville Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

Trial court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion to strike the testimony of defendants'  expert witness who testified that defendant radiologist complied with the standard of care where, when read in its totality, a fair reading of the expert's testimony showed that he consistently testified that the standard of care required a radiologist to report a perforation of the heart when something perforated not only through the myocardium but also the pericardium. His testimony that he did not know whether a standard of care required a radiologist to report a perforation of the myocardium by a pacemaker lead went to the weight to be afforded his testimony rather than its admissibility. Bogle ex. rel. Bogle v. Nighthawk Radiology Servs., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2016).

Trial court correctly granted a doctor summary judgment because given that the only evidence in the record showed that a patient's abrasion was superficial, and given the testimony of the patient's expert that if there was no full-thickness skin injury, what the doctor did in the emergency room was appropriate, that proof negated an essential element of the patient's case, i.e., that the doctor deviated from the applicable standard of care. Duncan v. Ledford, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2016).

In a health care liability action, the trial court did not err in precluding the jury from considering whether a nurse's failure to order a CT scan when she treated the patient for an eye injury caused by an object propelled by a weed eater was a deviation from the standard of care and in granting the nurse's motion for a directed verdict because no expert witness testified that the standard of care required the nurse to order a CT scan as the patient's witness was not an expert on the standard of care; and the nurse's expert stated that a weed eater was a low velocity, low impact injury; that a high-velocity impact to the eye would have warranted a CT scan; and that the standard of care in the patient's situation did not require a CT scan. Hopps v. Stinnes, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017).

8. Presumption.

Presumption found in subsection (c) is not applicable where plaintiff offers evidence of specific acts of negligence. Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

The presumption codified in subsection (c) is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which is not ordinarily applicable to medical malpractice (now health care liability) cases because neither lay people nor courts possess reliable common knowledge in such technical matters. Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

The prohibition in subsection (d) against a jury presuming negligence does not preclude an expert from testifying that a physician is guilty of negligence based upon the injury received. Seats v. Lowry, 930 S.W.2d 558, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), appeal denied, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 578 (Tenn. Sept. 9, 1996).

The existence of a written consent form gives rise to a presumption of consent in the absence of proof of misrepresentation, inadequate disclosure, forgery, or lack of capacity. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

9. Physicians.

Fact issues existed as to whether a consulting cardiologist had a physician-patient relationship with a decedent who he never saw and who died of heart failure seven days after the consultation. The physician-patient relationship could be implied when a physician affirmatively undertook to diagnose and/or treat a person, or affirmatively participated in such diagnosis and/or treatment. Kelley v. Middle Tenn. Emergency Physicians, P.C., 133 S.W.3d 587, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. 2004).

Trial court did not err in denying an optometrist and an ophthalmologist summary judgment on the ground that a patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) complaint was barred by the statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3), because the patient submitted sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to their knowledge of his condition prior to LASIK surgery since two experts opined that the pre-operative reports clearly showed that the patient had Keratoconus and that any doctor complying with the standard of care should have known of his condition, and even assuming that the optometrist and ophthalmologist did not know of the patient's condition prior to surgery, there was at least a question of fact as to their knowledge and possible fraudulent concealment after the surgery; the patient had to prove actual knowledge of the condition in order to proceed under fraudulent concealment, and it was not enough for him to show that appellants should have known, but that actual knowledge could be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Tigrett v. Linn, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010).

Inmate's claim sounded in medical malpractice and was governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act because the gravamen of the claim was in the medical art or science, training, and expertise the inmate expected the doctor to exercise within the physician-patient relationship; the inmate asserted in his complaint that the doctor knew the seriousness of his injury and declined to refer him to a specialist or order physical therapy or other specialized care. Mathes v. Lane, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014).

10. —Duty.

The duty of a physician is to use his best judgment in the treatment of a patient. Watkins v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1006, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9791 (M.D. Tenn. 1980); Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

The law presumes that a medical practitioner has discharged his full duty to a patient and will not presume negligence from the fact that the treatment was unsuccessful. Watkins v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1006, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9791 (M.D. Tenn. 1980); Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

While the physician-patient relationship exists, the physician has a duty to continue providing care. Thus, in the absence of an emergency or other special circumstances, where a physician knows or should know that a condition exists that requires further medical attention to prevent injurious consequences, the physician must render such attention, or must see to it that some other competent person does so, until the condition is resolved or until the physician-patient relationship is properly terminated. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Abandonment is essentially a breach of a physician's duty of continuing treatment. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

By reviewing the child's medical records as part of a child abuse investigation, the physician voluntarily undertook a duty on behalf of the child to use reasonable care in reviewing the medical records and reporting his findings and conclusions to the investigators; if the physician was found not to have reported harm and was therefore not immune from liability, the mother's common law negligence action may proceed. Draper v. Westerfield, 181 S.W.3d 283, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 824 (Tenn. 2005).

Appellees presented substantial testimony from medical experts who testified that the doctor's care of the patient conformed to the applicable standard of care, and although appellants presented countervailing evidence, it was not the court's prerogative to re-weigh the evidence, and thus material evidence supported the jury's verdict. Bradley v. Bishop, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 488 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2017).

11. —Liability.

Physicians are not insurors of a patient but are only liable for negligence. Watkins v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1006, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9791 (M.D. Tenn. 1980); Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

Liability for malpractice (now health care liability) must depend on whether or not a physician is lacking in reasonable degree of learning, skill, and experience which is ordinarily possessed by others of his profession. Watkins v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1006, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9791 (M.D. Tenn. 1980); Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1207 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

An honest mistake in judgment is not sufficient to find a physician negligent. Dunham v. Stones River Hosp., Inc., 40 S.W.3d 47, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Physicians may be found negligent if their decision to use a drug off-label is sufficiently careless, imprudent, or unprofessional. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict to a doctor in a mother's medical malpractice suit after the death of her son because, the testimony of her only expert did not establish, directly or inferentially, that any action by the doctor after his arrival at the hospital, could have changed the child's outcome. Further, no inference could have been drawn from the expert's entire testimony that diagnosis or surgical intervention could have saved the child's life anytime after noon on Friday and before another doctor arrived on the scene early Saturday morning. Norris v. East Tenn. Children's Hosp., 195 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Norris v. E. Tenn. Children's Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. June 5, 2006).

Trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict to a doctor in a mother's medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit after the death of her son because there were simply no facts to support a conclusion that anything the doctor did or did not do on Friday constituted a deviation from the standard of care. If the doctor was to be charged with knowledge of a rising pulse rate, there had to be evidence that the pulse rate was rising at the time of his visit; there was no such evidence. Norris v. East Tenn. Children's Hosp., 195 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Norris v. E. Tenn. Children's Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. June 5, 2006).

Trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict to a doctor in a mother's medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit after the death of her son because the testimony of her only expert did not identify any medical negligence on September 3rd or 4th, the days that the doctor was present. Norris v. East Tenn. Children's Hosp., 195 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Norris v. E. Tenn. Children's Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. June 5, 2006).

Physicians are not exempt from claims relating to their business practices brought under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, T.C.A. § 47-18-101 et seq. because they are learned professionals, but medical malpractice (now health care liability) claims could not be recast as consumer protection claims under the act. Proctor v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 270 S.W.3d 56, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 344 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2008).

12. Witnesses.

There is no requirement that the expert witness be in the same specialty of the medical profession as the defendant; only that the expert be licensed to practice a specialty which makes his testimony relevant to the issues in the case. Ledford v. Moskowitz, 742 S.W.2d 645, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2910 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

Although there is no statutory requirement that the expert witness practice the same specialty as the defendant, the witness must be sufficiently familiar with the standard of care of the specialist and be able to give relevant testimony on that subject. Goodman v. Phythyon, 803 S.W.2d 697, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 769 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

The trial judge is given wide discretion in the matter of the qualifications of medical expert witnesses. Coyle v. Prieto, 822 S.W.2d 596, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 518 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 1991).

Grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim was vacated where (1) the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the otolaryngologist as untrustworthy because the otolaryngologist's affidavit established a genuine issue of material fact regarding the element of cause in fact; and (2) the exclusion of the neurosurgeon's supplemental affidavit as untimely was an abuse of discretion because it resulted in an injustice to plaintiff. Jacobs v. Nashville Ear, Nose & Throat Clinic, 338 S.W.3d 466, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 1191 (Tenn. Dec. 7, 2010).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the doctor's experts met the contiguous state rule, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b). One expert was a licensed and practicing physician in Georgia in 2005 and at the time of trial, and was board certified in neurology; another expert was a surgeon who specialized in trauma and was the medical director of the trauma unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee in 2005 and at the time of trial; and a third expert was a neurosurgeon who was licensed and practicing in Tennessee at the time of trial and in 2005. Stanfield v. Neblett, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2010).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony because the testimony was inadmissible hearsay; the specific statements were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, namely that the expert witnesses advised a physician to proceed with a cesarean section, not to establish the res gestae or circumstances surrounding the event in question. Vandyke v. Foulk, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2017).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony because the testimony was inadmissible hearsay; the exclusion of the testimony, even if admissible, was harmless because the patient was permitted to establish that a discussion occurred between the expert witnesses and a physician prior to another physician's arrival and that another discussion occurred between the physicians before the attempted delivery of the patient's baby by forceps. Vandyke v. Foulk, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2017).

Patient's expert was not qualified to testify about the actions or omissions of an emergency-room physician because the patient failed to show he practiced in the same or a similar specialty and that he was familiar with the standard of acceptable professional practice governing emergency-room physicians; the expert's profession of rendering neurological and neurosurgical opinions was not sufficiently similar to an LPN, a medical assistant, or a nurse practitioner working in an urgent care setting. Estate of Shelton v. Greeneville Urgent Care, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2019).

Fact that a patient's expert could have practiced as a “neurosurgeon consultant” during the relevant time period was immaterial to the patient's healthcare liability case because the expert's work at a health center, although unpaid, qualified as practicing medicine, and that practice was not in a profession or specialty that would make his testimony relevant to the issues in the case. Estate of Shelton v. Greeneville Urgent Care, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2019).

Doctor, who was permitted to practice medicine in Tennessee under a statutory licensure exemption but was not licensed to practice medicine in Tennessee or a contiguous state during the year before the date of the alleged injury or wrongful conduct, did not meet the statutory requirements to testify as an expert witness in a health care liability action because, although the doctor was exempt from the licensure requirement during his fellowship at a university, the licensure exemption did not eliminate the license requirement. Young v. Frist Cardiology, PLLC, 599 S.W.3d 568, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 148 (Tenn. Apr. 20, 2020).

13. —Locality Rule.

McCay v. Mitchell, 62 Tenn. App. 424, 463 S.W.2d 710, 1970 Tenn. App. LEXIS 276 (1970), reaffirmed that the locality rule was still the measure for the competency of a witness in a malpractice (now health care liability) case. Pyle v. Morrison, 716 S.W.2d 930, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3041 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

This section leaves some discretion with the trial court to waive the locality rule but only after the court determines that the appropriate witnesses otherwise would not be available. Pyle v. Morrison, 716 S.W.2d 930, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3041 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

The geographic limitations of subsection (b) apply to an expert witness in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, who testifies only as to the cause of plaintiff's injuries. Payne v. Caldwell, 796 S.W.2d 142, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. 1990).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 601, a federal court sitting in diversity applied the “contiguous state” limitation set forth in subsection (b) to a motion to introduce two New York physicians to testify as experts on the question of causation, one of the three essential elements of a medical malpractice (now health care liability) cause of action under Tennessee law. Ralph v. Nagy, 749 F. Supp. 169, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14104 (M.D. Tenn. 1990), aff'd, 950 F.2d 326, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28511 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991).

Despite the discretion allowed the court by the waiver provision in subsection (b), the interest of equity and justice did not dictate waiving the geographic requirements as to two New York physicians where plaintiff admittedly had other appropriate witnesses on the issue of causation. Ralph v. Nagy, 749 F. Supp. 169, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14104 (M.D. Tenn. 1990), aff'd, 950 F.2d 326, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28511 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991).

On appeal, court held the waiver provision in subsection (b) applied. Childress v. Bennett, 816 S.W.2d 314, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (Tenn. 1991).

The requirement that an expert must have practiced “during the year” in this or a contiguous state means “at some time during the preceding year” and does not require practice for the entire year. Steele v. Ft. Sanders Anesthesia Group, P.C., 897 S.W.2d 270, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1995).

Where plaintiff's affidavits demonstrated that reasonable diligence was exercised to find a witness who met the criteria of this section, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a waiver. Steele v. Ft. Sanders Anesthesia Group, P.C., 897 S.W.2d 270, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1995).

Where affidavits submitted by plaintiffs were generalized and unspecific, and reflected only a cursory effort to find an appropriate expert from Tennessee or a contiguous state, the trial court correctly concluded that waiver of the locality rule was not warranted. Rose v. H.C.A. Health Servs., 947 S.W.2d 144, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Trial court properly dismissed the patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claims because the patient's only expert medical witness was disqualified because the expert could not testify as to the standard of care in the community where the doctors practiced medicine and treated the patient. Roberts v. Bicknell, 73 S.W.3d 106, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

State medical certainty standards and Fed. R. Evid. 702 are not in direct conflict, because state medical certainty standards in general are essentially substantive, and Rule 702 seeks to ensure that expert testimony is based on credible and reliable science; thus, if a witness is deemed competent to testify to the substantive issue in the case, such as the standard of care, the testimony should then be screened by Rule 702 to determine if it is otherwise admissible expert testimony; and there is no conflict between T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) and Fed. R. Evid. 702, since the statute is directed at establishing the substantive issue in the case, and the rule is a gatekeeping measure designed to ensure fairness in administration of the case. Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286, 2002 FED App. 110P, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5932 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2002).

Given that plaintiff's expert acknowledged that he did not “know any of the characteristics of the Nashville medical community” at the time of the surgery at issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the expert to express his opinions regarding the applicable standard of care. Sommer v. Davis, 317 F.3d 686, 2003 FED App. 34P, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1457 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 824, 124 S. Ct. 155, 157 L. Ed. 2d 45, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 6071 (2003).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, a court properly determined that a physician was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff had presented expert testimony, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1), establishing the recognized standard of acceptable practice in the community. Plaintiff's expert witness did not rely upon a national standard of care, nor did the witness simply equate the local standard with the national standard. Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 825 (Tenn. 2003).

Although the national standard of profession care is representative of the local standard, especially for board certified specialists, the legislative intent and purpose of T.C.A. § 29-26-115 (a)(1) is that the conduct of doctors in Tennessee is assessed in accordance with the standard of professional care in the community in which they practice or one similar to it. Totty v. Thompson, 121 S.W.3d 676, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. June 2, 2003).

Although a patient's expert in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case must have knowledge of the standard of professional practice in the community where the defendant physician practices or in a similar community, the expert is not required to be familiar with all the medical statistics of the community where the defendant practices; however, the expert must go further than simply asserting that he or she is familiar with the applicable standard of care. The expert must present facts demonstrating how he or she has knowledge of the applicable standard of professional care either in the community in which the defendant physician practices or in a similar community. Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Kenyon v. Handal, M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. 2003).

For the purpose of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a), the only relevant “community” is the community in which the defendant physician actually practices or in a similar community. Medical experts testifying for a patient in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case may not base their testimony solely on their familiarity with a national standard, a state-wide standard or a regional standard of professional practice. Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, Kenyon v. Handal, M.D., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. 2003).

In a malpractice (now health care liability) action in which, after a jury returned a verdict for the patient, the dentist appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the patient's expert witness to testify, the instant court affirmed the trial court's decision to reserve ruling on the expert's compliance with the locality rule until he was offered as a witness at trial where his knowledge of the applicable standard was established; the dentist was not prejudiced by the expert's efforts to improve his understanding of dental practice in Spring Hill. Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

Court properly found that plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was competent to testify because he was a board-certified anesthesiologist who had practiced in Lexington, Kentucky since 1980, he was involved with the Academic Association of Anesthesia Program Directors, which was an organization “with people from Vanderbilt, from Lexington, and the surrounding area.” Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2005).

Expert physician's testimony failed to establish the necessary elements of the similar locality rule because he failed to demonstrate that his opinion regarding the applicable standard of professional practice was based on his knowledge of the standard of professional practice in a community similar to Clarksville. The only basis the physician asserted for such knowledge was his position as the chairman of the Kentucky medical care quality assurance committee, and he conceded that the information provided by the participating hospitals and medical regions did not include the standard of care for the individual institutions; furthermore, the expert appeared to base his knowledge solely on national accreditation standards rather than on personal experience such as exercising privileges at the hospital in the relevant community, speaking with other surgeons in the relevant community about the standard of care in their community, or through referrals. Carpenter v. Klepper, 205 S.W.3d 474, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 901 (Tenn. 2006).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the trial court did not err in denying the parents'  motion to waive the locality rule, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b), because there was some discretion with the trial court to allow or disallow testimony in the interest of equity and justice. As long as a discretionary decision fell within a range of acceptable alternatives, as this did, and appellate court would not second-guess a trial court's exercise of its discretion simply because the trial court chose an alternative that the appellate court would not have chosen. Ward v. Glover, 206 S.W.3d 17, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 364 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1028 (Tenn. 2006).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability), wrongful death action brought by the decedent's husband, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a proposed expert's testimony for purposes of establishing the standard of care for a physician's assistance and for the treating physician in supervising that assistant, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1). The proposed expert had reviewed the applicable Tennessee statutes and regulations for physician assistants, but he had never see a written protocol of the type that would purportedly comply with Tennessee law. Watkins v. Affiliated Internists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2009).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, a physician's experts were qualified to testify under the locality rule in T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) because the experts were licensed and practiced in Tennessee or a bordering state. Stanfield v. Neblett, 339 S.W.3d 22, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Jan. 13, 2011).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, after appellate review of the testimony of each of the doctor's experts, the decedent patient's mother failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the doctor's experts had sufficient knowledge of the standard of care of the doctor's community or a similar community, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a). Stanfield v. Neblett, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2010).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the granting of a directed verdict in favor of the doctor was appropriate because the patient's expert witness was correctly disqualified. The patient failed to show that her expert was familiar with the standard of care in a community similar to the doctor's community as required under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1). Johnson v. Richardson, 337 S.W.3d 816, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 514 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 98 (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2011).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, the trial court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment where plaintiff's expert could not demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care in a community similar to defendant's under T.C.A. § 29-26-115, which required similarity of communities in general, and not just medical communities. Kennard v. Townsend, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2011).

Expert's testimony did not violate the locality rule of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) as the expert had sufficient knowledge of the community as: (1) the expert had been to the hospital, had given lectures in the City, was in societies with physicians who practiced in the City area, and had trained residents who practiced in the City; and (2) the expert testified that the hospital was virtually identical to that of the hospitals where the expert had privileges, and as to the population of the City area. Smith v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

In a diversity medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, remand was required of the district court's disqualification of plaintiff's sole expert witness under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b); it was unclear whether the district court applied a discredited rule that an expert's knowledge of the standard of care in a community had to be personal and firsthand, or whether the witness was disqualified based on competency without regard to locality. Bock v. Univ. of Tenn. Med. Group, Inc., 471 Fed. Appx. 459, — F.3d —, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6245, 2012 FED App. 333N  (6th Cir. Tenn. 2012).

For purposes of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(1) in a patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the patient's expert was properly allowed to testify, although he was not from Tennessee or a contiguous state, as his testimony about a national standard was in line with caselaw, and he did not rely on a bare assertion of the existence of an applicable national standard of care, but instead explained why the national standard was applicable. McDonald v. Shea, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012).

For purposes of T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a) with respect to a patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, a trial court properly found that Los Angeles, where the patient's expert was from, was similar to Memphis within the context of the case; although the two areas had many dissimilarities, the compared communities were shown to be similar in ways that were pertinent to the issues in the case. McDonald v. Shea, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012).

Remand of a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was required because the trial court was to reconsider whether a patient's medical expert was wrongly excluded prior to trial for failure to meet the requirements of the locality rule in T.C.A. § 29-26-115, whether the witness, as an OB-GYN, could testify against an anesthesiologist, and whether an erroneous exclusion warranted a setting aside of the jury's verdict. Kennard v. Methodist Hosps. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2012), appeal denied, Kennard v. Methodist Hosps., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 679 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2012).

In parents'  medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit, the trial court did not err when it waived the contiguous state requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) to allow the testimony of the parents'  expert witness. The statute placed some discretion with the trial court to allow testimony in the interest of equity and justice, and the trial court's decision to waive the requirement was within the range of acceptable alternatives and was supported by the affidavit submitted by the parents evidencing a good-faith, reasonable search for an appropriate expert witness. Gaw v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2012).

Trial court properly admitted the expert testimony of an out-of-state medical doctor on behalf of defendant in a medical malpractice action, as the doctor was qualified and met the requirements of the locality rule of T.C.A. § 29-26-115, and his testimony was admissible pursuant to the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 703. Meares v. Traylor, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 508 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2012).

As plaintiff's expert, who practiced medicine 200 miles from the hospital where a doctor allegedly committed malpractice, and who researched the doctor and the hospital, sufficiently established his familiarity with the relevant standard of professional practice, the trial court erred in excluding his testimony under the locality rule. Nevels v. Contarino, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 798 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-115(b) sets forth the three requirements for an expert witness to be competent to testify in a medical negligence case; the witness must be: (1) licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state; (2) practice a profession or specialty that would make the person's expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case; and (3) must have practiced this profession or specialty in one of these states during the year preceding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred. Therefore, the only grounds for disqualifying a medical expert as incompetent to testify are: (1) that the witness was not licensed to practice in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, North Carolina, or Virginia; (2) that the witness was not licensed to practice a profession or specialty that would make the person's expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case; or (3) that the witness did not practice this profession in one of these states during the year preceding the date of the alleged injury or wrongful act. Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Aug. 11, 2011), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 882 (Tenn. Sept. 8, 2011).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing doctor to testify regarding the standard of care in the case given that the expert showed the required level of familiarity with the standard of care at the hospital through testimony that he visited the hospital in question and showed familiarity with the hospital. Ray v. S. Tenn. Med. Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2013).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in a health care liability action by declining to waive the contiguous state requirement for a testifying expert witness because the court properly determined that a doctor, who was being sued, failed to demonstrate that an appropriate expert witness was otherwise not available as the efforts of defense counsel reflected only a cursory effort to find an appropriate expert from the State of Tennessee or a contiguous border state. Gilbert v. Wessels, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 741 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2013), vacated, 458 S.W.3d 895, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1031 (Tenn. Dec. 18, 2014).

There was no extraordinary departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as trial courts had discretionary authority to determine whether the contiguous state limitation for expert testimony purposes was to be waived, plus discretionary evidentiary rulings, regardless of their merit, rarely constitute the types of extraordinary departures from the usual and accepted course of judicial proceedings that the rule contemplates; extraordinary review was not necessary for a complete determination of the action on appeal, and an extraordinary appeal was improvidently granted. Gilbert v. Wessels, 458 S.W.3d 895, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1031 (Tenn. Dec. 18, 2014).

14. —Persons in Health Care Profession.

Federal district court held tentatively that the waiver provision of subsection (b) should be applied liberally in a situation where a plaintiff is unable, after exercising reasonable diligence, to obtain expert witnesses to testify in her favor except by going outside Tennessee and states contiguous to it. Crumley v. Memorial Hosp., Inc., 509 F. Supp. 531, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7069 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

In a malpractice (now health care liability) action in which, after a jury returned a verdict for the patient, the dentist appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the patient's expert witness to testify, the instant court found that the trial court acted within its discretion, and there was no error in the trial court's denial of the motion in limine pending the offer of the patient's expert witness as an expert at trial, where the trial court reserved final ruling on the admission of the expert's testimony until examination and cross-examination of his knowledge of the relevant standard of care. Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

One may practice the nursing profession with or without receiving compensation, and the statute regarding expert witnesses does not contain a compensation requirement, and to read one into the statute would be contrary to the legislature's intent; the trial court erred in holding that a nurse was not qualified as a medical expert because she did not receive monetary compensation for her services as her mother-in-law's private duty nurse, as monetary compensation is not required to establish that an expert has practiced in his or her field. Adkins v. Assocs. of the Memorial/Mission Outpatient Surgery Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015).

Statute requires that the testifying expert must be licensed to practice and must have practiced the profession for which he or she retained a license. Adkins v. Assocs. of the Memorial/Mission Outpatient Surgery Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015).

Expert's declaration and curriculum vitae showed that he was competent to testify because the expert served as Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Georgia, a position that would require him make inquiries into the cause, manner, and circumstances of death; a decedent's children were not required to produce an expert witness who specialized in “toxicology” but only to produce an expert licensed to practice a profession or specialty that would make the expert testimony relevant. Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

15. Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment was properly awarded to defendants in medical malpractice (now health care liability) action arising out of an abortion, where plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption that patient was a mature minor with the capacity to consent to the procedure, and failed to meet their burden of proof by furnishing testimony that as a proximate result of defendant's alleged negligent act or omission, the patient suffered injuries which would not have otherwise occurred. Roddy v. Volunteer Medical Clinic, 926 S.W.2d 572, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), appeal denied, Tenn. Roddy v. Volunteer Medical Clinic, 1996 LEXIS 457 (Tenn. July 1, 1996).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, summary judgment is inappropriate with respect to the applicable standard of care and the deviation from the standard of care where competent expert testimony is conflicting. Moon v. St. Thomas Hosp., 983 S.W.2d 225, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. 1998).

Although physician has a duty to refer, whether such referral can be accomplished in silence or must be accompanied by appropriate information provided to the referee in order to meet the standard of care is a question of fact raised by expert testimony and precludes summary judgment. Jennings v. Case, 10 S.W.3d 625, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Where expert testimony established that physician violated the standard of care by failing to inform the specialist of the signs and symptoms the physician observed, including the fact that plaintiff's nail beds were blue, summary judgment for physicians was inappropriate. Jennings v. Case, 10 S.W.3d 625, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Lawyers should couch their medical experts' conclusions in the language of T.C.A. § 29-26-115 to avoid summary judgment problems. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The plaintiff facing a summary judgment in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case must demonstrate only of being injured; the question of how much the plaintiff has been injured should be left to the trier of fact. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The trial court should not have granted summary judgment to dispose of plaintiff's malpractice (now health care liability) claims against doctors based on their alleged delay in diagnosing and treating plaintiff's perforated bowel and the intra-abdominal process it caused. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Proof of injury alone is not sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action. Summary judgment in a medical malpractice case may be appropriate where the defendant produces expert proof that completely refute the plaintiff's allegations of negligence and the plaintiff does not produce rebuttal proof by expert testimony. Dunham v. Stones River Hosp., Inc., 40 S.W.3d 47, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Patient's son's claim was governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act because the act or omission complained of, namely the nursing home's decision not to restrain the patient in her bed by physical or chemical means, involved a matter of medical science or art requiring skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons; therefore, the son was required to provide expert medical testimony establishing the existence of disputed, material facts regarding the elements of his claim, and because he failed to do so, the nursing home was properly granted summary judgment. Cannon v. McKendree Vill., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 278, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008).

In this medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim filed pursuant to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, the grant of summary judgment to defendants was affirmed because when the burden of production shifted to plaintiff, she failed to offer any competent expert testimony. Luna v. Deversa, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 388 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2010).

Judgment in favor of plaintiff on her claims for medical malpractice (now health care liability) was reversed because plaintiff did not provide the trial court with any expert medical proof to rebut the emergency room doctors’ assertion that any deviation from the standard of care on their part did not cause any harm or injury to plaintiff. Miller v. Birdwell, 327 S.W.3d 53, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 977 (Tenn. Oct. 12, 2010).

In this medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the grant of summary judgment to defendants, hospital, doctor, and the manufacturer of the medical device, was affirmed because defendants successfully negated the causation element of each cause of action and that plaintiffs did not establish a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment to defendants. Clifford v. Tacogue, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 2010), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 541 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the physician in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action filed under T.C.A. §§ 29-26-115 to 29-26-122 was in appropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the patient was of unsound mind on the date the cause of action accrued, thus tolling the limitations period under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(1). Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 988 (Tenn. Oct. 28, 2010).

Judgment that granted the doctor summary judgment on the patient's malpractice (now health care liability) claim was affirmed because the patient was unable to find an expert witness to controvert the affidavit in which the doctor testified that in his treatment of the patient he complied at all times with the relevant standard of acceptable professional practice. Partee v. Vasquez, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 561 (Tenn. May 26, 2011).

Grant of summary judgment to the doctor on plaintiff's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim was affirmed because plaintiff failed to meet her burden of presenting expert proof to counter that provided by the doctor. Davis v. Scariano, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2011).

In a malpractice case, as the deposition testimony of plaintiff's medical expert cast doubt on plaintiff's ability to prove causation, but did not negate that element of his case, and nothing prevented him from supplementing his discovery responses to identify additional experts before trial, the court erred in granting the hospital summary judgment. Smith v. Methodist Hosps. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012).

Summary judgment was appropriately granted on the medical practice claim because the doctor established that he did not deviate from the applicable standard of care, that he did not cause harm to the patient, and that any alleged malpractice could not have occurred after 2005; because the patient did not properly respond to the summary judgment motion, the facts were undisputed. The patient failed to present any evidence expert testimony or otherwise, on any material fact because her only medical expert admitted that she was not qualified, her testimony was excluded by order of the trial court, and the discovery deadline had passed. Barnett v. Tenn. Orthopaedic Alliance, 391 S.W.3d 74, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2012), appeal dismissed, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1 (Tenn. Jan. 2, 2013).

In a medical malpractice action, the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of plaintiff's expert because it failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and improperly assessed the weight of the evidence at the summary judgment stage, and the expert, a witness whose competency was not at issue, presented testimony that would substantially assist the court. Nevels v. Contarino, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 798 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013).

Where a patient developed severe necrosis after bilateral breast reduction surgery, the United States was not entitled to summary judgment as to the medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because a hearing was necessary on the admissibility of the patient's expert proof, and the patient submitted sufficient proof that the supervising surgeon's extended absence for several hours from the surgery room while a resident intern was closing the surgical area violated local community standards and was a proximate cause of the patient's injuries. McClain v. United States, 996 F. Supp. 2d 683,  2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9214 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2014).

There was conflicting evidence as to the likelihood that the mother would sustain future medical expenses related to a future pregnancy, and while the evidence cast doubt on the mother's ability to prove the likelihood of damages, this was insufficient to justify granting summary judgment in this regard. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

Regardless of whether any complications resulting from the mother's Rh-sensitization actually would occur in the future, appellees failed to show that the mother could not prove she suffered from an injury in this case, and summary judgment was improper. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

Because any future damages from possible blood transfusions required by the mother were at best speculative and contingent, summary judgment was affirmed on that issue specifically. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

In this medical malpractice case, the mother's Rh-sensitivity was a cognizable injury sufficient to withstand appellees' summary judgment motion, given a doctor's testimony that she suffered an injury in the form of Rh disease, an altered body status, and although there was expert testimony refuting this, the doctor's affidavit created a material factual dispute, making summary judgment improper. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

Trial court did not err by denying children's loaned servant defense motion or by denying a contractor's motion for summary judgment on the loaned servant defense issue because the evidence did not provide a clear answer to the question of who directed a nurse's treatment of the decedent; there was a genuine issue of material fact as to who actually controlled a nurse in the contractor's employ and to what degree. Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

Trial court properly denied a contractor's motion for summary judgment in children's action under the Health Care Liability Act because there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to the amount and degree of control that a county had over the actions of a nurse who was in the contractor's employ; there was no evidence that when a settlement was executed, the parties specifically intended the contractor or the nurse to be included as an “other person, firm, and corporation of any released party.” Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2018).

16. Question for Jury.

Where plaintiff's expert testified that defendant doctor's failure to prescribe the proper medication deviated from the usual standards of practice required of physicians with similar qualifications, and that failure to prescribe the proper drug was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries incurred when she leaped from hospital window, whether or not such was actually a proximate cause was a matter for jury determination, and trial judge erred in granting motion for directed verdict in defendant's favor. Stokes v. Leung, 651 S.W.2d 704, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

The trial court correctly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on a medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim where the testimony of plaintiff's expert indicated that the expert simply disagreed with the procedure used by the defendant doctor, while at the same time acknowledging that such procedure was a recognized method of treating the plaintiff's condition and that the procedure was performed in a professionally acceptable manner. Harris v. Buckspan, 984 S.W.2d 944, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case a court erred by striking portions of plaintiff's expert affidavit and granting the doctor's motion for summary judgment because the expert's statements regarding causation were not contradictory, and it was clear that the expert's opinions regarding causation were based upon his assumption that the patient's medical records contained documentation indicating that the cardiologist had changed his diagnosis; whether such documentation was, in fact, contained in plaintiff's medical records at the time of her surgery was a disputed issue of fact which was viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion at the preliminary stage. Helderman v. Smolin, 179 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 948 (Tenn. Oct. 24, 2005).

17. Consent.

The mature minor exception to the general rule requiring parental consent for the medical treatment of minors is part of the common law of Tennessee. Its application is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the minor has the capacity to consent to and appreciate the nature, the risks, and the consequences of the medical treatment involved. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

Whether a minor has the capacity to consent to medical treatment depends upon the age, ability, experience, education, training, and degree of maturity or judgment obtained by the minor, as well as upon the conduct and demeanor of the minor at the time of the incident involved. Moreover, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the treatment and its risks or probable consequences, and the minor's ability to appreciate the risks and consequences are to be considered. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

While determining whether the defendant medical practitioner failed to obtain informed consent from the minor is dependent upon the standard of care of the profession or specialty, if informed consent is not effectively obtained, the defendant's departure from the standard of care is not negligence but battery because the doctrine of battery is applicable to cases involving treatment performed without informed or knowledgeable consent; malpractice (now health care liability) is based on lack of care or skill in the performance of services contracted for, and battery on wrongful trespass on the person regardless of the skill employed. The assertion of one is the denial of the other. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

The inquiry in informed consent cases focuses on whether the doctor provided any or adequate information to allow a patient to formulate an intelligent and informed decision when authorizing or consenting to a procedure. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

A lack of informed consent claim typically occurs when the patient was aware that the procedure was going to be performed but the patient was unaware of the risk associated with the procedure. Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2000).

A patient's consent may be express or implied. When a patient has signed a written consent form expressly covering a particular procedure, the terms of the consent form will ordinarily control the question of whether the patient consented to the procedure and the courts look to the metes and bounds of the agreement entered into between the patient and the surgeon and the parameters of the authorization given. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

18. Causation.

A plaintiff who more likely than not would have suffered the same harm had proper medical treatment been rendered is entitled to no recovery for the increase in the risk of harm or the loss of a chance of obtaining a more favorable medical result. Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 452 (Tenn. 1993).

Causation may best be assessed in informed consent cases by the finder of fact determining how nondisclosure would affect a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2000).

Causation in fact is a matter of probability and not possibility, and must be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 874 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Once cause in fact is proven, the focus shifts to proximate cause: whether the law, as a matter of policy, will hold the defendant responsible for the negligent conduct and its consequences. White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 874 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Trial court's instruction to the jury in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case that the plaintiffs were required to prove causation to a medical certainty resulted in not harmless error, but reversible error. Bara v. Clarksville Mem. Health Sys., Inc., 104 S.W.3d 1, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 657 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), rehearing denied, Bara v. Clarksville Mem'l Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 795 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2002), appeal denied, Bara v. Clarksville Mem. Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 279 (Tenn. Mar. 17, 2003).

In a malpractice (now health care liability) action in which, after a jury returned a verdict for the patient, the dentist appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the patient's expert witness to testify, the instant court found the expert's testimony on causation was sufficient where: (1) By training and experience, the expert was qualified to testify as to the types of nerve damage that could result from negligently performed dental procedures; (2) While a dentist such as the expert may not be able to explain precisely why a nerve probed by an instrument was damaged, he was competent to testify that such damage occurs; and (3) Any deficiencies in his knowledge of the scientific basis for the working of nerves go to the weight of his testimony. Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit, the trial court erred in excluding the patient's experts' testimony relating to causation and in granting summary judgment to the doctors and a pharmacy, where the experts sufficiently established the element of causation that a drug the patient had been prescribed for her bi-polar disorder reduced the efficacy of her oral contraceptives and was more likely than not the cause of her unplanned pregnancy. Dubois v. Haykal, 165 S.W.3d 634, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. May 2, 2005).

Although plaintiff's expert possessed adequate knowledge of the standard of professional care in a community sufficiently shown to be similar to that of the local community, the expert failed to establish causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; rather, the expert's opinions appeared to set forth a loss of chance theory whereby the alleged negligent acts of the hospital's employees might have or possibly resulted in the patient not making as full a recovery. Taylor v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp. Dist., 231 S.W.3d 361, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 552 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1196 (2006).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of a cardiologist and his cardiology group in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was appropriate pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(3) because the expert testimony upon which the family relied on stated that the cardiologist's actions or inactions did not “more than likely than not” cause the decedent's death; thus, the decedent's family failed to prove the element of causation. Kelley v. Middle Tennessee Emergency Physicians, P.C., 236 S.W.3d 708, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2007), appeal denied, Kelley v. Middle TN Emergency Physicians, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 823 (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2007).

Although patient's expert opined that treating doctors deviated from the standard of car, he did not offer an opinion that the alleged deviations were causally connected to the injuries claimed by plaintiff as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(3). The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the doctors. Hager v. Larson, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2010).

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of medical providers in a family's wrongful death action for the death of a hospital patient because the family members failed to provide any proof that the care provided to the decedent violated the Tennessee medical malpractice (now health care liability) standard of care, T.C.A. § 29-26-115, et seq. The affidavit of a nurse that the patient might have lived longer if given the opportunity did not establish causation as a nurse was prohibited from testifying as to medical causation, in that a nurse was prohibited under T.C.A. § 63-7-103(b) from making a medical diagnosis; moreover, the nurse's opinion was based on possibility, not probability. Wheelock v. Doers, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010).

Judgment finding that appellant had failed to prove that such breach was a proximate cause of his fall was affirmed because the testimony established that even if appellant had been on fall observations, he would have been allowed, unaccompanied, in the hallway where the fall occurred. Brown v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 782 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2010).

In a suit brought under T.C.A. § 29-26-115, alleging that a neurological clinic's failure to treat the patient in a timely manner for a ruptured disc resulted in permanent neurological injury, the trial court erred in granting the clinic's motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict as the testimony of several of the expert witnesses presented sufficient evidence of causation to submit to a jury. A neurological expert testified that, had the patient's disc been removed on the day before she developed foot drop, permanent injury would have been prevented. Kellon v. Lee, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 323 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2012).

Trial court erred in finding that the patient failed to present evidence establishing causation where the expert's testimony was reasonably interpreted to mean that the surgeon's negligence proximately caused the patient's eye injuries, and thus the testimony created a jury question on causation under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a)(3). Dickson v. Kriger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).

Trial court correctly granted a doctor summary judgment because a patient failed to satisfy her burden of proof on the element of causation; there was no evidence to support a causal link between the doctor's treatment in the emergency room and the patient's injuries because the testimony of the patient's expert failed to provide a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it was more likely than not the doctor's conduct was a cause in fact of the patient's injuries. Duncan v. Ledford, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 610 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2016).

Because the trial court properly determined that a patient's widow could only establish the requisite causation if the jury found that the cricoid cartilage was fractured, it did not err in using the special verdict form; the record lacked sufficient material evidence for a jury to determine that an “otherwise injured” cricoid cartilage caused the patient's stenosis. Popick v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. July 18, 2017).

In this healthcare liability action, the company made a properly supported motion for summary judgment showing that the alleged breach of failing to keep the deceased's bed elevated did not cause or contribute to her death or to any other injury; the burden then shifted to the estate to show an issue of fact with regard to causation, but although the estate offered the testimony of a nurse, she was not competent to testify as to that issue. Estate of Sample v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2017).

Trial court's decision excluding the expert's testimony on causation and granting summary judgment to defendant on that basis was upheld on appeal; at issue was whether drug withdrawal led to or caused the patient's death, and the expert's declarations did not reflect any experience with drug withdrawal. Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Jan. 28, 2020).

19. Comparative Fault.

The principles of comparative fault apply in medical malpractice (now health care liability) actions so as to result in the apportionment of fault between the estate of a decedent who acted negligently in causing the initial injury, and a physician who acted negligently in the treatment of the decedent for that injury. Gray v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 464, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (Tenn. 1996), overruled in part, Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 360 (Tenn. 2004).

Answer which failed to affirmatively state that nonparty was at fault was insufficient to raise the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Free v. Carnesale, 110 F.3d 1227, 1997 FED App. 120P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6534 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1997).

20. Complaint Stating Ordinary Negligence.

Even though the complaint was titled “Complaint for Professional Negligence” and referred to medical malpractice (now health care liability), where it simply stated a claim for ordinary negligence, compliance with this section was not required. Peete v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 938 S.W.2d 693, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Trial court did not err in dismissing under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) an action a patient and her husband filed against a hospital to recover damages for injuries the patient sustained when she fell in her hospital room because the patient and husband alleged a claim for medical malpractice (now health care liability) and were required to satisfy the requirements contained in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, but they failed to do so; the complaint alleged that the hospital was liable because it knew the patient was at risk for a post-delivery fall but failed to safeguard her, and although the patient and husband did not allege a specific legal duty that was breached by the hospital, the allegations of the complaint went beyond alleging the duty applicable to the provision of custodial services and alleged facts relating to services requiring specialized skill and training, such as recognizing the potential for a post-delivery fall and preventing injuries therefrom. Martins v. Williamson Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010).

Not all care given to a patient at a nursing home facility was necessarily related to the rendering of medical care by a medical professional. The assessment of the patient's condition and the development of a plan of care that determines how often and when a patient needs to be fed, hydrated, bathed, turned, or repositioned required specialized medical skills, and thus should have proceeded under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-26-115 to 29-26-122. The nursing home's failure to ensure that its staff, including certified nursing assistants, actually complied with the plan of care and performed services that, however necessary, were routine and nonmedical in nature, fell into the category of ordinary negligence. Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2011), superseded by statute as stated in, Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015), superseded by statute as stated in, Estate of Thibodeau v. St. Thomas Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), superseded by statute as stated in, Moore v. W. Carolina Treatment Ctr., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —,  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183134 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016), overruled, Moore v. W. Carolina Treatment Ctr., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —,  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183134 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016), superseded by statute as stated in, Newman v. Guardian Healthcare Providers, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016), superseded by statute as stated in, Lacy v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2017).

21. Emergency Medicine.

While care in an emergency room may involve circumstances that require physicians to make immediate decisions without time for deliberation, it often does not. However, in a case involving a patient's fall while being treated for a minor injury, the sudden emergency doctrine may and should be applied in the assessment of the fault of an emergency room doctor. Ross v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., 27 S.W.3d 523, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

In a patient's medical malpractice action, the trial court erred in issuing a jury instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine because the physicians had time, while minimal, for reflection and thought before deciding on the best course of action; the emergent situation was not unexpected, as evidenced by the decision to deliver the patient's baby in the operating room rather than a birthing suite, the presence of an “army” to assist in the delivery, and the advanced preparations made. Vandyke v. Foulk, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2017).

22. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

T.C.A. § 29-26-115(c) is a codification of the common law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. McConkey v. State, 128 S.W.3d 656, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2004).

Res ipsa loquitur is no longer confined in Tennessee to the realm of cases within the common knowledge of the jurors. Instead, res ipsa loquitur may be used in combination with expert testimony to raise an inference of negligence, even in those cases where expert testimony is required. McConkey v. State, 128 S.W.3d 656, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Mar. 1, 2004).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case a court erred by striking portions of plaintiff's expert affidavit and granting the doctor's motion for summary judgment because the expert's statements regarding causation were not contradictory, and it was clear that the expert's opinions regarding causation were based upon his assumption that the patient's medical records contained documentation indicating that the cardiologist had changed his diagnosis; whether such documentation was, in fact, contained in plaintiff's medical records at the time of her surgery was a disputed issue of fact which was viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion at the preliminary stage. Helderman v. Smolin, 179 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 948 (Tenn. Oct. 24, 2005).

Motion to dismiss was granted with regard to negligence per se claims because congress did not intend to create a private cause of action against nursing homes under medicare and medicaid acts and Tennessee legislature did not intend to create a private cause of action under Nursing Home Resident's Rights Act; furthermore, there could be no presumption of negligence under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act unless plaintiff established res ipsa loquitur, which she had not done. Brown v. Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 848, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12915 (E.D. Tenn. 2007).

Res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicable to patient's son's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim against a nursing home because the son failed to show that patient's accidental fall from bed was one that did not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Cannon v. McKendree Vill., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 278, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the appellate court was unable to accept the physician's argument that, in essence, the “instrumentality” that caused the injury was the sponge count rather than the sponge. It was undisputed that the surgical sponges were to be removed by the physician and under those circumstances, the patient's widow showed the requisite elements for application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, T.C.A. § 29-26-115(c). Deuel v. Surgical Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2010).

Trial court properly refused to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(c) as there was evidence that permitted the jury to find that stitching the patient's bowel to the patient's fascia could occur even when the physician used due care; the patient did not show that the injury ordinarily would not occur but for negligence. Smith v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

In a health care liability action by a patient and his wife, arising from claims that a doctor negligently performed surgery on the patient's arm, there was no error in failing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur because there was direct evidence presented of the doctor's alleged negligence. Burchfield v. Renfree, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013).

In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not err in granting the doctor's motion for directed verdict as to the patient's res ipsa loquitur claim because one of the patient's own experts acknowledged that injury to the dura could occur in the absence of negligence, and it was not necessary for the jury to infer any degree of negligence on the doctor's part; as to the claim regarding penetration of the dura because there was no evidence to support that injury to the dura alone caused injury to the patient; and as to the blunt trauma claim because such a claim was never properly articulated in the pleadings nor was such a claim tried. Bearden v. Lanford, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 845 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 425 (Tenn. May 14, 2014).

Plaintiffs alleged specific acts of negligence in support of their claim, and thus application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was precluded. Gilreath v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2016).

In this healthcare liability action, since the patient supported both elements of her res ipsa loquitur claim and there were issues for the jury, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment; the doctor admitted he had exclusive control of the instrumentation during the procedures and the patient's expert testified that her eye injury did not occur without negligence. Anderson v. Wang, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2018).

In this healthcare liability action, because the patient was proceeding on res ipsa loquitur grounds, her expert was not required to state which instrumentation in the exclusive control of the doctor probably caused patient's injuries, indicate a probable breach of the standard of care, or define the applicable standard of care. Anderson v. Wang, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2018).

Res ipsa loquitur did not apply because a patient failed to show that the “instrumentality” that caused his alleged fall was in the exclusive control of a clinic and a hospital and that his alleged injury was one which ordinarily dd not occur in the absence of negligence; it was beyond the common knowledge of laypersons what actions on the part of a medical assistant were required to meet the standard of care required of a medical assistant in a situation such as the one at issue. Estate of Shelton v. Greeneville Urgent Care, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2019).

23. Particularity Requirement of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7.02(1).

Court of Appeals of Tennessee was unwilling to hold that incorporation of a statute as broad as T.C.A. § 29-26-115 satisfies the particularity required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 7.02(1). Harris v. Jain, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2009).

24. “Community.”

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability), wrongful death  action brought by the decedent's husband, his argument that the relevant medical “community” under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a) was Hermitage, Tennessee, not Nashville, Tennessee, was without merit. The treating physician's office was located in Hermitage, Tennessee and the trial court held that the relevant medical community was the greater metropolitan area of Nashville, which included Hermitage; the appellate court was unable to hold that the trial court erred in so ruling. Watkins v. Affiliated Internists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2009).

Trial court in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case erred in granting defendant doctor's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff patient's expert and the doctor's motion for summary judgment because the expert witness was qualified under Tenn. R. Evid. 702 where he, although he had no firsthand experience in the local community, had familiarized himself with the characteristics of the local medical community. Further, there was no requirement that the expert have firsthand knowledge of the standard of care in the local community because the expert opined that a national standard of care applied. Kennard v. Townsend, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012).

25. Sufficiency of Complaint.

Dismissal of the widow's amended complaint in her medical malpractice (now health care liability) action against the hospital was improper, in part because her amended complaint satisfied the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8, and the Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115 et seq., in that the widow averred duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages, and had averred facts sufficiently specific to give the hospital notice of the acts giving rise to the negligence claim. Taylor v. Lakeside Behavioral Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2010).

26. Common Knowledge.

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the trial court's holding that the common knowledge exception to the expert proof requirement contained in T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a) and (b) was inapplicable in the case was improper. In those cases wherein the acts complained of were within the ken of the common layman, the affidavit of medical experts could be considered along with all other proof, but were not conclusive. Deuel v. Surgical Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2010).

27. Expert Not Qualified.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded plaintiff's expert from testifying about the standard of care for hematology and orthopedic surgery. The expert did not have the requisite qualifications under T.C.A. § 29-26-115 to give relevant testimony concerning hip replacement surgery and post-surgical care for a patient with complex blood disorders. Westmoreland v. Bacon, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was appropriate because the children's expert was not qualified to testify under T.C.A. § 29-26-115 since they failed to show that their expert knew the acceptable standard of care in the community or any similar community. Kirk v. Chavin, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2011).

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment in a malpractice (now health care liability) suit because contradictory statements made by plaintiffs'  expert related to his ability to testify as to the standard of care for each defendant, and presented an unequivocal and irreconcilable conflict; further, the expert failed to demonstrate that he was qualified under T.C.A. § 29-26-115 to render an expert opinion on the standard of care. Each doctor alleged in their statement that they complied with the applicable standard of care, leaving no issues for the trial court to consider. Mise v. Methodist Med. Ctr. of Oak Ridge, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012).

Because a physician was a general practitioner who had not performed surgery or provided post-surgery care in a hospital setting within the year preceding alleged wrongful acts, the physician was not qualified in a malpractice case to give expert witness testimony as to whether chemo-embolization or radiofrequency ablation was appropriate in a patient's case, whether a medical group breached the appropriate standard of care in how it performed those procedures, or whether the medical group's post-surgery treatment conformed to the applicable standard of care. Bock v. UT Med. Group, 924 F. Supp. 2d 923,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18576 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2013).

Trial court did not err in finding that plaintiffs'  expert witness was not qualified under T.C.A. § 29-26-115 to testify as an expert in the medical malpractice case as there was no evidence to support a finding that the witness had current or recent expertise in the field of jaundice, bilirubin metabolism, bilirubin encephalopathy, or the standard of care under the American Academy of Pediatrics'  Guidelines for jaundice such that his testimony would aid the trier of fact in a determination of whether either doctor deviated from the applicable standard of care in treating plaintiffs'  jaundiced infant. Mitchell v. Jackson Clinic, P.A., 420 S.W.3d 1, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 811 (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013).

District court did not abuse its discretion in denying a surviving spouse's motion for voluntary dismissal of her medical malpractice claim; an absolute defense existed at the time of the motion, as the spouse had failed to produce an expert who was qualified under Tennessee law. Smith v. Holston Med. Group, P.C., — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23336 (6th Cir. Dec. 9, 2014).

Trial court did not err in granting a nurse practitioner summary judgment based on the lack of competence of a patient's expert to provide expert testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to nurse practitioners because the expert testified that he did not practice with nurse practitioners, was not familiar with their educational backgrounds, and was not familiar with the standard of care applicable to them. Mikheil v. Nashville Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

28. Ordinary Negligence.

Trial court erred when it dismissed the claims of a husband and wife against a medical clinic and physician for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act because their claims of fault were allegations of ordinary negligence and did not bear a substantial relationship to the medical treatment of the patient. Mathes v. DRD Knoxville Med. Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011).

Trial court erred in granting health care providers'  motion in limine to exclude any comment, reference, or argument by parents'  counsel that their healthcare liability case was analogous to any case in which a defendant's negligence was compared to the duty of the average person because its pretrial order amounted to a prophylactic prior restraint on counsel's privilege to argue by analogizing the health care liability action to any ordinary negligence case. McKenzie v. Women's Health Servs. -Chattanooga, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

29. Sufficient Evidence.

Expert's testimony that a doctor complied with the standard of care and that stitching the patient's bowel to the patient's fascia could occur even when excellent care was given and in the absence of negligence was sufficient evidence alone to support a defense verdict in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case; further, the doctor testified that the doctor did not deviate from the standard of care and described how a stitch could pass through the bowel even when the surgeon had used the utmost care. Smith v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (Tenn. Feb. 15, 2012).

In parents'  medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit, the trial court properly denied the hospital's motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the parents'  expert set forth a “loss of chance” theory whereby the alleged acts of the doctor might have resulted in the minor patient's injuries. While the expert's testimony lacked complete certainty on the exact loss sustained due to the doctor's negligence, it was sufficient to overcome a directed verdict on the issue of causation. Gaw v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2012).

Hospital was entitled to a directed verdict in a health care liability action because the patient, despite expert testimony, failed to establish vicarious liability of the hospital, when the patient alleged that the patient was negligently and recklessly discharged from the hospital, which allowed an infection to progress to the point that the patient's leg was amputated, in that the patient failed to identify any individual agent of the hospital that deviated from the alleged standard of care and caused the injury. Miller v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 655 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).

30. Applicability

Trial court properly dismissed a medical malpractice suit against a medical center because the patient alleged that, during an MRI scan, her brace became magnetized to the side of the MRI machine, causing injuries, and the MRI technician's evaluation required specialized expertise substantially related to the rendition of medical treatment; thus, the claims were medical malpractice claims governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-26-115 to 29-26-122, and the document filed by patient did not contain the information required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Caldwell v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. June 13, 2013), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Where a patient's heirs alleged that the patient died from an allergic reaction to heparin injections that had been administered despite the patient's objections, the heirs adequately pled their medical battery claim because medical battery is not subject to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, the heparin injections qualified as “procedures,” and the complaint made out a case for nonconsensual contact that violated the patient's right to bodily integrity and proximately caused the patient's death. Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

Trial court correctly determined that a widower's claims against a doctor and a hospital fit within the framework of medical malpractice, as opposed to negligence, because the claims pertained to examining the deceased for signs of internal bleeding and his subsequent treatment; analyzing each of the allegations would require specialized medical knowledge that a lay person would not ordinarily possess. Cright v. Overly, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2016), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).

31. Amended Complaint.

Medical malpractice complaint filed by a deceased patient's widow, which included an initial certificate of good faith, was properly dismissed by the trial court as against a doctor because when she amended her complaint to add him, she failed to contemporaneously file a second certificate of good faith. Groves v. Colburn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2013).

32. Future Medidcal Expenses.

Parents were seeking damages for the future medical expenses, including appropriate treatment of an unborn child, who was put at risk due to the mother's Rh-sensitization; the fact that an unborn child would most likely receive treatment did not defeat their claim for future medical expenses, but merely altered the type and extent of damages that could be awarded. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

33. Cause of Action.

Parents had not brought a cause of action on behalf of any future child they might conceive, but rather for medical expenses the mother was likely to incur as a result of complications with a future pregnancy; the cause of action, therefore, belonged to the mother, rather than a future unborn child. Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Rye v. Women's Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 906 (Tenn. Oct. 26, 2015).

Plaintiffs did not set forth any specific facts to establish that the hospital acted with less than or failed to act with reasonable care or that such failure proximately caused the patient's injuries; these allegations did not establish the hospital's direct negligence. Gilreath v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2016).

Collateral References. 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons and Other Healers §§ 188-207.

70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons §§ 61-63.

Arbitration of medical malpractice claims. 24 A.L.R.5th 1.

Contributory negligence or comparative negligence based on failure of patient to follow instructions as defense in action against physician or surgeon for medical malpractice. 84 A.L.R.5th 619.

Duty of medical practitioner to warn patient of subsequently discovered danger from treatment previously given. 12 A.L.R.4th 41.

Instruction as to exercise or use of injured member. 99 A.L.R.3d 901.

Malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of male urinary tract and related organs. 48 A.L.R.5th 575.

Malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of meningitis. 51 A.L.R.5th 301.

Malpractice in treatment of skin disease, disorder, blemish, or scar. 19 A.L.R.5th 563.

Medical malpractice in connection with breast augmentation, reduction, or reconstruction. 28 A.L.R.5th 497.

Medical malpractice in connection with diagnosis, care, or treatment of diabetes. 43 A.L.R.5th 87.

Medical malpractice: negligent catheterization. 31 A.L.R.5th 1.

Medical Negligence in Extraction of Tooth, Established Through Expert Testimony. 18 A.L.R.6th 325.

Medical negligence in extraction of tooth, established through lay testimony or doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 11 A.L.R.6th 695.

Modern status of “locality rule” in malpractice action against physician who is not a specialist. 99 A.L.R.3d 1133.

Ophthalmological malpractice. 30 A.L.R.5th 571.

Propriety, in medical malpractice case, of admitting testimony regarding physician's usual custom or habit in order to establish nonliability. 10 A.L.R.4th 1243.

Propriety of “hindsight” charge in medical malpractice actions. 124 A.L.R.5th 623.

29-26-116. Statute of limitations — Counterclaim for damages.

    1. The statute of limitations in health care liability actions shall be one (1) year as set forth in § 28-3-104.
    2. In the event the alleged injury is not discovered within such one-year period, the period of limitation shall be one (1) year from the date of such discovery.
    3. In no event shall any such action be brought more than three (3) years after the date on which the negligent act or omission occurred except where there is fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendant, in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after discovery that the cause of action exists.
    4. The time limitation herein set forth shall not apply in cases where a foreign object has been negligently left in a patient's body, in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after the alleged injury or wrongful act is discovered or should have been discovered.
  1. In any action for damages for personal injury or death, whether based on tort or contract law, or otherwise, a counterclaim for damages for malicious prosecution (on the ground that the principal action was instituted with improper intent and without probable cause) or malicious abuse of process (on the ground that there was an improper use with improper intent of the process) in filing such action may be filed and litigated in the same action; provided, that the counterclaim shall be based upon substantial allegations.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 15; 1976, ch. 759, § 16; T.C.A., § 23-3415; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 8.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability actions” for “malpractice actions” in (a)(1).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 637.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Constitutional Law, § 58; 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, §§ 4, 25, 34; 20 Tenn. Juris., Physicians and Surgeons, § 8.

Law Reviews.

1985 Tennessee Survey: Selected Developments in Tennessee Law, 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 415 (1986).

Attorney Malpractice — The Accrual of a Cause of Action, 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 784.

Civil Procedure—Mills v. Wong: Procedural Due Process Does Not Toll the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose (Laura Martin), 36 U. Mem. L. Rev. 805 (2006).

Comments on the Report of the Governor's Commission on Tort and Liability Insurance Reform (Jerry J. Phillips), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 679 (1986).

Constitutional Challenge to Medical Malpractice Review Boards, 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 607.

Informed Consent (D. Scott Porch IV), 36 No. 8 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2000).

Malpractice in Dealing with Medical Malpractice, 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 437.

Reopening Tennessee's Open Courts Clause: A Historical Reconsideration of Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution, 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 333 (1997).

Savings Statutes v. Statutes of Repose: A Decision Is Reached with Cronin v. Howe (Philip E. Mischke), 32 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 21 (1996).

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.). 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

The Tolling of Statutes of Limitations in Tennessee, 14 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (1984).

Things That Go Bump in the Night (John A. Day), 40 No. 5 Tenn. B.J. 27(2004).

Torts — The Discovery Rule and the Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Actions, 14 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 115 (1983).

Cited: Heller v. Smither, 437 F. Supp. 1, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17145 (M.D. Tenn. 1977); Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979); Banton v. Marks, 623 S.W.2d 113, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); Hawkins v. D & J Press Co., 527 F. Supp. 386, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16194 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); Foster v. Harris, 633 S.W.2d 304, 1982 Tenn. LEXIS 405 (Tenn. 1982); Evans v. Perkey, 647 S.W.2d 636, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); In re Edge, 60 B.R. 690, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6085 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986); Bennett v. Hardison, 746 S.W.2d 713, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3096 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992); Seaton v. Seaton, 971 F. Supp. 1188, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12566 (E.D. Tenn. 1997); Toler by Lack v. City of Cookeville, 952 S.W.2d 831, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); McClellan v. Stanley, 978 S.W.2d 943, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Damron v. Media Gen., Inc., 3 S.W.3d 510, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (Tenn. 2001); Crawford v. Beatty, 108 S.W.3d 877, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Holliman v. McGrew, 343 S.W.3d 68, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 58 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2009); Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 318 S.W.3d 823,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. June 24, 2010); Brandon v. Williamson Med. Ctr., 343 S.W.3d 784, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2010); McNeary v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011); Etheridge v. YMCA, 391 S.W.3d 541, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2012); Johnson v. Floyd, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2012); Barnett v. Tenn. Orthopaedic Alliance, 391 S.W.3d 74, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 659 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section, which superimposes on the general statute of limitations (§ 28-3-104) a three-year outside limit for all malpractice (now health care liability) actions, does not violate equal protection provisions since, at the time such legislation was passed, the state and the nation were faced with a medical malpractice (now health care liability) insurance crisis which threatened the general welfare of the citizens and hence the distinction between actions for medical malpractice (now health care liability) and those for personal injuries caused by other means was reasonable and rational. Harrison v. Schrader, 569 S.W.2d 822, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. 1978).

This section does not violate the provisions of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 17 since it does not eliminate a remedy for a civil wrong but simply provides that after three years no cause of action can arise. Harrison v. Schrader, 569 S.W.2d 822, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 633 (Tenn. 1978).

Although this section, if applied, would have the effect of foreclosing plaintiff's cause of action before it accrued, such application of this section is constitutional. Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Where neither fundamental rights nor suspect classifications were at issue, rational basis scrutiny applied, and the legislature could have had any number of rational bases for the differential treatment of minority tolling in the area of medical malpractice (now health care liability); state supreme courts were not constrained from prospectively applying new interpretations of state statutes by anything contained in the constitution of the United States, such that the retrospective application of the rule to the doctor had no merit. Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005).

2. Construction.

The three-year ceiling is unrelated to the accrual of a cause of action commencing not on discovery but rather at the date of the allegedly negligent act. Braden v. Yoder, 592 S.W.2d 896, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), overruled, Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005), overruled, Walker v. Lazar, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2006), overruled in part, Crespo v. McCullough, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2008).

3. Applicability.

Blood bank was a health care provider and its principal function was the provision of medical care; therefore, the three-year statute of repose applied to plaintiffs' claims against it for negligence in formulating screening procedures and in failing to establish protection to prevent the receipt and transfer to hospital of HIV infected blood. Estate of Doe v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 824 F. Supp. 746, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8671 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, the first doctor's answer to complaint alleging that the first doctor did not prescribe the drug and denying any negligence or responsibility triggered T.C.A. § 20-1-119, which allowed the patient and the family member 90 days in which to amend their complaint to add the anesthesiologist and the nurse; thus, their claims against the anesthesiologist and the nurse were not time barred under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(1). Romine v. Fernandez, 124 S.W.3d 599, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1292 (Tenn. 2003).

Hemoclip that is intentionally used but negligently placed and negligently left in a patient's body following surgery may be a foreign object under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(4) that establishes an exception to the one-year statute of limitations and the three-year statute of repose. Chambers v. Semmer, 197 S.W.3d 730, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 560 (Tenn. 2006).

Medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose—T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)— barred all of an executor's claims against a dentist related to a tooth extraction. Range v. Sowell, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009).

Finding against the deceased patient's spouse in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was appropriate because none of the employees who accepted service were agents authorized by appointment to receive service of process on behalf of either the corporation or the individual physician. Because the spouse never effectively served the physician or the corporation with process and because the corporation and physician did not waive that defense, the one-year statute of limitations for malpractice (now health care liability) actions had run. Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2010).

It was error to dismiss a wife's loss of consortium claim, related to the wife's husband's medical treatment, with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds because it could not be determined when the wife experienced a loss of consortium causing the statute of limitations to run. Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).

Petition brought by a deceased former patient's children and the patient's estate for a declaratory judgment against a doctor—alleging that the doctor was to be compelled to arbitrate their claims—was barred by the statute of limitations for a health care liability action because the case was actually a health care liability action in that the claims against the doctor concerned the doctor's conduct and responsibilities as the patient's primary physician that required medical expertise and the rendition of medical treatment. Estate of Myers v. Questell, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 6, 2018).

Patient's power of attorney (POA) failed to identify on the medical authorization the identity of the individual authorized to receive the patient's records, which precluded defendants from obtaining the patient's medical records, and thus POA failed to substantially comply with the statute to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization; this prevented her from relying on the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations, and as no extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse her noncompliance was shown, the cause was dismissed with prejudice. Hancock v. BJR Enters., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2020).

4. Discovery of Injury.

The limitation period runs from the date the injury, not the negligence, was discovered; and plaintiff's damages action for the negligent treatment of her deceased son was barred where she brought suit within a year of discovering the alleged negligence but almost two years after the son's death. Allen v. Newport, 427 F. Supp. 42, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12897 (M.D. Tenn. 1976).

One of the major purposes of the statute was to reduce the “extended period during which a physician could be subject to potential liability” because of the rule that causes of action for medical malpractice (now health care liability) accrue when the patient discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered the resulting injury. Parlato v. Howe, 470 F. Supp. 996, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12922 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

“Discovery” means the discovery of the existence of a right of action, that is, facts which would support an action for tort against the tort-feasor. Such facts include not only the existence of an injury, but the tortious origin of the injury. Hathaway v. Middle Tennessee Anesthesiology, P.C., 724 S.W.2d 355, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3408 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Tennessee courts have adopted and continuously applied the “discovery rule.” This doctrine is codified and made applicable to malpractice (now health care liability) actions by this section. Housh v. Morris, 818 S.W.2d 39, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Roe v. Jefferson, 875 S.W.2d 653, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. May 9, 1994); Sampson v. Schneider, 886 S.W.2d 764, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Nov. 7, 1994).

It is not required that plaintiff actually know that injury constitutes a breach of the appropriate legal standard in order to discover that he has a “right of action”; the plaintiff is deemed to have discovered the right of action if he is aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct. Roe v. Jefferson, 875 S.W.2d 653, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. May 9, 1994).

Prisoner's legal malpractice action alleging negligence by his attorney regarding a motion in a habeas corpus proceeding for an order to require a comparison test of certain evidence accrued on the date the motion was denied or, at the latest, when the court denied the prisoner's pro se motion for reconsideration of the order denying the test. Rayford v. Leffler, 953 S.W.2d 204, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

The continuing medical treatment rule was abrogated by adoption of the discovery rule, and, where plaintiff's action was not instituted within one year of discovery, it was time barred by the statute of limitations. Stanbury v. Bacardi, 953 S.W.2d 671, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 498 (Tenn. 1997).

Statute of limitations begins to run when injured party knows or in exercise of reasonable care and diligence should know that injury has been sustained as the result of wrongful or tortious conduct. Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. 1998).

Trial court erred in dismissing a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action based on the statute of limitations; a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding when the patient was reasonably put on notice that the injuries to her hand were caused by the doctor's negligent conduct during surgery, rather than the carpal tunnel for which she was treated. McIntosh v. Blanton, 164 S.W.3d 584, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2005).

Under the discovery rule, the determination of when the statute of limitations begins to run requires a determination of when the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge that she had sustained an injury. The inquiry does not require that the plaintiff have knowledge that a breach of the appropriate legal standard had occurred. McIntosh v. Blanton, 164 S.W.3d 584, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2005).

Statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff is aware of the facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that he has suffered an injury as a result of wrongful conduct, and the plaintiff knows the identity of the person who engaged in the conduct. Thus, the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff had “sufficient information” to put him on notice that he has suffered an injury and that the injury was caused by a wrongful act. McIntosh v. Blanton, 164 S.W.3d 584, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (Tenn. Jan. 24, 2005).

Because a patient's deposition testimony regarding her March 20, 2002 conversation with a hospital patient advocate was unrefuted by the patient's later affidavit and showed that, by not later than March 20, 2002, the patient was aware of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice of an injury resulting from another's wrongful conduct, the medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit filed on April 14, 2003 was untimely and was barred by the statute of limitations. Sampson v. Wellmont Health Sys., 228 S.W.3d 124, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2007), appeal denied, Sampson v. Wellmont Health Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. June 18, 2007).

Doctor's state law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by T.C.A. § 28-3-104 and the medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim was time-barred under T.C.A. § 29-26-116, because the doctor knew or should have known of defendant physician's allegedly actionable statements in a state court malpractice (now health care liability) action against the doctor and the doctor failed to bring the current federal action against the physician and others within the applicable statute of limitations. Feild v. Graffagnino, 514 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71052 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 11, 2007).

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case, nothing indicated that plaintiff wife possessed facts beyond the obvious one that her husband died from complications associated with a bleeding ulcer while under the continuous care of hospital staff and physicians, and that information without more did not commence the running of the statute of limitations; therefore, summary judgment for the hospital was improperly granted, as the appropriate question was whether a reasonable person in the wife's circumstances would have investigated the possibility of the residents'  alleged wrongful conduct after reviewing her husband's medical records. Luna v. St. Thomas Hosp., 272 S.W.3d 577, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. Apr. 28, 2008).

Dismissal of the patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action against healthcare providers was appropriate because the action was untimely since he had sufficient information to put a reasonable person on notice that he suffered an injury as a result of the wrongful conduct of the providers. Brandt v. McCord, 281 S.W.3d 394, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 180 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2008), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 813 (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008).

Facts supported the trial court's finding that the decedent's wife had sufficient notice that the decedent may have suffered an injury due to the doctor's negligence, at the latest, on June 6, 2001, the date that he slipped into a coma as the decedent informed his wife of his fear that the treatment offered by the doctor was not adequate. Since the wife's complaint was not filed until June 11, 2002, it was filed outside the statute of limitations. Young v. Lisa Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 523 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013), rehearing denied, Young v. Kennedy, 429 S.W.3d 536, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013), appeal denied, Young ex rel. Estate of Young v. Kennedy, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Trial court erred in granting a doctor summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim based on T.C.A. § 29-26-116 (2012) where there were genuine issues of fact as to when the patient, as a lay person, became aware that the doctor's diagnosis of his illness was incorrect, thereby resulting in the delay of proper treatment for a spinal abscess. Rogers v. Blount Mem'l Hosp., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016).

Mother and her child knew or should have known that they were injured as a result of the doctor's wrongful conduct on June 21, 2012, and their claims accrued on that date; the discovery rule did not delay the accrual of their claims under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(2). Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

Although the buyer of a home alleged that the seller's fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment and the discovery rule tolled the statutes of limitations in regard to the buyer's claims of fire damage to the home, the appellate court concluded that a reasonable jury could not have legitimately resolved the facts relied upon by the buyer in the buyer's favor. Therefore, the trial court acted appropriately by summarily dismissing all of the buyer's claims as time barred. Eldridge v. Savage, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 777 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2017).

Wrongful death action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the complaint was not timely filed as pre-suit notice was not given within one year of the date of discovery of the cause of action against the hospital in which the decedent received medical treatment. Pursuant to the discovery rule, as evidenced by the administrator of the decedent's estate seeking through counsel decedent's medical records, the executor had constructive knowledge of the decedent's claim more than one year before pre-suit notice was sent. Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2019).

5. Foreign Object Exception.

The foreign object exception does apply to mere negligence in diagnosis or treatment respecting an object which had been implanted or become imbedded in a patient's body by actions or conditions for which the defendant was not responsible. Hall v. Ervin, 642 S.W.2d 724, 1982 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. 1982).

Provisions of section tolling statute of limitations are appealable where the health care provider negligently leaves a foreign object in a patient's body, and do not apply when the object is intentionally left in. Burris v. Hospital Corp. of America, 773 S.W.2d 932, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Inasmuch as defendant doctor intentionally placed pledgets in plaintiff's decedent's body, they cannot and do not qualify as a “foreign object” which would toll the statute of limitations provisions of this section. Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Denial of the physicians'  motion for summary judgment in the patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was appropriate because a hemoclip that was intentionally used but negligently placed and negligently left in a patient's body following surgery could be a foreign object under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(4). Chambers v. Semmer, 197 S.W.3d 730, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 560 (Tenn. 2006).

6. Identity of Tortfeasor.

Husband's suit against physicians allegedly responsible for his wife's death was not tolled by the discovery doctrine where husband was aware of the identity and acts of the doctors when he filed his administrative claim with the Navy and was armed with sufficient information to investigate and discover the status of the treating physicians as civilians, not government employees. Whittlesey v. Cole, 142 F.3d 340, 1998 FED App. 120P, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7552 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1998).

7. —Fraudulent Concealment.

In the absence of a confidential relationship, a plaintiff who seeks to toll a statute of limitations on the ground of fraudulent concealment must satisfy a two-pronged test by showing that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the cause of action and that the plaintiff could not have discovered his cause of action despite exercising reasonable diligence. Duncan v. Leeds, 742 F.2d 989, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18812 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1984).

Where, at the time defendant doctor performed open-lung biopsy, utilizing pledgets to close the incision, he did not know nor could have known of any facts he might conceal that would give rise to a cause of action on behalf of plaintiff or his decedent, there was no fraudulent concealment by defendant and the statute of limitations was not tolled. Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Where the physician's statements at best only concealed the “extent” of the plaintiff's injuries, this would not operate to toll the statute of limitations. The plaintiff still had knowledge that the operation was anything but a success, and that she had become totally and permanently disabled; there was no evidence that the doctor concealed this information. Housh v. Morris, 818 S.W.2d 39, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Sampson v. Schneider, 886 S.W.2d 764, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Nov. 7, 1994).

Knowledge on the part of the physician of the facts giving rise to a cause of action is an essential element of fraudulent concealment, as is concealment, which may consist of withholding information or making use of some device to mislead, thus involving act and intention. Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (Tenn. 1992).

Given circumstantial evidence from which the jury could permissibly find as a fact that plaintiff's doctor performed a sterilization procedure on plaintiff, together with: (1) the doctor's statement that had he performed it he would have had to have known he did it; (2) the absence of documentation of the sterilization procedure by the doctor in the patient's medical records; and (3) the doctor's silence thereafter, the jury could draw an inference and find as a fact that the doctor had fraudulently concealed the procedure from the patient. Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (Tenn. 1992).

In medical malpractice (now health care liability) case fraudulent concealment will toll statute of repose when it is established that (1) health care provider took affirmative action to conceal wrongdoing or failed to disclose material facts despite duty to do so, (2) injured party could not have discovered wrongdoing despite exercising reasonable care and diligence, (3) provider knew of facts giving rise to cause of action, and (4) concealment occurred. Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. 1998).

Trial court did not err in denying an optometrist and an ophthalmologist summary judgment on the ground that a patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) complaint was barred by the statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3), because the patient submitted sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to their knowledge of his condition prior to LASIK surgery since two experts opined that the pre-operative reports clearly showed that the patient had Keratoconus and that any doctor complying with the standard of care should have known of his condition, and even assuming that the optometrist and ophthalmologist did not know of the patient's condition prior to surgery, there was at least a question of fact as to their knowledge and possible fraudulent concealment after the surgery; the patient had to prove actual knowledge of the condition in order to proceed under fraudulent concealment, and it was not enough for him to show that appellants should have known, but that actual knowledge could be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Tigrett v. Linn, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010).

Patient and his wife were not entitled to rely on the fraudulent concealment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations with respect to their claim against a doctor, and they were not entitled to rely on the discovery rule because they nothing in their complaint suggesting that the doctor affirmatively concealed the patient's injury or was involved in his care; the patient and wife were aware that the patient had suffered an injury and that the doctor was involved with his care. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

8. Minors.

The exclusion of minors from the operation of the products liability statute of limitations § 29-28-103, renders it extremely unlikely that the legislature intended to include minors in the operation of § 29-26-116(a). Parlato v. Howe, 470 F. Supp. 996, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12922 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Section 29-26-116(a) does not eliminate the special rights of minors under § 28-1-106. Braden v. Yoder, 592 S.W.2d 896, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), overruled, Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005), overruled, Walker v. Lazar, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2006), overruled in part, Crespo v. McCullough, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2008).

The three-year limitation period contained in this section was tolled by plaintiff's disability of minority. Bowers by Bowers v. Hammond, 954 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), overruled, Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005), overruled, Walker v. Lazar, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2006), overruled, Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007), overruled in part, Crespo v. McCullough, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2008), overruled, Bentley v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2014).

Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a child born alive had an independent cause of action for injuries caused by the failure of a physician to obtain informed consent from the child's mother during labor and T.C.A. § 28-1-106 tolled the three-year statute of repose for the minor plaintiff's lack of informed consent claim because her claim was commenced before December 9, 2005, which was when the supreme court overruled the rule in Bowers v. Hammond, 954 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

Minor child did not have a personal claim for medical expenses arising from an injury caused by a doctor when the claim of the child's parent for expenses was barred by T.C.A. § 29-26-116; if the child's claim was barred by the operation of § 29-26-116, it continued to be barred once the child reached majority; for cases commenced on or before December 9, 2005, the plaintiff's minority tolled the medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose, and for cases commenced after December 9, 2005, the plaintiff's minority did not toll the medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose. Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005).

If a minor can recover for prenatal injuries caused by negligence, a minor should be able to recover for prenatal injuries caused by the failure of a health care provider to obtain informed consent; there is no meaningful distinction between a minor who suffers injuries in utero from the negligence of a driver on the road and a minor who suffers injuries in utero from the failure of a physician to disclose all appropriate information to the minor's mother before performing a medical procedure. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

If a minor has an independent action for lack of informed consent for injuries that occur after birth, the minor should have an independent action for injuries that occur prior to birth, as it would be arbitrary to allow a minor to recover for injuries sustained ten minutes after delivery and to prohibit a minor to recover from injuries sustained ten minutes before delivery; the minor is unable to consent in either circumstance, and effective consent must be obtained from a parent or guardian. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

There is no language either in the informed consent statute or in prior jurisprudence to suggest that a claim for lack of informed consent should be limited to injuries sustained after birth. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

9. Actions Barred.

Where negligent act occurred on June 2, 1970, at which time the person involved was a minor and she attained majority on January 10, 1974, and the negligent act was discovered January 13, 1976, but suit was not brought until January 7, 1977, this law was applicable and suit was barred because not brought within three years after the negligent act occurred. Jones v. Morristown-Hamblen Hospital Asso., 595 S.W.2d 816, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 381 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claims were time barred because the statute of limitations began to run when the patient's medical problems began to appear while the patient was undergoing treatment and not when the treatment was completed. Roberts v. Bicknell, 73 S.W.3d 106, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a doctor who had been charged with comparative fault by defendant hospital in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit, where the patient's representative's amended complaint naming the doctor was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitation and she failed to file her amended complaint and to cause process to be issued within 90 days as required by T.C.A. § 20-1-119; the motion to amend her complaint simply failed to fulfill the unambiguous requirements of T.C.A.§ 20-1-119. Ward v. AMI SUB (SFH), Inc., 149 S.W.3d 35, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, Ward v. AMI SUB, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 760 (Tenn. Sept. 7, 2004).

Trial court had erred in denying a hospital's motion to dismiss, which motion was predicated on the three-year medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose and consequently, the hospital was not a proper party at trial, because the three-year medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose barred plaintiff's renaming of the hospital as defendant in 2001 after she had not chosen to bring the hospital back into the litigation within a year of the nonsuit. Norris v. East Tenn. Children's Hosp., 195 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Norris v. E. Tenn. Children's Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. June 5, 2006).

Trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to a nursing home because a family untimely filed their wrongful death case on September 30, 2004 because by September 9, 2003, the family was aware that the decedent's scrotal gangrene, for which he underwent surgery the following day, might have been caused by the neglect of the nursing home; the family then had a duty to investigate and discover whether the nursing home was in fact responsible for the decedent's injury. Burk v. RHA/Sullivan, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 896, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007).

Children's wrongful death action failed as when a decedent's life could have been saved, two doctors had no knowledge of the decedent's prostate cancer, and the statute of repose under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3) was not tolled by fraudulent concealment. Givens v. Josovitz, 343 S.W.3d 76, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 705 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Apr. 14, 2011).

Medical malpractice (now health care liability) action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was barred by the three year statute of repose in T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3) because the Tennessee savings statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), was long exhausted with the voluntary dismissal of plaintiffs'  state court action, and the filing of plaintiffs'  Federal Tort Claims Act claims was well beyond both the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. Logan Proffitt Irrevocable Trust v. Mathers, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111200 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2011).

Trial court's decision to grant defendants summary judgment was proper because plaintiffs'  third lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 29-26-116, and the lawsuit was filed outside the one-year savings period, T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a); even if the trial court had consolidated the second lawsuit and the third lawsuit pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 42.01, that would not have changed the fact that the third lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations, and because the lawsuits were separate actions, consolidation could not cure defects in either lawsuit. Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

In a medical malpractice action, the defending hospital's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal was granted as to the husband's loss of consortium claim because under the applicable statute of limitations, he had one-year to commence his suit, and he did not file his Tennessee state court complaint until one year and ninety-three days after his wife's (the patient's) release date, thus, his loss of consortium claim was untimely. Tangradi v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93276 (W.D. Tenn. July 6, 2012).

Patient's medical malpractice suit was barred under the statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3), as the suit was filed on January 26, 2010, three years and two months after the date on which the alleged negligence occurred on November 24, 2006; the fraudulent concealment exception did not toll the statute of repose as the doctors did not take affirmative actions to conceal anything, and their failure to tell the patient that she had had a myocardial infarction in the emergency room was known to the patient when she filed a first suit in 2007 as she had possession of her medical records at that time. Woodard v. Gross, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2012).

Husband's medical malpractice action was time-barred where: (1) The husband failed to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2) as he did not give the providers Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996-compliant authorizations permitting them to exchange his wife's medical records; (2) No provision of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115 et seq., required potential defendants to assist a claimant with compliance with § 29-26-121; and (3) The husband was not entitled to an extension under § 29-26-121(c) of the T.C.A. § 29-26-116 limitations period. Vaughn v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. May 15, 2014), overruled, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015), overruled in part, Eiswert v. United States, 619 Fed. Appx. 483, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13878, 2015 FED App. 537N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2015).

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a doctor, who performed a pregnancy-avoidance medical procedure on a patient, based on the statute of limitations as the evidence showed that the patient was at least on inquiry notice of the patient's pregnancy no later than November 27, 2009, given that the patient's deposition and affidavit indicated that she suspected she was pregnant on that date and received at least some confirmation of her suspicion in the form of a positive result on a home pregnancy test. Since suit was not filed within the 120-day period, it was untimely. Speck v. Woman's Clinic, P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2013), appeal denied, Speck v. Woman's Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

Health care liability action was untimely due to a failure to substantially comply with the statutory notice requirements; a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) medical authorization form provided did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements. The trial court did not err by failing to excuse compliance in this case because no valid reason was given; this case did not fall within one of the limited circumstances anticipated by HIPAA that would have allowed for the use of the records without authorization. Roberts v. Prill, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2014).

Fraudulent concealment doctrine did not toll the statutes of limitations and repose in a medical malpractice action because, while the physician's act of “authenticating” the patient's records and changing the diagnosis could be evidence of concealment, the patient's children received notice of the alleged fraudulent concealment on July 22, 2010, but did not file an amended complaint to add the physician as a defendant until February 1, 2012, which was five years after the initial complaint. Robinson v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 464 S.W.3d 599, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 404 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1073 (Tenn. Dec. 18, 2014).

Trial court properly dismissed parents'  claims as barred by the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 29-26-116, where the complaint indicated that parents had sufficient facts to put a reasonable person on notice that they had been injured by defendants'  negligence, and they failed to file their claims in a timely manner thereafter. Vandergriff v. Parkridge E. Hosp., 482 S.W.3d 545, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 671 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015), appeal denied, Vandergriff v. Parkridge East Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 1014 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's healthcare liability claims as barred by the statute of limitations because the patient failed to file suit or provide pre-suit notice to doctors and professional entities before the statute of limitations had run; the patient sent what purported to be the pre-suit notice in a letter more than a year after any alleged injury occurred or was discovered. Ibrahim v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

Because the medical authorization sent by a conservator with the first notice letter was deficient, as it only permitted the recipient providers to send medical records to the conservator's counsel and not to other providers sent notice, the conservator did not receive a 120 day extension, which made the first complaint time-barred as it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Although the conservator voluntarily dismissed and refiled the action, the second complaint was time-barred because of the untimeliness of the first complaint. Dortch v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2018).

Trial court properly dismissed a wife's claim for loss of consortium as barred by the statute of limitations because the wife she was not a party to the patient's original health care liability complaint that was dismissed without prejudice; thus, the wife was unable to take advantage of the saving statute that was available to the patient, her husband. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Mother's claims based on a revoked adoption were time-barred because, (1) as to claims against a hospital social worker and hospital, the social worker had no direct pre-suit notice, and the complaint against the hospital was filed after claims against the hospital's agent social worker were barred, (2) an adoption agency and related parties provided no health care services, so a statutory 120-day extension did not apply, and (3) ordinary negligence claims were not filed within one year. Taylor v. Promise, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

Wrongful death action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the complaint was not timely filed as pre-suit notice was not given within one year of the date of discovery of the cause of action against the hospital in which the decedent received medical treatment. Pursuant to the discovery rule, as evidenced by the administrator of the decedent's estate seeking through counsel decedent's medical records, the executor had constructive knowledge of the decedent's claim more than one year before pre-suit notice was sent. Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2019).

Because the patient filed her medical malpractice action against the nurse practitioner's supervising physician and employer more than three years after the negligent act occurred, her claims were barred by the statute of repose, and because the undisputed facts showed that she could not establish all the elements of fraudulent concealment, as the nurse practitioner never informed the physician or the employer that she had written the prescription for the patient and they were not aware of the malpractice action until they were served in 2013, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the physician and employer. Tucker v. Iveson, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2020).

Because the extension for filing a health care liability action resulting from pre-trial notice was unavailable to the parents of a deceased child, in that the parents failed to include complaint medical authorization forms with the notice, the parents'  cause of action against health care providers was time-barred pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations. Owens v. Stephens, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Dismissal of a former patient's pro se health care liability action against a hospital was appropriate because, despite the patient's minority at the time of the alleged neglect by the hospital in the treatment of the patient and the patient's mental incompetency, the patient's claim was extinguished at least 35 years prior to the filing of the complaint as the patient never asserted that the hospital fraudulently concealed its alleged negligence and there was no such evidence before the court. Cobble v. Erlanger Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 201 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020).

10. Savings Statute.

Where a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations and the three-year statute of repose, a plaintiff who nonsuited the initial action could rely on the saving statute, § 28-1-105, and refile within one year of the nonsuit, even if the nonsuit and refiling occurred beyond the three-year statute of repose. Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 501 (Tenn. 1995), overruled in part, Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 594 (Tenn. June 28, 2013).

Court erred in dismissing a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action where the original lawsuit was “commenced” for purposes of the savings statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105, because, although it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations in T.C.A. §§ 28-3-104 and 29-26-116, it was filed within one year of the order of voluntary non-suit, and it was filed in the name of the proper party plaintiff under T.C.A. § 20-5-107. Howell v. Claiborne & Hughes Health Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2010), overruled in part, Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

Statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3), barred the parents'  claims against a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist as the suit was not commenced with the initial filing of the lawsuit because: (1) the parents failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 and 4 in obtaining service of the complaint; (2) the statute of repose was not tolled under T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a) because the case was not commenced before December 9, 2005, since the parents failed to comply with Rules 3 and 4, and they could not rely upon either the original filing date of June 30, 2005, or the filing date of the amended complaint, October 21, 2005; and (3) more than three years had passed since the date of the injuries alleged. McNeary v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2011), appeal denied, McNeary v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 784 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2011).

In a medical malpractice action, the defending hospital's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal was denied because the patient timely instituted her lawsuit under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3, satisfied the requirements for voluntary dismissals under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01, and then re-filed the action within one year as required by T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), thus, she met the Tennessee savings statute's requirements to toll the statute of limitations for her claims. Tangradi v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93276 (W.D. Tenn. July 6, 2012).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a doctor's motion for summary judgment in a patient's medical malpractice action because the patient was entitled to the 120 day extension to the one year statute of limitation set out in the Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(1), as well as to the same extension to the three year statute of repose set out in § 29-26-116(a)(3); the Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), does apply to the saving statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Rajvongs v. Wright, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2012), aff'd, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

Patient who filed his initial health care liability action before the enactment of the pre-suit notice requirements, voluntarily dismissed his original action, gave pre-suit notice and refiled his suit more than one year later filed his suit after the one-year period under the saving statute since T.C.A. § 29-26-121 did not alter the traditional definition of commencement of a suit with the filing of the complaint; however, the patient was entitled to the 120-day extension of the savings statute under T.C.A. § 29-26-121 because he gave pre-suit notice before filing the second complaint. Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

Where a next of kin appealed a trial court's dismissal of his health care liability suit as untimely, he did not file his first complaint within the one year statute of limitations in T.C.A. § 29-26-116, and, since he did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121, he could not obtain an extension, and he could not rely on T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Byrge v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., 442 S.W.3d 245, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. June 24, 2014).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121 does not change the traditional definition of commencement under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3; therefore, although the pre-suit notice requirements must be given, unless properly excused, a failure to satisfy them before the filing of a complaint does not prevent that filing from being considered a commencement within the meaning of § 29-26-121(c). Therefore, a refiled medical malpractice case should not have been dismissed based on an allegation that the pre-suit notice requirements were not met in the original filing because, despite non-suiting a first lawsuit, a second lawsuit was commenced within the one year time period provided for in T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Cartwright v. DMC-Memphis Inc., 468 S.W.3d 517, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Apr. 14, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's medical malpractice action as time barred because medical malpractice actions were subject to a one-year statute of limitations, the patient's amended complaint was filed more than one year after the alleged negligent medical treatment, although a hospital's original answer did not name specific physicians or parties who treated the patient, it was sufficient to put the patient on notice that a nonparty caused or contributed to the injuries alleged. Swearengen v. DMC-Memphis, Inc., 488 S.W.3d 774, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015), appeal denied, Swearengen v. DMC-Memphis, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 636 (Tenn. Aug. 13, 2015).

Trial court erred in dismissing the child's claims based on expiration of the statute of repose, as the three-year statute of repose began to run on June 21, 2012, when the negligent acts occurred, and while the child did not file his claims within three years of that date, he provided defendants with pre-suit notice of his claims as provided in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) on April 17, 2015, and thus the statute of repose was extended by 120 days, and child's claims, filed on September 29, 2015, were timely. Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's health care liability complaint against two doctors because the patient was entitled to the 120-day extension of the limitations period; when 120 days was added to the date of the trial court's order approving the patient's voluntary non-suit the statute of limitations on his health care liability action against the two doctors was extended, and the second complaint was timely filed. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a patient's health care liability company against a doctor because they were barred since the patient failed to comply with the saving statutes; the patient did not serve the doctor with process as required by the saving statute because the doctor was not served with the complaint before the trial court dismissed it for lack of prosecution. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Although a loss of consortium claim by a patient's spouse was a cause of action separate from that of the patient, the claim was still derivative of the patient's health care liability claim and was barred by the statute of limitations applicable to all health care liability claims. Furthermore, because the spouse was not a party to the patient's prior complaint that was dismissed without prejudice, the spouse was unable to take advantage of the saving statute that was available to the patient. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Dismissal of health care liability complaint against a physician was appropriate because the physician was not served with process as required by the saving statute in that the patient did not continue the action against the physician by obtaining issuance of new process within one year from issuance of the previous process, or within one year of the filing of the complaint. Furthermore, the patient was not entitled to rely on the fraudulent concealment doctrine or the discovery rule to toll and extend the statute of limitations. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Dismissal of executrix's second health care liability action was appropriate because the executrix's original complaint was untimely filed as no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that the executrix, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should not have known that the executrix was injured as a result of the health care provider's allegedly wrongful conduct when the executrix learned that the executrix's parent had escaped from a hospital and killed their spouse before committing suicide. Herpst v. Parkridge Med. Ctr., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2018).

11. Mental Incompetency.

To the extent that the language in Bowers ex rel. Bowers v. Hammond, 954 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) can be read to toll any statute of repose for mental incompetency under § 28-1-106, it is overruled. Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 2000).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the physician in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was inappropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the patient was of unsound mind on the date the cause of action accrued, thus tolling the limitations period under T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(1). Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 988 (Tenn. Oct. 28, 2010).

Mother's claims accrued on June 21, 2012, and she was adjudicated incompetent on November 29, 2012, and T.C.A. § 28-1-106 did not apply to toll the statute of limitations; her claims, filed in September 2015, were barred by the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 29-26-116, and even if the limitations period had been extended pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), the last day on which her claims could have been filed was October 2013. Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

12. Amendment to Complaint.

Amendment to the complaint requesting filial consortium damages was not barred because the amendment did not state a new cause of action; the motion only served to provide notice that the plaintiffs were seeking consortium damages as a component of the pecuniary damages previously sought. Hancock v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 54 S.W.3d 234, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 628 (Tenn. 2001).

13. Miscellaneous.

An individual alleged medical malpractice (now health care liability) and a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), T.C.A. § 47-18-101 et seq., against a doctor and numerous other causes of action against the pharmaceutical companies related to a medication prescribed for her by the doctor for weight loss; the pharmaceutical companies correctly argued that the statute of limitations and/or the statute of repose had run on all claims against the doctor, T.C.A. § 29-26-116 on the medical malpractice (now health care liability) claims and T.C.A. § 47-18-110 on the TCPA claims. Additionally, the individual's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claims could not be “recast” as consumer protection claims under the TCPA; as a result, the court found no colorable basis for predicting that state law might have imposed liability on the doctor, and, for that reason, the doctor was not properly joined in the action, and his Tennessee citizenship could not defeat the court's diversity jurisdiction. Constant v. Wyeth, 352 F. Supp. 2d 847, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12786 (M.D. Tenn. 2003).

Legal disability statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-106, was not intended to serve as an exception to the medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-26-116; the medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose contained no express exception for minors, and neither did any other part of the Code, including the legal disability statute, reference the statute of repose with respect to minors. Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005).

Although the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to a nursing home because a family untimely filed their wrongful death case, given the recent decision in Abels v. Genie Industries, Inc ., the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for the parties to present proof of the decedent's mental state in light of Abels  and the legal disability statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-106. Burk v. RHA/Sullivan, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 896, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007).

Trial court did not err in denying defendants'  motion to dismiss plaintiffs'  medical malpractice (now health care liability) action because plaintiffs'  compliance with the pre-suit notification provision in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a), extended the statute of limitations by 120 days, and the action was timely filed within the 120-day extension. Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011), rev'd, Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. May 9, 2013).

14. Waiver.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying an employer's motions to dismiss and to amend its answer because the running of the statute of repose in T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(3) did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and the statute was not raised as an affirmative defense under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 at any time before trial. Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 594 (Tenn. June 28, 2013).

Collateral References. 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons and Other Healers §§ 181-185.

70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 60.

Effect of Fraudulent or Negligent Concealment of Patient's Cause of Action on Timeliness of Action Under Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose. 19 A.L.R.6th 475.

Timeliness of action under medical malpractice statute of repose, aside from effect of fraudulent concealment of patient's cause of action. 14 A.L.R.6th 301.

When statute of limitations begins to run in case of dental malpractice. 17 A.L.R.6th 159.

When statute of limitations begins to run in dental malpractice suits. 3 A.L.R.4th 318.

Limitation of actions 105(1).

29-26-117. Plaintiff's demand for specific sum inadmissible during trial.

In a health care liability action the pleading filed by the plaintiff may state a demand for a specific sum, but such demand shall not be disclosed to the jury during a trial of the case notwithstanding § 20-9-302 to the contrary.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 16; 1976, ch. 759, § 17; T.C.A., § 23-3416; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 9.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted  “health care liability action” for “medical malpractice action”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Law Reviews.

Malpractice in Dealing with Medical Malpractice, 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 437.

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Harmless Error.

Where plaintiff sued for $25,000 and was awarded $1,224.48, any error in disclosing the amount demanded to the jury was harmless. Runnells v. Rogers, 596 S.W.2d 87, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 426 (Tenn. 1980).

2. Mistrial Granted Due to Prohibited Reference.

Reference to “multi-million dollar lawsuit” in plaintiff's argument was misconduct meriting new trial of malpractice (now health care liability) action. Guess v. Maury, 726 S.W.2d 906, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986), overruled in part, Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

3. Health Care Liability Action.

Because T.C.A. § 29-26-117 states that a pleading filed by a plaintiff may state a demand for a specific sum, the inclusion of an adamnum clause is permissive in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case; thus, the patient and the family member were not required to state a demand for a specific sum in their pleadings and the award of damages to the patient and the family member was appropriate. Romine v. Fernandez, 124 S.W.3d 599, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1292 (Tenn. 2003).

T.C.A. §§ 29-26-117 and 20-9-304 are not in conflict. Interpreted in accordance with the clear and unambiguous language of each section, the statutory scheme allows a plaintiff to argue or suggest a monetary value to be placed on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and to make an argument concerning the ultimate monetary worth of his or her action, but precludes either party from disclosing the amount of the ad damnum clause in the plaintiff's complaint. Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

Language of T.C.A. § 29-26-117 prohibits a plaintiff from disclosing the amount of damages requested in the plaintiff's pleading, but does not preclude the plaintiff from arguing or suggesting monetary amounts for non-economic damages to jurors at trial. To the extent that Guess v. Maury , and DeMilt v. Moss  conflict with the holding that § 29-26-117 does not prohibit a plaintiff in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) case from arguing or suggesting a monetary valuation for non-economic damages or the ultimate worth of the action to the jury, those cases are overruled. Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

29-26-118. Proving inadequacy of consent.

In a health care liability action, the plaintiff shall prove by evidence as required by § 29-26-115(b) that the defendant did not supply appropriate information to the patient in obtaining informed consent (to the procedure out of which plaintiff's claim allegedly arose) in accordance with the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and in the specialty, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices and in similar communities.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 17; 1976, ch. 759, § 18; T.C.A., § 23-3417; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 10.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted  “health care liability action” for “malpractice action”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Physicians and Surgeons, §§ 8, 9.

Law Reviews.

Informed Consent (D. Scott Porch IV), 36 No. 8 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2000).

In Search of a Standard of Care for the Medical Profession — The “Accepted Practice” Formula (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 28 Vand. L. Rev. 1213.

Malpractice in Dealing with Medical Malpractice, 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 437.

Medical Malpractice Cases Not to File (Lewis L. Laska), 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 27 (1989).

The Law of Informed Consent (John A. Day), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 33 (2000).

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

To Be or Not To Be in Tennessee: Deciding Surrogate Issues, 34 U. Mem. L. Rev. 333 (2004).

Cited: Rush v. Miller, 648 F.2d 1075, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12999 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1981); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. 2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Elements of Proof.

In matters of informed consent the plaintiff has the burden of proving by expert medical evidence, (a) what a reasonable medical practitioner of the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances would have disclosed to the patient about attendant risks incident to a proposed diagnosis or treatment and (b) that the defendant departed from the norm. German v. Nichopoulos, 577 S.W.2d 197, 1978 Tenn. App. LEXIS 334 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978), overruled, Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W.3d 86, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 605 (Tenn. 1999).

Causation may best be assessed in informed consent cases by the finder of fact determining how nondisclosure would affect a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. 1999), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 2000).

2. Consent.

When a physician performs surgery without the requisite consent and absent an emergency, then the physician is liable for the resulting injuries, regardless of whether the injuries were the consequence of negligence or otherwise. Housh v. Morris, 818 S.W.2d 39, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

The inquiry in informed consent cases focuses on whether the doctor provided any or adequate information to allow a patient to formulate an intelligent and informed decision when authorizing or consenting to a procedure. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

T.C.A. § 29-26-118 focuses on the physician ordering the surgical procedure; mere status as one involved in a patient's care is insufficient to trigger a statutory duty under T.C.A. § 29-26-118. Bryant v. HCA Health Servs. of Tennessee, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 804, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. 2000).

A patient's consent may be express or implied. When a patient has signed a written consent form expressly covering a particular procedure, the terms of the consent form will ordinarily control the question of whether the patient consented to the procedure; and the courts look to the metes and bounds of the agreement entered into between the patient and the surgeon and the parameters of the authorization given. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The existence of a written consent form gives rise to a presumption of consent in the absence of proof of misrepresentation, inadequate disclosure, forgery, or lack of capacity. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Plaintiff's claim that pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-118, the plaintiff was entitled to know that surgeon suffered from a hand condition was sufficient to allege an informed consent malpractice (now health care liability) action. Hawk v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 45 S.W.3d 24, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2001).

Patient's consent to surgery, given after the doctor had informed her of the known material risks, constituted consent to reasonable post-operative care, including transfusions; thus, because the patient was aware of the transfusions and had authorized them by her consent to surgery, the Government was entitled to judgment on the patient's lack of consent claim. Doe v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 2d 459, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15250 (M.D.N.C. 2003).

3. —Hospitals.

T.C.A. § 29-26-118 does not require a hospital to obtain the informed consent of a patient; however, a hospital may assume an independent legal duty to obtain informed consent under certain circumstances. Bryant v. HCA Health Servs. of Tennessee, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 804, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. 2000).

4. —Minors.

The mature minor exception to the general rule requiring parental consent for the medical treatment of minors is part of the common law of Tennessee. Its application is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the minor has the capacity to consent to and appreciate the nature, the risks, and the consequences of the medical treatment involved. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

Whether a minor has the capacity to consent to medical treatment depends upon the age, ability, experience, education, training, and degree of maturity or judgment obtained by the minor, as well as upon the conduct and demeanor of the minor at the time of the incident involved. Moreover, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the treatment and its risks or probable consequences, and the minor's ability to appreciate the risks and consequences are to be considered. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

While determining whether the defendant medical practitioner failed to obtain informed consent from the minor is dependent upon the standard of care of the profession or specialty, if informed consent is not effectively obtained, the defendant's departure from the standard of care is not negligence but battery because the doctrine of battery is applicable to cases involving treatment performed without informed or knowledgeable consent; malpractice (now health care liability) is based on lack of care or skill in the performance of services contracted for, and [battery] on wrongful trespass on the person regardless of the skill employed. The assertion of one is the denial of the other. Cardwell v. Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 820, 67 A.L.R.4th 479 (Tenn. 1987).

Supreme court of Tennessee held that a child born alive has an independent cause of action for injuries caused by the failure of a physician to obtain informed consent from the child's mother during labor, and T.C.A. § 28-1-106 tolled the three-year statute of repose for the minor plaintiff's lack of informed consent claim, because her claim was commenced before the dates when the supreme court overruled the rule in Bowers v. Hammond, 954 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

In each of the situations where the law provides that a person may give consent for another, it is the disabled person or the incompetent or the child who is actually the patient and who is at risk of suffering harm. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

If a minor can recover for prenatal injuries caused by negligence, a minor should be able to recover for prenatal injuries caused by the failure of a health care provider to obtain informed consent; there is no meaningful distinction between a minor who suffers injuries in utero from the negligence of a driver on the road and a minor who suffers injuries in utero from the failure of a physician to disclose all appropriate information to the minor's mother before performing a medical procedure. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

If a minor has an independent action for lack of informed consent for injuries that occur after birth, the minor should have an independent action for injuries that occur prior to birth, as it would be arbitrary to allow a minor to recover for injuries sustained ten minutes after delivery and to prohibit a minor to recover from injuries sustained ten minutes before delivery; the minor is unable to consent in either circumstance, and effective consent must be obtained from a parent or guardian. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

There is no language either in the informed consent statute or in prior jurisprudence to suggest that a claim for lack of informed consent should be limited to injuries sustained after birth. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

For medical procedures and treatment involving a pregnant mother, and especially when the pregnant mother enters labor, informed consent from the mother provides the necessary consent for medical treatment for the mother and the infant in utero. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

Despite the implications to a mother of any medical treatment provided to an infant in utero during labor and delivery, the duty to disclose appropriate information before medical treatment is owed both to the mother and the infant in utero, whose consent is obtained from the mother. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

If a defendant doctor fails to obtain informed consent from the mother before performing the medical procedure, the doctor's breach will give rise to two claims: one from the mother and one from the infant in utero. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

Whether a person is capable of consenting to a medical treatment or procedure is not determinative of whether the person has an independent claim for lack of informed consent; Tennessee law allows consent for medical treatment for persons incapable of consenting for themselves in various situations. Miller v. Dacus, 231 S.W.3d 903, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2007).

5. Expert Testimony.

To determine the adequacy of the information provided in an informed consent case, a court must consider the nature of the medical treatment, the extent of the risks involved and the applicable standard of care. These determinations require expert testimony and are outside the common knowledge of a lay witness. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

Where lack of informed consent in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action operates to negate the patient's authorization for the procedure, thereby giving rise to a cause of action for battery, there is no prior authorization or consent to be negated by expert testimony. The primary consideration in a medical battery case is simply whether the patient knew of and authorized procedure, and this determination does not require the testimony of an expert witness. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

The lay assertions of plaintiff as to oral representations and assurances made to him by his doctor did not constitute a question for the jury as to the inadequacy of consent without the expert testimony required by this section. Harris v. Buckspan, 984 S.W.2d 944, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Trial court erred in dismissing a claim against a doctor alleging failure to obtain adequate informed consent under T.C.A. § 29-26-118 as the patient's wife supported her claim with an expert affidavit indicating that a treating physician was required to furnish the patient with appropriate information about the risks of the procedure at issue before ordering or performing the procedure and that the doctor's failure to do so was a violation of the standard of professional practice. Hinkle v. Kindred Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting a medical expert's testimony, regarding the standard of care in an informed consent health care liability action, to only those risks that actually materialized, because any risks which did not ripen into an injury were legally without consequence. White v. Beeks, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 794 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2013), rev'd, 469 S.W.3d 517, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 18, 2015).

In informed consent case, the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the patient's expert testimony regarding undisclosed medical risks that had not materialized because it was relevant under Tenn. R. Evid. 401 in the jury's assessment of what a prudent person would have decided if properly informed of all the significant risks, and the evidence was not inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 403, as it was highly probative and there was not a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or undue delay. White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (Tenn. May 18, 2015), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 693 (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2015).

6. Medical Battery.

Lack of informed consent in a medical malpractice action under this section operates to negate a patient's authorization for a procedure, thereby giving rise to a cause of action for battery. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

Where the plaintiff was not aware of the dentist's intention to perform a full extraction, and the plaintiff did not authorize a full extraction during the office visit giving rise to this litigation, the plaintiff's claim was appropriately classified as medical battery. Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 432 (Tenn. 1998), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Sept. 21, 1998).

If an executed consent form expressly covers the surgery performed on the patient, and no evidence competently undermines the validity of that consent, the surgery is not a battery, and the physician is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any claim of battery. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

There was no proof of misrepresentation or fraud that vitiated a patient's signed consent form in his health care liability action against a doctor, such that the trial court's grant of a directed verdict to the doctor on medical battery claims, as well as underlying claims of fraud and misrepresentation, was proper because the consent was a valid defense. Burchfield v. Renfree, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 685 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2013).

While the form did not explicitly state that the bypass surgery would occur in the hybrid suite and involve a completion angiogram, three doctors testified that those details would have been included in the physician's discussion of the surgery with the patient, and the jury could have found that the patient was aware of the hybrid nature of her bypass surgery and that she authorized the procedure, and thus the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the patient a directed verdict on medical battery. Bogner v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017).

7. Directed Verdict.

Jury could reasonably have found that the patient had enough information to make an informed decision about her treatment, and thus the trial court's denial of the patient's motion for a directed verdict on informed consent was proper. Bogner v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017).

Collateral References.

Modern status of views as to general measure of physician's duty to inform patient of risks of proposed treatment. 88 A.L.R.3d 1008.

Questions of consent in connection with treatment of genital or urinary organs. 89 A.L.R.3d 32.

29-26-119. Damages.

In a health care liability action in which liability is admitted or established, the damages awarded may include (in addition to other elements of damages authorized by law) actual economic losses suffered by the claimant by reason of the personal injury, including, but not limited to, cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitation services, and custodial care, loss of services and loss of earned income, but only to the extent that such costs are not paid or payable and such losses are not replaced, or indemnified in whole or in part, by insurance provided by an employer either governmental or private, by social security benefits, service benefit programs, unemployment benefits, or any other source except the assets of the claimant or of the members of the claimant's immediate family and insurance purchased in whole or in part, privately and individually.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 18; T.C.A., § 23-3418; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 11.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability action” for “malpractice action”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Law Reviews.

A Pragmatic Approach to Improving Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2001).

Accidental Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1225 (2001).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Negligence Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 893 (2001).

Duty Rules, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 767 (2001).

Fye v. Kennedy: Time to Examine Tennessee's Collateral Source Rule (William S. Walton), 48 Tenn. B.J. 16 (2012).

Intent and Recklessness in Tort: The Practical Craft of Restating Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1133 (2001).

Interpretive Construction, Systematic Consistency, and Criterial Norms in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1157 (2001).

Legal Cause: Cause-In-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 941 (2001).

Managed Care Liability: The Coming Wave in Medical Malpractice (Stephen E. Roth and Jeffrey H. Wicks), 36 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 14 (2000).

Non-Utilitarian Negligence Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 863 (2001).

Once More Into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution, and the Extent of Legal Responsibility, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1071 (2001).

On Determining Negligence Norms, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 813 (2001).

Purpose, Belief, and Recklessness: Pruning the Restatement's (Third) Definition of Intent, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1165 (2001).

Relevance: The Tennessee Balancing Act (Robert Banks, Jr., Melissa Maravich), 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 33 (1989).

Removing Emotional Harm from the Core of Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 751 (2001).

Restatement (Third) of Torts: General Principles and the Prescription of Masculine Order, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1367 (2001).

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1039 (2001).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

The Duty Concept in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2001).

The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness as well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Passing of Palsgraf?, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 803 (2001).

The Restatement of Torts and the Courts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1439 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) and the Place of Duty in Negligence Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (2001).

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

The Theory of Tort Doctrine and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1413 (2001).

The Trouble with Negligence, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1187 (2001).

The Unexpected Persistence of Negligence, 1980 - 2000, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1337 (2001).

Cited: Russell v. Crutchfield, 988 S.W.2d 168, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Ward v. Glover, 206 S.W.3d 17, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 364 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); Smith v. Mills, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Reimbursed Expenses.

Court erred in permitting plaintiffs in medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit to prove medical expenses and loss of wages which were either reimbursed to them or paid by sources other than plaintiffs' own assets. McDaniel v. General Care Corp., 627 S.W.2d 129, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 523 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Evidence of plaintiff's medical expenses that were reimbursed by insurance under her employer's insurance plan was properly allowed where plaintiff paid part of the premium. Steele v. Ft. Sanders Anesthesia Group, P.C., 897 S.W.2d 270, 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1995).

Plaintiff in a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action could recover from defendant health care provider medical expenses paid by the state medicaid program because the expenses were not costs paid for losses “replaced or indemnified” by social security benefits. Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corp., 940 S.W.2d 571, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 451 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Where plaintiff's losses were not replaced or indemnified by the plaintiff's own health insurance, T.C.A. § 29-26-119 does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing recovery of those medical expenses from defendant physicians. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Court properly applied T.C.A. § 29-26-119 in denying defendants' motion for a credit against the jury's verdict based on the payment received by plaintiff under an insurance plan because the court considered the language of the plan and found that the decedent had contributed to the plan and that the contributions were used in part for the purchase of insurance; accordingly, the record supported the trial court's finding that defendants were not entitled to a credit. Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 306 (Tenn. 2005), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 373 (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2005).

2. Constitutionality.

The provisions of this section, abrogating the collateral source rule in medical malpractice (now health care liability) cases, are constitutional; victims of medical malpractice (now health care liability) are not denied equal protection as compared with victims of other torts and the classification between physicians guilty of malpractice (now health care liability) and other tortfeasors is not totally unreasonable. Baker v. Vanderbilt University, 616 F. Supp. 330, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17634 (M.D. Tenn. 1985).

3. Purpose.

The purpose of this section is to regulate the maximum amount plaintiffs' attorneys may receive from the damages paid. Guess v. Maury, 726 S.W.2d 906, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986), overruled in part, Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

T.C.A. § 29-26-119 seeks to prohibit injured parties from making a double recovery by reducing a plaintiff's recovery by the amount of benefits paid by employer-provided insurance. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

4. Award of Attorneys Fees.

In the absence of a statutory provision therefor or a contractual agreement between the parties, the allowance of attorney fees as a part of damages to be recovered in a malpractice (now health care liability) action is contrary to public policy in this state. Guess v. Maury, 726 S.W.2d 906, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986), overruled in part, Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246,  2010 Tenn. LEXIS 875 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

5. Workers' Compensation.

The legislature intended to exclude workers' compensation benefits from the scope of this section by the inclusion of the modifying phrase “and such losses are not replaced, or indemnified.” Nance v. Westside Hospital, 750 S.W.2d 740, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. 1988), rehearing denied, 750 S.W.2d 740, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1988).

The provisions of this section do not repeal or directly deal with the terms of § 50-6-112 that grant employers a subrogation lien for benefits paid or payable under the Workers' Compensation Act. Nance v. Westside Hospital, 750 S.W.2d 740, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. 1988), rehearing denied, 750 S.W.2d 740, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (Tenn. 1988).

6. Preemption by ERISA.

Where employee benefit plan was self-funded, the plan could not be deemed an insurance company and, therefore, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted this section. Electro-Mechanical Corp. v. Ogan, 820 F. Supp. 346, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21329 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 445, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 28645 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1993).

7. Action Barred.

Trial court had erred in denying a hospital's motion to dismiss, which motion was predicated on the three-year medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose and consequently, the hospital was not a proper party at trial, because the three-year medical malpractice (now health care liability) statute of repose barred plaintiff's renaming of the hospital as defendant in 2001 after she had not chosen to bring the hospital back into the litigation within a year of the nonsuit. Norris v. East Tenn. Children's Hosp., 195 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 684 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, Norris v. E. Tenn. Children's Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. June 5, 2006).

8. Settlement Payments.

In a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action, while the trial court apparently concluded that the physician was not entitled to a credit under T.C.A. § 29-26-119, it also indicated that it would revisit the issue if a judgment were entered against the physician. Because the trial court indicated that its ruling on the issue was in effect provisional, to be taken up again if the widow obtained a judgment, the appellate court declined to give an advisory opinion on whether the widow's damages should be reduced under § 29-26-119 by the amount of a settlement payment from the hospital. Deuel v. Surgical Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2010).

9. Reasonable and Necessary Medical Care.

Hospital was unable to use a hospital lien to recover from third-party tortfeasors the unadjusted costs of the medical services it provided to patients whose injuries were caused by a third party because, except for the unpaid co-pays and deductibles, which were a patient's responsibility, neither the Tennessee Hospital Lien Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-22-101 to 29-22-107, nor the hospital's contracts with patients' insurance companies authorized the hospital to maintain its lien after the insurance companies paid an adjusted bill. West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014).

10. Collateral Source Rule.

Statute speaks exclusively to damages and does not address admissibility of evidence; the statute does not alter or abrogate the evidentiary aspect of the collateral source rule. Under that rule, parties in health care liability actions may not introduce evidence that all or part of a plaintiff's losses have been covered by insurance or another collateral source until after liability has been admitted or established. McKenzie v. Women's Health Servs. -Chattanooga, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Trial court's error in denying parents'  motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding all collateral sources was not harmless because it was impossible to determine with any confidence that the extensive evidence of collateral sources, such as health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and benefits under the Disabilities Education Act, did not have a prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations; also, the statements made during cross-examination by defense counsel were erroneous and misleading. McKenzie v. Women's Health Servs. -Chattanooga, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

After a jury returns a verdict imposing liability, the trial court may apply the rule of damages set forth in the statute upon request of the defendant. McKenzie v. Women's Health Servs. -Chattanooga, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Trial court erred in denying parents'  motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding all collateral sources that could have been paid to them in the past or that could be available to them in the future because liability was not admitted or established at the time pertinent to the inquiry regarding the admissibility of collateral source evidence, i.e., during the jury trial. McKenzie v. Women's Health Servs. -Chattanooga, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018).

Collateral References.

Malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of male urinary tract and related organs. 48 A.L.R.5th 575.

Malpractice in diagnosis and treatment of meningitis. 51 A.L.R.5th 301.

Measure and elements of damages in action against physician for breach of contract to achieve particular result or cure. 99 A.L.R.3d 303.

Validity, construction, and application of state statutory provisions limiting amount of recovery in medical malpractice claims. 26 A.L.R.5th 245.

29-26-120. Attorneys' fees.

Compensation for reasonable attorneys' fees in the event an employment contract exists between the claimant and claimant's attorney on a contingent fee arrangement shall be awarded to the claimant's attorney in a health care liability action in an amount to be determined by the court on the basis of time and effort devoted to the litigation by the claimant's attorney, complexity of the claim and other pertinent matters in connection therewith, not to exceed thirty-three and one third percent (331/3%) of all damages awarded to the claimant.

Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 19; 1976, ch. 759, § 19; T.C.A., § 23-3419; Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 12.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability action” for “malpractice action”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Rule Reference. This section is referred to in the Commentary under Rule 1.5 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

Law Reviews.

Determining a Reasonable Percentage in Establishing a Contingency Fee: A New Tool to Remedy an Old Problem (Jeffrey D. Swett), 77 Tenn. L. Rev. 653 (2010).

Evaluating Norms: An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between Norm-Content, Operator, and Charitable Behavior (Brian Sheppard and Fiery Cushman), 63 Vand. L. Rev. 55 (2010).

Reopening Tennessee's Open Courts Clause: A Historical Reconsideration of Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution, 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 333 (1997).

The Standard of Care and Informed Consent Under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 225.

Attorney General Opinions. Contingency fees in medical malpractice cases, OAG 88-03 (1/4/88).

Cited: Pratt v. Smart Corp., 968 S.W.2d 868, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Cox v. M.A. Primary & Urgent Care Clinic, 313 S.W.3d 240, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 553 (Tenn. June 21, 2010); Webb v. Roberson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section does not violate the due process provisions of the state and federal constitutions; it is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and it bears a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, the general assembly's desire to ameliorate the medical malpractice (now health care liability) crisis. Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869, 115 S. Ct. 189, 130 L. Ed. 2d 122, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 6289 (1994).

This section does not violate the “separation of powers” provisions of the Tennessee Constitution by unconstitutionally encroaching upon the power of the judiciary to control the conduct of attorneys, as it does not directly conflict with the supreme court's authority to regulate the practice of law, and is designed to declare that public policy with respect to attorney fee contracts. Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869, 115 S. Ct. 189, 130 L. Ed. 2d 122, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 6289 (1994).

2. Recovery of Excessive Attorney's Fees.

In an action by a client against an attorney to recover a contingency fee in excess of the amount allowed by this section, the client was entitled to receive the full amount of the excess fee charged, regardless of any speculative interest of the client's former spouse in the settlement proceeds. Newton v. Cox, 954 S.W.2d 746, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 229 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 1997).

Collateral References.

Limitation to quantum meruit recovery, where attorney employed under contingent-fee contract is discharged without cause. 56 A.L.R.5th 1.

Validity of statute establishing contingent fee scale for attorneys representing parties in medical malpractice actions. 12 A.L.R.4th 23.

Attorney and client 130-192.

29-26-121. Claim for health care liability — Notice — Evidence of compliance — Limitations — Copies of medical records.

    1. Any person, or that person's authorized agent, asserting a potential claim for health care liability shall give written notice of the potential claim to each health care provider that will be a named defendant at least sixty (60) days before the filing of a complaint based upon health care liability in any court of this state.
    2. The notice shall include:
      1. The full name and date of birth of the patient whose treatment is at issue;
      2. The name and address of the claimant authorizing the notice and the relationship to the patient, if the notice is not sent by the patient;
      3. The name and address of the attorney sending the notice, if applicable;
      4. A list of the name and address of all providers being sent a notice; and
      5. A HIPAA compliant medical authorization permitting the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice.
    3. The requirement of service of written notice prior to suit is deemed satisfied if, within the statutes of limitations and statutes of repose applicable to the provider, one of the following occurs, as established by the specified proof of service, which shall be filed with the complaint:
      1. Personal delivery of the notice to the health care provider or an identified individual whose job function includes receptionist for deliveries to the provider or for arrival of the provider's patients at the provider's current practice location. Delivery must be established by an affidavit stating that the notice was personally delivered and the identity of the individual to whom the notice was delivered; or
      2. Mailing of the notice:
        1. To an individual health care provider at both the address listed for the provider on the Tennessee department of health web site and the provider's current business address, if different from the address maintained by the Tennessee department of health; provided, that, if the mailings are returned undelivered from both addresses, then, within five (5) business days after receipt of the second undelivered letter, the notice shall be mailed in the specified manner to the provider's office or business address at the location where the provider last provided a medical service to the patient; or
        2. To a health care provider that is a corporation or other business entity at both the address for the agent for service of process, and the provider's current business address, if different from that of the agent for service of process; provided, that, if the mailings are returned undelivered from both addresses, then, within five (5) business days after receipt of the second undelivered letter, the notice shall be mailed in the specified manner to the provider's office or business address at the location where the provider last provided a medical service to the patient.
    4. Compliance with subdivision (a)(3)(B) shall be demonstrated by filing a certificate of mailing from the United States postal service stamped with the date of mailing and an affidavit of the party mailing the notice establishing that the specified notice was timely mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of the notice sent shall be attached to the affidavit. It is not necessary that the addressee of the notice sign or return the return receipt card that accompanies a letter sent by certified mail for service to be effective.
    5. In the event a person, entity, or health care provider receives notice of a potential claim for health care liability pursuant to this subsection (a), the person, entity, or health care provider shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving the notice, based upon any reasonable knowledge and information available, provide written notice to the potential claimant of any other person, entity, or health care provider who may be a properly named defendant.
  1. If a complaint is filed in any court alleging a claim for health care liability, the pleadings shall state whether each party has complied with subsection (a) and shall provide the documentation specified in subdivision (a)(2). The court may require additional evidence of compliance to determine if the provisions of this section have been met. The court has discretion to excuse compliance with this section only for extraordinary cause shown.
  2. When notice is given to a provider as provided in this section, the applicable statutes of limitations and repose shall be extended for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of expiration of the statute of limitations and statute of repose applicable to that provider. Personal service is effective on the date of that service. Service by mail is effective on the first day that service by mail is made in compliance with subdivision (a)(2)(B). In no event shall this section operate to shorten or otherwise extend the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to any action asserting a claim for health care liability, nor shall more than one (1) extension be applicable to any provider. Once a complaint is filed alleging a claim for health care liability, the notice provisions of this section shall not apply to any person or entity that is made a party to the action thereafter by amendment to the pleadings as a result of a defendant's alleging comparative fault.
    1. All parties in an action covered by this section shall be entitled to obtain complete copies of the claimant's medical records from any other provider receiving notice. A party shall provide a copy of the specified portions of the claimant's medical records as of the date of the receipt of a legally authorized written request for the records within thirty (30) days thereafter. The claimant complies with this requirement by providing the providers with the authorized HIPAA compliant medical authorization required to accompany the notice. The provider may comply with this section by:
      1. Mailing a copy of the requested portions of the records with a statement for the cost of duplication of the records to the individual requesting the records;
      2. Informing the individual requesting the records that the records will be mailed only upon advance payment for the records for the stated cost of the records, calculated as provided in § 63-2-102. Any request for advance payment must be made in writing twenty (20) days after the receipt of the request for medical records. The provider must send the records within three (3) business days after receipt of payment for the records; or
      3. Fulfilling such other method that the provider and the individual requesting the records agree to in writing.
    2. The records received by the parties shall be treated as confidential, to be used only by the parties, their counsel, and their consultants.
  3. In the event that a complaint is filed in good faith reliance on the extension of the statute of limitations or repose granted by this section and it is later determined that the claim is not a health care liability claim, the extension of the statute of limitations and repose granted by this section is still available to the plaintiff.
    1. Upon the filing of any “healthcare liability action,” as defined in § 29-26-101, the named defendant or defendants may petition the court for a qualified protective order allowing the defendant or defendants and their attorneys the right to obtain protected health information during interviews, outside the presence of claimant or claimant’s counsel, with the relevant patient’s treating “healthcare providers,” as defined by § 29-26-101. Such petition shall be granted under the following conditions:
      1. The petition must identify the treating healthcare provider or providers for whom the defendant or defendants seek a qualified protective order to conduct an interview;
      2. The claimant may file an objection seeking to limit or prohibit the defendant or defendants or the defendant’s or defendants’ counsel from conducting the interviews, which may be granted only upon good cause shown that a treating healthcare provider does not possess relevant information as defined by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; and
        1. The qualified protective order shall expressly limit the dissemination of any protected health information to the litigation pending before the court and require the defendant or defendants who conducted the interview to return to the healthcare provider or destroy any protected health information obtained in the course of any such interview, including all copies, at the end of the litigation;
        2. The qualified protective order shall expressly provide that participation in any such interview by a treating healthcare provider is voluntary.
    2. Any healthcare provider's disclosure of relevant information in response to a court order under this section, including, but not limited to, protected health information, opinions as to the standard of care of any defendant, compliance with or breach of the standard, and causation of the alleged injury, shall be deemed a permissible disclosure under Tennessee law.
    3. Nothing in this part shall be construed as restricting in any way the right of a defendant or defendant’s counsel from conducting interviews outside the presence of claimant or claimant’s counsel with the defendant’s own present or former employees, partners, or owners concerning a healthcare liability action.

Acts 2008, ch. 919, § 1; 2009, ch. 425, § 1; 2012, ch. 798, § 13; 2012, ch. 926, § 1; 2013, ch. 23, § 1; 2015, ch. 254, § 3; 2015, ch. 268, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-26-121 (Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 21; 1976, ch. 759, §§ 3, 20-22; 1978, ch. 576, §§ 5, 6; 1980, ch. 852, § 8; T.C.A., § 23-3421), concerning administrative fee assessment and collection, was repealed by Acts 1985, ch. 184, § 4.

Acts 2008, ch. 919, § 3 provided that the act, which enacted this section and § 29-26-122, shall apply to all actions filed on or after October 1, 2008.

Acts 2009, ch. 425, § 4 provided that § 1 of the act, which rewrote § 29-26-121, shall take effect and apply to notice given on or after July 1, 2009, in all medical malpractice (now health care liability) actions. In the event that notice is successfully given more than once to a provider, the effect of the notice is determined by the law in effect on the date of the first successful notice.

Acts 2012, ch. 926, § 2 provided that the act, which added subsection (f), shall apply to all healthcare liability actions commenced on or after July 1, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 23, § 2 provided that the act, which amended subdivision (f)(1)(C), shall apply to all healthcare liability actions commenced on or after July 1, 2013.

Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4 provided that the act, which added (a)(5), shall apply to causes of action arising on or after April 24, 2015.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment by ch. 798 substituted “medical malpractice” for “health care liability” throughout.

The 2012 amendment by ch. 926 added (f).

The 2013 amendment, in (f)(1)(C), added “and require the defendant or defendants who conducted the interview to return to the healthcare provider or destroy any protected health information obtained in the course of any such interview, including all copies, at the end of the litigation” to the end of (i), and added (ii).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 254, added (a)(5).

The 2015 amendment by ch. 268, rewrote (f)(2) which read, “Any disclosure of protected health information by a healthcare provider in response to a court order under this section shall be deemed a permissible disclosure under Tennessee law, any Tennessee statute or rule of common law notwithstanding.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Acts 2012, ch. 926, § 2.  July 1, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 23, § 2.  July 1, 2013.

Acts 2015, ch. 254, § 4. April 24, 2015.

Acts 2015, ch. 268, § 2. April 24, 2015.

Cross-References. Certified mail in lieu of registered mail, § 1-3-111.

Law Reviews.

Med-Mal Obstacles (Rebecca C. Blair), 44 Tenn. B.J. 14 (2008).

Medical Malpractice: Five Years after Going Under The Knife, Med Mal Law Is Still Feeling The Effects, 49 Tenn. B.J. 12 (2013).

Physician-Patient Confidentiality in Health Care Liability Actions: HIPAA's Preemption of Ex Parte Interviews with Treating Physicians Through the Obstacle Test, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 97 (2013).

Poor Policy Stunts Tennessee Tort Law Again: The Need for Tennessee's Adoption of the Loss of Chance Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Litigation (Brie D. Wallace), 40 U. Mem. L. Rev. 215 (2009).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Notice Requirements Met.

Doctor, the clinic, the financier, and the center's motion to dismiss on the ground that the patient failed to comply with the notice requirements in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(1) when the action was refiled was denied because the notice requirement had been satisfied and there was no need for the patient to provide the 60-day statutory notice before refiling the action. The doctor, the clinic, the financier, and the center clearly had actual notice of the suit prior and had more than 60 days to evaluate the patient's claims and enter into any attempts at resolution before that suit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; moreover, the doctor, the clinic, the financier, and the center had an additional year to evaluate the patient's claims before the action was re-filed in October 2008. Jenkins v. Marvel, 683 F. Supp. 2d 626, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2859 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2010).

Dismissal of the administrator's action against the health facility was appropriate because the action sounded in malpractice (now health care liability) since the complaint alleged that the decedent's condition required special handling when she was moved and that the hospital doctor's orders were not followed by the health facility. Therefore, the administrator was required to comply with the notice requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a); because she failed to do so, the complaint was dismissed. Long v. Hillcrest Healthcare - W., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 272 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2010).

Trial court did not err in denying defendants'  motion to dismiss plaintiffs'  medical malpractice (now health care liability) action because plaintiffs'  compliance with the pre-suit notification provision in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a), extended the statute of limitations by 120 days, and the action was timely filed within the 120-day extension. Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011), rev'd, Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. May 9, 2013).

In a medical malpractice action, the defending hospital's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal was denied because the patient timely instituted her lawsuit under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3, satisfied the requirements for voluntary dismissals under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01, and then re-filed the action within one year as required by T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), thus, she met the Tennessee savings statute's requirements to toll the statute of limitations for her claims. Tangradi v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93276 (W.D. Tenn. July 6, 2012).

Plaintiff was not required to give defendants notice of her medical malpractice claim under T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) before filing her ordinary negligence complaint; as she filed the notice before filing a motion to amend the complaint to add a malpractice claim, the trial court erred in denying the motion based on her purported non-compliance with § 29-26-121(a). Parker v. Portland Nursing & Nursing Rehab, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2012).

Notice sent by a patient's wife to a hospital and a doctor pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121, giving those defendants notice of the wife's potential medical malpractice claim against them, constituted sufficient notice under the statute, even though the notice did not comply in all respects with the statutory requirements, as both the hospital and the doctor received written notice of the claims against them at least sixty days before the medical malpractice complaint was filed. Hinkle v. Kindred Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Plaintiffs complied with the notice requirement by providing written notice to the potential defendants of plaintiffs' potential claim for health care liability, as brought to fruition in the second complaint, more than sixty days before they filed their second action. Foster v. Chiles, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2013), rev'd, 467 S.W.3d 911, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Jan. 27, 2015), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 988 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013).

Claims Commission erred in dismissing a mother's claim for failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121, which required pre-suit notice of a medical malpractice claim at least 60 days before the claim was commenced, given that the mother provided the State more than sixty days notice prior to filing the complaint with the Commission. The State had actual notice of the lawsuit months before the complaint was filed in the Commission. Haley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).

There was no conflict with the statutes and rules of the Claims Commission when a plaintiff provided notice in accordance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 simultaneously to the notice pursuant to T.C.A. § 9-8-402. Haley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).

Patient complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 in a medical malpractice suit against the State of Tennessee because, inter alia, the patient notified the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, which was a health care provider, division of a State agency, and named defendant. Brown v. Samples, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014).

Patient complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 in a medical malpractice suit against the State of Tennessee because: (1) nothing in Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0310-01-01-.01 or the Health Care Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq., addressed the proper recipient of such notice in such a suit; and (2) actual notice was given to a health care provider that was a division of a state agency and a named defendant. Brown v. Samples, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014).

Trial court erred in requiring strict compliance regarding the content of the statute's pre-suit notice requirements because a surviving spouse substantially complied with the requirements when his only failings with regard to the content of the notices sent were the omission of his address and the hospital's address; the omission did not prejudice the hospital and a doctor. Arden v. Kozawa, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2014), rev'd, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Surviving spouse's use of a commercial carrier to deliver pre-suit notice of his claim and the filing of proof of service with the complaint constituted substantial compliance with the manner and proof of service requirements of the pre-suit notice statute because the health care providers were not prejudiced by the manner of service; the spouse was able to track the pre-suit notice letters'  delivery and provided proof of the service by filing the tracking documentation with his complaint. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that pre-suit notice be mailed to a health care provider's address as indicated on the Tennessee Department of Health website; a surviving spouse substantially complied with the statutory requirement because although he mistakenly sent a doctor's notice letter to a hospital's address, which was very similar to the doctor's address, the doctor made no allegation that he failed to receive notice or that he was prejudiced by the error. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's action against a medical center on the ground that the medical authorization provided with the pre-suit notice letter was not compliant with the statute because the medical center received adequate and timely notice of the lawsuit and had a medical release form that authorized it to use all of the relevant medical records; the medical center suffered no prejudice as a result of the medical authorization the patient provided. Hughes v. Henry County Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015).

Requirement of pre-suit notice was deemed satisfied because a patient sent the pre-suit notice certified mail, return receipt requested. Travis v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2016).

Patient complied with the requirement to provide pre-suit notice of a health liability claim, despite addressing the notice to subsidiaries of the allegedly liable entity, because a letter from the correct entity's director of risk management acknowledged receipt of the notice, so the correct entity clearly had actual notice of the claim. Runions v. Jackson-Madison Cnty. Gen. Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2017).

Court of appeals erred in affirming an order dismissing a surviving spouse's healthcare liability action on the ground that she failed to provide a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) compliant medical authorization because such authorization was not required since the spouse's pre-suit notice was sent to a single provider; the pre-suit notice to the doctor sufficiently invoked the regulatory exception to the requirement of a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization. Bray v. Khuri, 523 S.W.3d 619, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. July 5, 2017).

In this health care liability action, defendants did not claim that they did not receive timely notice, and the affidavit of mailing showed that they signed return receipts acknowledging the receipt of the pre-suit notices; they did not assert that they were prejudiced by the fact that their respective agents were not sent the notice, and no such prejudice was found, and thus plaintiff's lack of compliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(3)(B)(ii) was not cause to dismiss the action. Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2018).

Defendants complained that the notice did not include one doctor's name as a provider receiving notice, but the doctor had not been identified as a potential defendant when the original suit was filed, and prior to the filing of the second suit, plaintiffs complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(D) by providing defendants with a complete list of all the providers receiving the September 21, 2015 notice, including the doctor; the trial court correctly rejected defendants'  argument. Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2018).

Widower's method of permitting the physicians and hospital access to his late wife's medical records substantially complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) (2012) where the written notice letter informed the physicians and hospital that all other listed medical providers had received a similar HIPAA-compliant authorization so as to allow each listed medical provider to obtain complete medical records from every other provider. Short ex rel. Short v. Metro Knoxville HMA, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019), appeal denied, Short ex rel. Short v. Metro Knoxville HMA LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (Tenn. Jan. 15, 2020).

2. Compliance Excused.

Trial court erred in not excusing compliance with the notice requirements of T.C.A. § 29-26-121, because the healthcare provider had actual notice of the claim more than one year prior to the filing of the new action and, thus, had ample time to investigate and possibly settle the claim. Under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court should have exercised its discretion and excused compliance with the deadlines imposed by § 29-26-121. Howell v. Claiborne & Hughes Health Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 24, 2010), overruled in part, Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

Patient did consult with a doctor before filing her medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit against the surgeon to make sure that she had a good-faith basis for maintaining the action and allowing the action to go forward, despite her failure to file a timely certificate of good faith, was not inconsistent with the over arching purpose of the Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115 et seq.Truth v. Eskioglu, 781 F. Supp. 2d 630, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16295 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Trial court erred in dismissing the claimants' second lawsuit for noncompliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 because the claimants filed their initial suit prior to the enactment of the statutory notice requirements and filed their second suit when the health care providers had some notice of the potential claim as a result of the initial lawsuit. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to excuse compliance, remand of the case to determine appropriate sanctions and to allow the claim to proceed was appropriate. Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 695 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013).

Trial court erred by dismissing the patient's action for failure to state a claim, even though it did not comply with this section, because it was premature, given that the patient had sought a continuance to obtain legal counsel to clarify her claims and pleadings. Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Med. Clinic Surgi Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2014).

Trial court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of a practice in the second judicial district of utilizing blank medical authorizations that were not HIPAA compliant, and equating the same to extraordinary cause to excuse a plaintiff's noncompliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Roberts v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

3. Requirements Not Satisfied.

Trial court did not err in dismissing under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) an action a patient and her husband filed against a hospital to recover damages for injuries the patient sustained when she fell in her hospital room because the patient and husband alleged a claim for medical malpractice (now health care liability) and were required to satisfy the requirements contained in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, but they failed to do so; the complaint alleged that the hospital was liable because it knew the patient was at risk for a post-delivery fall but failed to safeguard her, and although the patient and husband did not allege a specific legal duty that was breached by the hospital, the allegations of the complaint went beyond alleging the duty applicable to the provision of custodial services and alleged facts relating to services requiring specialized skill and training, such as recognizing the potential for a post-delivery fall and preventing injuries therefrom. Martins v. Williamson Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010).

Motion to dismiss was granted because prisoner did not comply with the notice requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(1). By failing to comply with the requirements of the act, the prisoner failed to state a claim for medical malpractice (now health care liability) for which relief could be granted. Conrad v. Wash. County, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153402 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2012).

Trial court abused its discretion by excusing plaintiffs'  failure to comply with the 60-day notice period before filing a medical malpractice (now health care liability) action under T.C.A. § 29-26-121, as the plain language of the statute only allowed compliance to be excused upon a showing of extraordinary cause, not substantial compliance and lack of prejudice to defendants Depue v. Schroeder, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 847 (Tenn. Aug. 31, 2011).

Claim for medical malpractice failed as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to provide defendant with notice as required by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Plaintiff did not state affirmatively that she reviewed the state department of health website and sent notice to the address listed on the website, nor did she affirmatively verify that she performed any investigation to determine defendant's location. Guthrie v. Ball, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92902 (E.D. Tenn. July 5, 2012).

As plaintiffs'  correspondence to defendants during the pendency of plaintiffs'  first medical malpractice action, which they later non-suited, was not compliant notice under the amended version of T.C.A. § 29-26-121 as it existed when plaintiffs'  second suit was filed, that suit was properly dismissed. Childs v. Ut Medical Group, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 163, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012), appeal denied, Childs v. UT Med. Group, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 926 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2012).

Patient's widow failed to substantially comply with the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(E) because the widow permitted disclosure only to her counsel, and the widow's medical authorization failed to satisfy at least three of the six compliance requirements mandated by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; due to the widow's material non-compliance, a hospital and a doctor were not authorized to receive any of the patient's records. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Husband's medical malpractice action was time-barred where: (1) The husband failed to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2) as he did not give the providers Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996-compliant authorizations permitting them to exchange his wife's medical records; (2) No provision of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115 et seq., required potential defendants to assist a claimant with compliance with § 29-26-121; and (3) The husband was not entitled to an extension under § 29-26-121(c) of the T.C.A. § 29-26-116 limitations period. Vaughn v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. May 15, 2014), overruled, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015), overruled in part, Eiswert v. United States, 619 Fed. Appx. 483, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13878, 2015 FED App. 537N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an inmate's action against a health care provider because the inmate did not comply with the mandatory requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 when he filed his action because the inmate's claims against the provider for the health care provider for failure to provide medical care sounded in medical malpractice and not ordinary negligence. Moore v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Plaintiff's medical malpractice suit was properly dismissed as: (1) Plaintiff did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) and 29-26-121(b) as the required attachments were not filed with the complaint; (2) A disc containing the documentation was filed as an exhibit to the complaint 12 days later, and the required affidavit was filed thereafter; (3) While § 29-26-121(b) gave the trial court discretion to excuse compliance for extraordinary cause shown, plaintiff admitted that no extraordinary cause existed. Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2013), rev'd, Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, 433 S.W.3d 512, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 352 (Tenn. 2014).

Medical malpractice complaint filed by a deceased patient's widow, which included an initial certificate of good faith, was properly dismissed by the trial court as against a doctor because when she amended her complaint to add him, she failed to contemporaneously file a second certificate of good faith. Groves v. Colburn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2013).

When a personal representative gave pre-suit notice of a health care liability claim to an entity that, while related to the correct health care provider, did not provide the health care in question, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 did not let the personal representative retroactively amend the defective notice because the Rule only applied to pleadings, and the notice was not a pleading, since the notice preceded the filing of a lawsuit. Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., 429 S.W.3d 582, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013), appeal denied, Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

When a personal representative gave pre-suit notice of a health care liability claim to an entity that, while related to the correct health care provider, did not provide the health care in question, the notice was insufficient because the statute's requirements were strictly construed, and notice was not given to the entity that would be named as a defendant. Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., 429 S.W.3d 582, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013), appeal denied, Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Where a next of kin appealed a trial court's dismissal of his health care liability suit as untimely, he did not file his first complaint within the one year statute of limitations in T.C.A. § 29-26-116, and, since he did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121, he could not obtain an extension, and he could not rely on T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Byrge v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., 442 S.W.3d 245, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 538 (Tenn. June 24, 2014).

In a medical malpractice case, a trial court did not err by dismissing the action without prejudice due to a failure to comply with the pre-litigation notice requirements because this was the appropriate penalty to impose; moreover, compliance was not excused because there was no effort to give any pre-suit notice. Givens v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 496 (Tenn. June 20, 2014).

Health care liability action was untimely due to a failure to substantially comply with the statutory notice requirements; a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) medical authorization form provided did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements. The trial court did not err by failing to excuse compliance in this case because no valid reason was given; this case did not fall within one of the limited circumstances anticipated by HIPAA that would have allowed for the use of the records without authorization. Roberts v. Prill, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2014).

Widower did not list the addresses of the providers in the notice letter, failed to state that he complied with notice requirements, failed to attach documentation, and failed to file the required proof of service; the widower did not substantially comply with the requirements of the statute. Johnson v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1106 (Tenn. Dec. 17, 2014).

Widower was not able to establish that he sent the proper medical authorization with the notice, as was his burden, and thus the medical center could not appropriately utilize the records to mount a defense, even if they were already in the medical center's possession; the widower did not substantially comply with the requirements of the statute. Johnson v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1106 (Tenn. Dec. 17, 2014).

Trial court erred in denying defendants'  motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim that defendants were negligent by failing to remove a sponge from plaintiff because plaintiff's claim should have been classified as a health care liability action as the health care liability statute designated claims involving custodial or basic care as health care liability claims; expert testimony was required to establish the elements of the claim; plaintiff did not comply with pre-suit notice provisions; plaintiff did not file the required certificate of good faith with his complaint; and failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement mandated dismissal with prejudice. Smith v. Testerman, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. June 15, 2015).

When a wife did not provide pre-suit notice of the wife's loss of consortium claim, based on the wife's husband's medical treatment, the husband's pre-suit notice was not sufficient to satisfy the wife's requirement to provide such notice because (1) the wife's claim was a distinct claim belonging to the wife personally, and (2) the wife was a separate claimant. Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).

Wife did not provide sufficient pre-suit notice of the wife's loss of consortium claim, based on the wife's husband's medical treatment, because (1) the wife did not substantially comply with this requirement, since a hospital had no notice of the wife's claim, and, (2) even if the wife substantially complied, strict compliance with this requirement was mandated. Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).

Because the sole deficiency in the medical release authorization was appellants'  failure to allow disclosure to appellees, appellants claimed this error, alone, was insufficient to negate their lawsuit, but this argument was rejected; appellants'  case did not fall within one of the limited circumstances that would allow for the use of the medical records without authorization, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to excuse appellants'  failure to comply with the statute. Harmon v. Shore, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Sept. 16, 2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing any medical malpractice or other tort claim within plaintiff's complaint because any claim that plaintiff originally brought under medical malpractice was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statutory requirements that plaintiff provide written notice and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint and with the statute of limitations provided by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); and any other claim of negligence brought by plaintiff was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statute of limitations provided by the GTLA. Kaddoura v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Sister did not comply with the statutes before the action commenced, which statutes required her to submit pre-suit notice 60 days prior to filing suit and to attach a certificate of good faith and a copy of the pre-suit; she had not shown good cause or excusable neglect for her failure, and the dismissal of her claims was affirmed. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

In a health care liability action, the trial court properly dismissed the action with prejudice as appellant failed to provide a compliant Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 medical authorization because, while appellee may have physically possessed the decedent's records, he was unable to review them with his attorney in order to evaluate the merits of appellant's claim; appellant left blank the portion of the authorization form describing the type and amount of information to be used; appellant's notice letter did not authorize appellee to fill in the blank; and the form failed to provide appellee with the proper authorization to use the decedent's medical records to mount a defense. Bray v. Khuri, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 950 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), rev'd, 523 S.W.3d 619, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. July 5, 2017), overruled, Grizzle v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2017).

Decedents'  daughters failed to substantially comply with statutory requirements because they failed to provide health care providers with a medical authorization which was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d, that would have allowed them to request medical records from all other noticed providers. Thus, the daughters'  cause of action was time-barred as they were not entitled to an extension of the statute of limitations. Dolman v. Donovan, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. May 6, 2016).

Proper way for a health care provider to challenge a complaint's compliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 is to file a motion to dismiss. Dolman v. Donovan, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 366 (Tenn. May 6, 2016).

Any claim by plaintiff that was actually a medical malpractice allegation, even if styled as ordinary negligence, was not viable and must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory requirements because plaintiff had not provided a certificate of good faith nor had he given the required notice of a medical malpractice case to defendant prior to filing. Moore v. W. Carolina Treatment Ctr., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —,  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183134 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's healthcare liability claims for failure to provide the required Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-complaint authorization because the authorization and letter the patient sent did not substantially comply with subsection (a)(2)(E), which was very specific in listing the elements to be included for authorization. Ibrahim v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

Patient failed to provide documentation demonstrating that he complied with subsection (a)(2)(E) because the unsigned Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act form the patient proffered would not permit the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice. Travis v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2016).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's health care liability case because he failed to substantially comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; the patient did not include a statement in the body of the complaint that he complied with subsection (a), the complaint failed to include documentation demonstrating compliance with subsection (a)(2), and the patient did not attach an affidavit establishing that the notice was timely mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested. Travis v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2016).

Circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiffs'  medical malpractice claims because they failed to timely comply with the statutory pre-suit notice where, save for a signature and date, the blanks on the medical authorization forms received by the providers were not completed, the affidavits attached to the response failed to warrant a finding of extraordinary cause, the statutory 120-day extension was unavailable, and there was no violation of the separation of powers doctrine or the Open Court Clause where the medical authorization requirement did not conflict with the Civil Procedure Rules and the plaintiffs'  did not present a basis for declaring the statute unconstitutional. J.A.C. v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2016).

Health care liability claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory requirements because the failure to provide a list of other medical providers who were sent notice and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliant medical authorization prohibited the providers from obtaining medical records from other co-defendants and utilizing their own records to mount a defense; an argument that a HIPPA compliant medical authorization was sent prior to the transmittal of the pre-suit notice letters was rejected because this was only a limited authorization allowing disclosure to counsel. Piper v. Cumberland Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2017).

Spouse's failed to provide medical authorization with their pre-suit notice that was substantially compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations because the name or other specific identification of the person(s) authorized to make the requested use or disclosure was missing from the pre-suit medical authorization; thus, HIPAA regulations foreclosed the provider from consulting with anyone to determine whether the record could aid in mounting a defense. Lawson v. Knoxville Dermatology Grp., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

Medical provider was prejudiced by the inadequacy of a patient's pre-suit medical authorization because the provider would not be allowed to use the patient's medical records to mount a defense; the medical authorization the patient and his spouse provided failed to designate who would be authorized to make use of the medical record. Lawson v. Knoxville Dermatology Grp., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an executor's claim against a hospital for failure to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith because the claim was a health care liability complaint under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; the executor alleged a hospital employee failed to monitor of a patient and his cup of hot coffee, and even if the coffee did not qualify as a “vehicle” of hydration, it fell within the general statutory definition of similar patient services. Youngblood ex rel. Estate of Vaughn v. River Park Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

As here, any claim describing a doctor's failure to analyze a diagnostic test result and to properly document the result in a patient's medical records clearly related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services, and thus the dismissal of the patient's claim based on her failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements under T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121(a)(1), 29-26-122(a) was proper. Lacy v. Meharry Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017).

Dismissal of a health care liability complaint against physicians was appropriate because the patient failed to substantially comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements as the patient's pre-suit notice did not include a HIPAA compliant medical authorization that would have allowed the physicians to obtain the patient's medical records from all other health care providers who were sent notice. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Trial court erred by granting a plaintiff's motion to amend to substitute a healthcare provider as a defendant because the amendment would be futile where, while the provider had actual notice of the action, the plaintiff did not give the provider written pre-suit notice and could not rely on the 120-day filing extension where she filed her complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Tiffinne v. Jackson-Madison, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 316 (Tenn. June 6, 2018).

In a medical malpractice case, plaintiff's authorization was not sufficient to enable defendants to obtain her medical record. Plaintiff failed to substantially comply with requirements of the notice statute by failing to provide HIPAA-compliant medical authorization, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Parks v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 683 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2018).

Mother's claims based on a revoked adoption were time-barred because, (1) as to claims against a hospital social worker and hospital, the social worker had no direct pre-suit notice, and the complaint against the hospital was filed after claims against the hospital's agent social worker were barred, (2) an adoption agency and related parties provided no health care services, so a statutory 120-day extension did not apply, and (3) ordinary negligence claims were not filed within one year. Taylor v. Promise, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019).

In a wrongful death, healthcare liability action, in which plaintiff's complaint alleged that the negligent acts of all defendants caused the patient's death, plaintiff's pre-suit notice did not comply with this statute because each defendant did not obtain the medical records from all other potential defendants to evaluate the substantive merits of the claim as to that defendant as the original actions against the two health care providers only named one health care provider as a potential defendant, and did not name the other health care provider as a potential defendant; plaintiff's error was substantial as it prevented defendants from obtaining the medical records that were necessary for evaluating the substantive merits of the claim. Gray v. St. Francis Hospital-Bartlett, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2019).

Physician's practice was entitled to summary judgment in health care liability suit because, when an administrator served the statutorily required pre-suit notice on the physician, such notice was insufficient, despite the practice's indirect notice by virtue of service of notice on the physician, as the statute was strictly construed, requiring inquiry into whether the administrator gave pre-suit notice to an actual defendant, not whether the defendant knew of the lawsuit by service of notice on another potential defendant. Petty v. Robert Burns, MD PC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2020).

Parents of deceased child failed to substantially comply with notice requirements for a health care liability action because the parents did not include compliant medical authorization forms with the notice as the forms only permitted the release of medical records to the parents'  counsel and did not specifically name each health care provider that was permitted access to the records. The health care providers were prejudiced by the noncompliance as the providers were not able to obtain needed medical records from other providers sent a notice. Owens v. Stephens, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

Dismissal of a former patient's pro se health care liability action against a hospital was appropriate because the patient never sent the required pre-suit notice to the hospital, and the patient's complaint did not state that the patient had complied with the pre-suit notice requirements. The fact that the patient informed the patient's parent, an employee of the hospital, of the patient's intent to sue the hospital did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Cobble v. Erlanger Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 201 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020).

4. Compliance Required.

Refiling a non-suited medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was not an extraordinary cause giving a trial court discretion to waive the notice and good faith certification requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 because those requirements went into effect three months before the action was refiled. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011), aff'd, Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

When the patient re-filed her suit on February 9, 2010, it was a “new action” subject to the requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 and thus, her contention that because the 60-day notice and certificate of good faith requirements had not yet been enacted when she brought suit in 2005, that those requirements should be held inapplicable to her action refiled in 2010 was without merit. Actions non-suited after the enactment of the notice of good faith provisions and re-filed following the effective date of their amendment, must comply with the provisions. Cude v. Herren, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2011).

Even if plaintiffs'  claims were based on negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur, the allegations, nevertheless, sounded in medical malpractice, and not common law negligence; therefore, the case was dismissed due to plaintiffs'  failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121's pre-suit notice requirements. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

As defendants were not required to obtain a patient's informed consent for the use of a drug so long as they had her informed consent to be treated at the hospital, plaintiffs did not have a claim for medical battery based on the administration of that drug without her consent; as their complaint sounded in medical malpractice, the case was dismissed due to their failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121's pre-suit notice requirements. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

To prove their claim that defendants negligently hired and retained the alleged tortfeasors who provided a patient's medical care, plaintiffs needed to show that the employees did not satisfy the professional standard of care and that defendants knew it; therefore, the claim sounded in medical malpractice, and was dismissed due to plaintiffs'  failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121's pre-suit notice requirements. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

Plaintiff's refiled medical malpractice suit under the savings statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), was properly dismissed with prejudice as the refiled suit was a new action for which compliance with T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 was required, and plaintiff failed failed to do so; §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 were not subject to substantial compliance. Bullock v. Univ. Health Sys., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2012).

Trial court did not err by ruling that the gravamen of an estate's complaint sounded in medical malpractice and in dismissing the complaint based upon the estate's failure to comply with the requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. The nuclear medicine technologists, whose alleged negligence formed the basis for the complaint, were called upon to make decision regarding how the decedent should be positioned and secured to the table for the scan, and they made such decision relying upon their training, expertise, and experience, which involved knowledge and judgment that would be outside the realm of that possessed by ordinary laypersons. Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2013), appeal denied, Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (Tenn. June 12, 2013).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse plaintiff's noncompliance with the certificate of good faith requirement of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122; plaintiff offered no explanation why, after her case was dismissed by the general sessions court for failing to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement, she waited until she was faced with defendants'  motions for summary judgment in circuit court to file her motion for extension of time in which to file a certificate of good faith. West v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013).

Trial court properly dismissed the mother's complaint, which alleged that the nursing home was liable for the wrongful death of her daughter, because the mother failed to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint as the allegations that the nursing home failed to properly administer medication and a medical device prescribed by a physician, and failed to monitor the medical condition of the deceased at all times prior to her death sounded in medical malpractice. Dunlap v. Laurel Manor Health Care, Inc., 422 S.W.3d 577, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 573 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1092 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and holding that a patient had to give pre-suit notice to the doctors only once because the doctors were statutorily entitled to separate notice of each forthcoming complaint so that they might evaluate the merits of the claim and pursue settlement where, although the two complaints that the patient filed against the doctors asserted the same claims and involved the same parties, the patient voluntarily non-suited the first suit, and failed to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act by providing the doctors with notice that they intended to recommence their health care liability action. Foster v. Chiles, 467 S.W.3d 911, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Jan. 27, 2015).

Plaintiffs' allegations met the definition of a health care liability action, as they alleged that the social worker, who was considered a health care provider, was negligent in providing services to their child, and expert testimony would be required to prove the allegations; plaintiffs failed to provide pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith, and dismissal with prejudice was warranted. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

One-defendant exception did not apply because spouses were required to include a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant medical authorization with their pre-suit notice to the original medical provides; because one provider's possession of the medical record from the date of the alleged injury did not operate as an authorization for it to disclose the record, that provider needed no authorization. Lawson v. Knoxville Dermatology Grp., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

5. Compliance Not Required.

Trial court erred by dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim because the patient's allegations constituted a claim of ordinary negligence or premises liability and were not governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act; the allegations did not bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a medical professional. Brister v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 307 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2011).

Medical negligence claim against a county was dismissed as plaintiffs did not allege an act or omission involving a matter of medical science or art requiring specialized skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons, and the county was not a physician under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a); a physician-patient relationship was an essential element of a medical malpractice claim. However, plaintiffs were not required to comply with T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 on the remaining common law negligence claim. Taylor v. Johnson County, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115115 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 14, 2012).

Trial court erred in dismissing an inmate's action against a county for failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements set forth in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 because the inmate's claim sounded in ordinary negligence; the inmate's claim against the county arose from the alleged failure of Department of Corrections employees to obtain medical services from its contract health care provider despite the inmate's allegedly obvious mental and physical condition. Moore v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Surviving spouse's medical malpractice claim was improperly dismissed for noncompliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) where the missing date required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.508(c)(1)(vi) was a relatively minor omission, and there was no evidence that the medical providers were prejudiced or denied access to medical records as a result. Hamilton v. Abercrombie Radiological Consultants, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 114, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 811 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (Tenn. May 15, 2015).

State was not obligated to send the T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(1) pre-suit notice as the gravamen of the complaint was in alleged deceptive business practices, not in health care liability. State ex rel. Slatery v. HRC Med. Ctrs., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019), appeal denied, State ex rel. Slatery v. HRC Med. Ctrs., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 251 (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2020).

6. Extraordinary Cause.

Trial court did not err in refusing to waive the requisites of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 because the patient's contention that her alleged substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the alleged lack of prejudice to the doctor constituted extraordinary cause to support waiver of the statutory requirements was rejected. Cude v. Herren, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2011).

Court erred in not dismissing plaintiff's medical malpractice suit, as the information provided in his original medical malpractice suit, which he later dismissed, did not serve to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122, and he did not demonstrate “extraordinary cause” for his failure to comply with those statutes. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

Trial court erred in dismissing a medical malpractice action based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) by attaching a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 29 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq., compliant medical authorization to her notice to the defendants prior to filing her complaint, because the noncompliance may have resulted from extraordinary cause, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(b), where the plaintiff's attorney was deployed to Afghanistan and was not aware that the HIPAA authorizations had not been received. It was the duty of the trial court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances and to determine whether extraordinary cause existed. Hawkins v. Martin, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2012).

Where plaintiffs nonsuited their first medical malpractice suit and did not provide defendants pretrial notice compliant with the amended version of T.C.A. § 29-26-121 before filing the second suit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to excuse plaintiffs'  from compliance with the amended version of § 29-26-121 for extraordinary cause as permitted by § 29-26-121(b), because it found there was no reason why proper notice under amended § 29-26-121 could not have been given before the suit was refiled over one year after the first suit was dismissed. Childs v. Ut Medical Group, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 163, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012), appeal denied, Childs v. UT Med. Group, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 926 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2012).

Patient's widow failure to comply subsection (a)(2)(E) was not excused by extraordinary cause because the patient's death did not prevent his personal representative from complying with the pre-suit notice requirements; the widow's failure to provide the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 compliant medical authorization could not be excused by her acts of furnishing the hospital and doctor with notice of a potential claim or filing a certificate of good faith. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

When a personal representative gave pre-suit notice of a health care liability claim to an entity that, while related to the correct health care provider, did not provide the health care in question, the suit was properly dismissed because the personal representative did not demonstrate extraordinary cause for failing to comply with this requirement. Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., 429 S.W.3d 582, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013), appeal denied, Shockley v. Mental Health Coop., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 155 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Patient complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121 in a medical malpractice suit against the State of Tennessee because extraordinary cause excused any failure to comply, since the state of the law as to the proper recipient of pre-suit notice in such circumstances was unsettled. Brown v. Samples, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014).

It was not error to dismiss a healthcare liability suit for an administratrix's failure to give defendants providers medical records authorizations, because it was not an abuse of discretion to find counsel showed no extraordinary cause for the noncompliance, as the evidence did not support counsel's claim that the oversight was due to counsel's impending overseas deployment, as there was no evidence of the effect of news of the deployment on counsel's mental state. Hawkins v. Martin, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014).

It was not error to dismiss a healthcare liability suit for an administratrix's failure to give defendants providers medical records authorizations, because it was not an abuse of discretion to find counsel showed no extraordinary cause for the noncompliance, as the evidence did not support counsel's claim that the oversight was due to counsel's impending overseas deployment, as the evidence did not convey the dread allegedly affecting counsel's ability to attend to detail. Hawkins v. Martin, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014).

It was not error to dismiss a healthcare liability suit for an administratrix's failure to give defendants providers medical records authorizations, because it was not an abuse of discretion to find counsel showed no extraordinary cause for the noncompliance, as the evidence did not support counsel's claim that the oversight was due to counsel's impending overseas deployment, as the evidence did not preponderate against a finding that counsel learned of the deployment after sending authorizations. Hawkins v. Martin, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014).

Wife did not show extraordinary cause excusing the wife's failure to provide pre-suit notice of the wife's loss of consortium claim because (1) the wife's claim clearly fit within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim, and (2) the wife's husband's pre-suit notice of the husband's health care liability claims was insufficient to provide pre-suit notice of the wife's claim. Igou v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2015).

Dismissal of a patient's complaint against a county hospital was appropriate because, by filing suit four days after giving notice to the hospital, the patient did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirement, and the patient did not show extraordinary cause, based upon the statute of limitations in the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., to excuse the non-compliance with the pre-suit notice procedures in the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq.Patterson v. Lincoln Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 499 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 878 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2015).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a hospital in a patient's health care liability action because, while the patient conceded that she did not file adequate pre-suit notice and good faith requirements, the trial court's refusal to excuse compliance with the good faith requirements was not within a range of acceptable alternatives given the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented where for the few months counsel's son lived, there were frequent periodic indications that each day could be his last, including a few serious hospitalizations, and the son's passing four days prior to the filing of the complaint. Kirby v. Sumner Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2016).

In a case involving a health care liability claim, an argument that statutory noncompliance should have been considered “excusable neglect” under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 was waived, and T.C.A. § 29-26-121(b) provided trial courts discretion to excuse compliance only for “extraordinary cause shown.” Piper v. Cumberland Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2017).

Patient, an inmate proceeding pro se, failed to demonstrate patient, an inmate proceeding pro se, failed to demonstrate extraordinary cause to justify waiver of excuse of his failure to comply with the required pre-suit notice, as he did not mail the notice to the doctors at the addresses listed for them on the Department of Health website and their current business address and failed to raise the issue of his lack of access to the internet to obtain such information before the trial court, thereby waiving the issue on appeal. Kinsey v. Schwarz, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 858 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

7. Construction.

It was the express intent of the general assembly that the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act shall apply to all medical malpractice (now health care liability) actions including claims filed under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., because this is evident from the stated purpose in both 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 919, § 3 and 2009 Tenn. Pub. Acts 474, § 4; because the general assembly expressly declared that the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121, applied to notice given on or after July 2, 2009, in all medical malpractice (now health care liability) actions, the stated purpose is expressed and clear, and it means what it says. Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2011), rev'd, Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 405 S.W.3d 41, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (Tenn. May 9, 2013).

Statutory requirements that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case give 60 days pre-suit notice, T.C.A. § 29-26-121, and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint, T.C.A. § 29-26-122, are mandatory requirements and not subject to substantial compliance. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a doctor's motion for summary judgment in a patient's medical malpractice action because the patient was entitled to the 120 day extension to the one year statute of limitation set out in the Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-116(a)(1), as well as to the same extension to the three year statute of repose set out in § 29-26-116(a)(3); the Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), does apply to the saving statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Rajvongs v. Wright, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2012), aff'd, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) and (c), are complementary parts of a single comprehensive scheme which cannot be separated without damaging the whole scheme. Rajvongs v. Wright, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2012), aff'd, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

Saving statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), is not an applicable statute of limitations for purposes of the medical malpractice notice requirement under T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Accordingly, compliance with the medical malpractice notice requirement does not operate to extend the saving statute beyond one year from the date of a nonsuit. Johnson v. Floyd, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2012).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121 requires notice of a potential medical malpractice action before the action becomes “pending”; however, it follows that, for the purposes of § 29-26-121, effective notice cannot be given of a potential, subsequent, re-filed action while the original action is pending. Childs v. Ut Medical Group, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 163, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012), appeal denied, Childs v. UT Med. Group, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 926 (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2012).

Purpose of subsection (a)(2)(E) (2012), is not to provide defendants with notice of a potential claim, but instead, it serves to equip defendants with the actual means to evaluate the substantive merits of a plaintiff's claim by enabling early access to a plaintiff's medical records; as a result, plaintiffs cannot satisfy subsection (a)(2)(E) by simply notifying defendants that a healthcare liability claim may be forthcoming. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Plaintiff's less-than-perfect compliance with subsection (a)(2)(E) should not derail a healthcare liability claim; non-substantive errors and omissions will not always prejudice defendants by preventing them from obtaining a plaintiff's relevant medical records, and thus, a plaintiff must substantially comply, rather than strictly comply, with the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(E). Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Because subsection (a)(2)(E) is not inconsistent with Tennessee law regarding the implied covenant of confidentiality in doctor-patient relationships, this implied covenant does not excuse a plaintiff's failure to comply with the statutory requirement. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Meaning of “complete medical records” is not to grant defendants access to a plaintiff's entire medical history but is to afford defendants access to all medical records relevant to the particular claim at issue; in determining whether medical records are relevant for purposes of litigation, defendants should continue to adhere to the “minimum necessary” standard that traditionally applies to a provider's use and disclosure of a patient's private health records under 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(b)(1). Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Because T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 were enacted together as part of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, the doctrine of in pari materia requires the interpretation these two sections together; the legislature's failure to mandate the same remedy for T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) violations can only be interpreted as an indication that dismissal with prejudice for such violations is not compulsory. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

Because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, itself prohibits medical providers from using or disclosing a plaintiff's medical records without a fully compliant authorization form, it is a threshold requirement of the statute that the plaintiff's medical authorization must be sufficient to enable defendants to obtain and review a plaintiff's relevant medical records. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

While a plaintiff files a “civil warrant” in order to commence a civil action in general sessions court, T.C.A. § 16-15-716, the certificate of good faith requirement under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122, applies to any medical malpractice action filed in any court of the State, not only those actions commenced by filing a “complaint” in circuit court. West v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013).

In determining whether T.C.A. § 29-26-121 contravened the separation of powers clause of Tenn. Const. art. II, § 2, the court declined to apply the strict scrutiny test, as it was not applicable where there were no allegations that the legislative action was impermissibly interfering with the exercise of a fundamental right or operating to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. Williams v. SMZ Specialists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013), appeal denied, Williams v. SMZ Specialists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1018 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Pre-lawsuit notice requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) and (b) did not contravene the separation of powers clause of Tenn. Const. art. II, § 2, as it did not redefine the commencement of an action and accordingly, was construed harmoniously with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 and did not impede T.C.A. §§ 16-3-402 and 16-3-406. Williams v. SMZ Specialists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 267 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013), appeal denied, Williams v. SMZ Specialists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1018 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

In a medical malpractice suit against the State of Tennessee, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(6) did not require service of pre-suit notice on the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General because the Rule did not address such notice. Brown v. Samples, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014).

Legislature intended for service of pre-suit notice by mail to be effectuated only through the United States Postal Service via certified mail, and it provided for no other method of service by mail; based upon the legislature's omission of other carriers as a means of mailing or delivery of the notice in the current version of the statute, it is presumed that it deliberately intended that the Postal Service would be the only acceptable means of service other than personal delivery. Arden v. Kozawa, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2014), rev'd, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Although the trial court, in dismissing a complaint against a social worker for providing counseling to a child in violation of a court order, reasoned that the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act encompassed all claims involving the provision of health care services or treatment by a health care provider, this determination must be nuanced, and nothing in the trial court's written order or oral ruling indicated that it considered the standard outlined in Estate of French in dismissing the complaint. Rather, it appeared the trial court relied on the gravamen of the complaint standard rejected in Estate of French. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2014), rev'd, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Delivery of pre-suit notice by private commercial carrier and filing of proof with the complaint constitutes substantial compliance with the pre-suit notice statute; as long as a defendant is not prejudiced, it does not matter whether a commercial carrier or the United States Postal Service delivers the notice, and the over-arching purpose of the pre-suit notice statute is to ensure that health care defendants receive timely notice of a forthcoming lawsuit. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Manner and proof of service requirements of the pre-suit notice statute are not mandatory but directory and can be achieved through substantial compliance; so long as a health care defendant is not prejudiced by a plaintiff's deviations from the prescribed method of service, certified mail, return receipt requested, or the proof of service requirement, filing a certificate of mailing from the United States Postal Service, substantial compliance with the statutory requirements will suffice. Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Ex parte interviews permitted by T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f) do not constitute formal discovery under current Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.01. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

By its express terms T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) limits the scope of ex parte interviews conducted pursuant to a qualified protective order to healthcare information that is (1) otherwise protected and (2) relevant to the litigation currently pending before the trial court. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

T.C.A. § 26-29-121(f)(1) modified judicial precedent by overruling the court's total prohibition against a defendant's ex parte communication with a plaintiff's treating healthcare providers. The section restored a defendant's ability to conduct ex parte interviews outside of the formal discovery process but within statutory parameters that do not extend to matters beyond protected health information. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) is limited to health information that is protected and relevant to the litigation pending before the trial court. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

Nothing in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) as it existed in 2012 prohibited a healthcare provider from refusing to participate in an ex parte interview, from refusing to respond to particular questions, from requiring or disallowing presence of counsel, or from otherwise refusing to discuss his patient's healthcare information other than in a formal deposition. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

There is nothing in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) to indicate that the General Assembly intended the section to serve as a mechanism to prepare potential witnesses for questioning either in formal discovery or at trial. The opportunity granted by the subsection is a limited one; it is limited to interviewing a plaintiff's treating healthcare providers to obtain information. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

Trial court's requirements that a court reporter be present at ex parte interviews conducted pursuant to § 29-26-121(f)(1), that all interviews be recorded, that they be conducted under oath, and that transcripts of the interviews be filed under seal contravened § 29-26-121(f)(1) by transforming the investigatory interviews into quasi-depositions. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

Trial court did not err in restricting the qualified protective order to relevant protected health information as that limitation did nothing more than reflect the parameters of T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1). Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) expressly grants the trial court the discretion to grant a motion to limit or prohibit ex parte interviews upon good cause shown that the treating healthcare provider does not possess relevant information as defined by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) does not provide unlimited access to a plaintiff's healthcare providers, nor does it put defendants on equal footing with respect to the ability to question a plaintiff's healthcare providers. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

By its express terms, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) is applicable to protected healthcare information that is relevant to the lawsuit, at least with respect to interviews conducted with healthcare providers who are not a defendant's own agents. Dean-Hayslett v. Methodist Healthcare, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 698 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

Aim of the statute is to ensure that prospective defendants receive adequate and timely notice of possible claims against them. Hughes v. Henry County Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f) (2012 & Supp. 2018) is elided to make it permissive only, in order to retain the core discretionary functions of trial courts in discovery, while providing a framework for protective orders over ex parte interviews with non-party treating healthcare providers. Elided from T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1) is the phrase “such petition shall be granted under the following conditions.” Under the elided version of the statute, a trial court can exercise its appropriate discretion over procedural discovery matters and also retain the power to determine what is admissible at trial. Willeford v. Klepper, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Feb. 28, 2020).

8. “Extraordinary Cause” Exception Not Applicable.

Since a medical malpractice plaintiff complied with the statutory requirements in T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122, the question of whether a failure to meet the requirements could be justified on the basis of “extraordinary cause” was simply not relevant. Hinkle v. Kindred Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Husband's medical malpractice suit was properly dismissed where: (1) The husband did not comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(4) by filing proof of service of the pre-suit notice on the providers or an affidavit of the party that mailed the notice; (2) He did not comply with § 29-26-121(b) as he did not provide documentation of the pre-suit notice in the complaint until after the limitations period had expired; (3) An amended complaint could not cure the deficiencies; and (4) The husband did not show extraordinary cause to excuse his noncompliance with § 29-26-121. Vaughn v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. May 15, 2014), overruled, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015), overruled in part, Eiswert v. United States, 619 Fed. Appx. 483, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13878, 2015 FED App. 537N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed an inmate's complaint against a doctor because it did not abuse its discretion in finding no extraordinary cause to excuse the inmate from compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act; the inmate did not plead extraordinary cause, in the words of the statute, for his failure to give pre-suit notice to the doctor. Mathes v. Lane, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014).

Widower did not substantially comply with statutory requirements, and as the trial court properly found, he did not demonstrate extraordinary cause for his noncompliance. Johnson v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 1106 (Tenn. Dec. 17, 2014).

Patient failed to present any facts that could be construed to constitute extraordinary cause for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements because neither the complaint nor the patient's brief on appeal demonstrated extraordinary cause such that her failure to comply could be excused. Ibrahim v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

Patient's noncompliance was not excused by extraordinary cause because the patient's counsel did not allege any extraordinary reason for his failure to provide a medical authorization, but he simply stated that he failed to retain a copy of the allegedly signed form; that oversight did not rise to the level of extraordinary cause. Travis v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2016).

Trial court did not err in refusing to grant a widower a waiver for her noncompliance with the with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act compliant authorization requirement due to extraordinary cause because the widower failed to comply with a significant part of those requirements, instead choosing to rely upon an agreed order from a prior action in place of the authorization; the agreed order ceased to be effective several months before the present action was filed. Cright v. Overly, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2016), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).

9. Tolling.

Plaintiffs'  42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against two detention center medical officers were time-barred under T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(3) as the officers were not made a part of the suit until well beyond the limitations period; the limitations period was not tolled under T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c) as plaintiffs offered no authority for invoking that provision. Taylor v. Johnson County, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115115 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 14, 2012).

10. Section Inapplicable to Claims Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

Order overruling a county's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice suit brought by a patient was error because, contrary to the trial court's holding, the tolling provision of T.C.A. § 29-26-121 did not apply to claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-20-201 et seq.Lawing v. Greene County EMS, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 921 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2011), review denied and ordered not published, Lawing v. Greene County EMS, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 502 (Tenn. June 11, 2013).

11. Validity of Notice Requirement.

Requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 that a plaintiff file a pre-suit notice 60 days prior to commencing an action did not conflict with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 3 to constitute an impermissible encroachment upon the court's rule making authority, as § 29-26-121 requires that written notice be filed before the filing of a complaint. Webb v. Roberson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1085 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

12. No Preemption.

Complying with subsection (a)(2)(E) neither conflicts with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) nor stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of HIPAA's full purposes and objectives; as such, subsection (a)(2)(E) is not “contrary” to HIPAA, and it is not preempted. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121 is not preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. §§ 160, 162, and 164, because a “covered entity” can comply with the requirements of § 29-26-121 and HIPAA, and § 29-26-121 does not impede the accomplishment or execution of HIPAA's purposes. Webb v. Roberson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1085 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq., did not preempt T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f). Caldwell v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2016).

13. Constitutionality.

T.C.A. § 29-26-121, does not violate the due process clause of the Tennessee and United States constitutions, because the pre-notice provision does not erect an artificial or punitive barrier to suit, but is a minimal, easily accessible requirement. Webb v. Roberson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1085 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121, does not violate the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee and United States constitutions, because there is a reasonable basis for the pre-suit notice, which advances the legislative objective of preventing protracted litigation through early investigation, and possibly, facilitating early resolution through settlement. Webb v. Roberson, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1085 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f) (2012 & Supp. 2018) is unconstitutional as enacted, to the limited extent that it divests trial courts of their inherent discretion over discovery. Willeford v. Klepper, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 85 (Tenn. Feb. 28, 2020).

14. Failure to File Proof of Service.

Requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(b) that the party file the proof of service with the complaint was directory, not mandatory, and thus, plaintiffs' failure to file proof of service with their second complaint was not fatal to their cause of action. Foster v. Chiles, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 422 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2013), rev'd, 467 S.W.3d 911, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (Tenn. Jan. 27, 2015), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 988 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013).

15. Untimely Suit.

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a doctor, who performed a pregnancy-avoidance medical procedure on a patient, based on the statute of limitations as the evidence showed that the patient was at least on inquiry notice of the patient's pregnancy no later than November 27, 2009, given that the patient's deposition and affidavit indicated that she suspected she was pregnant on that date and received at least some confirmation of her suspicion in the form of a positive result on a home pregnancy test. Since suit was not filed within the 120-day period, it was untimely. Speck v. Woman's Clinic, P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2013), appeal denied, Speck v. Woman's Clinic, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014).

Trial court properly dismissed a surviving spouse's lawsuit because his mailing of the pre-suit notice via Federal Express did not constitute substantial compliance with the statute's requirements; the spouse's mailing was improper and ineffective, and thus, the spouse was precluded from relying upon the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations provided by the statute, and his complaint, which was filed more than one year after his wife's death was untimely. Arden v. Kozawa, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 346 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 18, 2014), rev'd, 466 S.W.3d 758, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 544 (Tenn. May 5, 2015).

Medical malpractice action that was filed on September 8, 2011 by the surviving spouse of a patient was time-barred because the surviving spouse, after giving pre-suit notice of intent to file a claim and relying upon the tolling provision in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), filed the complaint against a regional medical center, which was a government entity, one year and 113 days after the cause of action accrued prior to October 1, 2011. Miller ex rel. Miller v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's healthcare liability claims as barred by the statute of limitations because the patient failed to file suit or provide pre-suit notice to doctors and professional entities before the statute of limitations had run; the patient sent what purported to be the pre-suit notice in a letter more than a year after any alleged injury occurred or was discovered. Ibrahim v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

Mother's claims accrued on June 21, 2012, and she was adjudicated incompetent on November 29, 2012, and T.C.A. § 28-1-106 did not apply to toll the statute of limitations; her claims, filed in September 2015, were barred by the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 29-26-116, and even if the limitations period had been extended pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(c), the last day on which her claims could have been filed was October 2013. Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

Because the medical authorization sent by a conservator with the first notice letter was deficient, as it only permitted the recipient providers to send medical records to the conservator's counsel and not to other providers sent notice, the conservator did not receive a 120 day extension, which made the first complaint time-barred as it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Although the conservator voluntarily dismissed and refiled the action, the second complaint was time-barred because of the untimeliness of the first complaint. Dortch v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2018).

Radiation oncologist, a hospital, the developer of a radiation therapy system were entitled to summary judgment because a patient's claims were barred by the statute of limitations; the causes of action accrued, at the very latest, by September 8, 2014 when the patient was informed that there were very few to no options that were not high risk, and the oncologist, hospital, and developer proffered evidence that he knew in 2013 he had surrounding tissue damage that was due to the treatment. Dondero v. Accuray Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2018).

Wrongful death action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the complaint was not timely filed as pre-suit notice was not given within one year of the date of discovery of the cause of action against the hospital in which the decedent received medical treatment. Pursuant to the discovery rule, as evidenced by the administrator of the decedent's estate seeking through counsel decedent's medical records, the executor had constructive knowledge of the decedent's claim more than one year before pre-suit notice was sent. Daffron v. Mem'l Health Care Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 495 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2019).

In a health care liability action, where defendants alleged that plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory pre-suit requirements, defendants met their burden by showing that plaintiffs'  medical authorizations lacked three of the core elements federal law required for compliance under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and plaintiffs failed to establish either substantial compliance or extraordinary cause to excuse their noncompliance, and 120-day extension of the statute of limitations was not applicable. Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Apr. 29, 2020).

Because the extension for filing a health care liability action resulting from pre-trial notice was unavailable to the parents of a deceased child, in that the parents failed to include complaint medical authorization forms with the notice, the parents'  cause of action against health care providers was time-barred pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations. Owens v. Stephens, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2020).

15.5. Timely Suit.

Administratrix's healthcare liability action against governmental entities was commenced timely because the 2011 amendments to the Health Care Liability Act (HCLA) extended the Governmental Tort Liability Act's one-year statute of limitations by 120 days, and the administratrix complied with the HCLA's pre-suit notice requirements. Banks v. Bordeaux Long Term Care, 465 S.W.3d 141, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 786 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 298 (Tenn. Apr. 10, 2015).

Trial court erred in dismissing the child's claims based on expiration of the statute of repose, as the three-year statute of repose began to run on June 21, 2012, when the negligent acts occurred, and while the child did not file his claims within three years of that date, he provided defendants with pre-suit notice of his claims as provided in T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a) on April 17, 2015, and thus the statute of repose was extended by 120 days, and child's claims, filed on September 29, 2015, were timely. Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

Appellees failed to set forth undisputed facts establishing that the decedent had sufficient facts on May 18, 2014 to put him on notice of the doctor's alleged negligence, and the facts showed only that the diagnosis was made known to decedent or his representatives on June 18, 2014, when appellant learned of the decedent's cause of death through the autopsy report; using this date, if appellant gave appropriate pre-suit notice pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121, appellant's complaint was timely filed. Shaw v. Gross, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

16. Transitional Plaintiff.

Transitional plaintiff who properly provides pre-suit notice is entitled to the same procedural benefits of a 120-day extension of the statute of limitations or statute of repose that this section makes available to a plaintiff filing an initial health care liability complaint. Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

Patient who filed his initial health care liability action before the enactment of the pre-suit notice requirements, voluntarily dismissed his original action, gave pre-suit notice and refiled his suit more than one year later filed his suit after the one-year period under the saving statute since this section did not alter the traditional definition of commencement of a suit with the filing of the complaint; however, the patient was entitled to the 120-day extension of the savings statute under this section because he gave pre-suit notice before filing the second complaint. Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

17. Commencement of Action.

Pre-suit notice requirement of this section does not alter the traditional definition of the commencement of an action and a health care liability action is commenced by filing a complaint since the statutory language, “potential claim” in this section draws a distinction between a potential health care liability claim and the complaint that is filed to commence an action; providing notice at least sixty (60) days before the filing of a complaint, indicates that the complaint, not the notice, is the defining event for commencement of a civil action. Rajvongs v. Wright, 432 S.W.3d 808, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2013).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121 does not change the traditional definition of commencement under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3; therefore, although the pre-suit notice requirements must be given, unless properly excused, a failure to satisfy them before the filing of a complaint does not prevent that filing from being considered a commencement within the meaning of § 29-26-121(c). Therefore, a refiled medical malpractice case should not have been dismissed based on an allegation that the pre-suit notice requirements were not met in the original filing because, despite non-suiting a first lawsuit, a second lawsuit was commenced within the one year time period provided for in T.C.A. § 28-1-105. Cartwright v. DMC-Memphis Inc., 468 S.W.3d 517, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 347 (Tenn. Apr. 14, 2015).

18. Extension.

Medical malpractice claim was not barred by the limitations period because several children provided health care providers with written notice of their potential claims in an attempt to refile a nonsuited action, and the second complaint was filed within 1 year and 120 days of the nonsuit. The 1-year time limit was extended for 120 days through compliance with the medical malpractice notice requirements because the children qualified as transitional plaintiffs. Johnson v. Floyd, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2014).

Surviving spouse who brought a health care liability action against a governmental entity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101 et seq., was entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations because the statutory amendment of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (HCLA), T.C.A. § 29-26-101 et seq., allowed the GTLA's one-year statute of limitations to be extended by 120 days in cases when the requirements of the HCLA were satisfied. Harper v. Bradley County, 464 S.W.3d 615, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (Tenn. Feb. 19, 2015).

Patient's complaint was timely filed because the patient was entitled to the benefit of the 120-day extension that was provided in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 to the statute of limitations in the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, under T.C.A. § 29-20-305, in that the patient complied with the pre-suit notice provisions of T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Wade v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp. Dist., 469 S.W.3d 54, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 447 (Tenn. May 19, 2015).

It was error to dismiss a patient's refiled health care liability complaint as untimely because, when the patient gave pre-suit notices before filing each complaint, within one year of the voluntary dismissal, the patient was entitled to a 120-day extension of the saving statute, as (1) it could not be concluded that the general assembly required plaintiffs to provide pre-suit notice before refiling under the saving statute and yet deprived plaintiffs of the 120-day extension, and (2) the patient was not only entitled to the use of one extension, as the re-filed complaint was a new and independent action. Tinnel v. E. Tenn. Ear, Nose and Throat Specialists, P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a hospital in a visitor's trip and fell action because, while visitor's claim sounded in ordinary negligence under a premises liability theory rather than health care liability, the action could proceed where application of the “ordinary negligence/medical malpractice” dichotomy was potentially confusing and unclear, the visitor's complaint was filed in good faith, she fully and timely complied with the statutory requirements, there was no indication that the action was filed as an ordinary negligence claim for any improper purpose or motive or to gain unfair advantage, and process was issued within one year of the filing date. Coggins v. Holston Valley Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 476 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

Because spouses failed to comply with pre-suit notice requirements, they did not obtain the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations when they filed their complaint; therefore, any future claims the spouse's filed would be time-barred. Lawson v. Knoxville Dermatology Grp., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's health care liability complaint against two doctors because the patient was entitled to the 120-day extension of the limitations period; the trial court failed to presume the truth of the patient's allegations regarding the HIPAA authorizations he claims he mailed to the doctors and to give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, as it was required to do when ruling on the doctors'  motions to dismiss. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's health care liability complaint against two doctors because the patient was entitled to the 120-day extension of the limitations period; when 120 days was added to the date of the trial court's order approving the patient's voluntary non-suit the statute of limitations on his health care liability action against the two doctors was extended, and the second complaint was timely filed. Brookins v. Tabor, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018), substituted opinion, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

19. Waiver of Defense.

In a case where a worker claimed that she suffered a back injury due to a failure to properly treat a patient, the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief based on filing a complaint less than 60 days after sending a notice letter was not waived because it was presented in a motion, as required by the rule relating to waiver of defenses. Because the defense could have been presented as late as at the trial on the merits, the defense was not waived due to the discovery conducted prior to filing the motion. Blankenship v. Anesthesiology Consultants Exch., P.C., 446 S.W.3d 757, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2014), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 539 (Tenn. June 24, 2014).

In a health care liability action, the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint because the documentation requirement of the Health Care Liability Act was not mandatory, and substantial compliance was sufficient even when the defendant was a governmental entity; and plaintiff substantially complied with the documentation requirement as she satisfied all the statutory requirements except for filing copies of the medical authorizations, and she rectified her mistake at an early stage; defendants suffered no prejudice from the filing delay because they received the authorizations with the pre-suit notice; and allowing the plaintiff to proceed under the circumstances promoted the judicial goal of disposing of a case on its merits. Clary v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

20. Review.

In a health care liability action, the trial court erred by adding certain conditions to a qualified protective order issued pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(f)(1). The requirements imposed by the trial court transformed the ex parte investigatory interviews authorized by the section into quasi-depositions in contravention of the substantive purpose of the section. S. W. v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, S.W. v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 703 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

In a health care liability action, the trial court did not err by restricting a protective order to relevant protected health information, as this provision in the trial court's order did no more than reiterate the parameters set-forth in the statute. S. W. v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, S.W. v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 703 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2015).

Trial court did not err in finding and holding that termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations constituted the type of extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint as required by T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendants'  motion to dismiss. Reed v. W. Tenn. Healthcare, Inc., 577 S.W.3d 534, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2018).

21. Medical Records.

Plaintiff authorized the release of relevant medical records for an appropriate period of time. Hunt v. Nair, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Jan. 21, 2016).

Plaintiff's medical authorization fulfilled all the requirements of a federal regulation, and plaintiff's failure to employ certain language from the regulation did not prejudice defendants, as they used the authorization in seeking medical records and received only one rejection from one entity that incorrectly found that the authorization only granted permission to release records to the plaintiff's attorney. Hunt v. Nair, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Jan. 21, 2016).

Defendants properly moved for dismissal to challenge what they characterized as an insufficient medical authorization, but the deficiency was really a lack of verification that the attorney requesting the documents was actually representing defendants, not a deficiency in the wording of the authorization. Hunt v. Nair, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Jan. 21, 2016).

Trial court properly granted motions to dismiss a widower's medical malpractice action because her failure to comply with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant authorization requirement was significant and would prejudice a doctor and hospital; while the doctor and hospital had access to the deceased's medical records after obtaining them during the widower's initial action, they were not entitled to use those records in the present case absent authorization. Cright v. Overly, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2016), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).

While records pertaining to the care the mother received during her pregnancy might have been relevant to determining defendants'  prior knowledge of the complications that might arise during the mother’s labor, no such argument could be made with regard to records from the treatment the child received after the delivery; those records were not relevant to defendants'  evaluation of the claims, and defendants were not prejudiced by the child's failure to authorize their release, for purposes of T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Woodruff v. Walker, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (Tenn. Oct. 5, 2017).

Under judicial precedent, a third party was not permitted to alter or modify a medical authorization after it was executed by a patient or a patient's authorized representative. Roberts v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

Third parties are not permitted to alter or modify a medical authorization after it has been executed by a patient or patient's authorized representative. Smith v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2018).

22. Substantial Compliance.

Plaintiff failed to attach to the complaint the medical authorization and the pre-suit notice letters, but an exhibit attaching the missing documents was filed, plus defendants had already received all of those materials and thus were not prejudiced by the omission, and plaintiff substantially complied with the statute, making dismissal improper. Hunt v. Nair, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (Tenn. Jan. 21, 2016).

Patient's counsel submitted an affidavit verifying that he timely mailed pre-suit notice certified mail, return receipt requested, and because that affidavit was not a pleading, the court of appeals could not consider it in determining whether the patient strictly complied with subsection (b). Travis v. Cookeville Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 697 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2016).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's claims against a medical provider in her health care liability action because she substantially comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements by filing a certificate of good faith, subsequently filing a notice of filing, which included a copy of her pre-suit notice letter, a signed, certified mail receipt demonstrating delivery of the pre-suit notice, and the medical authorization form, explicitly stated in her complaint that pre-suit notice had been provided, and the provider did not claim that it was prejudiced in any way. Grizzle v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2017).

T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(3)(B)(ii) stated that notice should be mailed to the doctor's address along with his place of business, but the address listed by the Tennessee Department of Health, did not appear to be a valid address, and appellant's assertion that the address she used was valid was not substantiated or refuted, and substantial compliance could not be determined. Shaw v. Gross, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Issue was whether appellant substantially complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(3)(B), whether either defendant was prejudiced, but the trial court failed to apply the appropriate standard, and the appropriate remedy was to vacate the judgment of the trial court on this issue and remand for further consideration. Shaw v. Gross, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2018).

Because the medical authorizations accompanying plaintiff's first pre-suit notice failed to list any person or class of persons that were authorized to disclose protected health information or to whom a disclosure of information could be made, they did not substantially comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121. Roberts v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2018).

Husband's omission of an expiration date was insignificant and did not prevent the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act form from being substantially compliant because there had been no showing that a doctor and a medical practice were prejudiced by the omission; counsel for the doctor acknowledged that the omission was “not an extremely significant oversight.” Williams v. Gateway Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019).

Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) form a deceased patient's husband provided failed to substantially comply with subsection (a)(2)(E), because it did not include a description of the information to be used or disclosed, thereby causing prejudice to a doctor and a medical practice; without a valid HIPAA authorization, neither the doctor nor the medical practice could access the necessary medical records. Williams v. Gateway Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019).

Trial court properly dismissed a husband's claims for failure to substantially comply with because the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(E) because the husband's failure to check the requested medical records made the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act authorization fall short of the standard of substantial compliance. Williams v. Gateway Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019).

Couple's method of permitting the medical providers access to the wife's medical records substantially complied with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) where the authorization allowed each provider to disclose complete medical records to each named provider but did not state specifically that each provider could obtain records from each other. Thus, the couple had substantially complied with the statute because two of the providers could have obtained all of the wife's medical records from the other medical providers just by asking. Combs v. Milligan, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2020).

23. Pretrial Procedure.

Proper way for a defendant to challenge a complaint's compliance with pre-litigation notice and certificate of good faith requirements is to file a motion to dismiss. If the trial court determines that the plaintiff has not complied with the statutory requirements, then the trial court may consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated extraordinary cause for its noncompliance. McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), appeal denied, McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

24. Appellate Procedure.

If a defendant prevails and the complaint in a health care liability action is dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-litigation notice and certificate of good faith requirements, the plaintiff is entitled to an appeal of right using the appropriate standards of review by rule. If the plaintiff prevails, the defendant may pursue an interlocutory appeal using the same standards. McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), appeal denied, McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

25. Dismissal.

Because the patient failed to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. Estate of Thibodeau v. St. Thomas Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).

While a plaintiff's right to a voluntary nonsuit is subject to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23.05, 23.06, or Tenn. R. Civ. P. 66 or of any statute, the phrase “of any statute” does not include the certificate of good faith statute; the reference to “any statute” is part of a list which includes Rules 23.05, 23.06, and 66, and each of the listed rules expressly limits a party's right to take a voluntary nonsuit in certain types of cases. Clark v. Werther, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's claims against medical providers with prejudice because Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 preserved the right of plaintiffs to obtain a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the patient met the requirements; because the good faith certificate statute did not expressly preclude a plaintiff from taking a voluntary nonsuit and allowed a court the discretion to excuse noncompliance, it did not preclude the patient from taking a voluntary nonsuit. Clark v. Werther, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

Plaintiff was required to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements in advancing a health care liability claim; because plaintiff failed to do so, the trial court properly dismissed the claim. Lacy v. Mitchell, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 904 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

In an action regarding injury allegedly caused by an emergency medical technician (EMT) in the course of rendering medical aid, plaintiff's action was improperly dismissed with prejudice based on his failure to file a certificate of good faith as plaintiff's claims were subject to the common knowledge exception because it would be within the common knowledge of a layperson whether an EMT's alleged negligent, reckless, or intentional striking of plaintiff's face while he was strapped to a gurney would fall below the standard of care, and that act would not require expert proof to aid in the understanding of the issue; thus, plaintiff's claims should have been dismissed with prejudice based on that ground. Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., 531 S.W.3d 698, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Sept. 20, 2017).

Hospital's motion to dismiss was granted because plaintiffs failed to provide the required, pre-suit, written notice for their health care liability action under Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act as plaintiffs'  claims constituted a health care liability action because their claims of abuse of process, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of the duty of care, conversion and assault were all related to the provision of health care services to the patient and were governed by the Act. Mullin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106947 (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017).

When a parent alleged that an employee of a trauma-focused residential treatment facility where the parent's juvenile child was residing pushed or pulled the child to the ground and stomped on the child's foot during an altercation, the parent's failure to provide the facility with pre-suit notice mandated a dismissal, without prejudice, of the parent's negligent supervision and/or training claim against the facility because the claim was a health care liability action. C.D. v. Keystone Continuum, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2018).

Trial court properly denied a husband's motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 upon its finding that the husband was attempting to relitigate matters that had already been adjudicated because the trial court did not err in determining that the lack of descriptions of records failed to comply with the law. Williams v. Gateway Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019).

Trial court did not err by determining that the patient's action was a health care liability action, and therefore the trial court properly granted the medical facility's motion to dismiss based on the patient's failure to provide pre-suit notice, because the patient alleged that while he was at the facility he fell off an examination table and into a wall, and the provision of an examination table for an appointment with a doctor was a “health care service” as defined by § 29-26-101(b) as it fell under custodial or basic care, positioning and similar patient services. Johnson v. Knoxville HMA Cardiology PPM, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2020).

Because a father's claims related to and arose out of the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to his children, his claims constituted a health care liability action; thus, the circuit court properly dismissed the father's complaint against counselors for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Cathey v. Beyer, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

26. Qualified Protective Order.

Health care providers were entitled to a qualified protective order to obtain protected health information in a medical malpractice action because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq., did not preempt the state statute, the providers complied with the procedural requirements of the statute, and the patient did not object based upon relevance. Caldwell v. Baptist Mem. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2016).

27. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Compliant Medical Authorization.

Based on the clear and unambiguous language of subsection (a)(2)(E), a plaintiff need not provide a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 compliant authorization when a single healthcare provider is given pre-suit notice of a healthcare liability claim; the authorization only allows a potential defendant to obtain the prospective plaintiff's medical records from any other healthcare provider also given notice and identified as a potential defendant in the pre-suit notice. Bray v. Khuri, 523 S.W.3d 619, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. July 5, 2017).

District court properly dismissed plaintiffs'  medical malpractice action because plaintiffs'  pre-suit notice letter did not substantially comply with Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act and core elements of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as plaintiffs left blank sections where they were to list persons to whom each provider could disclose plaintiff husband's records, cover letter did not render incomplete HIPAA authorization forms compliant, and defendants suffered prejudice as result of deficiencies in plaintiffs'  HIPAA authorization forms as they were unable to obtain medical records needed for their defense. Riley v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps.,  — F.3d —, 2018 FED App. 0228N, 2018 FED App. 228N, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11298 (6th Cir. May 2, 2018).

Plaintiffs substantially complied with pre-suit notice requirements and defendants had not shown prejudice by the medical release authorization forms that did not indicate that the providers were authorized to make disclosures, failed to list an expiration date, and left one section blank; the complaint alleged that defendant doctor was a healthcare provider providing treatment at defendant hospital, and defendant entity was a corporate entity and had no treatment records regarding the patient. Plaintiffs were entitled to a 120-day extension to the statute of limitations. Martin v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2018).

Medical authorizations sent with plaintiff's first pre-suit notice failed to contain three of the core elements mandated by the federal regulations and the trial court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of a practice in the second judicial district of utilizing blank medical authorizations that were not HIPAA compliant, and equating the same to extraordinary cause to excuse a plaintiff's noncompliance with the statute. Smith v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2018).

Statutory scheme requires that a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization be with the presuit notice; HIPAA deems authorizations defective if not filled out completely, and the local practice of leaving blanks in a medical authorization does not satisfy the aforesaid statutory scheme, and judicial notice of a local custom, without more, does not rise to the level of extraordinary cause. Smith v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2018).

Defendants are not required to use a medical authorization to gather a patient's medical records, if the authorization is not compliant with HIPAA; it therefore follows that a defendant's claim of prejudice is not waived by failing to attempt to use or otherwise test an allegedly defective authorization. Smith v. Wellmont Health Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2018).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's complaint because she failed to substantially comply with the statute by providing medical providers with an expired and, therefore, invalid Health Insurance Potability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorization form; as a result of the expiration date having passed, the providers were not authorized to receive the patient's medical records, and they were prejudiced by her noncompliance because they could not lawfully request her medical records. Buckman v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 26, 2018).

HIPAA authorization plaintiff sent to the dentist was not HIPAA-compliant, and plaintiff failed to show that the dentist had another means of access to the records maintained by the dental practice that would have enabled him to evaluate her claim; plaintiff failed to substantially comply with the statute because her authorization would not allow the dentist to obtain records from the other health care provider receiving pre-suit notice, plaintiff did not receive the 120-day extension, and her complaint against the dentist was not timely. Wenzler v. Xiao Yu, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018).

It was not necessary for the dental practice to utilize the HIPAA authorization to obtain records, as the dental practice was authorized to use the records in its possession to evaluate plaintiff's claim; discerning no prejudice to the practice due to plaintiff's failure to provide it with a HIPAA compliant release, plaintiff substantially complied with the statute, she was entitled to the 120-day extension to the statute of limitations, and her claim against the practice was not time-barred. Wenzler v. Xiao Yu, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018).

Plaintiff's HIPAA authorizations were defective as she failed to identify any authorized recipient of the records. Wenzler v. Xiao Yu, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018).

Trial court properly dismissed a husband's claims for failure to substantially comply with the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(E) because medical authorization was necessary since without a valid Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act authorization, neither a doctor nor a medical practice could access the necessary medical records; the doctor asserted that she was unable to obtain the deceased patient's medical records that were in the possession of a hospital. Williams v. Gateway Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019).

Because claimant failed to demonstrate compliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2) or (b), the case was properly dismissed on this basis as well; there was no HIPAA authorization, the claimant had not produced one, and copies of the authorization were not filed with the complaint. Ledford ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

Patient's power of attorney (POA) failed to identify on the medical authorization the identity of the individual authorized to receive the patient's records, which precluded defendants from obtaining the patient's medical records, and thus POA failed to substantially comply with the statute to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization; this prevented her from relying on the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations, and as no extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse her noncompliance was shown, the cause was dismissed with prejudice. Hancock v. BJR Enters., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 14, 2020).

28. Hospital Authorities.

Inclusion of governmental entities in the Health Care Liability Act's definitions of health care liability action and health care provider supports the proposition that governmental health care providers are to be treated the same as non-governmental ones, and strict compliance with the Health Care Liability Act is not required when a defendant is a governmental entity. Clary v. Miller, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 861 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

29-26-122. Filing of certificate of good faith.

  1. In any health care liability action in which expert testimony is required by § 29-26-115, the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel shall file a certificate of good faith with the complaint. If the certificate is not filed with the complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed, as provided in subsection (c), absent a showing that the failure was due to the failure of the provider to timely provide copies of the claimant's records requested as provided in § 29-26-121 or demonstrated extraordinary cause. The certificate of good faith shall state that:
    1. The plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel has consulted with one (1) or more experts who have provided a signed written statement confirming that upon information and belief they:
      1. Are competent under § 29-26-115 to express an opinion or opinions in the case; and
      2. Believe, based on the information available from the medical records concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue, that there is a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115; or
    2. The plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel has consulted with one (1) or more experts who have provided a signed written statement confirming that upon information and belief they:
      1. Are competent under § 29-26-115 to express an opinion or opinions in the case; and
      2. Believe, based on the information available from the medical records reviewed concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue and, as appropriate, information from the plaintiff or others with knowledge of the incident or incidents at issue, that there are facts material to the resolution of the case that cannot be reasonably ascertained from the medical records or information reasonably available to the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel; and that, despite the absence of this information, there is a good faith basis for maintaining the action as to each defendant consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115. Refusal of the defendant to release the medical records in a timely fashion or where it is impossible for the plaintiff to obtain the medical records shall waive the requirement that the expert review the medical record prior to expert certification.
  2. Within thirty (30) days after a defendant has alleged in an answer or amended answer that a non-party is at fault for the injuries or death of the plaintiff and expert testimony is required to prove fault as required by § 29-26-115, each defendant or defendant's counsel shall file a certificate of good faith stating that:
    1. The defendant or defendant's counsel has consulted with one (1) or more experts, which may include the defendant filing the certificate of good faith, who have provided a signed written statement confirming that upon information and belief they:
      1. Are competent under § 29-26-115 to express an opinion or opinions in the case; and
      2. Believe, based on the information reviewed concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue, that there is a good faith basis to allege such fault against another consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115; or
    2. The defendant or defendant's counsel has consulted with one (1) or more medical experts, which may include the defendant filing the certificate of good faith, who have provided a signed written statement confirming that upon information and belief they:
      1. Are competent under § 29-26-115 to express an opinions or opinions in the case; and
      2. Believe, based on the information reviewed concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue, that there are facts material to the resolution of the case that cannot be reasonably ascertained from the information reasonably available to the defendant or defendant's counsel; and that, despite the absence of this information, there is a good faith basis for alleging such fault against another, whether already a party to the action or not, consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.
  3. The failure of a plaintiff to file a certificate of good faith in compliance with this section shall, upon motion, make the action subject to dismissal with prejudice. The failure of a defendant to file a certificate of good faith in compliance with this section alleging the fault of a non-party shall, upon motion, make such allegations subject to being stricken with prejudice unless the plaintiff consents to waive compliance with this section. If the allegations are stricken, no defendant, except for a defendant who complied with this section, can assert, and neither shall the judge nor jury consider, the fault, if any, of those identified by the allegations. The court may, upon motion, grant an extension within which to file a certificate of good faith if the court determines that a health care provider who has medical records relevant to the issues in the case has failed to timely produce medical records upon timely request, or for other good cause shown.
    1. Subject only to subdivision (d)(2), the written statement of an expert relied upon in executing the certificate of good faith is not discoverable in the course of litigation.
    2. If a party in a health care liability action subject to this section prevails on the basis of the failure of an opposing party to offer any competent expert testimony as required by § 29-26-115, the court may, upon motion, compel the opposing party or party's counsel to provide to the court a copy of each such expert's signed written statement relied upon in executing the certificate of good faith. The medical experts may be compelled to provide testimony under oath, as determined by the court, for the purposes of determining that party's compliance with subsection (a) or (b).
    3. If the court, after hearing, determines that this section has been violated, the court shall award appropriate sanctions against the attorney if the attorney was a signatory to the action and against the party if the party was proceeding pro se. The sanctions may include, but are not limited to, payment of some or all of the attorney's fees and costs incurred by a party in defending or responding to a claim or defense supported by the non-complying certificate of good faith. If the signatory was an attorney, the court shall forward the order to the board of professional responsibility for appropriate action. Upon proof that a party or party's counsel has filed a certificate of good faith in violation of this section in three (3) or more cases in any court of record in this state, the court shall, upon motion, require the party or party's counsel to post a bond in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per adverse party in any future health care liability case to secure payment of sanctions for any violation of this section in such case.
    4. A certificate of good faith shall disclose the number of prior violations of this section by the executing party.
    5. The administrative office of the courts shall develop a certificate of good faith form to effectuate the purposes of this section.

Acts 2008, ch. 919, § 1; 2009, ch. 425, § 2; 2012, ch. 798, § 14.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2008, ch. 919, § 3 provided that the act, which enacted this section and § 29-26-121, shall apply to all actions filed on or after October 1, 2008.

Acts 2009, ch. 425, § 4 provided that § 2 of the act, which amended § 29-26-122(a), shall take effect on July 1, 2009, and shall apply only to those actions in which the required notice is given on or after July 1, 2009, pursuant to § 1 of the act, which rewrote § 29-26-121. In the event that notice is successfully given more than once to a provider, the effect of the notice is determined by the law in effect on the date of the first successful notice.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability” for “medical malpractice” in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph in (a), in the first sentence of (d)(2) and in the last sentence of (d)(3).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

Law Reviews.

Medical Malpractice: Five Years after Going Under The Knife, Med Mal Law Is Still Feeling The Effects, 49 Tenn. B.J. 12 (2013).

Physician-Patient Confidentiality in Health Care Liability Actions: HIPAA's Preemption of Ex Parte Interviews with Treating Physicians Through the Obstacle Test, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 97 (2013).

Poor Policy Stunts Tennessee Tort Law Again: The Need for Tennessee's Adoption of the Loss of Chance Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Litigation (Brie D. Wallace), 40 U. Mem. L. Rev. 215 (2009).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Certificate Requirement Met.

Patient properly complied with the requirements in T.C.A. § 29-26-122 by filing a Certificate of Good Faith indicating that an expert reviewed the claims and certified that they were taken in good faith. The legislature's goal of notice was satisfied when the action was initially filed in 2007, and the filing of the certificate satisfied the goal of attempting to ensure that suits proceeding through litigation had some merit. Jenkins v. Marvel, 683 F. Supp. 2d 626, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2859 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2010).

Patient did consult with a doctor before filing her medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit against the surgeon to make sure that she had a good-faith basis for maintaining the action and allowing the action to go forward, despite her failure to file a timely certificate of good faith, was not inconsistent with the over arching purpose of the Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-115 et seq.Truth v. Eskioglu, 781 F. Supp. 2d 630, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16295 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2011).

Doctor's affidavit submitted by a patient's wife in her medical malpractice suit satisfied the requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a) that a medical malpractice plaintiff submit a certificate of good faith as all the information that was required in a certificate of good faith was included in the doctor's affidavit and, in fact, provided defendants with more information than was required in such a certificate. Hinkle v. Kindred Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Certificate of good faith filed by a medical malpractice plaintiff's attorney was compliant with T.C.A. § 29-26-122 and did not violate that section; the attorney's responsibility was to certify specific things, which he did, and the expert's written statement included the required information. The fact that the medical expert's opinion may ultimately not be accepted was not a basis for concluding that the attorney violated the certificate of good faith statute. Kerby v. Haws, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2012).

Certificate of good faith filed by the complainant in health care liability case did not violate the statutory requirements, because the executing party was not required disclose the absence of any prior violations of the statute when there was an absence of any prior violations of the statute, and nothing in the statute prevented the trial court from granting the complainant's request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's claims against a medical provider in her health care liability action because she substantially comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements by filing a certificate of good faith, subsequently filing a notice of filing, which included a copy of her pre-suit notice letter, a signed, certified mail receipt demonstrating delivery of the pre-suit notice, and the medical authorization form, explicitly stated in her complaint that pre-suit notice had been provided, and the provider did not claim that it was prejudiced in any way. Grizzle v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 500 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2017).

2. Application.

Surviving spouse's right to voluntarily dismiss the spouse's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action without prejudice pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 was not limited by T.C.A. § 29-26-122 because the spouse sought a nonsuit before the trial court ruled on a motion to dismiss the spouse's action with prejudice due to the spouse's failure to file a good faith certificate required by § 29-26-122. Estate of Miguel Robles v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 195 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011), appeal denied, Estate of Robles v. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 831 (Tenn. Aug. 25, 2011).

Because T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 were enacted together as part of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, the doctrine of in pari materia requires the interpretation these two sections together; the legislature's failure to mandate the same remedy for T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) violations can only be interpreted as an indication that dismissal with prejudice for such violations is not compulsory. Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., 418 S.W.3d 547, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 990 (Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013).

While a plaintiff files a “civil warrant” in order to commence a civil action in general sessions court, T.C.A. § 16-15-716, the certificate of good faith requirement under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122, applies to any medical malpractice action filed in any court of the State, not only those actions commenced by filing a “complaint” in circuit court. West v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013).

Claims Commission erred in dismissing a mother's claim for failure to comply with T.C.A. § 29-26-121, which required pre-suit notice of a medical malpractice claim at least 60 days before the claim was commenced, given that the mother provided the State more than sixty days notice prior to filing the complaint with the Commission and also filed the certificate of good faith. The State had actual notice of the lawsuit months before the complaint was filed in the Commission. Haley v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2013).

Trial court did not err in permitting a surviving spouse to voluntarily dismiss his medical malpractice case without prejudice because he filed an allegedly noncompliant certificate of good faith; nothing in the statute governing certificates of good faith precludes a plaintiff from exercising the “free and unrestricted” right to dismiss an action without prejudice. Davis v. Ibach, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 401 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2014), aff'd, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Although the trial court, in dismissing a complaint against a social worker for providing counseling to a child in violation of a court order, reasoned that the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act encompassed all claims involving the provision of health care services or treatment by a health care provider, this determination must be nuanced, and nothing in the trial court's written order or oral ruling indicated that it considered the standard outlined in Estate of French in dismissing the complaint. Rather, it appeared the trial court relied on the gravamen of the complaint standard rejected in Estate of French. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2014), rev'd, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Fact that the legislature provided for differing treatment for violations of the statutory sections does not automatically lead to the conclusion that a plaintiff is precluded from taking a voluntary dismissal while a motion to dismiss is pending; a plain language interpretation of T.C.A. § 29-26-122 reveals nothing preventing a plaintiff from re-filing a claim after taking a voluntary dismissal and interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 leads to the same conclusion. Hurley v. Pickens, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

3. Requirements Not Satisfied.

Plaintiffs were required under T.C.A. § 29-26-122 to file a certificate of good faith within 90 days of filing their complaint, which they failed to do. The failure to file the certificate made the action subject to dismissal with prejudice and the medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim was dismissed with prejudice. Williams v. United States, 754 F. Supp. 2d 942, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121706 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2010).

Trial court did not err in dismissing under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) an action a patient and her husband filed against a hospital to recover damages for injuries the patient sustained when she fell in her hospital room because the patient and husband alleged a claim for medical malpractice (now health care liability) and were required to satisfy the requirements contained in the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, but they failed to do so; the complaint alleged that the hospital was liable because it knew the patient was at risk for a post-delivery fall but failed to safeguard her, and although the patient and husband did not allege a specific legal duty that was breached by the hospital, the allegations of the complaint went beyond alleging the duty applicable to the provision of custodial services and alleged facts relating to services requiring specialized skill and training, such as recognizing the potential for a post-delivery fall and preventing injuries therefrom. Martins v. Williamson Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2010).

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim against a physician and a medical practice was properly dismissed because: (1) Even though the patient's complaint was first filed before the effective date of an amendment to T.C.A. § 29-26-122 requiring the filing of a certificate of good faith with a medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim, that complaint was voluntarily dismissed and refiled after the amendment's effective date; (2) The refiled complaint was treated as a new complaint; and (3) The patient did not comply with the requirement to file a certificate of good faith. Barnett v. Elite Sports Med., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2010).

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim against a physician and a medical practice was properly dismissed because language in 2009 Tenn. Pub. Acts 425, § 4 stating that, if a required notice of a medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim were successfully given more than once to a provider, the effect of the notice was determined by the law in effect on the date of the first successful notice, did not mean the patient was not required to file a certificate of good faith with the patient's complaint, as the language did not apply to the requirement that the patient file a certificate of good faith with the patient's complaint. Barnett v. Elite Sports Med., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2010).

Because a patient's claims regarding a colonoscopy sounded in medical malpractice (now health care liability), which required expert testimony, because the patient did not file the certificate of good faith required by the by T.C.A. § 29-26-122, the patient's Federal Tort Claims Act claims were dismissed. Mayo v. United States, 785 F. Supp. 2d 692, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49019 (M.D. Tenn. May 6, 2011).

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was dismissed because the patient failed to provide a certificate of good faith, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a), and the patient failed to establish that the requirement of filing a certificate of good faith with the complaint violated the Separation of Powers Clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Jackson v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 497, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2012), appeal denied, Jackson v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Aug. 16, 2012).

Plaintiff failed to file a certificate of good faith for medical malpractice claims as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122 of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Plaintiff's failure barred his negligence action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Nixon v. United States, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106752 (M.D. Tenn. July 30, 2012).

Trial court properly dismissed a medical malpractice suit against a medical center because the patient alleged that, during an MRI scan, her brace became magnetized to the side of the MRI machine, causing injuries, and the MRI technician's evaluation required specialized expertise substantially related to the rendition of medical treatment; thus, the claims were medical malpractice claims governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. §§ 29-26-115 to 29-26-122, and the document filed by patient did not contain the information required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Caldwell v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. June 13, 2013), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Document filed by a patient in a medical malpractice action did not contain the information required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122 where the document did not confirm that either the patient or her counsel consulted with one or more experts who provided a “signed written statement,” but, rather, the document stated that the patient spoke with a treating physician who orally provided an opinion to the patient and may have recorded that opinion in her medical records; the patient did not offer any information regarding the status of her alleged medical records request. Further, the patient's certificate did not disclose the “number of prior violations” of T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Caldwell v. Vanderbilt Univ., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 517 (Tenn. June 13, 2013), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Husband's medical malpractice suit was properly dismissed with prejudice under T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c) as the husband did not comply with § 29-26-122(d)(4) as he failed to include the number of prior violations of the section in the certificate of good faith. Vaughn v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. May 15, 2014), overruled, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015), overruled in part, Eiswert v. United States, 619 Fed. Appx. 483, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13878, 2015 FED App. 537N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an inmate's action against a health care provider because the inmate did not comply with the mandatory requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 when he filed his action because the inmate's claims against the provider for the health care provider for failure to provide medical care sounded in medical malpractice and not ordinary negligence. Moore v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

Medical malpractice complaint filed by a deceased patient's widow, which included an initial certificate of good faith, was properly dismissed by the trial court as against a doctor because when she amended her complaint to add him, she failed to contemporaneously file a second certificate of good faith. Groves v. Colburn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2013).

Patient's failure to file a certificate of good faith with her second medical malpractice complaint was fatal to any claims of medical malpractice she alleged. Since her failure to file the certificate was fatal to her medical malpractice claims, any issue of her failure to comply with the medical malpractice pre-suit notice requirements was pretermitted. Moses v. Dirghangi, 430 S.W.3d 371, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 661 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 178 (Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014).

Trial court properly dismissed an inmate's complaint against a doctor because it did not abuse its discretion by finding no good cause to have been shown for the inmate's failure to file a certificate of good faith with his complaint under the statute; the inmate offered no explanation for his failure to file the certificate of good faith other than his general assertion that the trial court should have afforded leniency in his pleadings due to his pro se and incarcerated status. Mathes v. Lane, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2014).

Trial court erred by dismissing the patient's action for failure to state a claim, even though it did not comply with this section, because it was premature, given that the patient had sought a continuance to obtain legal counsel to clarify her claims and pleadings. Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Med. Clinic Surgi Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2014).

Trial court erred in denying defendants'  motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim that defendants were negligent by failing to remove a sponge from plaintiff because plaintiff's claim should have been classified as a health care liability action as the health care liability statute designated claims involving custodial or basic care as health care liability claims; expert testimony was required to establish the elements of the claim; plaintiff did not comply with pre-suit notice provisions; plaintiff did not file the required certificate of good faith with his complaint; and failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement mandated dismissal with prejudice. Smith v. Testerman, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 110 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. June 15, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs'  claims for healthcare liability against a doctor because they failed to file a certificate of good faith executed by the plaintiffs or their counsel, failed to disclose the number of prior violations, and the fact that they filed something else that provided other, or more, information was immaterial. Dennis v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015), review denied and ordered not published, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 682 (Tenn. Aug. 14, 2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing any medical malpractice or other tort claim within plaintiff's complaint because any claim that plaintiff originally brought under medical malpractice was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statutory requirements that plaintiff provide written notice and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint and with the statute of limitations provided by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); and any other claim of negligence brought by plaintiff was pretermitted as moot due to his failure to comply with the statute of limitations provided by the GTLA. Kaddoura v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 264 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015).

Sister did not comply with the statutes before the action commenced, which statutes required her to submit pre-suit notice 60 days prior to filing suit and to attach a certificate of good faith and a copy of the pre-suit; she had not shown good cause or excusable neglect for her failure, and the dismissal of her claims was affirmed. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

County did not file a certificate of good faith and the sister likewise did not comply with the statute once the county made the allegations in its answer and she learned that others might be at fault; dismissal of the claims against the county was mandated. Estate of Bradley v. Hamilton County, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2015).

Dismissal of a former patient's health care liability claim against the State of Tennessee was appropriate because, although the patient consulted with qualified physicians concerning the incidents that formed the basis of the patient's negligence claim, the patient failed to file a certificate of good faith from any of these physicians that complied with the statutory mandates. McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), appeal denied, McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

Any claim by plaintiff that was actually a medical malpractice allegation, even if styled as ordinary negligence, was not viable and must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory requirements because plaintiff had not provided a certificate of good faith nor had he given the required notice of a medical malpractice case to defendant prior to filing. Moore v. W. Carolina Treatment Ctr., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —,  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183134 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an executor's claim against a hospital for failure to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith because the claim was a health care liability complaint under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; the executor alleged a hospital employee failed to monitor of a patient and his cup of hot coffee, and even if the coffee did not qualify as a “vehicle” of hydration, it fell within the general statutory definition of similar patient services. Youngblood ex rel. Estate of Vaughn v. River Park Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2017).

As here, any claim describing a doctor's failure to analyze a diagnostic test result and to properly document the result in a patient's medical records clearly related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services, and thus the dismissal of the patient's claim based on her failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements under T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121(a)(1), 29-26-122(a) was proper. Lacy v. Meharry Gen. Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017).

After health care providers prevailed due to a former patient's failure to produce competent expert witnesses and the providers moved to compel the patient to produce the written statement on which the patient relied when filing a certificate of good faith, the trial court found that the patient failed to obtain a signed, written statement from an expert before executing a certificate of good faith. Furthermore, the court properly imposed a sanction of attorney's fees and costs within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions. Akers v. Heritage Med. Assocs., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019).

Claimant's failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement mandated dismissal; while claimant contended that the 2018 complaint did not require a new certificate because the 2016 complaint contained one, the State argued that neither complaint contained a compliant certificate and the cases were not related. Ledford ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).

4. “Good Cause” Exception Not Applicable.

Patient's medical malpractice (now health care liability) claim against a physician and a medical practice was properly dismissed because the “good cause” exception to the requirement to file a certificate of good faith with the patient's complaint did not apply, as materials filed by the patient demonstrated that the patient knew such a certificate was required sufficiently in advance of refiling the claim, after the claim's voluntary dismissal, to have filed such a certificate, and that the patient could have filed the certificate, but the patient did not explain why no certificate was filed. Barnett v. Elite Sports Med., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2010).

Trial court did not err in refusing to waive the requisites of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 because the patient's contention that her alleged substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the alleged lack of prejudice to the doctor constituted extraordinary cause to support waiver of the statutory requirements was rejected. Cude v. Herren, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2011).

Motion to dismiss was granted because there was insufficient evidence for the court to find that extraordinary circumstances excused plaintiff's failure to file a good faith certificate pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a), or to conclude that this was not the kind of frivolous lawsuit that the good faith certificate requirement was intended to prevent. Priest v. United States, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121755 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2011).

Since a medical malpractice plaintiff complied with the statutory requirements in T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122, the question of whether a failure to meet the requirements could be justified on the basis of “extraordinary cause” was simply not relevant. Hinkle v. Kindred Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2012), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1048 (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2013).

Medical malpractice complaint filed by a deceased patient's widow was properly dismissed against the doctor due to her failure to file a certificate of good faith when he was added by amended complaint because the widow did not argue that her failure to file the certificate resulted from a failure on the part of defendants to provide records, and she failed to show “extraordinary cause” or any “other good cause.” Groves v. Colburn, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2013).

Trial court properly dismissed a patient's healthcare liability claims against a doctor and professional entities on the basis that the patient failed to comply with the statute because no portion of the complaint could be construed as compliant with the foundational requirement that a statement from an expert attesting that there was a “good faith basis to maintain the action” accompanied the complaint. Ibrahim v. Williams, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 471 (Tenn. June 23, 2016).

5. Medical Battery Claim Erroneously Dismissed for Lack of Good Faith Certificate.

Patient's medical battery claim against a physician and a medical practice was erroneously dismissed for failure to file a good faith certificate with the patient's complaint because: (1) The patient alleged sufficient facts to survive the physician's motion to dismiss; and (2) The requirement to file a certificate of good faith did not apply to a medical battery claim, as the requirement applied to claims regarding which expert testimony was required, and no expert testimony was required to sustain a medical battery claim, as the claim only considered whether a patient was aware of a medical procedure that was performed and authorized the procedure. Barnett v. Elite Sports Med., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2010).

6. Compliance Required.

Refiling a non-suited medical malpractice (now health care liability) action was not an extraordinary cause giving a trial court discretion to waive the notice and good faith certification requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 because those requirements went into effect three months before the action was refiled. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 83 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011), aff'd, Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

When the patient re-filed her suit on February 9, 2010, it was a “new action” subject to the requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 and thus, her contention that because the 60-day notice and certificate of good faith requirements had not yet been enacted when she brought suit in 2005, that those requirements should be held inapplicable to her action refiled in 2010 was without merit. Actions non-suited after the enactment of the notice of good faith provisions and re-filed following the effective date of their amendment, must comply with the provisions. Cude v. Herren, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 516 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2011).

Patient's second medical malpractice (now health care liability) suit that had been filed under T.C.A. § 28-1-105 after a prior suit had been voluntarily dismissed was properly dismissed for failure to attach a good faith certificate as the second suit was filed after the good faith certificate requirement was added to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a), and the second suit was subject to § 29-26-122(a) as amended. Crawford v. Kavanaugh, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2011), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 787 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2012).

To prove their claim that defendants negligently hired and retained the alleged tortfeasors who provided a patient's medical care, plaintiffs needed to show that the employees did not satisfy the professional standard of care and that defendants knew it; therefore, the claim sounded in medical malpractice, and was dismissed due to plaintiffs'  failure to file a certificate of good faith as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

Even if plaintiffs'  claims were based on negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur, the allegations, nevertheless, sounded in medical malpractice, and not common law negligence; therefore, the case was dismissed due to plaintiffs'  failure to file a certificate of good faith as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

As defendants were not required to obtain a patient's informed consent for the use of a drug so long as they had her informed consent to be treated at the hospital, plaintiffs did not have a claim for medical battery based on the administration of that drug without her consent; as their complaint sounded in medical malpractice, the case was dismissed due to their failure to file a certificate of good faith as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Shuler v. McGrew, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111003 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012), modified, Shuler v. Garrett, 743 F.3d 170, 2014 FED App. 33P, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2014).

Court erred in not dismissing plaintiff's medical malpractice suit, as the information provided in his original medical malpractice suit, which he later dismissed, did not serve to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122, and he did not demonstrate “extraordinary cause” for his failure to comply with those statutes. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

Requirement in T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a) that a plaintiff conduct a due diligence inquiry prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence was not in conflict with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3. Jackson v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 497, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2012), appeal denied, Jackson v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Aug. 16, 2012).

Plaintiff's refiled medical malpractice suit under the savings statute, T.C.A. § 28-1-105(a), was properly dismissed with prejudice as the refiled suit was a new action for which compliance with T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 was required, and plaintiff failed failed to do so; §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 were not subject to substantial compliance. Bullock v. Univ. Health Sys., Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2012).

Trial court did not err by ruling that the gravamen of an estate's complaint sounded in medical malpractice and in dismissing the complaint based upon the estate's failure to comply with the requirements of T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. The nuclear medicine technologists, whose alleged negligence formed the basis for the complaint, were called upon to make decision regarding how the decedent should be positioned and secured to the table for the scan, and they made such decision relying upon their training, expertise, and experience, which involved knowledge and judgment that would be outside the realm of that possessed by ordinary laypersons. Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2013), appeal denied, Williams-Ali v. Mt. States Health Alliance, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (Tenn. June 12, 2013).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse plaintiff's noncompliance with the certificate of good faith requirement of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, T.C.A. § 29-26-122; plaintiff offered no explanation why, after her case was dismissed by the general sessions court for failing to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement, she waited until she was faced with defendants'  motions for summary judgment in circuit court to file her motion for extension of time in which to file a certificate of good faith. West v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2013).

Trial court properly dismissed the mother's complaint, which alleged that the nursing home was liable for the wrongful death of her daughter, because the mother failed to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint as the allegations that the nursing home failed to properly administer medication and a medical device prescribed by a physician, and failed to monitor the medical condition of the deceased at all times prior to her death sounded in medical malpractice. Dunlap v. Laurel Manor Health Care, Inc., 422 S.W.3d 577, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 573 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1092 (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2013).

Plaintiffs' allegations met the definition of a health care liability action, as they alleged that the social worker, who was considered a health care provider, was negligent in providing services to their child, and expert testimony would be required to prove the allegations; plaintiffs failed to provide pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith, and dismissal with prejudice was warranted. Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Oct. 8, 2015).

Trial court properly dismissed a widow's complaint with prejudice based on her failure to file a certificate of good faith, as required by T.C.A. § 29-26-122(a), where her allegations involved the mental and physical capacities of both an attacking patient and the decedent, and the question of whether and how to restrain or supervise a potentially dangerous mental patient involved knowledge and understanding of his diagnosis and medical history. Newman v. Guardian Healthcare Providers, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2016).

Trial court did not err in failing to waive the requirement that the patient file a certificate of good faith, due to his incarceration and inability to find a physician to verify the suit was being filed in good faith, as the patient failed to cite any case in which a court has waived that requirement altogether. Kinsey v. Schwarz, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 858 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

Customer brought negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims against the salon, which were subject to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and because the customer failed to file a certificate of good faith with her complaint, the trial court properly granted the salon summary judgment. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019).

7. Compliance Not Required.

Trial court erred by dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim because the patient's allegations constituted a claim of ordinary negligence or premises liability and were not governed by the Tennessee Medical Malpractice (now Health Care Liability) Act; the allegations did not bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a medical professional. Brister v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 307 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2011).

Medical negligence claim against a county was dismissed as plaintiffs did not allege an act or omission involving a matter of medical science or art requiring specialized skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons, and the county was not a physician under T.C.A. § 29-26-115(a); a physician-patient relationship was an essential element of a medical malpractice claim. However, plaintiffs were not required to comply with T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122 on the remaining common law negligence claim. Taylor v. Johnson County, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115115 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 14, 2012).

Trial court erred in dismissing an inmate's action against a county for failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements set forth in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 because the inmate's claim sounded in ordinary negligence; the inmate's claim against the county arose from the alleged failure of Department of Corrections employees to obtain medical services from its contract health care provider despite the inmate's allegedly obvious mental and physical condition. Moore v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2013).

In a medical malpractice case, a certificate of good faith did not have to be filed with an amended complaint; a claim asserted against a second doctor arose out of the same conduct set forth in the original complaint. The allegations of comparative fault related back to the date of the original complaint, which was prior to the effective date of T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Rogers v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2014), appeal denied, Rogers ex rel. Rogers v. Jackson, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 904 (Tenn. Oct. 22, 2014).

When a patient's ordinary negligence claim alleging a health care provider's radiology technician provided the patient with a faulty stool in connection with taking an x-ray at the provider's hospital was found to be a “health care liability action” to which the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act applied, the patient's failure to disclose an expert did not require dismissal because expert testimony was unnecessary, as it was within the common knowledge of a layperson to find if providing an allegedly unstable stool were negligent. Osunde v. Delta Med. Ctr., 505 S.W.3d 875, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2016).

Trial court erred in dismissing the original complaint for noncompliance with the requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, because the original complaint, asserting claims for assault and battery, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, did not assert that a health care provider caused an injury related to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. Cordell v. Cleveland Tenn. Hosp., Llc, 544 S.W.3d 331, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 133 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017), appeal denied, Cordell v. Cleveland Tenn. Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 521 (Tenn. Aug. 17, 2017).

In an action regarding injury allegedly caused by an emergency medical technician (EMT) in the course of rendering medical aid, plaintiff's action was improperly dismissed with prejudice based on his failure to file a certificate of good faith as plaintiff's claims were subject to the common knowledge exception because it would be within the common knowledge of a layperson whether an EMT's alleged negligent, reckless, or intentional striking of plaintiff's face while he was strapped to a gurney would fall below the standard of care, and that act would not require expert proof to aid in the understanding of the issue; thus, plaintiff's claims should have been dismissed with prejudice based on that ground. Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., 531 S.W.3d 698, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 276 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2017), appeal denied, Zink v. Rural/Metro of Tenn., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. Sept. 20, 2017).

Customer's claims of assault and battery, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment were clearly not related to the provision of, or the failure to provide, health care services and thus the customer's intentional tort claims against the massage therapist were not subject to the requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act and a certificate of good faith was not necessary. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019).

Customer's claim against a salon for negligent training, supervision, and retention of a massage therapist was within the knowledge and experience of an ordinary layperson and did not require explanation from a witness with specialized knowledge of the massage industry where there were no allegations that the therapist negligently performed the massage, used improper technique or excessive force, or erred in decision-making as a massage therapist. Rather, a layperson could have understood the salon's negligence in training, supervision, and retention of a therapist who sexually assaulted a disrobed customer in a private setting during a massage when it knew of the therapist's prior inappropriate actions. Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the customer's failure to file a good faith certificate under T.C.A. § 29-26-122. Jackson v. Burrell, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. June 12, 2020).

8. In General.

Statutory requirements that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case give 60 days pre-suit notice, T.C.A. § 29-26-121, and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint, T.C.A. § 29-26-122, are mandatory requirements and not subject to substantial compliance. Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 735 (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2012).

9. Tolling.

Medical malpractice claim was not barred by the limitations period because several children provided health care providers with written notice of their potential claims in an attempt to refile a nonsuited action, and the second complaint was filed within 1 year and 120 days of the nonsuit. The 1-year time limit was extended for 120 days through compliance with the medical malpractice notice requirements because the children qualified as transitional plaintiffs. Johnson v. Floyd, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2014).

10. Extension of Time.

A trial court may grant an extension for filing a certificate of good faith under T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.02, even after the expiration of the time period in which the act was to be completed. Stovall v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c) contains no express time limit for filing a motion to extend the time for filing a certificate of good faith. The timing is, therefore, governed by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.02. Stovall v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the survivor's motion for an extension of time to file her certificate of good faith where she followed the appropriate procedure in seeking an extension, and the trial court credited the survivor's explanation that her failure to file a fully compliant certificate was based on reasonable confusion in the law as to the content requirements. Stovall v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Failure to timely file a certificate of good faith in compliance with T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c) was not always fatal to a plaintiff's claim, but upon a showing of good cause, the plaintiff could obtain an extension within which to file a certificate of good faith. Stovall v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Court of Appeals of Tennessee cannot conclude that the General Assembly intended that the extension pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c) is available to those who have completely failed to file a certificate of good faith, while refusing to allow such extension to those who have attempted to comply with the statute, but, for some reason, have failed. Stovall v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014), overruled in part, Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 436 (Tenn. May 29, 2015).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a hospital in a visitor's trip and fall action because, while visitor's claim sounded in ordinary negligence under a premises liability theory rather than health care liability, the action could proceed where application of the “ordinary negligence/medical malpractice” dichotomy was potentially confusing and unclear, the visitor's complaint was filed in good faith, she fully and timely complied with the statutory requirements, there was no indication that the action was filed as an ordinary negligence claim for any improper purpose or motive or to gain unfair advantage, and process was issued within one year of the filing date. Coggins v. Holston Valley Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 476 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 840 (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015).

11. Dismissal.

Because the patient failed to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. Estate of Thibodeau v. St. Thomas Hosp., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2016).

Circuit court properly granted a hospital's motion to dismiss an administrator's action for health care liability for failure to attach a certificate of good faith because, while the administrator attached the original certificate of good faith to the amended complaint, he failed to file a new certificate when a nursing home asserted a comparative fault affirmative defense against the hospital. Peatross v. Graceland Nursing Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2016), appeal denied, Peatross v. Graceland Nursing Ctr., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2017).

Trial court erred in dismissing a patient's claims against medical providers with prejudice because Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 preserved the right of plaintiffs to obtain a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the patient met the requirements; because the good faith certificate statute did not expressly preclude a plaintiff from taking a voluntary nonsuit and allowed a court the discretion to excuse noncompliance, it did not preclude the patient from taking a voluntary nonsuit. Clark v. Werther, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

While a plaintiff's right to a voluntary nonsuit is subject to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23.05, 23.06, or Tenn. R. Civ. P. 66 or of any statute, the phrase “of any statute” does not include the certificate of good faith statute; the reference to “any statute” is part of a list which includes Rules 23.05, 23.06, and 66, and each of the listed rules expressly limits a party's right to take a voluntary nonsuit in certain types of cases. Clark v. Werther, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

Fact that the legislature provided for differing treatment for violations of the statutory sections does not automatically lead to the conclusion that a plaintiff is precluded from taking a voluntary dismissal while a motion to dismiss is pending; a plain language interpretation of the statute reveals nothing preventing a plaintiff from re-filing a claim after taking a voluntary dismissal and interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 leads to the same conclusion. Hurley v. Pickens, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

Trial court did not err in granting a patient a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because nothing in the statute prevented the patient from taking, and the trial court from granting, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice while medical providers'  motion to dismiss was pending. Hurley v. Pickens, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. Jan. 19, 2017).

Dismissal of a patient's health care liability action against a hospital and an employee of the hospital was appropriate as the patient failed to file the required certificate of good faith. The patient, despite application of the common knowledge exception when appropriate to the breach of duty by the hospital and its employee, would have been unable to prove the patient's claim without expert proof that the alleged damages were proximately caused by the fall of the patient that was at issue in the lawsuit. Redick v. St. Thomas Midtown Hosp., 515 S.W.3d 853, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 795 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

Plaintiff was required to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act's procedural requirements in advancing a health care liability claim; because plaintiff failed to do so, the trial court properly dismissed the claim. Lacy v. Mitchell, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 904 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2017).

Trial court did not err by determining that the patient's action was a health care liability action, and therefore the trial court properly granted the medical facility's motion to dismiss based on the patient's failure to provide pre-suit notice, because the patient alleged that while he was at the facility he fell off an examination table and into a wall, and the provision of an examination table for an appointment with a doctor was a “health care service” as defined by § 29-26-101(b) as it fell under custodial or basic care, positioning and similar patient services. Johnson v. Knoxville HMA Cardiology PPM, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2020).

Because expert proof was required to establish that counselors failed to follow the Academic Pediatric Association guidelines in their treatment of a father's children, the father was required to file a certificate of good faith, but he did not do so, and accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing his complaint, in toto, with prejudice; each of the father's claims rested on the contents of his children's counseling records. Cathey v. Beyer, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

Because a father's claims related to and arose out of the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to his children, his claims constituted a health care liability action; thus, the circuit court properly dismissed the father's complaint against counselors for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. Cathey v. Beyer, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020).

12. Appellate Procedure.

If a defendant prevails and the complaint in a health care liability action is dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-litigation notice and certificate of good faith requirements, the plaintiff is entitled to an appeal of right using the appropriate standards of review by rule. If the plaintiff prevails, the defendant may pursue an interlocutory appeal using the same standards. McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), appeal denied, McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

13. Pretrial Procedure.

Proper way for a defendant to challenge a complaint's compliance with pre-litigation notice and certificate of good faith requirements is to file a motion to dismiss. If the trial court determines that the plaintiff has not complied with the statutory requirements, then the trial court may consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated extraordinary cause for its noncompliance. McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2015), appeal denied, McKinnie v. State, — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016).

14. Good Faith.

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a hospital in a patient's health care liability action because, while the patient conceded that she did not file adequate pre-suit notice and good faith requirements, the trial court's refusal to excuse compliance with the good faith requirements was not within a range of acceptable alternatives given the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented where for the few months counsel's son lived, there were frequent periodic indications that each day could be his last, including a few serious hospitalizations, and the son's passing four days prior to the filing of the complaint. Kirby v. Sumner Reg'l Med. Ctr., — S.W.3d —, 2016 Tenn. App. LEXIS 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2016).

15. Invasion of Privacy.

Plaintiff alleged an invasion of privacy based upon affidavits and exhibits filed in court, but there was no dispute that defendants filed these documents during a judicial proceeding under T.C.A. § 29-26-122(c); because the documents in question were filed in a judicial proceeding and relevant to an issue in the case, they were privileged and could not be the basis for an invasion of privacy claim. Graham v. Archer, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 874 (Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017).

16. Certificate of Good Faith Not Required.

Allegations of a trauma-focused residential treatment facility's negligent failure to supervise and/or train its employees involved matters that ordinary lay persons were able to assess by their common knowledge, without the need for expert medical testimony assistance. Because no expert proof was necessary to establish negligence, no certificate of good faith was required. C.D. v. Keystone Continuum, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2018).

Trial court did not err in finding and holding that termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations constituted the type of extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint as required by T.C.A. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendants'  motion to dismiss. Reed v. W. Tenn. Healthcare, Inc., 577 S.W.3d 534, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2018).

Because the law was not clear at the time that the federal district court dismissed the widow's FTCA complaint, the district court did not commit plain error by dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA). Specifically, when the district court dismissed the complaint, the law in the Sixth Circuit was far from clear that the THCLA's good-faith affidavit requirement should not have applied in federal court, and the widow'  s counsel conceded that she had not filed a certificate with the complaint. Thus, the district could did not err by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Brusch v. United States,  — F.3d —, 2020 FED App. 501N, 2020 FED App. 0501N (6th Cir.), 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27414 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2020).

Part 2
Therapist Sexual Misconduct Victims Compensation

29-26-201. Short title.

The title of this part is, and may be cited as, the “Therapist Sexual Misconduct Victims Compensation Act.”

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 1.

29-26-202. Intent.

It is the intention of the general assembly to provide victims of sexual misconduct by a therapist with a legal remedy, including significant compensatory damages and a more reasonable statute of limitations. It is intended to prevent sexual misconduct by a therapist by imposing significant liability upon any therapist who engages in this type of misconduct. This is necessary due to the inadequacy of the current system of health care liability where the statute of limitations fails to address the specific problems associated with sexual misconduct by a therapist. This part also clarifies the legal landscape and attempts to prevent most instances of sexual misconduct by making employers liable if they refuse to take simple and reasonable steps to avoid endangering their patients.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 2; 2012, ch. 798, § 15.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment substituted “health care liability” for “malpractice” in the third sentence.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 798, § 59. April 23, 2012.

29-26-203. Part definitions.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Claimant” means any of the following:
    1. The victim;
    2. The parents of the victim where the victim is still a minor;
    3. The legal guardian of the victim if the victim is not competent to assert such victim's legal rights; or
    4. The spouse of the victim where the sexual misconduct occurred while the spouse and the victim were married;
  2. “Deception” means the representation that sexual actions are part of or consistent with the patient's treatment by the therapist;
  3. “Emotionally dependent” means that the patient's emotional condition is such that the therapist knows or has reason to know that the patient is not competent to give consent to sexual advances due to the relationship which the therapist and patient have developed in the course of treatment by the therapist;
  4. “Employer” means any person or entity that employs any therapist for the purpose of providing therapy;
  5. “Patient” means a person who has obtained therapy from a therapist. For purposes of this part, “patient” encompasses both current and former patients of a therapist;
  6. “Sexual behavior” means sexual activity of the victim other than the sexual act or acts at issue in the case;
    1. “Sexual misconduct” means any of the following, regardless of the consent of the patient:
      1. Any intrusion into an opening of the patient's body by any part of the therapist's body, or an object used by the therapist to effect an intrusion for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification;
      2. Any intrusion into an opening of the therapist's body by any part of the patient's body, or an object used by the patient to effect an intrusion for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification where the therapist has consented to the conduct verbally or by acquiescence;
      3. Touching of the patient's body by the therapist for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification; or
      4. Touching of the therapist's body by the patient for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification where the therapist has consented to the conduct verbally or by acquiescence;(B)  Sexual misconduct includes attempts by the therapist to engage in the conduct described in subdivisions (7)(A)(i) — (iv), inclusive; and
    2. Conduct which is part of standard medical treatment shall not constitute sexual misconduct if the therapist is legally permitted and qualified to perform such medical treatment;
  7. “Therapist” means any person who performs therapy regardless of whether the person is licensed by the state; and
  8. “Therapy” means action by a person who represents that the person is and does practice the professional treatment, assessment, or counseling of a mental or emotional disorder, illness, condition or symptom. “Therapy” includes, but is not limited to, marital counseling, substance abuse treatment, and family counseling. Therapy begins the first time the patient seeks the therapist's assistance as a therapist. “Therapy” includes services provided without charge if they otherwise meet the definition.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 3.

29-26-204. Elements.

A cause of action for sexual misconduct exists for a claimant where the sexual misconduct occurred:

  1. During the time when the patient was receiving therapy from the therapist; or
  2. After the patient has stopped receiving therapy from the therapist if the patient is still emotionally dependent upon the therapist or the sexual misconduct was the result of deception; or
  3. Both subdivisions (1) and (2).

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 4.

29-26-205. Exceptions.

A therapist does not violate § 29-26-204 if the patient is:

  1. The spouse of the therapist and was married to the therapist prior to the establishment of the therapist-patient relationship; or
  2. The sexual relationship began prior to the establishment of the therapist-patient relationship.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 5.

29-26-206. Employer liability.

  1. An employer of a therapist may be liable under § 29-26-204 if sexual misconduct occurred as provided in § 29-26-204, and either of the following applies:
    1. The employer fails to take reasonable action when the employer knows or has reason to know that the therapist has engaged in sexual misconduct with any patient; or
    2. The employer fails to make inquiries of a former employer concerning past sexual misconduct of the therapist and the:
      1. Former employer's name and address has been disclosed to the employer;
      2. Therapist was employed by the former employer as a therapist within five (5) years of the date of employment as a therapist for the employer and during the period of prior employment the therapist engaged in sexual misconduct.
  2. An employer or former employer of a therapist may be liable under § 29-26-204 if:
    1. Sexual misconduct occurred as provided in § 29-26-204;
    2. The employer or former employer receives a written request from another employer or prospective employer concerning sexual misconduct by the therapist;
    3. The employer or prospective employer is considering the therapist for a therapist position; and
    4. The employer or former employer knows or has reason to know of the sexual misconduct and fails or refuses to disclose to the requesting employer the occurrence of sexual misconduct by the therapist.
  3. An employer or former employer who gives information concerning sexual misconduct by a therapist when presented with a request for such information by a prospective employer of the therapist is absolved from any legal liability due to the therapist's failure to find employment or damage to the therapist's reputation as a result of the information provided, unless the information is false and the reporting employer knew or should have known that the information was false.
  4. Nothing in this section is intended to affect in any way the application of employer liability if such liability rests upon negligence by the employer in supervising the therapist or where the scope of employment would encompass the sexual misconduct.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 6.

Law Reviews.

Managed Care Liability: The Coming Wave in Medical Malpractice (Stephen E. Roth and Jeffrey H. Wicks), 36 No. 6 Tenn. B.J. 14 (2000).

29-26-207. Evidence of sexual conduct.

In an action for sexual misconduct, the victim's sexual history is not admissible as evidence except to prove that the sexual behavior occurred with the therapist prior to the provision of therapy to the patient by the therapist. During discovery, only evidence of the victim's sexual history which is relevant to a determination of the timing of the sexual relationship between the parties is discoverable.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 7.

Rule Reference. This section is referred to in the Advisory Commission Comments under Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.

29-26-208. Statute of limitations.

  1. The statute of limitations in sexual misconduct actions is two (2) years from the date the alleged injury occurred or is discovered, whichever is later. For purposes of this section, discovery of the alleged injury occurs after therapy ends, the victim is no longer emotionally dependent upon the therapist, and the patient knew or should have known that sexual misconduct by a therapist is unprofessional and harmful to the patient.
  2. Except as provided in subsection (c), no such action shall be brought more than three (3) years after the date of the last communication of any kind between the therapist and the patient.
  3. Where the sexual misconduct involves a minor, the statute of limitations shall be one (1) year after the minor's eighteenth birthday, except that where subsection (a) or (b) would provide for a longer time in which to bring a claim, the provision that provides the longest time in which to bring a claim applies.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 8.

29-26-209. Damages.

The claimant may recover for damages caused by the sexual misconduct. Such damages include, but are not limited to:

  1. Reasonable economic losses caused by the emotional, mental or physical effects of the sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to:
    1. The cost of counseling, hospitalization and any other expenses connected with treating the harm caused by the sexual misconduct;
    2. Any payments made to the therapist for treatment;
    3. The cost of counseling, hospitalization and any other expenses connected with treating the mental disorder, illness, condition, or symptom for which the patient had sought therapy from the therapist; and
    4. Loss of income caused by the sexual misconduct;
  2. Pain and suffering caused by the sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to, psychological and emotional anguish;
  3. If the victim is dead, the claimant may seek damages for wrongful death where the victim's death is the result of the physical or emotional harm inflicted upon the victim by the sexual misconduct of the therapist; and
  4. Punitive damages as otherwise provided by law.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 9.

29-26-210. Construction.

This part is declared to be remedial in nature and this part shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

Acts 1995, ch. 463, § 10.

29-26-115. Claimant's burden in health care liability action — Expert testimony — Presumption of negligence — Jury instructions.

Chapter 27
Partition

Part 1
Partition Generally

29-27-101. Persons entitled.

Any person having an estate of inheritance, or for life, or for years, in lands, and holding or being in possession thereof, as tenant in common or otherwise, with others, is entitled to partition thereof, or sale for partition, under this chapter.

Code 1858, § 3262 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 1; 1789, ch. 24, § 1; 1799, ch. 11, § 1; 1815, ch. 123, § 1; 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 1); Shan., § 5010; Code 1932, § 9165; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2101.

Cross-References. Clerk's fees, § 8-21-401.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 278, 484.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 652.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8-8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 10 Tenn. Juris., Equitable Conversion, § 8; 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 100; 11 Tenn. Juris., Estates, § 10; 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, §§ 5, 9, 10.

Law Reviews.

Bringing Tennessee into the Twentieth Century Re Possibilities of Reverter, Powers of Termination and Executory Interests When Used as Land Control Devices (Nicholas L. White), 15 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 555 (1985).

Real Property — 1957 Tennessee Survey (Thomas G. Roady, Jr.), 10 Vand. L. Rev. 1188.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, VI. Easements and Servitudes (Toxey H. Sewell), 46 Tenn. L. Rev. 187.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, II. Estates in Land (Beverly A. Rowlett), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 55 (1980).

Comparative Legislation. Partition:

Ala.  Code § 35-6-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-417 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 44-6-140 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 381.135 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-21-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 528.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 46-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-81 et seq.

Cited: Wilson v. Hayes, 29 Tenn. App. 49, 193 S.W.2d 107, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945); Edminston Corp. v. Carpenter, 540 S.W.2d 260, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Gray v. Todd, 819 S.W.2d 104, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Allison v. Hagan, 211 S.W.3d 255, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); Gilley v. Gilley, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2010); Roberts v. Roberts, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Where the land ordered sold by the court because it was not capable of partition was not a residence or a homestead and had no dwelling or other improvements, this section and § 29-27-102 and not § 29-27-208 were applicable and the assent of the widow to the sale of her dower interests in the property was not required. Vick v. Vick, 207 Tenn. 643, 342 S.W.2d 719, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 381 (1961), overruled in part, Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

This section and § 29-27-102 have nothing to do with assent, or the lack thereof, of the holder of a life estate in the property subject to partition; nor do they attempt in any way to modify or limit § 29-27-208; they merely describe those entitled to bring an action for partition in kind or for sale for division. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

2. —Strict Construction.

The statutes for partition of land can have no amplitude of construction. Norment's Adm'r v. Wilson, 24 Tenn. 310, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1844); Winchester v. Winchester, 38 Tenn. 460, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1858); Thompson v. Mebane, 51 Tenn. 370, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 177 (1871); Bierce v. James, 87 Tenn. 538, 11 S.W. 788, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1889).

3. —Construction in Pari Materia.

The sections of the Code upon the subject of partition in kind and of sale for partition are in pari materia, and must be construed together. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

4. Rights Are Statutory.

The right of sale conferred by this section is not of common law origin and a complainant seeking to force such a sale is governed by the terms of the statute. Administration & Trust Co. v. Catron, 171 Tenn. 268, 102 S.W.2d 59, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1937).

As a general proposition of law, a tenant in common is entitled to partition, or sale for partition. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

5. —“Being in Possession” — Meaning.

The words “being in possession” as used in this section do not imply actual possession but only that there should be no adverse inconsistent possession. Duncan v. Greer, 173 Tenn. 555, 121 S.W.2d 564, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1938).

6. Title.

Plaintiff homeowners'  argument to amend its complaint to assert a quiet title claim against defendant Deed of Trust holder, asserting the holder did not have the legal authority to foreclose in that it was not “owner and holder in due course of the Note,” failed because the proposed amendment alleged no plausible facts to show that the holder was not a holder in due course of the Note, as the Note was a negotiable instrument and the proposed amended complaint did not allege any facts to show that under the definition of a “holder in due course” under T.C.A. § 47-3-302, the holder was assigned the note without value, in bad faith, or with knowledge of any defects or notice of dishonor. Gibson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63510 (W.D. Tenn. May 7, 2012).

7. —Agreement of Parties as to Title.

Where parties in interest agree respecting title and claims to be excluded, it is error for the commissioners to exclude other tracts as being held by superior titles. Gass v. Waterhouse, 61 S.W. 450, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 151 (1900).

8. —Title in Dispute.

Conflicting titles cannot be adjudicated in a partition proceeding. Whillock v. Hale's Heirs, 29 Tenn. 64, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1849).

Partition will be decreed in equity as between tenants. but if there is one claiming adverse possession partition will not be decreed until complainant's title is established in law. Fuller v. Montague, 59 F. 212, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2350 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1893).

Partition cannot be had while the title is in dispute, either in kind or by sale. Campbell v. Lewisburg & N. R. Co., 160 Tenn. 477, 26 S.W.2d 141, 1929 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1930).

9. —Holder with Defective Title — Rights.

A person holding possession and title to an undivided interest in land, under an executed deed, may have partition thereof, although the consideration of the deed may have been illegal because in contravention of public policy. Rhea v. White, 75 Tenn. 628, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 160 (1881).

10. Right to Partition.

It is the policy of the law to give each person his own in severalty and not to force him to continue in partnership with another. Nicely v. Nicely, 41 Tenn. App. 179, 293 S.W.2d 30, 1956 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956).

Life tenant in one-half undivided interest in real property would be entitled to maintain suit to sell such property for partition provided it was shown to be for all parties holding a vested or contingent interest in such land. Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963).

Life tenant in the whole of the premises cannot maintain a bill against the owners of the remainder to sell land for partition. Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963).

A life tenant of the whole of the premises sought to be partitioned cannot maintain a bill against the owner of the remainder interest to force a sale for partition. Burrow v. Haywood, 225 Tenn. 291, 466 S.W.2d 892, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 302 (1971).

Trial court correctly dismissed the petition to enforce a settlement agreement and partition of real property for failure to state a claim, as petitioners'  allegation that they had an ownership interest in the property was a legal conclusion couched as facts; the settlement agreement established that they had no present ownership interest in the property, and the agreement unambiguously gave respondent sole authority to decide the price, manner, timing and all other terms of the sale of the property. Warrick v. Mullins, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018).

11. —Purchaser at Execution Sale — Rights.

Purchaser of undivided interest in land at execution sale is entitled to partition, after time for redemption has expired; but if the parties have made partition, and permanent improvements have been put upon the part taken possession of in severalty by the debtor, or a person claiming under him, the partition will be directed to be so made as to include that part in the allotment to the purchaser, and the debtor, or person claiming under him will be chargeable for rents and profits subject to credit for permanent enhancement in value of the land by reason of such improvements. Simpson v. Sparkman, 80 Tenn. 360, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (1883); Polk v. Gunther, 107 Tenn. 16, 64 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1901).

12. —Infant — Rights.

Infant may enforce a partition of land, by next friend; and, if a division is impracticable, he can have it sold for that purpose. Freeman v. Freeman, 56 Tenn. 301, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1872).

Where a minor sues by next friend for partition or for sale for partition, and it appears that it is not to his best interests to sell, it is within the power of the court of chancery to decline to order the sale. Pitman v. England, 46 S.W. 464, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 17 (1898).

13. —Lands Devised for Sale and Division of Proceeds.

Where land is, by will, directed to be sold unconditionally and the proceeds divided among certain persons, there is an equitable conversion of the land into personalty, and such persons have no right to the land out of which the legacies are directed to be raised by the sale, and a purchaser from them simply stands in their shoes. The court has no jurisdiction of a partition suit brought by such purchaser and the executor. Barton v. Cannon, 66 Tenn. 398, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 152 (1874); McKnight v. McKnight, 120 Tenn. 431, 115 S.W. 134, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1908).

Motions to dismiss the United States'  civil action seeking foreclosure upon real property owned by the delinquent taxpayer were denied because: (1) there was no evidence that the children of the delinquent taxpayer's deceased wife properly disclaimed their interests in the real property, as required by T.C.A. § 31-1-103; and (2) having applied the Rodgers  factors, and finding that the United States would be prejudiced if it could not foreclose upon the property, that the innocent third parties did not have a legally recognized expectation pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-27-101 and T.C.A. § 29-27-217, that the property would not be subject to a forced sale, and would not be prejudiced by a foreclosure sale, and that the character and value of the property supported a foreclosure sale, the United States was authorized to sell the real property in a foreclosure sale pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403(c). Therefore, the United States was instructed to file a proposed foreclosure order. United States v. Buaiz, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91241 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2011).

14. —Land and Stories of Building Thereon.

Where the two stories of a building are owned in severalty, there is no tenancy in common to support partition as between the owners of the respective stories. Complainants owning one of the stories in common may have it sold for partition. Complainants as tenants in common of the ground on which the building stands are entitled to a sale for partition of that ground, but not freed from an easement for the support of the stories. Townes v. Cox, 162 Tenn. 624, 39 S.W.2d 749, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1931).

15. —Receiver of Decedent's Insolvent Estate.

Receiver of decedent's insolvent estate is not entitled to partition in kind or by sale, since his possession is not an estate to support same. West v. Kern, 163 Tenn. 377, 43 S.W.2d 388, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 126 (1931).

16. —Trustee of Fee.

Trustee holding title to an undivided interest in fee simple in land solely for the benefit of its cestui que trust did not hold an estate of inheritance so as to be entitled to a decree for sale for partition of such land in its own name and without disclosing for whose benefit the trustee held the title even though the trust deed gave trustee full power to dispose of such property without consent of beneficiary. Administration & Trust Co. v. Catron, 171 Tenn. 268, 102 S.W.2d 59, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1937).

17. —Cotenants.

Where the right of possession is joint either tenant can maintain a suit for partition. Duncan v. Greer, 173 Tenn. 555, 121 S.W.2d 564, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1938).

Where a widow was assigned dower in realty which had been held by her husband and another in equal moieties as tenants in common and as a result held a life estate in one-half the property as cotenant of the owner in fee of the other undivided one-half with both being equally entitled to possession, either she or the cotenant was entitled to partition. Duncan v. Greer, 173 Tenn. 555, 121 S.W.2d 564, 1938 Tenn. LEXIS 42 (1938).

Trial court erred in ordering the partition of commercial property a husband and wife owned because it erred in holding that a provision of the parties' marital dissolution agreement (MDA) constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation of the commercial property since at no point did the provision suggest that the property could not be sold or partitioned without the consent of both parties, and it did not prohibit the sale of the property by partition or otherwise; rather, the provision outlined the steps to be taken in the event the parties elected to sell the property, and the language of the MDA suggested that the parties were contemplating the sale of property at the time they entered into the MDA. Gilley v. Gilley, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2010).

Trial court erred in applying the provision of a martial dissolution agreement (MDA) requiring an equal division of the proceeds of the sale of commercial property a husband and wife owned because the parties had not agreed to sell the property, but, rather, the husband was exercising his rights under T.C.A. § 29-27-101 et seq., and he retained the obligations imposed upon him as cotenant; the wife was entitled to compensation for one-half of the amount expended on the maintenance and repair of the commercial property, and the husband was responsible for one-half of the maintenance and repair costs as a tenant in common but not for the tax and insurance burdens incurred on the property, which the parties agreed would be satisfied by the rental income, and, consequently, the proceeds from the partition sale were to be equally divided between the parties, with the wife entitled to recoup one-half of the costs of maintenance and repair from the husband's share of the proceeds. Gilley v. Gilley, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2010).

18. —Remaindermen.

A tenant who holds a life interest in the whole of the premises has no right to ask a partition of the remainder and is not affected by such a partition. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

The fact that property held in common was subject to dower did not prevent partition of the remainder by division into lots. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Where deed recited that land was conveyed to named person for the period of her natural life with remainder over to two named children “and to such other child or children as may survive her equally and as tenants in common” the named children took a vested remainder subject to being opened up to let in afterborn child, hence children were entitled to maintain suit for partition. Britton v. Oliver, 186 Tenn. 307, 210 S.W.2d 131, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 552 (1948).

19. —Testamentary Heir.

Testamentary heir was not entitled to maintain suit for partition of real estate within a year after death of testator and within one month after death of widow of testator where will provided that executor was to sell all real estate as he thought best and after paying of all just debts distribute balance to children share and share alike. Stooksbury v. Pratt, 191 Tenn. 451, 234 S.W.2d 845, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 457 (1950).

20. —Holder of Estate of Inheritance.

In order for a person to be entitled to a partition under this section as holding an estate of inheritance the estate must be one that on death of the owner intestate descends to his heirs. Administration & Trust Co. v. Catron, 171 Tenn. 268, 102 S.W.2d 59, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1937).

21. —Tenants in Common.

Trial court was authorized to partition a portion of the property in kind and to order that the remaining property be partitioned by sale because the partial partition in kind affected only a small fraction of the total acreage held by the parties as tenants in common and it benefitted the widow's stepson and wife by allowing them to retain more of the jointly owned property, including the area under and around their driveway. Hale v. Hale, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2011).

22. Sale or Division.

Where it is to the interest of one tenant that the property be divided and to the interest of the other that it be sold for partition, the property will be divided. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Where the premises are of such description that it would be manifestly to the advantage of the parties that land be sold rather than partitioned the court will so decree, and in determining whether it is manifestly to the advantage of the parties that the premises be sold the test is whether it will bring more money when sold as a whole than the several shares would bring in aggregate when sold separately to different persons after partition in kind. Nicely v. Nicely, 41 Tenn. App. 179, 293 S.W.2d 30, 1956 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956).

The statutory recognition of a policy to give each person his own, in severalty, and not to force a person to continue in partnership with another mandates that the courts decree partition of real estate owned as tenants in common if the property is susceptible of such partition. Otherwise, or if manifestly to the advantage of the parties, it must be sold. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

23. —Evidence.

In partition proceedings the evidence sustained the finding of the chancellor that it was manifestly to the advantage of all the parties that a farm be sold instead of partitioned in kind. Bevins v. George, 36 Tenn. App. 308, 255 S.W.2d 409, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

Evidence supported master's report that the two tracts in question were not susceptible to partition in kind among parties who held title thereto as tenants in common and that it would be advantageous to all parties that the land be sold and the proceeds divided. Nicely v. Nicely, 41 Tenn. App. 179, 293 S.W.2d 30, 1956 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956).

24. Attorneys' Fees.

Where a sale for partition is necessary as to both sides the chancellor may in his discretion allow fees to both sides from the proceeds of the sale. Administration & Trust Co. v. Catron, 171 Tenn. 268, 102 S.W.2d 59, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1937).

Wife was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees in a husband's action seeking the partition of commercial property because pursuant to the parties' marital dissolution agreement (MDA), attorney's fees were only available to the prevailing party, and the wife prevailed only in obtaining an award against the husband for contribution of expenses as tenant in common, which was not an action brought pursuant to the MDA; the husband asserted in his complaint that there were no conditions set forth in the MDA that gave the wife the right to have the property sold or his interest purchased, but instead, the property was owned jointly by the parties and was subject to sale for partition as provided in T.C.A. § 29-27-101, et. seq., and thus, the husband's claim regarding the commercial property was brought pursuant to his statutory right to partition and not under a provision of the MDA. Gilley v. Gilley, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2010).

25. Parol Partition.

Parol partition of land followed by persons in possession is binding and enforceable. Martin v. Taylor, 521 S.W.2d 581, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 692 (Tenn. 1975).

26. Easements.

Although this chapter does not specifically vest power to grant easements in the county courts, such authority is necessarily implied in the grant of jurisdiction to make partition. Edminston Corp. v. Carpenter, 540 S.W.2d 260, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

27. Power to Divest Title.

While the supreme court has a statutory and inherent right to adjust the equities and settle all claims between or among the parties, it has no power to divest title out of one tenant and vest it in another. The statutory adjustment must be made by an appropriate allocation of the net sales proceeds, to be reflected in the court's decree on distribution. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

28. Discretion.

Courts have a measure of discretion as to the manner of partition but none as to the fact. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

Appellant could not be heard to complain that the award was inequitable as to him because, if the trial court had chosen to equally divide the value of the commonly-held property, it could have fashioned an award for appellee with a value of $110,000, but the total value of her award was slightly less – $98,000. Morrow v. McClain, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 30-34, 166-188.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 5, 73-79.

Cestui que trust (or one claiming through or under him), right of, to maintain suit for partition. 126 A.L.R. 1009.

Contractual provisions as affecting judicial partition. 37 A.L.R.3d 962.

Cotenant's right to partition of oil and gas. 40 A.L.R. 1408, 91 A.L.R. 205.

Devise or bequest of property as compensation for services, claim under contract as to, as affecting right to partition of heirs of promisor. 69 A.L.R. 14,   .

Different tracts of land, right to partition of, in same proceeding. 65 A.L.R. 893.

Executor or administrator, right of, to bring proceedings for partition of real property. 57 A.L.R. 573.

Fee simple conditional estate, partition of. 114 A.L.R. 615.

Grant of part of cotenancy land, taken from less than all cotenants, as subject of protection through partition. 77 A.L.R.2d 1376.

Homestead right of cotenant as affecting partition. 140 A.L.R. 1170.

Homestead rights as affecting partition proceedings. 159 A.L.R. 1152.

Joint tenancy, termination of, by commencing partition action. 64 A.L.R.2d 918, 39 A.L.R.4th 1068.

Judgment creditor of cotenant, right of, to maintain partition. 25 A.L.R. 105.

Lack of final settlement of intestate's estate as affecting heir's right to partition of realty. 92 A.L.R.3d 473.

Lease as affecting partition. 151 A.L.R. 388.

Lessees who are cotenants, partition among. 151 A.L.R. 400.

Massachusetts or business trust, partition of property of. 88 A.L.R.3d 704.

Mortgage or other lien on undivided interest as affected by voluntary partition. 93 A.L.R. 1268.

Parol partition and the statute of frauds. 133 A.L.R. 476.

Parol partition of real property as between undivided interests held by same person in different capacities. 116 A.L.R. 626.

Partition as affecting preexisting mortgage or other lien on undivided interest. 93 A.L.R. 1267.

Partition of partnership real property. 77 A.L.R. 300.

Partition of undivided interests in minerals in place. 173 A.L.R. 854.

Possessory requirements for cotenant's suit for partition. 171 A.L.R. 932.

Pretermitted child's right to maintain partition proceedings. 123 A.L.R. 1092.

Probate of will as condition precedent to suit for partition by devisees. 141 A.L.R. 1311.

Propriety of filing of lis pendens in action affecting leasehold interest. 67 A.L.R.3d 747.

Reconversion into land of property equitably converted, effect of partition as. 130 A.L.R. 1411.

Right of party to voluntary partition, or of his successor, as against other parties thereto, or their successors, where title fails as to parcel, or part of parcel, conveyed to him. 123 A.L.R. 489.

Right to partition in kind of mineral, or oil and gas, land. 143 A.L.R. 1092.

Severance of estate in mineral from estate in surface by one or more of cotenants as affecting right to partition. 39 A.L.R. 741.

Testamentary provision operating to prohibit or postpone partition. 85 A.L.R. 1321.

Timber rights as subject to partition. 21 A.L.R.2d 618.

Trustee holding legal title, right of, to maintain partition suit. 103 A.L.R. 455.

Undivided interests held respectively in fee and in life estate with remainder, right to partition of. 12 A.L.R. 644, 134 A.L.R. 661.

Voluntary partition between infant or incompetent and cotenant, power of guardian to agree to, or of court to approve. 157 A.L.R. 755.

Partition 32.

29-27-102. Effect of encumbrance.

The fact that the premises are subject to an encumbrance by mortgage or otherwise will not affect the right.

Code 1858, § 3263 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 3); Shan., § 5011; Code 1932, § 9166; Acts 1976, ch. 529, § 6; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2102.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 484.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Estates, § 10; 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 12.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Partition Between Life Tenant and Beneficiary of Remainder Interest.

A decree of partition in kind between a life tenant and the remaindermen is utterly void, and can be collaterally attacked by the remaindermen in a foreclosure suit against the land assigned to the life tenant by the partition decree, and mortgaged by him. Chickamauga Trust Co. v. Lonas, 139 Tenn. 228, 201 S.W. 777, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 100, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1918D451 (1918); Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

Where the life tenant mortgaged the land assigned to him under a void partition decree, the mortgage was valid as against the interest of the life tenant in the land described by the trust deed, although void as against the remaindermen. Chickamauga Trust Co. v. Lonas, 139 Tenn. 228, 201 S.W. 777, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 100, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1918D451 (1918).

As to sale for partition for the benefit of all interested, under a bill filed by a remainderman in which life tenant joins, consenting, the court has power to decree sale for partition. Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922). See Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

A partition in kind may be decreed against the wishes of one who holds a dower, curtesy or other life estate in the premises. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

If the holder of the life estate consents that his interest be sold along with the remainder in an action for partition, then it may be done; but, if he objects to the sale of his interest, the sale of the remainder, if decreed, will be subject to the rights of the life tenant. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

2. Remainder and Reversionary Estates.

Partition of remainder and reversionary estates in land among those owning the same, either by division in kind or by sale for division of proceeds, upon application of any person having an interest therein, in common with others. Bierce v. James, 87 Tenn. 538, 11 S.W. 788, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1889); Holt v. Hamlin, 120 Tenn. 496, 111 S.W. 241, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1908). See Queener v. Trew, 53 Tenn. 59, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 318 (1871).

3. Contingent Remaindermen.

There can be no partition in kind or by sale for partition among contingent remaindermen. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

Where it is shown to be for the manifest interest of the parties owning the entire estate, a sale of the whole on partition at the instance of a life tenant is authorized, notwithstanding the existence of a contingent remainderman. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922). See Delk v. Williams, 10 Tenn. App. 246, — S.W.2d —, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1929).

4. Partition Between Widow and Heirs.

Under a voluntary partition between a widow and her two children, of land descended from the husband and father, in which the widow received one-third, including the dwelling-house and improvements, the presumption of law would be that the widow's allotment was in dower, and the execution, by the parties at the time, of a penal bond to abide the division would only strengthen the presumption. Cloyd v. Cloyd, 83 Tenn. 204, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1885).

5. Minor's Homestead — Effect of Partition.

Homestead of minor defendants does not pass under a partition sale, where the bill is silent as to the homestead. White v. Sharpe, 98 Tenn. 33, 39 S.W. 1051, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 201 (1896).

6. Virtual Representation.

Partition may be enforced against remaindermen not in esse, when virtually represented by those then in interest, as where half the land was given to a brother in fee, and the other half to a sister during life, and, at her death to such of her children as should be living. Freeman v. Freeman, 56 Tenn. 301, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1872); Parker v. Peters, 2 Shan. 636 (1878); Brown v. Brown, 82 Tenn. 253, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 125, 52 Am. Rep. 169 (1884); Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); Holt v. Hamlin, 120 Tenn. 496, 111 S.W. 241, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1908); Bransford Realty Co. v. Andrews, 128 Tenn. 725, 164 S.W. 1175, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1914). See Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

Where a will is not clear, and the executor files a bill to have it construed as to his right to sell certain property, and a sale is decreed, the decree binds the children, then unborn, claiming a remainder interest under the will, the mother, who holds the life estate, and her husband, being parties to the executor's bill. If all the parties in being and having an interest in the subject matter of the bill are made parties, the decree will be binding on all those subsequently coming into being and who may have an interest in such subject matter. Parker v. Peters, 2 Shan. 636 (1878).

The equitable doctrine of virtual representation cannot be invoked merely for the benefit of unknown or unborn persons, but there must be a person with actual interest similar to that of the unknown party, in order to bind the party not before the court in person. Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

7. Construction with § 29-27-208.

Section 29-27-101 and this section have nothing to do with assent, or the lack thereof, of the holder of a life estate in the property subject to partition; nor do they attempt in any way to modify or limit § 29-27-208; they merely describe those entitled to bring an action for partition in kind or for sale for division. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Dower.

A petition by widow with dower right seeking to have substituted for unassigned dower and homestead title in fee to a portion of decedent's realty does not seek partition within the rule that a life tenant may not have partition. Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

The fact that property held in common is subject to dower will not prevent partition of the remainder by division into lots. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

2. Curtesy.

In a bill for sale of land for partition under § 29-27-101 there can be no sale of the interest of person entitled to an estate by curtesy in such land in absence of the consent of such person and a decree ordering the sale of such life estate along with the other interests in the land would be in violation of § 29-27-208 and void. Helmick v. Wells, 171 Tenn. 265, 102 S.W.2d 58, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1937).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 172, 190.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 23, 59.

Dower rights as affecting partition proceedings. 159 A.L.R. 1129.

29-27-103. Infancy of owners — Distinctness of interests.

Nor will the fact that some of the joint owners are infants, and that it is to their interest that the property should not be partitioned; nor that the several estates and interests of the parties are altogether different and distinct.

Code 1858, § 3264 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 2); Shan., § 5012; Code 1932, § 9167; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2103.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, §§ 12, 19.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Discretion of the Court as to Infants.

Notwithstanding this section a court of equity has the discretionary power to refuse a sale for partition under a bill therefor filed by a next friend of an infant where it appears not to be to the interest of the infant to decree a sale for partition. Pitman v. England, 46 S.W. 464, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 17 (1898). See § 29-27-106.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 77, 176.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 45, 85.

Partition 46(2), 47, 48.

29-27-104. Partial partition — Interest of minors.

In these cases the partition shall be made according to the respective rights of the parties, setting apart to such as desire it their shares in severalty, and leaving the shares of others, if desired, in common; and if there are minors, the court may, in its discretion, leave their shares in common, or set them apart to each in severalty, as may appear to be just, upon the proof introduced.

Code 1858, § 3265 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 3); Shan., § 5013; Code 1932, § 9168; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2104.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 493.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 13.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Allotment in Common.

Under the evidence the court could properly assent to the division into lots of the interests of some tenants and leave others, including minors, as tenants in common. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

In suit to partition land, court had no power to allot certain tracts to groups of defendants to be held by them as tenants in common without their consent. Richardson v. Mitchell, 34 Tenn. App. 318, 237 S.W.2d 577, 1950 Tenn. App. LEXIS 151 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950); Nicely v. Nicely, 41 Tenn. App. 179, 293 S.W.2d 30, 1956 Tenn. App. LEXIS 163 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956).

2. Partition in Kind Appropriate.

Trial court was authorized to partition a portion of the property in kind and to order that the remaining property be partitioned by sale because the partial partition in kind affected only a small fraction of the total acreage held by the parties as tenants in common and it benefitted the widow's stepson and wife by allowing them to retain more of the jointly owned property, including the area under and around their driveway. Hale v. Hale, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2011).

Trial court properly determined that a portion of property owned by brothers and their aunt would be divided in kind, and the remaining property would be partitioned by sale, because the brothers established a condition under which a partition by sale was appropriate; the property was comprised of three noncontiguous tracts of significantly different acreage, shape, topography and value, and partition in kind would result in some tracts having limited public access. Breen v. Sharp, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 77, 176.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 4, 157.

29-27-105. Partition of personalty — Possession pending proceeding.

  1. Any two (2) or more persons owning personal property in common may have partition, or sale for partition, thereof, in accord, substantially, with this chapter in respect of realty.
  2. Where such owners are unable to agree as to possession pending the proceeding, the court may make orders as to possession or leasing thereof.

Code 1932, §§ 9225, 9226; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2105.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Exclusive Possession by One Cotenant as Ground.

The exclusive possession of a chattel, by one tenant in common, and his refusal to permit the other to participate in the use thereof, will not entitle the other to sue at law, because each has an equal right to the possession, and the possession of one is the possession of both. If the other cannot regain possession, his remedy is in chancery for a sale, and division of the proceeds. Cheek v. Wheatley, 35 Tenn. 484, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1856).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition § 162.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 24.

Partition 2, 12.

29-27-106. Jurisdiction of courts.

  1. The county, circuit, or chancery courts have concurrent jurisdiction of partition cases under this chapter, by bill or petition.
  2. Nothing in this chapter shall deprive the chancery court of the jurisdiction rightfully belonging to that court over the subject of partition and sales of realty for the purposes of division.

Code 1858, §§ 3266, 3267 (deriv. Acts 1835-1836, ch. 20, § 1; 1849-1850, ch. 185, § 1; 1851-1852, ch. 92, § 1); Shan., §§ 5014, 5015; Code 1932, §§ 9169, 9170; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2106.

Cross-References. Jurisdiction of courts, §§ 16-10-106, 16-11-111, 16-16-107, 16-16-108.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 484.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 56, 124; 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 100; 18 Tenn. Juris., Minors, § 28; 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, §§ 6, 8.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Vanhooser v. Cunningham, 24 Tenn. App. 480, 146 S.W.2d 840, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940); Summers v. Conger, 43 Tenn. App. 286, 307 S.W.2d 936, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957); Edminston Corp. v. Carpenter, 540 S.W.2d 260, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

The county, circuit, and chancery courts have jurisdiction to partition in kind or by sale, and to enforce by judgment and resale notes executed for the property. Swafford v. Howard, 67 Tenn. 326, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1874).

2. Circuit Court.

Circuit court has jurisdiction of proceeding by clerk's successor to collect on unpaid note accepted by clerk in sale under partition proceeding instituted in circuit court. Still v. Boon, 37 Tenn. 380, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1858).

3. County Court.

4. —Concurrent Jurisdiction.

The county court has concurrent jurisdiction, with the circuit and chancery courts, in partition cases; and neither an appeal nor a certiorari in lieu thereof will lie to the circuit court from a judgment by motion in the county court upon a note given for the purchase of land sold for partition in such court. The remedy is by writ of error coram nobis in the county court, or appeal or writ of error to an appellate court. Gass v. Hawkins, 1 Shan. 167 (1860); Swafford v. Howard, 67 Tenn. 326, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 383 (1874). See Parker v. Britt, 51 Tenn. 243, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (1871).

5. —Jurisdiction of Reviewing Court.

Court, on appeal from county court, has only such jurisdiction as the county court had, and where it appears from the pleadings, in a partition case appealed from the county court, that the title is litigated, the bill will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but without prejudice. Dean v. Snelling, 49 Tenn. 484, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1871).

6. —Chancery Review.

The chancery court has no jurisdiction to review or correct the county court's decree of partition of land, where there is no fraud, nor irregularity affecting its power. Gass v. Hawkins, 1 Shan. 167 (1860); Pardue v. West, 69 Tenn. 729, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (1878); Walsh v. Crook, 91 Tenn. 388, 19 S.W. 19, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1892).

7. —Dispute as to Title.

The county court has no jurisdiction of a partition case where it is necessary, as a preliminary, to determine disputed titles to the land. Dean v. Snelling, 49 Tenn. 484, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1871).

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the county court to try and adjudge title in a partition case, by consent, nor can objection to it be waived by answer. Dean v. Snelling, 49 Tenn. 484, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1871); Walsh v. Crook, 91 Tenn. 388, 19 S.W. 19, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1892); Galyon v. Gilmore, 93 Tenn. 671, 28 S.W. 301, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1894).

8. —Life Estate of Infant Remaindermen.

The county court has jurisdiction to make a sale in a partition case and thereby to bar the life estate of infants in the land in which they and others as tenants in common own the remainder estate. Henry v. Henry, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 240 (1901).

9. Chancery Jurisdiction.

Where there are equitable titles, or equities to be settled, or where the chancery court has acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter for other equitable purposes, such as the removal of clouds from the title, chancery will decree a partition in kind or by sale for division of proceeds, when sought under the same bill. Carter v. Taylor, 40 Tenn. 30, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 10 (1859); Almony v. Hicks, 40 Tenn. 39, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 12 (1859); Leverton v. Waters, 47 Tenn. 20, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1869); Dean v. Snelling, 49 Tenn. 484, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1871); Burks v. Burks, 66 Tenn. 353, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1874); Graham v. Caldwell, 2 Shan. 71 (1876); Maloney v. Johnson, 2 Shan. 446 (1877); Johnson v. Murray, 80 Tenn. 109, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 146 (1883); Walsh v. Crook, 91 Tenn. 388, 19 S.W. 19, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1892).

Where all the tenants in common join as complainants in a bill to recover the land from the defendants, it may further seek, in the event of such recovery, to have a sale of the land for partition among the complainants, though some of them be minors. Burks v. Burks, 66 Tenn. 353, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1874).

10. —Conflicting Titles.

Since the extension of the jurisdiction of the chancery court by the statutes compiled in § 16-11-102, any question of the power of that court to determine conflicting titles has been removed. Walsh v. Crook, 91 Tenn. 388, 19 S.W. 19, 1892 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1892).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 67-70.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 62.

Contractual provisions as affecting right to judicial partition. 37 A.L.R.3d 962.

Partition 37-42.

29-27-107. Venue of actions.

The petition may be filed in the court of the county in which the land, or any part of it lies, or in which the defendant resides. If all the claimants join in the petition, or assent to the partition, it may be filed in any county in the state, whether any of the land lies therein or not.

Code 1858, §§ 3268, 3269 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 22, § 1); Shan., § 5016, 5017; Code 1932, §§ 9171, 9172; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2107.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 121.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 6.

Law Reviews.

Pleadings, Motions and Pre-Trial Procedure, 4 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 219.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Venue — Localizing Transitory Actions in Tennessee Civil Proceedings, 35 Tenn. L. Rev. 520.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Part of Land in Other Districts.

Where the court has jurisdiction of the parties in interest by personal service of process, the sale will be good, although some of the land sold might lie in other chancery districts than the one in which the bill was filed, and even the statutory jurisdiction for sale of lands for partition would authorize the sale of land in other districts where part of them lie within the district. Todd v. Cannon, 27 Tenn. 512, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1847).

2. Foreign Court.

Partition of land lying in this state cannot be made by the courts of another state, because a foreign court cannot, by its judgment or decree, pass the title to land situated in another state. Johnson v. Kimbro, 40 Tenn. 557, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 164 (1859).

3. Agreement Between Parties.

Where it became apparent that the grantee could never comply with the condition in the deed, and the land was partitioned between the grantor and the grantee, by the execution of partition deeds, the grantor was divested of all right in the tract of land so conveyed by him, whatever might have been his rights under the original deed containing such condition, for the grantee's failure to comply therewith, had he asserted such rights. McLemore v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 111 Tenn. 639, 69 S.W. 338, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1902).

The partition and agreement entered into between the heirs of the deceased mortgagor and the purchaser of the mortgaged property, under a foreclosure sale as a final division of the lands and in settlement of all accounts relating to the same, and of a previous agreement between the mortgagor and purchaser, precludes the heirs from claiming any interest under such agreement in the lands retained by the purchaser. McLemore v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 111 Tenn. 639, 69 S.W. 338, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1902).

4. Sale Under Will for Partition.

Chancery jurisdiction to sell land under a will for partition does not depend upon the statutes authorizing partition sales, but the jurisdiction arises from the power of the court to carry into effect the trusts of the will. Todd v. Cannon, 27 Tenn. 512, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1847).

5. Procedure.

6. —Form of Making Parties to Petition.

The form of making parties in interest parties to the petition for partition is immaterial, whether in the caption or with their names placed at the end of the petition; and the form of signing by the guardian is not material. Winchester v. Winchester, 38 Tenn. 460, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1858); Elrod v. Lancaster, 39 Tenn. 571, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (1859); Stephens v. Porter, 58 Tenn. 341, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 269 (1872).

7. —Misdescription as to County.

The misdescription of land as to the county, where locative descriptions well identified the land, will not vitiate a decree of sale and a sale thereunder. Todd v. Cannon, 27 Tenn. 512, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 119 (1847); Winchester v. Winchester, 38 Tenn. 460, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 213 (1858). See Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 276 (1875).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 71, 72.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 68.

Partition 43.

29-27-108. Contents of petition.

The bill or petition shall set forth, as far as known, the names of the owners, their residences, which of them are infants or married.

Code 1858, § 3270; Shan., § 5018; mod. Code 1932, § 9173; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2108.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 485.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 28.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Contents Generally.

It is essential that the complaint in a partition suit set out a correct legal description of the property, and its situation, the interest of each of the parties, and such other facts as may be necessary to show the various rights and equities of the parties and those interested in the distribution of the proceeds of any sale or who might be affected by a partition in kind. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

2. Description of Lands — Sufficiency.

A decree for partition is not void where bill fails to describe lands by metes and bounds where it prays for partition of all decedent's lands in the county and exact boundaries are thereafter ascertained by commissioners of the court and set forth in the decree. Elk Valley Coal & Iron Co. v. Douglass, 48 S.W. 365, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 91 (1898). But see Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978), annotated above.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 80-86.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 89.

Partition 55.

29-27-109. Parties.

Every person having such interest, whether in possession or otherwise, shall be made a party.

Code 1858, § 3271; Shan., § 5019; Code 1932, § 9174; Acts 1976, ch. 529, § 7; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2109.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 29.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Naming Interested Parties — Necessity.

Persons interested, to be bound, must be named in the proceedings, by name or description. Ferriss v. Lewis, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 291 (1875). See Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); Leadford v. Leadford, 3 Tenn. Civ. App. (3 Higgins) 502 (1912).

All the owners of land as tenants in common are necessary parties to a bill for partition. Maloney v. Johnson, 2 Shan. 446 (1877).

Holder of legal title and remaindermen are parties necessary to validity of a decree. Glascock v. Tate, 107 Tenn. 486, 64 S.W. 715, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1901).

2. —Persons Under Disability as Parties.

In partition cases, whether for partition in kind or for partition by sale for division of proceeds, infants owning shares therein may be made parties complainant or petitioners, by their guardian or next friend. This section was intended to obviate and change the contrary ruling. Simpson v. Alexander, 46 Tenn. 619, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1869); Burks v. Burks, 66 Tenn. 353, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1874); Ex parte Crump, 84 Tenn. 732, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 164 (1886). See Davidson v. Bowden, 37 Tenn. 129, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1857).

While an insane wife cannot be joined with the husband in the bill or petition for partition, the suit may be prosecuted for an insane wife by the husband as her next friend. Stephens v. Porter, 58 Tenn. 341, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 269 (1872); Parsons v. Kinzer, 71 Tenn. 342, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1879).

3. —Dower Claimant as Party.

When a dower claimant was brought into court, the court could protect her right to dower, upon the partition; and it was her duty to assert her right, and if the same was not set apart to her in the decision, she had no remedy by a new and distinct suit. Gass v. Hawkins, 1 Shan. 167 (1860).

4. Remandment for Amendment as to Parties.

Where it appears upon the face of the bill that all the owners of the land are not made parties, a demurrer to the bill will be sustained; but on sustaining the demurrer, the appellate court may remand the cause with leave to amend the bill by making all joint claimants parties. Maloney v. Johnson, 2 Shan. 446 (1877).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 74-77.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 73.

Appeal, who is “adverse party” entitled to notice of. 88 A.L.R. 446.

Contingent remainderman not in esse, necessity that living members of the same class be parties to give court jurisdiction, under doctrine of representation, in respect of interests of. 120 A.L.R. 876.

Spouse of living coowner of interest in property as necessary or proper party to partition action. 57 A.L.R.2d 1166.

Partition 45-50.

29-27-110. Uncertainty of interests.

In case any one (1) or more of such parties, or the share or quantity of interest of any of the parties, be unknown to the petitioner, or be uncertain or contingent, or the ownership of the inheritance shall depend upon an executory devise, or the remainder shall be a contingent remainder, so that such parties cannot be named, the facts shall be set forth in such petition.

Code 1858, § 3272 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 164, § 2); Shan., § 5020; Code 1932, § 9175; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2110.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 28.

Law Reviews.

Real Property (Herman L. Trautman), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1080.

Cited: Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Names and Residences Unknown.

Where the names and residences of some of the defendants are unknown, in order to give jurisdiction as to such parties, it must be stated under oath in the bill, or by separate affidavit, that the names and residences are unknown, and cannot be ascertained on diligent inquiry, and the order of publication must describe such unknown parties by the character in which they are sued, and by reference to the title, interest, or subject matter of the suit. Ferriss v. Lewis, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 291 (1875); Bleidorn v. Pilot Mountain Coal & Mining Co., 89 Tenn. 166, 15 S.W. 737, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 36 (1890).

2. Appearance Enforceable — Minors.

The doctrine of virtual representation cannot be invoked where actual appearance can be enforced, and where minors are not made parties to a partition suit, their interest cannot be bound by the decree, on that theory. Chambers v. Preston, 137 Tenn. 324, 193 S.W. 109, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1917).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 167-171.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 88, 91.

29-27-111. Notice of petition.

  1. Notice of the petition, stating the time it is intended to present it, and the court at which it is to be presented, shall be served upon the parties who do not join in the petition, at least five (5) days before its presentation, or given by publication, as provided in subsection (b).
  2. If any of the parties defendant are nonresidents or unknown, or of unknown residence, the court, or its clerk, may order and make publication for them, under this Code in like cases in chancery where personal service of process is dispensed with.

Code 1858, §§ 3273, 3275 (deriv. Acts 1799, ch. 11, § 1; 1823, ch. 37, § 1); Shan., §§ 5021, 5023; Code 1932, §§ 9176, 9178; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2111, 23-2112.

Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8-8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 28.

Law Reviews.

Real Property (Herman L. Trautman), 6 Vand. L. Rev. 1080.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Minors Represented by Guardian Ad Litem.

The appearance of a guardian ad litem who answers for infants does not make them parties or dispense with necessity of notice or publication. Robertson v. Robertson, 32 Tenn. 197, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1852).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 78, 79.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 80-85.

Partition 51.

29-27-112. Commencement of action by summons.

The action may, however, be commenced by filing the petition or bill, and issuance and service of copy and summons, or making publication as in chancery cases.

Code 1858, § 3274; Shan., § 5022; Code 1932, § 9177; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2113.

Cross-References. Commencement of action, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3.

Cited: State use of Tenn. Children's Home Soc. v. Hollinsworth, 193 Tenn. 491, 246 S.W.2d 345, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (1952).

29-27-113. Decree — Reservation of unknown interests.

  1. The court, on appearance or default, shall declare the rights, titles, and interests of the parties in the premises, and give judgment that partition be made between such of them as have any right therein, according to such right.
  2. The court may, in a proper case, where there are unknown parties or unknown shares, give judgment that partition be made, so far as the rights or interests of the parties or shares are known and ascertained, and the residue of the premises shall remain for the parties whose interests have not been ascertained, subject to division at any future time.

Code 1858, §§ 3277, 3278; Shan., §§ 5025, 5026; Code 1932, §§ 9180, 9181; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2115, 23-2116.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 484.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 8.

Law Reviews.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, II. Estates in Land (Beverly A. Rowlett), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 55.

Cited: Davis v. Solari, 132 Tenn. 225, 177 S.W. 939, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1915); Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Finality of Decree.

Decree in partition entered by chancery court was final where all necessary parties were before the court and consented to decree. Cheatham v. Allen, 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 300 (1951).

2. Proof Required.

If any of the defendants in a partition suit dispute the complainant's right to a partition, the complainant must make such proof as would entitle him to a recovery in ejectment. Williams v. Williams, 25 Tenn. App. 290, 156 S.W.2d 363, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 108 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941).

3. Clearing Title.

Where, no objection being taken by demurrer, the defendant answers and the case proceeds to trial upon the pleadings and the proof, title may be cleared and the partition had in the same suit. Joy v. Outlaw, 28 Tenn. App. 565, 192 S.W.2d 81, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945).

4. Power to Divest Title.

While the supreme court has a statutory and inherent right to adjust the equities and settle all claims between or among the parties, it has no power to divest title out of one tenant and vest it in another. The statutory adjustment must be made by an appropriate allocation of the net sales proceeds, to be reflected in the court's decree on distribution. Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 88-109, 189.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 114-122, 147.

Acquisition by one party, pending partition suit, of all outstanding joint or common interests as affecting power of court to determine questions of controverted title, remove clouds on title, etc. 162 A.L.R. 227.

Improvements made by tenant in common, method of making compensation for, as affected by question of title. 1 A.L.R. 1199, 122 A.L.R. 234.

Suit for partition as involving freehold or title to real estate within constitutional provisions relating to jurisdiction. 135 A.L.R. 1066.

Partition 95.

29-27-114. Appointment of commissioners.

  1. Upon the filing of a suit for partition of property, real or personal, the parties shall submit the names of three (3) commissioners selected and agreed upon by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree, the judge shall appoint three (3) commissioners, known by the court or shown to the court to be of good personal character and integrity and knowledgeable in the type of property to be partitioned.
  2. If the lands lie in different counties, the court may appoint separate sets of commissioners for each county, or one (1) set for all the lands, as may seem best for the interest of the parties.

Code 1858, §§ 3279, 3287 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 1); Shan., §§ 5027, 5036; Code 1932, §§ 9182, 9191; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2117; Acts 2016, ch. 1078, § 1.

Amendments. The 2016 amendment rewrote (a) which read: “(a) Whenever the judgment of partition is rendered, the court will appoint three (3) or more respectable freeholders, any three (3) of whom may perform the duty, to make the partition so adjudged, according to the respective rights and interests of the parties, as the same are ascertained and determined.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 1078, § 2. May 20, 2016.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 488.

Cited: McKenzie Banking Co. v. Couch, 332 S.W.3d 349, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Appointment of Commissioners.

Appointment of commissioners is contemplated only when a court has ordered land to be partitioned in kind, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-27-116; there was no error in the chancery court's refusal to appoint commissioners for a sale of partition. Fossett v. Gray, 173 S.W.3d 742, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 602 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 110, 111, 114.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 151.

Partition 91.

29-27-115. Oath of commissioners.

The commissioners, before proceeding to the execution of their duty, shall be severally sworn, by the clerk, the officer summoning them, the county surveyor, the deputy, or any general sessions judge, to do justice among the parties, to the best of their skill and abilities, according to the directions of the court.

Code 1858, § 3280 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 1); Shan., § 5028; Code 1932, § 9183; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2118.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 27.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Record Showing of Oath Unnecessary.

The record need not show that the commissioners to make partition were sworn, as the statute requiring the oath is merely directory. Wilcox v. Cannon, 41 Tenn. 369, 1860 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1860); Clark v. Garrett, 74 Tenn. 262, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 244 (1880).

Collateral References. 68 C.J.S. Partition § 151.

Partition 91.

29-27-116. Mode of partition.

In making partition, the commissioners shall divide the premises and allot the several shares to the respective parties, quality and quantity relatively considered, according to the respective rights and interests of the parties as adjudged by the court, designating the several shares by posts, stones, marked trees, or other permanent monuments; and they may employ a surveyor, with the necessary assistants, to aid therein. The partition may be made by tracts, or by the division of each tract into shares, as may seem right to the commissioners and the court.

Code 1858, §§ 3281, 3288 (deriv. Acts 1815, ch. 123, § 1; 1817, ch. 41, § 3); Shan., §§ 5029, 5037; Code 1932, §§ 9184, 9192; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2119.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 488.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 13.

Cited: McKenzie Banking Co. v. Couch, 332 S.W.3d 349, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Appointment of Commissioners.

Appointment of commissioners is contemplated only when a court has ordered land to be partitioned in kind, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-27-116; there was no error in the chancery court's refusal to appoint commissioners for a sale of partition. Fossett v. Gray, 173 S.W.3d 742, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 602 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

2. Improvements by Tenant in Common.

Where one tenant in common, at his own expense, has put improvements on the common property, and, afterwards, partition in kind is made, such improvements should be allotted to the share of such tenant, without any charge for their value, if such allotment is practicable, and can be made without injury to the other tenants in common. Laird v. Scott, 52 Tenn. 314, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 267 (1871); Broyles v. Waddel, 58 Tenn. 32, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1872); Reeves v. Reeves, 58 Tenn. 669, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1872); Aiken v. Suttle, 72 Tenn. 103, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1879); Tyner v. Fenner, 72 Tenn. 469, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1880); Simpson v. Sparkman, 80 Tenn. 360, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 180 (1883); Polk v. Gunther, 107 Tenn. 16, 64 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1901); Hitt v. Caney Fork Gulf Coal Co., 124 Tenn. 334, 139 S.W. 693, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1911).

Where the land is sold for partition, a cotenant will be allowed compensation for improvements to the extent of the permanent enhancement of the value of the property, but such allowance may not exceed the rents with which he is chargeable. Broyles v. Waddel, 58 Tenn. 32, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1872); Tyner v. Fenner, 72 Tenn. 469, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1880); Polk v. Gunther, 107 Tenn. 16, 64 S.W. 25, 1901 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1901).

3. Implied Warranty by Partitioners.

In making partition, the law requires that exact equality be observed, and there is an implied warranty between the partitioners against encumbrances and defects of title, and the remedy for loss sustained is by bill in chancery, either by setting aside the partition or by contribution. Rushing v. Massey, 6 Tenn. App. 31, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927). See also Sawyers v. Cator, 27 Tenn. 256, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1847); Pardue v. West, 69 Tenn. 729, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (1878); Scott v. Porter, 70 Tenn. 224, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (1879); Clark v. Garrett, 74 Tenn. 262, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 244 (1880).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 30-66.

63 C.J.S. Partition §§ 151, 156.

Partition 76-79.

29-27-117. Unequal partition — Equalizing charges.

If the commissioners are satisfied that exact partition cannot be made without material injury to the parties, or some one of them, they may make the partition as nearly equal as they can, and charge the larger shares with the sums necessary to equalize all the shares, and report the facts.

Code 1858, § 3283 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 4); Shan., § 5031; Code 1932, § 9186; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2120.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 488.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 15.

Cited: Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Duty of Commissioners.

The duty of the commissioners is to make partition of the land in kind exactly equal in value if possible, and if this cannot be done without injury to one or more of the parties, then “as nearly equal as they can.” Burdett v. Norwood, 83 Tenn. 491, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1885); Rushing v. Massey, 6 Tenn. App. 31, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

2. Report Where Equal Partition Impracticable.

Where the commissioners find that it is impracticable to make an equal partition of the premises, without material injury to the parties, or some of them, their report to that effect is like a special verdict, and it must not only state the conclusion of the commissioners that the exact partition is not practicable, but it must state the facts on which this conclusion rests, so that the court may judge of the sufficiency of the reasons assigned for their action in charging some shares with sums of money to be paid by the owners of other shares, in order to equalize the shares. Hardin v. Cogswell, 52 Tenn. 549, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 287 (1871); Burdett v. Norwood, 83 Tenn. 491, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1885).

3. Money Payment — Exigency as Basis.

The commissioners cannot compel an unwilling tenant in common to pay money to equalize the shares unless the exigency of the statute exists, nor can they compel a tenant to part with his land for money, except in a like exigency. Burdett v. Norwood, 83 Tenn. 491, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1885).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 61-68, 113.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 15, 142.

Power to decree pecuniary sum as owelty to equalize shares of parties in partition. 65 A.L.R. 352.

Partition 91.

29-27-118. Report of commissioners.

The commissioners shall make a report in writing, signed by at least three (3) of them, of what they have done, and describing the land divided, and the share of each party, by metes and bounds, or other sufficient designation.

Code 1858, § 3282 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 1); Shan., § 5030; Code 1932, § 9185; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2122.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 13.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 110-116.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 159.

Building, division of. 28 A.L.R. 727.

Mortgage or other lien upon premises, cotenant's right to allowance in partition in respect of amount paid to discharge, as affected by statute of limitations or laches. 117 A.L.R. 1442.

Pleading, right under general prayer to relief inconsistent with prayer for specific relief. 30 A.L.R. 1183.

Partition 94.

29-27-119. Confirmation of report — Decree.

Upon the coming in of the report, unless set aside for good cause shown, upon exception, the court shall confirm the same, and divest and vest title according to its terms, giving a decree in proper cases in favor of those to whom smaller shares have been allotted against those having the larger shares, for the amounts reported, which decree is a lien on such larger shares until paid. Where there are infants whose shares are thus charged, the court shall direct the money to be paid out of their personal estate, if any.

Code 1858, §§ 3284, 3285 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 4); Shan., §§ 5032, 5033; Code 1932, §§ 9187, 9188; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2123.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 489.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Former Divestiture and Vestiture Unnecessary.

The provision of this section as to divesting and vesting title is merely directory, and a formal divestiture and vestiture of title is not necessary. A confirmation of the report is sufficient. Johnson v. Britt's Heirs, 56 Tenn. 756, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1872); Saunders v. Hackney, 78 Tenn. 194, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 163 (1882).

2. Easements.

An easement created by a county court in an action for partition was an easement by grant. Edminston Corp. v. Carpenter, 540 S.W.2d 260, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 243 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 88-114.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 163.

Interference by court with decision of commissioners in partition suit. 46 A.L.R. 348.

Partition 94(3).

29-27-120. Commissioners' expenses.

The expenses of the commissioners, including the expenses of a surveyor and the surveyor's assistants, when they have been employed, will be ascertained and allowed by the court; the expenses to be paid by the claimants in the proportion of their interests, or equally, as the court may direct, to be collected as other costs.

Code 1858, § 3286 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 2); Shan., § 5034; Code 1932, § 9189; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2124.

Cross-References. Commissioners' allowances, § 8-21-802.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 27.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Car.

Commissioner's expense of $6.00 for hire of car was properly included in costs. Vanderberg v. Molder, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 111 (1913).

29-27-121. Attorneys' fees.

The court may, in its discretion, order the fees of the attorneys for the complainant and defendant to be paid out of the common fund, where the property is sold for partition, and taxed as cost in cases where the property is partitioned in kind.

Acts 1887, ch. 183; Shan., § 5035; Code 1932, § 9190; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2125.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 250.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 32.

Law Reviews.

Decedents' Estates, Trusts and Future Interests — 1961 Tennessee Survey (II) (Herman L. Trautman), 15 Vand. L. Rev. 882.

Cited: Draper v. Draper, 24 Tenn. App. 48, 24 Tenn. App. 548, 147 S.W.2d 759, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940); In re Estate of Dunlap, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 210 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section is not unconstitutional as delegating legislative functions, for it only delegates judicial discretion already possessed by the courts to apply the law to the facts; nor as taking property without the judgment of peers, or not by the law of the land; nor as arbitrary or capricious class legislation; nor as taking the property of unconsenting owner, without just compensation; nor as depriving the owner of his property without due process of law and as denying the equal protection of the laws. Scott v. Marley, 124 Tenn. 388, 137 S.W. 492, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1911); Carothers v. Giles County, 162 Tenn. 492, 39 S.W.2d 584, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 113 (1931).

2. Successful Complainant — Freedom from Costs.

Where complainant succeeds in all his contentions, it is error to tax him with any part of the costs, though defendant filed a cross bill seeking affirmative relief. Johnson v. Johnson, 53 S.W. 226, 1899 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 66 (1899).

3. Defendant Whose Interest is Unassailed.

It is not abuse of discretion to refuse to tax with attorney fees the fund of an adult defendant whose interest is not assailed by the complainant. Pate v. Maples, 43 S.W. 740, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 93 (1897).

4. County Court — Jurisdiction.

Where a suit filed in the county court for the sale or partition of intestate's land was temporarily enjoined by a suit in the chancery court which determined who had title to the land involved and then referred the case back to the county court for the partition proceedings, the county court could only set the solicitor's fees arising out of the suit in the county court and it could not base fees on the suit in the chancery court. Vanhooser v. Cunningham, 24 Tenn. App. 480, 146 S.W.2d 840, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

The county court is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only exercise such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by statute, but for this section the county court would have no jurisdiction to fix fee in partition cases. Vanhooser v. Cunningham, 24 Tenn. App. 480, 146 S.W.2d 840, 1940 Tenn. App. LEXIS 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940).

5. Numerous Tenants in Common with Small Interests.

This statute is specially applicable where the tenants in common are numerous, and many of them own small interests; and the allowance, amount, and apportionment of the fees of the attorneys in such case is largely in the sound legal discretion of the court in which the partition suit is conducted, subject to review for abuse. No general rule should be laid down as to the application of this statute; but the fees of the attorneys of both parties may be allowed out of the common fund. Scott v. Marley, 124 Tenn. 388, 137 S.W. 492, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1911); Rushing v. Massey, 6 Tenn. App. 31, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

6. Fixing of Fees.

Court cannot order payment of fees of attorneys of one party out of common fund without allowing fees of other counsel unless services were of no value to any party. Montgomery v. Hoskins, 222 Tenn. 45, 432 S.W.2d 654, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 410 (1968).

Where the court determines that the common fund is to bear the expense of attorneys' fees it is the duty of the court to fix the fees for the attorneys of both parties in accordance with those general principles judicially applied in the determination of reasonable attorneys' fees. Montgomery v. Hoskins, 222 Tenn. 45, 432 S.W.2d 654, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 410 (1968).

When fees are awarded under this section, counsel for the respective parties are not required to receive identical fees. Chaille v. Warren, 689 S.W.2d 173, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

7. Payment of Fees from Estates.

The test to determine whether fees should be paid out of an estate requires a determination of whether the legal services performed for which payment from the estate is sought inured to the benefit of the estate itself or to the individuals claiming an interest in the estate. Chaille v. Warren, 689 S.W.2d 173, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

Efforts of the heirs' attorneys in seeking the partition of the land redounded to the benefit of all parties with an interest in the land, the lender as well as the heirs; in light of the fact that all parties enjoyed the benefits of the heirs' representation, it was equitable that all the parties, including the lender, should pay their share of the attorney fees in proportion to their interest in the land at issue in the litigation. Fossett v. Gray, 173 S.W.3d 742, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 602 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005).

8. Award to One Cotenant Only.

Trial court could award attorney's fees to one cotenant and deny them to the other only if it concluded that the services provided by the other's counsel had been of no value to any party, but, because the court made no such finding, its award of attorney's fees to the one cotenant alone was an abuse of the court's discretion. On remand, the court was to reconsider the award of attorney's fees. Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 958 (Tenn. 2006).

Collateral References.

Attorney's compensation for services in partition, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 751, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Method of calculating attorneys' fees awarded in common-fund or common-benefit cases — State cases. 56 A.L.R.5th 107.

Partition 114.

29-27-122. Persons bound by decree.

The partition thus made is conclusive:

  1. On all parties named in the proceedings who have at the time any interest in the premises divided, as owners in fee or as tenants for years or as entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of such premises after the termination of any particular estate therein; or who by any contingency in any will, conveyance, or otherwise, may be or may become entitled to any beneficial interest in the premises; or who shall have any interest in any individual share of the premises, as tenants for years or for life;
  2. On all persons interested in the premises who are unknown, to whom notice has been given by publication, as hereinbefore directed;
  3. On all persons claiming from such parties or persons, or either of them.

Code 1858, § 3291 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 17, § 1; 1799, ch. 11, § 2; 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 1; 1855-1856, ch. 164, § 2); Shan., § 5040; Code 1932, § 9195; Acts 1976, ch. 529, § 8; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2126.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 31.

Cited: Holt v. Hamlin, 120 Tenn. 496, 111 S.W. 241, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1908); Davis v. Solari, 132 Tenn. 225, 177 S.W. 939, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1915); Cripps v. Cripps, 202 Tenn. 67, 302 S.W.2d 340, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1957); Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963); Yarbro v. Easley, 525 S.W.2d 495, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Court Without Jurisdiction.

Where the court decreeing partition of land has no jurisdiction to do so, the decree is not conclusive on the parties in an ejectment suit thereafter brought. Nicely v. Boyles, 23 Tenn. 177, 1843 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1843); Whillock v. Hale's Heirs, 29 Tenn. 64, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1849); Johnson v. Britt's Heirs, 56 Tenn. 756, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1872).

Chancery court has general jurisdiction of the sale of lands for partition, but it may be exercised only in certain cases set forth in the law, and where not authorized, the decree is a nullity. Delk v. Williams, 10 Tenn. App. 246, — S.W.2d —, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1929).

2. Conclusiveness.

In the absence of fraud, the partition is conclusive of the rights of the parties to the suit. Luttrell v. Fisher, 58 Tenn. 101, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 233 (1872).

Decree in partition entered by chancery court was final where all necessary parties were before the court and consented to decree. Cheatham v. Allen, 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 300 (1951).

3. —Naming in Proceedings — Necessity.

Conclusiveness of partition only against such persons as are named in the proceedings, by name or description. Ferriss v. Lewis, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 291 (1875).

4. Implied Warranty Between Partitioners.

In case of partition by decree of court, there is an implied warranty between the partitioners, by which they have the mutual right, upon eviction of part by superior or paramount title, to have compensation against each other for the loss sustained, and this remedy exists against alienees, though not in their favor, and the statute of limitations, as against such right, begins to run from the time of eviction; and the remedy is by bill in chancery, either by setting aside the partition or by contribution. Sawyers v. Cator, 27 Tenn. 256, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 76 (1847). See Rushing v. Massey, 6 Tenn. App. 31, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

Where one cotenant insists on having disputed lands included in proceeding, agreeing to take the risk, and on partition deliberately takes a share including such lands, he is estopped to claim contribution on eviction from such lands. He is estopped to repudiate the result. Bussell v. King, 48 S.W. 310, 1897 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 153 (1897).

5. Partition Void as to Minors — Binding Effect as to Adults.

Where adults petition for and obtain a partition, in conformity with their wishes, against the minor defendants, in such manner that the same may be void as to the minors, and would be set aside upon their application, such adults are estopped from setting aside the same, after the death of the infants, especially where the purpose of setting aside the partition is to prevent the money decreed to be paid to the infants for the purpose of equalizing their share with the complainant adults, from passing to the next of kin of the deceased infants, and to secure the land to themselves, as the heirs at law of such infants. Latimer v. Rogers, 40 Tenn. 692, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 203 (1859); Kindell v. Titus, 56 Tenn. 727, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1872).

6. Conveyance of Part of Land Between Cotenants.

A conveyance by one tenant in common to the other of a certain specific portion of the common land, by metes and bounds, does not operate as a partition of the whole land, but severs and destroys the tenancy in common as to the premises conveyed, but leaves them tenants in common of the remaining part, and such conveyor does not hold the remaining part in severalty, where the other tenant has never made any deed conveying his undivided interest therein to such conveyor. Earles v. Meaders, 60 Tenn. 248, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 482 (1873).

7. Drainage Rights After Partition.

Heirs, between whom a partition of lands descended has been made, take in severalty the estate allotted to each, with the rights, privileges, and incidents inherently attached to it. One heir to whom has been allotted the upper part of a farm on a river, through the whole of which farm a ditch for the purpose of drainage had been dug and kept open by the common ancestor, and continued to be kept open by the heirs after his death, is entitled to have the ditch kept open through the lower part of the farm allotted to another heir. Powell v. Riley, 83 Tenn. 153, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 35 (1885).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 194-197.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 110.

29-27-123. Persons not bound by decree.

Such judgment and partition will not affect any tenants or persons having claims as tenants, for life, to the whole of the premises, nor preclude any person, except those specified in § 29-27-122, from claiming any title to the premises, or from controverting the title or interest of the parties between whom the partition has been made.

Code 1858, § 3292; Shan., § 5041; Code 1932, § 9196; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2127; modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2127.

Code Commission Notes.

Prior to modification by the Tennessee Code Commission in light of § 31-202 (now § 31-2-102) abolishing dower and curtesy, this section read as follows:

“Such judgment and partition will not affect any tenants, or persons having claims as tenants, in dower, by the curtesy, or for life, to the whole of the premises, nor preclude any person, except those specified in § 29-27-122, from claiming any title to the premises, or from controverting the title or interest of the parties between whom the partition has been made.”

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 485.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 31.

Cited: Cripps v. Cripps, 202 Tenn. 67, 302 S.W.2d 340, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1957); Yarbro v. Easley, 525 S.W.2d 495, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Ejectment Action.

In action of ejectment, a decree in a partition case was not conclusive upon the parties. Johnson v. Britt's Heirs, 56 Tenn. 756, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 200 (1872).

2. Cotenant Not a Party — Rights Against Decree.

If one tenant in common is no party to a suit in which the interest of other cotenants in the land was sold, it is of no consequence to such tenant whether the proceedings are valid or invalid, and he cannot be heard to impeach them. Morelock v. Bernard, 83 Tenn. 169, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 38 (1885).

3. Life Tenant in Whole — Rights.

A tenant who holds a life interest in the whole of the premises has no right to ask a partition of the remainder and is not affected by such a partition. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

4. Dower Rights.

The fact that property held in common is subject to dower will not prevent partition of the remainder by division into lots. Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 17 Tenn. App. 305, 67 S.W.2d 154, 1933 Tenn. App. LEXIS 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 194-197.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 124.

Estoppel of one not party to partition by failure to disclose his interest in the property. 50 A.L.R. 791.

Part 2
Sale for Division

29-27-201. Sale for division authorized.

Any person entitled to a partition of premises, under part 1 of this chapter, is equally entitled to have such premises sold for division, in the following cases:

  1. If the premises are so situated that partition thereof cannot be made; or
  2. Where the premises are of such description that it would be manifestly for the advantage of the parties that the same should be sold instead of partitioned.

Code 1858, § 3293 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 54, § 1; 1829, ch. 35, § 1; 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 1); Shan., § 5042; Code 1932, § 9197; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2128.

Cross-References. Judicial power to decree sale, § 16-1-107.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 484, 488.

Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), No. 1-8-8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 8 Tenn. Juris., Cotenancy, § 9; 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 19; 16 Tenn. Juris., Judicial Sales, §§ 5, 26; 18 Tenn. Juris., Minors, §§ 28, 33; 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, §§ 9, 18, 19, 30, 33.

Law Reviews.

Intestate Succession in Tennessee (Douglas P. Quay), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 63.

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, II. Estates in Land (Beverly A. Rowlett), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 55 (1980).

Cited: Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963); Yarbro v. Easley, 525 S.W.2d 495, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974); Jeffers v. Shelton, 634 S.W.2d 275, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Gray v. Todd, 819 S.W.2d 104, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not unconstitutional on ground that it forces an owner to sell his property at less than market value. Medley v. Medley, 61 Tenn. App. 331, 454 S.W.2d 142, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

2. Common Law Rule.

The right of sale for partition was not recognized at common law. Barksdale v. Keisling, 13 Tenn. App. 699, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

3. Purchase by Administrator.

An administrator may purchase land sold for partition if he seeks no advantage by virtue of his official relation to the property. Rogers v. Rogers, 42 S.W. 70, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 116 (1896).

4. Collateral Attack on Sale — Scope.

In a collateral attack upon the proceedings for the sale of land for partition, the bill or petition and the decree of the court alone will be considered to test the jurisdiction, and the appellate court will not go behind a decree, but must take the recitals as conclusive, unless, on appeal or writ of error, when the facts will be revised, and the conclusion of the court, if erroneous, will be corrected. Martin v. Porter, 51 Tenn. 407, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (1871); Kindell v. Titus, 56 Tenn. 727, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 198 (1872); Starkey v. Hammer, 60 Tenn. 438, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 529 (1873); Shepard v. Akers, 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 215 (1876); Campbell v. Bryant, 2 Shan. 146 (1876); Jackson v. Jackson, 3 Shan. 18 (1878); Hurt v. Long, 90 Tenn. 445, 16 S.W. 968, 1891 Tenn. LEXIS 29 (1891); Reinhardt v. Nealis, 101 Tenn. 169, 46 S.W. 446, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1898); Crocker v. Balch, 104 Tenn. 6, 55 S.W. 307, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1900); Wilkins v. McCorkle, 112 Tenn. 688, 80 S.W. 834, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1904).

5. Partition in Kind or Sale.

Where five siblings wanted to accept an offer to sell the “entire” tract, which was primarily wetlands, to conservancy, but one sibling sought to partition a small upland tract, an analysis of the record revealed that, owing to the topography of the land, the flood prone creek, the problems of utilities and access to each tract, and the fact that some easements, by consent, would be required, a partition in kind would have simply exacerbated an ongoing family imbroglio, even if a partition in kind was factually possible. The evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the property could not be partitioned in kind, as a “goodly portion” of the property was in the flood plain, and public access to some of the proposed tracts would have been difficult and inconvenient without the inclusion of the disputed upland parcel; moreover, partition was not equitable, because it would probably have resulted in the “non-sale” of the property of the other five siblings. Potts v. Rogers, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2004), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 181 (Tenn. Feb. 28, 2005).

It was proper to find that an aunt owned an undivided one-half interest in property and that brothers owned an undivided one-fourth interest because a settlor clearly intended the brothers each own an undivided one-fourth interest; the trust stated that the trustee was to distribute one-half of the estate to the aunt, giving her an undivided one-half interest, and to divide the remaining half into two equal parts, with one-half going to one brother and the other half going to the other. Breen v. Sharp, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).

Trial court properly determined that a portion of property owned by brothers and their aunt would be divided in kind, and the remaining property would be partitioned by sale, because the brothers established a condition under which a partition by sale was appropriate; the property was comprised of three noncontiguous tracts of significantly different acreage, shape, topography and value, and partition in kind would result in some tracts having limited public access. Breen v. Sharp, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).

6. —Distinguished.

A tenant in common is, by the common law, entitled to a partition in kind, as a matter of right, and, by statute, to a sale for partition, where a partition in kind is impracticable, or where the property cannot be equally divided among those entitled thereto, or where, from the situation of the premises, it is manifestly for the interest of the parties, in order to make partition, that the same should be sold for partition, instead of being partitioned in kind. A partition in kind, or a sale for partition, as the case may be, cannot be resisted on the ground that it is for the interest of the parties that they continue to hold the property as tenants in common. Helm v. Franklin, 24 Tenn. 404, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 95 (1844); Ross v. Ramsey, 40 Tenn. 15, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1859).

For certain distinctions between partition in kind and sale for partition, see Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

7. —Sale Proper — Examples.

A farm of 200 acres, provided with buildings, divided into fields of pasture, meadow, and arable land, with wood and water, all convenient for use as a single farm, and more valuable as a whole than if divided into five shares, will be sold for partition instead of being partitioned in kind. If the farm was adjacent to a town, and valuable for purposes other than agriculture, it might be different. Evans v. Evans, 42 Tenn. 143, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 33 (1865).

A 5,000 acre tract of land, principally valuable for its minerals and timber, with the minerals and water almost exclusively on one end of the tract, and the minerals undetermined in extent and value, cannot be equitably or advantageously partitioned in kind, and it is manifestly to the advantage of all the parties that the same should be sold for partition instead of being partitioned in kind. Wilson v. Bogle, 95 Tenn. 290, 32 S.W. 386, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 86, 49 Am. St. Rep. 929 (1895).

Where 70 acre tract of land consisted in part of hill land and in part of bottom land, and could not equitably be divided among several owners of reversionary interest according to their respective interest, it was manifestly to the advantage of all parties that the reversion be sold for partition and division. Hipshire v. Stapleton, 57 Tenn. App. 339, 418 S.W.2d 457, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 209 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

The mere fact that land may be partitioned among cotenants is not conclusive that a sale may not be ordered and, if the partition value of all the shares would be less than the value of the tract as a whole, partition would be manifestly inequitable and a sale should be decreed. Medley v. Medley, 61 Tenn. App. 331, 454 S.W.2d 142, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

In an action for partition and sale of property owned by two landowners, each owning a one-half undivided interest, the trial court was not required by T.C.A. § 29-27-201 to determine whether partition in kind was possible before ordering partition by sale; although not required to do so, one landowner had demonstrated both that a partition in kind could not be made and that it was manifestly to the parties'  advantage to sell the property. McKenzie Banking Co. v. Couch, 332 S.W.3d 349, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2010), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. LEXIS 927 (Tenn. Sept. 23, 2010).

8. —Sale for Interest of All Parties.

If a partition in kind can be made, a sale for partition will not be decreed, because such sale would be for the interest of some of the parties, for such sale must be manifestly for the interest of all the parties, or the court will not decree a sale. Reeves v. Reeves, 58 Tenn. 669, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1872); Wilson v. Bogle, 95 Tenn. 290, 32 S.W. 386, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 86, 49 Am. St. Rep. 929 (1895).

Under this section there are two conditions under which a cotenant is entitled to sale and, if either condition exists, it is immaterial whether the other exists so that even though the land could be partitioned in kind, a sale of land can properly be ordered if it is manifestly to the advantage of the parties to do so. Medley v. Medley, 61 Tenn. App. 331, 454 S.W.2d 142, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

9. —Minor's Interest in Land.

Chancery had jurisdiction to order sale of minor's interest in premises where rental was used for upkeep of premises, since sale was for the benefit of the minor. Case of Brown, 27 Tenn. 200, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 70 (1847).

Land should not be sold as being to interest of minors to whom their father had conveyed his curtesy estate where sale was proposed to be made freed from that estate, even though the land would sell for more when so freed. Henry v. Henry, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 240 (1901).

10. —Sale by Life Tenant.

Where it is shown to be for the manifest interest of the parties owning the entire estate, a sale of the whole estate for partition at the suit of the life tenants is authorized by statute, notwithstanding the existence of a contingent remainder. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906); McConnell v. Bell, 121 Tenn. 198, 114 S.W. 203, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1908); Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922); Delk v. Williams, 10 Tenn. App. 246, — S.W.2d —, 1929 Tenn. App. LEXIS 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1929).

Where a will directs a half interest in certain land to be sold upon the death of the life tenant and the proceeds to be divided among certain persons, and the children and grandchildren of one of those persons if he should die before the death of the life tenant, such persons have no interest or estate in the land entitling them, some against the others, to maintain a bill for sale for partition, during the existence of the life estate. McKnight v. McKnight, 120 Tenn. 431, 115 S.W. 134, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1908).

11. Hearing.

12. —Burden of Proof of Necessity for Sale.

The party insisting on a sale instead of a partition in kind must show clearly, by the facts, the necessity for such sale, and nothing short of the clearest and most satisfactory proof could justify the court in ordering a sale against the protest of one of the tenants in common. Reeves v. Reeves, 58 Tenn. 669, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1872); Vanderberg v. Molder, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 111 (1913).

13. —Concurrent Finding of Master and Chancellor as to Facts — Weight.

The concurrent finding of the master and chancellor upon controverted questions of fact as to the necessity of a sale for partition instead of a partition in kind is entitled to the weight of a verdict upon which judgment has been rendered. Wilson v. Bogle, 95 Tenn. 290, 32 S.W. 386, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 86, 49 Am. St. Rep. 929 (1895).

Because the resolution of whether an aunt owned an undivided one-half interest in the property issue hinged on the interpretation of a trust document, it was a question of law; consequently, the concurrent finding by the special master and the chancery court was not conclusive, and the court of appeals reviewed it de novo with no presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court. Breen v. Sharp, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).

14. —Evidence Required to Sustain Sale.

The right to have a sale for partition is confined to the statutory cases. A sale will not be ordered upon the mere opinion of witnesses, unaccompanied by facts or reasons clearly sustaining the correctness of such opinion. The report of the clerk, based upon such mere opinion though confirmed by the court, goes for nothing. Davidson v. Bowden, 37 Tenn. 129, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1857); Reeves v. Reeves, 58 Tenn. 669, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1872); Wilson v. Bogle, 95 Tenn. 290, 32 S.W. 386, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 86, 49 Am. St. Rep. 929 (1895).

Before a sale of land can be decreed, there must be satisfactory evidence of the facts upon which to base a conclusion that the land cannot be partitioned in kind, or that “it would be manifestly for the advantage of the parties that the same should be sold instead of partitioned.” A sale for partition, where there is no evidence to show its necessity, will be set aside. Bradberry v. Martin, 3 Shan. 469 (1875).

In partition proceedings the evidence sustained the finding of the chancellor that it was manifestly to the advantage of all the parties that a farm be sold instead of partitioned in kind. Bevins v. George, 36 Tenn. App. 308, 255 S.W.2d 409, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

In action for partition of property in kind, where testimony of tenant in common opposing partition that best interests of parties would be served by sale of land was the only evidence in support of sale, and proponent's expert testified that land could be equitably divided, the opponent's proof did not meet statutory criteria that sale “would be manifestly for the advantage of the parties.” Moyers v. Moyers, 871 S.W.2d 161, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 618 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Feb. 7, 1994).

15. Pleading and Practice.

The pleadings, practice and procedure in a suit for partition were not in accord with the established rules with respect to the pleadings and practice of partition suits where, among other things, there was no allegation in the complaint that the premises were “so situated that partition thereof cannot be made” or “that it would be manifestly for the advantage of the parties that the same should be sold instead of partitioned.” Yates v. Yates, 571 S.W.2d 293, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 645 (Tenn. 1978).

16. Review of Order for Sale.

Where there were numerous witnesses who testified that farm could only be used as a unit and that the value of the farm would be reduced if it were partitioned assignments of error to decree of county court ordering sale were overruled. Summers v. Conger, 43 Tenn. App. 286, 307 S.W.2d 936, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

The trial court properly considered and balanced the following factors in making its determination that the order to sell was appropriate: (1) the existing means of access to the property; (2) the character of the property and its potential uses; (3) the location of the existing improvements; (4) access to water and other similar utilities and services; (5) the potential value of a single large tract as compared to the value of smaller tracts; (6) the cost of partitioning the property compared with the costs of selling the property; and (7) the state of the title and the existence of any liens or encumbrances. Gober v. Burrus, 726 S.W.2d 532, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3476 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Trial court improperly ordered the interest of the estate to be divested and vested in another cotenant for a court-ordered price given case law clearly holding that a court had no power to do so, and a court-ordered divestiture of property interests at a court-determined price was not a sale as contemplated by T.C.A. § 29-27-201. In re Estate of Battle, — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2017).

17. Manner of Sale.

Statute does not require a private sale so that there was no error by court in its discretion ordering a public sale. Medley v. Medley, 61 Tenn. App. 331, 454 S.W.2d 142, 1969 Tenn. App. LEXIS 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969).

18. Rights of Life Tenant.

The sale for division provided by this section may not include a dower, curtesy, or life estate unless the owner of such estate consents that it be sold. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

If the holder of the life estate consents that his interest be sold along with the remainder in an action for partition, then it may be done; but, if he objects to the sale of his interest, the sale of the remainder, if decreed, will be subject to the rights of the life tenant. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 118-132.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 125, 126.

Clerk of court or sureties, liability of, for proceeds of partition paid into court. 59 A.L.R. 64.

Grounds, other than defects as to title of land, resale, or irregularity in sale, for relief of successful bidders, from obligation to comply with bid. 63 A.L.R. 974.

Purchaser at partition sale, rights and remedies of, where sale is void or is set aside because proceedings are imperfect or irregular, or where description of property is defective. 142 A.L.R. 310.

Rights of surviving spouse and children in proceeds of partition sale of homestead in decedent's estate. 6 A.L.R.2d 515.

Trust arising from parol agreement to bid in property sold at partition sale for person having an interest therein. 42 A.L.R. 109, 135 A.L.R. 232, 27 A.L.R.2d 1285.

Partition 99-110.

29-27-202. Application for sale.

The application for a sale of the premises is made by bill or petition, under the same rules and regulations that govern the application for partition.

Code 1858, § 3294; Shan., § 5043; Code 1932, § 9198; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2129.

Collateral References. 68 C.J.S. Partition § 131.

Partition 77(4).

29-27-203. Alternative application.

The application may be in the alternative for partition, if practicable or advisable, and, if otherwise, for a sale.

Code 1858, § 3296 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 48, § 1); Shan., § 5045; Code 1932, § 9200; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2130.

Collateral References. Partition 77(4).

29-27-204. Amendment to pray sale.

The petition or bill may also be amended at any stage of the cause, so as to pray a sale, if the parties think it for their interest.

Code 1858, § 3298; Shan., § 5047; Code 1932, § 9202; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2131.

Collateral References. Partition 77(4).

29-27-205. Answer asking sale.

Even if application is for partition only, the court may, upon the answers of the defendants asking a sale, and satisfactory cause shown, decree a sale for division.

Code 1858, § 3297; Shan., § 5046; Code 1932, § 9201; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2132.

Collateral References. Partition 77(4).

29-27-206. Commissioners recommending sale.

If the commissioners appointed to make partition report that the premises, or any portion thereof, are so situated that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, the court may, if satisfied that the report is just and correct, order a sale of the premises, whether prayed for or not in the petition, or asked by the defendant.

Code 1858, § 3299; Shan., § 5048; Code 1932, § 9203; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2133.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 488.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Chancellor Determining as to Sale Before Report.

The chancellor may, in advance of the report of the commissioners, determine and adjudge that the land is susceptible of some sort of partition in kind, and may instruct the commissioners accordingly. Vanderberg v. Molder, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 111 (1913).

2. Allotment of Part in Kind and Sale of Part.

The court may, if practicable and in accordance with the wishes of one or more of the cotenants, order an allotment of a share or shares in kind and in severalty, and direct a sale of the other portion, if it be not susceptible of partition in kind. This section authorizes such procedure. Vanderberg v. Molder, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 111 (1913).

3. Nature of Report on Reference.

Where report is made by master under a reference, his failure to report technically following the order of reference is not prejudicial if the matters referred may be determined from the report. Pitman v. England, 46 S.W. 464, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 17 (1898).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 110-115.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 130.

Commissioner or referee, power of court in partition proceedings to direct sale of property without aid of, or contrary to recommendation of. 95 A.L.R. 1330.

Nature of relief in partition of minerals in place — partition in kind or by sale. 173 A.L.R. 854.

Partition 105.

29-27-207. Decree for sale of estate situated in several counties.

When the estate to be divided is situated in several counties, the court may decree a sale of all the land, as well that situated in the county where the bill is filed as in any other county in the state.

Code 1858, § 3295 (deriv. Acts 1847-1848, ch. 170, §§ 1, 2); Shan., § 5044; Code 1932, § 9199; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2134.

29-27-208. Sale of life estate.

  1. The court may, with the assent of the person entitled to an estate for life, to the whole or any part of the premises, who is a party to the proceedings, sell such estate with the rest.
    1. If such person is incapable of giving assent, the court may determine, under all the circumstances, and taking into view the interest of all the parties, whether such estate ought to be excepted from the sale, or sold.
    2. If the person entitled to any such estate for life be unknown, the court may determine whether the estate shall be sold or not, as in the case of persons under disability, and, in the event of sale, make such order for the protection of the rights of such person in the same manner, as far as may be, as if the person were known and had appeared.
  2. When such interest is sold, the value thereof may be ascertained and paid over in gross, or the proper proportion of the fund invested, and the income paid over to the party during the continuance of the estate.

Code 1858, §§ 3305-3308 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 164, § 2); Shan., §§ 5054-5057; Code 1932, §§ 9209-9212; Acts 1976, ch. 529, §§ 9, 10; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2135 — 23-2137.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 496.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Constitutional Law, § 58; 10 Tenn. Juris., Dower, §§ 9, 15, 19; 11 Tenn. Juris., Estates, § 10.

Cited: Hipshire v. Stapleton, 57 Tenn. App. 339, 418 S.W.2d 457, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 209 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966); Yarbro v. Easley, 525 S.W.2d 495, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remainder Interests.

A life tenant in the whole premises is not entitled to maintain a bill against the owners in remainder or reversion for partition in kind, nor for a sale for partition of the proceeds. McKnight v. McKnight, 120 Tenn. 431, 115 S.W. 134, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1908); Holt v. Hamlin, 120 Tenn. 496, 111 S.W. 241, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1908); McConnell v. Bell, 121 Tenn. 198, 114 S.W. 203, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1908); Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

If the holder of the life estate consents that his interest be sold along with the remainder in an action for partition, then it may be done; but, if he objects to the sale of his interest, the sale of the remainder, if decreed, will be subject to the rights of the life tenant. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

2. Assent.

While an estate for life in the whole of the premises does not and cannot enter into the scheme of partition in kind at all, it may enter into the scheme of a sale for partition or division of the proceeds, with the assent of the life tenant; but this rule does not mean that a life tenant, by consenting to a sale of the property, through a bill filed by him for that purpose, can force a sale against the wishes of the remaindermen or reversioner. It means that a remainderman or reversioner may file a bill against his cotenants in remainder or reversion and against the life tenant for a sale of the land for partition or division of the proceeds, and, with the assent of the life tenant have the whole estate sold, if for the benefit of all. McConnell v. Bell, 121 Tenn. 198, 114 S.W. 203, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1908). See White v. Kelton, 144 Tenn. 327, 232 S.W. 668, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1921), questioned, 164 Tenn. 509, 51 S.W.2d 500, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1932); Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

A life tenant may manifest her consent to sale for partition by joining in a bill filed by some of the remaindermen against the others, praying for such relief. Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922).

3. Persons Under Disability.

This section clearly implies that the proceeding may be for the partition of land entirely covered by life estate, and make provision for the sale of such life estate, when “assented to” by the life tenant, and also for the disposition of such estate in such suit for partition, when the life tenant is incapable of assenting, as in consequence of minority, insanity, or otherwise. Bierce v. James, 87 Tenn. 538, 11 S.W. 788, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1889).

4. —Infant Ownership.

The county court has jurisdiction to decree a sale for partition and thereby bar the life estate of an infant. Henry v. Henry, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 240 (1901).

The chancery court has the inherent jurisdiction to make, ratify, or consent to sale of lands of infants, when it is made to appear that it is to their manifest interest to do so. Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

5. Value of Life Estate.

While annuity tables or life tables are admissible on an issue as to the present value of a life estate, they are not conclusive as to the probable duration of the life tenant's existence. The age, habits, and constitution of the life tenant must be considered. The value of the life estate must be determined by considering, in addition to the expectancy of the life tenant, the present worth of the money in connection with the risks attending the lending thereof, the payment of taxes, and the like. Carnes & Perry v. Polk, 52 Tenn. 244, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 257 (1871); Holt v. Hamlin, 120 Tenn. 496, 111 S.W. 241, 1908 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1908).

6. Distribution of Proceeds.

Where a sale of the whole estate is made for partition at the suit of life tenants, where there is a contingent remainder, the life estate should be valued and paid to the life tenants, and the residue belonging to the contingent estate should be invested under the order of the court for the benefit of the persons ultimately entitled to the possession of that estate. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906).

7. Discretion.

Valuation and payment from proceeds of sale of consenting life tenant's estate is not mandatory. Yarbro v. Easley, 525 S.W.2d 495, 1974 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974).

8. Construction with §§ 29-27-101, 29-27-102.

Sections 29-27-101 and 29-27-102 have nothing to do with assent, or the lack thereof, of the holder of a life estate in the property subject to partition; nor do they attempt in any way to modify or limit this section; they merely describe those entitled to bring an action for partition in kind or for sale for division. Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Dower and Curtesy.

Where the land ordered sold by the court because it was not capable of partition was not a residence or a homestead and had no dwelling or other improvements, § 29-27-101 and § 29-27-102 and not this section are applicable and the assent of the widow to the sale of her dower interests in the property is not required. Vick v. Vick, 207 Tenn. 643, 342 S.W.2d 719, 1961 Tenn. LEXIS 381 (1961), overruled in part, Puryear v. Belcher, 614 S.W.2d 344, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1981).

2. —Portion in Fee as Dower.

Court of equity can decree portion of lands in fee simple in lieu of homestead and dower where widow and adult heirs consent thereto, and it will be beneficial to minors. Gillespie v. Jackson, 153 Tenn. 150, 281 S.W. 929, 1925 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1926).

3. —Dower Sold.

In case of sale for partition, with the widow's assent, her dower estate may be sold with the rest and the value thereof paid over to her in gross, or the proper proportion of the fund may be invested and the income paid over to her during the continuance of the estate. Simpson v. Alexander, 46 Tenn. 619, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1869).

4. —Infant Ownership.

Where minors have acquired, by deed from their father, his curtesy estate in a tract of land owned in remainder or reversion by them as tenants in common with others, the curtesy estate will not be sold with the remainder or reversionary estate, upon the application of a cotenant in the remainder or reversion but not in the curtesy estate, to have the land sold for partition, even though the land would sell more advantageously when so freed than when encumbered by the curtesy estate, for it is more probable that the curtesy estate will be more valuable to such minors as a home than the estimated value thereof. Henry v. Henry, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 240 (1901).

5. —Necessity of Consent.

The provisions of §§ 29-27-101 and 29-27-102 do not confer any right on the court to order the sale of the interest of a person entitled to an estate by curtesy in land in the absence of the consent of such person and a decree ordering the sale of such estate without such consent is void. Helmick v. Wells, 171 Tenn. 265, 102 S.W.2d 58, 1936 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1937).

Court cannot order sale of property in which widow has homestead or dower interest without her consent unless it is sold subject to the dower and homestead rights of the widow. Cripps v. Cripps, 202 Tenn. 67, 302 S.W.2d 340, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1957).

There is nothing in this section which would permit the court to order a sale of dower, curtesy or life interests without the consent of such person if it appears that such person owns only a part of the property and not the whole. Cripps v. Cripps, 202 Tenn. 67, 302 S.W.2d 340, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 364 (1957).

6. —Homestead.

Where parties to partition proceeding stipulated that land be set apart to widow as homestead she was entitled to a life estate in entire proceeds realized from sale of land. Burris v. McConnell, 185 Tenn. 489, 206 S.W.2d 894, 1947 Tenn. LEXIS 364, 6 A.L.R.2d 509 (1947), rehearing denied, 185 Tenn. 489, 208 S.W.2d 331, 1948 Tenn. LEXIS 514, 6 A.L.R.2d 509 (1948).

Collateral References. 68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 147, 181.

Dower and homestead rights as affecting sale in partition proceedings. 159 A.L.R. 1139, 1153.

Life tenant's interest in fund realized from partition sale of property, commutation of, into estimated present value. 102 A.L.R. 969.

Partition 12(5).

29-27-209. Ascertainment of encumbrances — Payment.

    1. It is the duty of the parties, when a sale is applied for or ordered, to disclose any encumbrance upon the premises, or any part thereof.
    2. Either party, or the purchaser after sale, may have a reference to ascertain whether there are any encumbrances on the premises, the costs of which reference will be borne by the person applying, unless an encumbrance is discovered which the party failed to disclose, as required in this section, and then by the party failing to disclose.
  1. If it appears by the report that there are any existing encumbrances upon the estate or interest in the premises of any party named in the proceedings, the court may direct the same to be paid out of the share of the party in the funds, or order a credit to be given the purchaser for the amount of such encumbrance.

Code 1858, §§ 3309-3311; Shan., §§ 5058-5060; Code 1932, §§ 9213-9215; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2138, 23-2139.

Cross-References. Reference to determine taxes due, § 26-5-108.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 252, 491, 492.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Payment of Encumbrances.

Where in petition for partition by heirs of deceased the administrator filed a petition stating that estate was insolvent but reference disclosed that personal property of estate was sufficient to pay all but $75.00 of the debts against the estate, the heirs were entitled to amend their petition and deny that the estate was insolvent, and for a decree for sale, with portion of proceeds to be applied on debts and balance to be distributed among the heirs. Parks v. Van Dergriff, 57 S.W. 177, 1900 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 16 (1900).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 126-128.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 136, 204, 217.

Partition 101.

29-27-210. Interpleader of encumbrancer.

If the party dispute the validity of the supposed encumbrance, the purchaser may, by petition, compel such party and the supposed encumbrancer to interplead, unless the parties produce and file a disclaimer or receipt from such supposed encumbrancer.

Code 1858, § 3312; Shan., § 5061; Code 1932, § 9216; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2140.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 541.

Law Reviews.

Tennessee and Federal Interpleader (J. Harvey Cameron), 30 Tenn. L. Rev. 609.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 126-128, 192, 193.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 77, 78.

Partition 101.

29-27-211. Unencumbered shares unaffected.

The proceedings to ascertain and settle the amount of encumbrances, as provided in §§ 29-27-20929-27-213, shall not affect any other party in the suit nor delay the paying over or investing of moneys to or for the benefit of any party upon whose estate in the premises there appears to be no encumbrance.

Code 1858, § 3313; Shan., § 5062; Code 1932, § 9217; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2141.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 126-129, 192, 193.

68 C.J.S. Partition § 217.

Partition 101.

29-27-212. Sale subject to encumbrance.

Sales made without reference to the encumbrances are subject thereto, and do not affect the right of such encumbrancers in any way.

Code 1858, § 3314; Shan., § 5063; Code 1932, § 9218; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2142.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 82.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 192, 193.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 204, 257.

Partition 101.

29-27-213. Purchaser's rights under undisclosed encumbrance.

Nothing herein contained shall be held to deprive a purchaser of any rights the purchaser may have to be relieved of a sale, by reason of an encumbrance not made known at the sale.

Code 1858, § 3315; Shan. § 5064; Code 1932, § 9219; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2143.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 82.

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition § 128.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 201-212.

Caveat emptor, doctrine of, as applied to purchaser on partition sale. 68 A.L.R. 668.

Champerty rule as applicable to partition sale or to conveyance by person claiming under such sale. 71 A.L.R. 596.

Grounds, other than defects as to title of land, resale, or irregularity in sale, for relief of successful bidder from obligation to comply with bid. 63 A.L.R. 974.

Purchaser at partition sale, rights and remedies of, where sale is void or is set aside because proceedings are imperfect or irregular, or where description of property is defective. 142 A.L.R. 310.

29-27-214. Terms of sale.

The court may direct the sale to be made for cash, or on such credit as may be deemed most for the interest of all the parties.

Code 1858, § 3300 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 54, § 1); Shan., § 5049; Code 1932, § 9204; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2144.

Collateral References. Partition 102.

29-27-215. Security for purchase money.

  1. The installments of purchase money shall be secured by note, with good personal security, and a lien retained on the land until the whole amount is paid.
  2. The lien for the purchase money subsists until the whole is paid, notwithstanding any omission to reserve such lien, either in the decree or titles made in compliance with the orders of the court.

Code 1858, §§ 3301, 3304; Shan., §§ 5050, 5053; Code 1932, §§ 9205, 9208; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2145.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Lien for Purchase Price and Counsel Fees.

While a judgment creditor may levy on the land bought by his debtor, at a partition sale, as soon as the title is divested out of the parties and vested in him, such levy is subject to the lien for the purchase money reserved by this section, whether it was so expressed in the decree or not, and subject to the lien for counsel fees declared in the partition suit. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 59 Tenn. 472, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 94 (1873); Winchester v. Heiskell, 84 Tenn. 556, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1886), aff'd, 119 U.S. 341, 7 S. Ct. 276, 30 L. Ed. 462, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1995 (1886). As to lien for counsel fees, see Hunt v. McClanahan, 48 Tenn. 503, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1870).

Collateral References. 68 C.J.S. Partition § 190.

29-27-216. Vesting of title in purchaser.

The court, upon confirmation of the sale, divests title and vests it as in other cases of sale of real estate by decree of court, under the provisions of this Code.

Code 1858, § 3303; Shan., § 5052; Code 1932, § 9207; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2146.

Cross-References. Judgment vesting title, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 70.

Cited: Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Petitioner as Tenant in Common — Right to Purchase at Sale.

A tenant in common, though filing the petition for a sale for partition, may become the purchaser of the property at such sale ordered by the court, in the absence of any fraud. Davis v. Solari, 132 Tenn. 225, 177 S.W. 939, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1915).

2. Purchaser Under Void Decree.

The remedy of a purchaser at a sale for partition under a decree which was void, is, before the confirmation of the sale, by a petition in the cause in the court where the sale was ordered. Jordan v. Jordan, 145 Tenn. 378, 239 S.W. 423, 1921 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1922); Barksdale v. Keisling, 13 Tenn. App. 699, — S.W.2d —, 1931 Tenn. App. LEXIS 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931).

Collateral References. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 122, 129.

68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 202, 203.

Confirmation of sale as affected by receipt of higher bid. 11 A.L.R. 399, 152 A.L.R. 530.

29-27-217. Decree.

The rights of the parties shall be settled by the judgment or decree of the court, and the proceeds divided in accordance therewith.

Code 1858, § 3302 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 54, § 2); Shan., § 5051; Code 1932, § 9206; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2147.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Tax Priorities.

Sections 67-2003, 67-2010 — 67-2012 (now §§ 67-5-2405, 67-5-2406, 67-5-2414, 67-5-2415, 67-5-2501) which provide machinery for collection of delinquent taxes, and Acts 1939, ch. 125, amended by Acts 1943, ch. 149 known as Insolvent Property Tax Law did not apply to partition proceeding but principle of priority in favor of state taxes set forth in acts is consistent with decision in United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Rainey, 120 Tenn. 357, 113 S.W. 397, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (1907); and decision in Mayor of Nashville v. Lee, 80 Tenn. 452, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 195 (1883) in conflict with principle of priority of state taxes is disapproved. Whittle v. Holeman, 183 Tenn. 387, 192 S.W.2d 839, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 218 (1946).

2. Contribution.

Cotenant was entitled to contribution from his cotenant for her share of the mortgage payments and an allowance for his financial investment to improve the property. She was entitled to an offsetting right to the rental value of her interest in the property, from the time she no longer resided in the property, and was entitled to an offset for any amounts she contributed to the mortgage, taxes, or insurance. Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 958 (Tenn. 2006).

The trial court erred in holding that the proceeds from the sale of the property should have been equally divided between the cotenants, because one cotenant's expenditure of five thousand dollars of his own assets on the construction of the home, made during the parties'  relationship as cotenants, contributed to the improvement of the property, and the cotenant was entitled to claim an equitable allowance from the other cotenant's sale proceeds for those expenditures. Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 958 (Tenn. 2006).

Cooking and cleaning were not the type of services for which a cotenant should receive a offset for and the trial court's description of those contributions as an offset was improper. Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 958 (Tenn. 2006).

Where there was no agreement between cotenants that one should act as a general contractor, she was not entitled to compensation for any services she may have provided in that regard, and the trial court's description of those contributions as an offset was improper. Parker v. Lambert, 206 S.W.3d 1, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 958 (Tenn. 2006).

Trial court's award of compensation for improvements was consistent with the trial court's equitable and discretionary powers; considerable evidence was introduced about the expenses incurred by appellant for items such as taxes, repairs, and improvements, appellees did not object to contributing, and although the order did not specifically note whether the repairs were necessary, the award fell within the discretion of the trial court. McCants v. McGavock, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 210 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019).

Ouster was established as appellant, as cotenant with sole possession, excluded her other cotenants from the property; as appellant's acts were contrary to the equal right of possession in any co-tenancy, the award to appellees for compensation in the form of rent was proper. McCants v. McGavock, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 210 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2019).

3. Division of Proceeds.

Trial court erred in applying the provision of a martial dissolution agreement (MDA) requiring an equal division of the proceeds of the sale of commercial property a husband and wife owned because the parties had not agreed to sell the property, but, rather, the husband was exercising his rights under T.C.A. § 29-27-101 et seq., and he retained the obligations imposed upon him as cotenant; the wife was entitled to compensation for one-half of the amount expended on the maintenance and repair of the commercial property, and the husband was responsible for one-half of the maintenance and repair costs as a tenant in common but not for the tax and insurance burdens incurred on the property, which the parties agreed would be satisfied by the rental income, and, consequently, the proceeds from the partition sale were to be equally divided between the parties, with the wife entitled to recoup one-half of the costs of maintenance and repair from the husband's share of the proceeds. Gilley v. Gilley, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 32 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2010).

4. Sufficiency of Renouncement Agreement.

Motions to dismiss the United States'  civil action seeking foreclosure upon real property owned by the delinquent taxpayer were denied because: (1) there was no evidence that the children of the delinquent taxpayer's deceased wife properly disclaimed their interests in the real property, as required by T.C.A. § 31-1-103; and (2) having applied the Rodgers  factors, and finding that the United States would be prejudiced if it could not foreclose upon the property, that the innocent third parties did not have a legally recognized expectation pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-27-101 and T.C.A. § 29-27-217, that the property would not be subject to a forced sale, and would not be prejudiced by a foreclosure sale, and that the character and value of the property supported a foreclosure sale, the United States was authorized to sell the real property in a foreclosure sale pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403(c). Therefore, the United States was instructed to file a proposed foreclosure order. United States v. Buaiz, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91241 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2011).

Collateral References.

Retainer of indebtedness of heir, legatee or distributee from proceeds of partition sale. 1 A.L.R. 1023, 30 A.L.R. 775, 75 A.L.R. 878, 110 A.L.R. 1384, 164 A.L.R. 717.

29-27-218. Disposition of proceeds of sale.

  1. The shares of adults not under any disability, in the proceeds of sale made for partition, after deducting the proportion of costs to be borne by such shares, shall be paid over to such parties or their order.
  2. If any of the parties are infants, the court shall direct the disposition of the shares of such parties, and may order that the money be paid over to the general guardian, upon giving bond, with good security, to cover the fund, or laid out in the purchase of other lands for such minors, or otherwise permanently invested.
  3. The court shall, in like manner, direct the disposition of the shares of other parties laboring under the disability of unsoundness of mind, or, upon proper application, order a reinvestment in other property, for the benefit of such parties.
  4. Where any of the parties are absent from the state, are without legal representatives in this state, or are not known or named in the proceedings, the court shall direct the shares of such parties to be invested in permanent securities at interest, for the benefit of such parties, until claimed by them or their legal representatives.

Code 1858, §§ 3316-3318, 3321 (deriv. Acts 1827, ch. 54, §§ 2, 3; 1851-1852, ch. 166, § 4); Shan., §§ 5065-5067, 5070; Code 1932, §§ 9220-9223; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 23-2148 — 23-2151.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 495.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 20 Tenn. Juris., Partition, § 26.

Cited: Fehringer v. Fehringer, 212 Tenn. 75, 367 S.W.2d 781, 1963 Tenn. LEXIS 399 (1963).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Expenses Allowable.

Where, in order to make an advantageous sale of lands in partition proceedings, it was necessary for the life tenants petitioning therefor to expend considerable sums to obtain the surrender of possession by certain lessees, the life tenants were entitled, for their outlay, to an allowance out of the aggregate fund. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906).

2. Commissions of Real Estate Agents.

The commissions due to real estate agents should not be paid out of the common fund arising from the sale, but should be paid by those who employed such agents. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 116 Tenn. 383, 92 S.W. 1112, 1906 Tenn. LEXIS 2, 115 Am. St. Rep. 799 (1906).

3. Assignment of Funds.

The clerk and master is not bound to recognize an assignment of a fund which is not mentioned in the decree. Atchley v. Isbill, 3 Tenn. App. 325, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

4. Bond of Special Commissioner.

Where the special commissioner gave bond to the state of Tennessee for the use of ten beneficiaries named in the bond, a motion by the guardian of two of such beneficiaries will not lie, where their shares had not been ascertained by decree, although a motion for all the beneficiaries in the bond would have been a proper remedy; or, if the separate share due each beneficiary had been ascertained and decreed, each one might have made his separate motion for his share of the proceeds of sales; but such motion, while the original suit is still pending, should be made in that suit. Somerville v. Somerville, 52 Tenn. 160, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (1871).

29-27-219. Bond to refund proceeds of sale.

The court may, whenever the nature of the case demands, require all, or any of the parties, before they shall receive any share of the moneys arising from a sale under this chapter, to give approved security, in such sum as the court may direct, to refund such share, with interest thereon, in case it should thereafter appear that such party was not entitled thereto.

Code 1858, § 3322; Shan., § 5071; Code 1932, § 9224; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2152.

Cited: Roberts v. Roberts, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Guardian Giving Bond.

Refunding bond may be required of a general guardian, under this section, before he shall receive the moneys going to his wards. Somerville v. Somerville, 52 Tenn. 160, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 246 (1871).

Collateral References. Partition 111(4).

Chapter 28
Products Liability Actions

29-28-101. Short title.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978.”

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3701.

Cross-References. Equine activities, liability, title 44, ch. 20.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, § 45.

Law Reviews.

Comments on the Report of the Governor's Commission on Tort and Liability Insurance Reform (Jerry J. Phillips), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 679 (1986).

Constitutional Law — Limitation of Actions — Application of the Products Liability Statute of Repose, 52 Tenn. L. Rev. 97 (1984).

Constitutional Law — Limitation of Actions — Application of the Vested Rights Doctrine (David A. King), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 129 (1983).

Economic Loss in Strict Liability — Beyond the Realm of 402 A (Joe E. Manuel and Gregory B. Richards), 16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 315 (1986).

Is European Products Liability More Protective than The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability?, 65 Tenn. L.Rev. 985 (1998).

Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986).

New Home Construction Liability (Jeff Mueller), 43 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2007).

1985 Tennessee Survey: Selected Developments in Tennessee Law, 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 415 (1986).

Power of Sale Foreclosure in Tennessee: A Section 1983 Trap (Jack Jones and J. Michael Ivens), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 279 (1984).

Pricing Lives for Corporate Risk Decisions, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1117  (2015).

Products Liability — Lessors as Warrantors of Fitness in Tennessee, 16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 303 (1986).

Punitive Damages and Business Organizations: A Pathetic Fallacy, 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 971 (2000).

A Purposeful Approach to Products Liability Warnings and Non-English-Speaking Consumers, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 1107 (1994).

Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2001).

Skimming the Trout From the Milk: Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Product Defects Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 3, Tennessee and Beyond, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 647 (2001).

Statutes of Limitations — Personal Injury, Property Damage and Breach of Warranty, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 803.

Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm, 66 Tenn. L. Rev. 1127 (1999).

Symposium: On Product “Design Defects” and Their Actionability (John W. Wade), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551 (1980).

Symposium: Products Liability, Products For Use by Adults, and Injured Children: Back to the Future (M. Stuart Madden), 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 1205 (1994).

Symposium: Rethinking the Policies of Strict Products Liability (David G. Owen), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 681 (1980).

The Aftermath of Owens and Whitehead — Products Liability and Comparative Fault in Tennessee-How Deep Does the Relationship Run?, 32 U. Mem. L. Rev. 443 (2002).

The Emperor's New Clothes: The American Law Institute Adorns a “New Cloth” for Section 402A Products Liability Design Defects — A Survey of the States Reveals a Different Weave (John F. Vargo), 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 493 (1996).

The Exclusiveness of an Employee's Workers' Compensation Remedy Against His Employer (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 405 (1988).

The John W. Wade Conference on the Third Restatement of Torts, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

The Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 (Irvin L. Tankersley), 14-4 Tenn. B.J. 11.

The Theory of Enterprise Liability and Common Law Strict Liability, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2001).

Torts — Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc.: Strictly Speaking, Comparative Negligence Principles Must Be Applied to Strict Liability Actions in Some States, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 209 (1992).

Transvaginal Mesh Litigation: A New Opportunity to Resolve Mass Medical Device Failure Claims, 80 Tenn. L. Rev. 477 (2013).

Comparative Legislation. Products liability actions:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-500 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 4-86-102 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.300 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 374.415.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.2-318.

Cited: Commercial Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc. v. McCampbell, 580 S.W.2d 765, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1979); Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); Pemberton v. American Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 917, 42 A.L.R.4th 245 (Tenn. 1984); Harrison v. Celotex Corp., 583 F. Supp. 1497, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17643 (E.D. Tenn. 1984); Murphy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 779 F.2d 340, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25731 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985); Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985); Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985); Myers v. Hayes International Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348 (M.D. Tenn. 1988); Goode v. Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 184, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 528, 3 A.L.R.5th 1132 (Tenn. 1989); Brown v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 732 F. Supp. 1479, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16940 (E.D. Tenn. 1989); Tatum v. Cordis Corp., 758 F. Supp. 457, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2743 (M.D. Tenn. 1991); Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F. Supp. 1421, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20246 (E.D. Tenn. 1991); Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Harwell v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 1287, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (M.D. Tenn. 1992); Wright v. Dow Chem. U.S.A., 845 F. Supp. 503, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19458 (M.D. Tenn. 1993); Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corp., 897 S.W.2d 684, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 209 (Tenn. 1995); Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2 S.W.3d 218, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); United States v. Kamen, 178 F.3d 1297, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 19200 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1999); Martin v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 745, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7793 (E.D. Tenn. 2000); Wielgus v. Dover Indus., 39 S.W.3d 124, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001); Maino v. Southern Co., 253 S.W.3d 646, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2007); Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. July 24, 2008); Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 293 S.W.3d 487, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Aug. 21, 2009); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010); Meals v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

This chapter is not a comprehensive enactment of products liability law in Tennessee, but it does define certain terms, including product liability action. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

In Tennessee, to establish a prima facie case of product liability, there is no requirement that a plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff's harm. Potter v. Ford Motor Co., 213 S.W.3d 264, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1071 (Tenn. 2006).

2. Constitutionality.

Tennessee Const., art. II, § 17 imposes two requirements: first, a bill is to embrace one subject that is expressed in the bill's title, second, any act repealing or amending another act must state as much in the caption or title of the repealing act. The Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 embraces the one subject mentioned in its title, that of products liability, and it would be unreasonable to require that every important particularity of an act be mentioned in its title. The Tennessee Constitution makes no such requirement. As for the second requirement of Tenn. Const., art. II, § 17, the act does not repeal, alter, or amend § 28-3-104. In § 29-28-103, the limitation of actions provision of the act, the general one-year statute of limitations (§ 28-3-104) is expressly mentioned as remaining in effect. The 10-year ceiling does not amend existing limitations but is superimposed upon them. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F. Supp. 100, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12082 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

3. Punitive Damages.

Under Tennessee law an asbestos product liability claimant can recover punitive damages if he meets the Tennessee standard for the awarding of punitive damages. Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 776 F.2d 1565, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23925 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021, 106 S. Ct. 3335, 92 L. Ed. 2d 740, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 2746 (1986).

4. Comparative Negligence.

The adoption of comparative fault did not alter products liability law under which the liability of defendants in the chain of distribution of a product, who are liable under a theory of strict liability, is joint and several. Under comparative fault principles, however, these defendants are jointly and severally liable only for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages caused by the product and, for the percentage of damages caused by the product, the strictly liable defendants are treated as a single unit or share. Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. 1996).

5. Evidence.

Testimony of experts proffered by the parties in an action under the Tennessee Products Liability Act which arose from an accident that was allegedly caused by a windshield defect satisfied Daubert and was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702; arguments regarding the plausibility of the experts'  theories went to the weight of the testimony, which was a matter for the jury. Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 989, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45970 (E.D. Tenn. June 11, 2008).

In an action against an automobile manufacturer under the Tennessee Products Liability Act filed by a driver who was injured when an airbag failed to deploy, district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony of the driver's medical expert as irrelevant and unreliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702, as factual record supported assumptions of the medical expert regarding the vehicle's speed at the time of the accident; therefore, his testimony as to exacerbation of the driver's seizure disorder was relevant and reliable. Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 2008 FED App. 247P, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14479 (6th Cir. July 8, 2008).

6. Jury Instructions.

In a products liability action filed by an automobile mechanic and his wife against a car manufacturing company, the court held that the jury verdict form was defective because it omitted two necessary questions in products liability case, namely that the product at issue was unreasonably dangerous or defective and that the wife's injuries were reasonably foreseeable. Stockton v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 308 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2017).

Collateral References. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability §§ 1-4.

77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability §§ 1-6.

Admissibility of government factfinding in products liabiity actions. 29 A.L.R.5th 534.

Applicability of comparative negligence principles to intentional torts. 18 A.L.R.5th 525.

Bumpers: products liability: vehicular bumpers. 5 A.L.R.4th 483.

Defective vehicular windows. 3 A.L.R.4th 489.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES). 2 A.L.R.4th 1091.

Farm machinery. 4 A.L.R.4th 13.

Flammable clothing. 1 A.L.R.4th 251.

Heating equipment. 1 A.L.R.4th 748.

Liability for personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in motorcycle or its parts, supplies, or equipment. 98 A.L.R.3d 317.

Liability of prescription drug manufacturer for drug user's suicide or attempted suicide. 45 A.L.R.6th 385.

Manufacturer's or sellers' obligation to supply or recommend available safety accessories in connection with industrial machinery or equipment. 99 A.L.R.3d 693.

Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in braking system in motor vehicle. 99 A.L.R.3d 179.

Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in electrical system in motor vehicle. 5 A.L.R.4th 662.

Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in motorcycle or its parts, supplies, or equipment. 98 A.L.R.3d 317.

Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in steering system in motor vehicle. 100 A.L.R.3d 158.

Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in suspension system in motor vehicle. 100 A.L.R.3d 912.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability in connection with prosthesis or other products designed to be surgically implanted in patient's body. 1 A.L.R.4th 921.

Products Liability: Prudent Manufacturer Test. 86 A.L.R.5th 215.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Promotional efforts directed toward prescribing physician as affecting prescription drug manufacturer's liability for product-caused injury. 94 A.L.R.3d 1080.

Validity and construction of statute terminating right of action for product-caused injury at fixed period after manufacture, sale, or delivery of product. 30 A.L.R.5th 1.

When is person “engaged in the business” for purposes of the doctrine of strict tort liability. 99 A.L.R.3d 671.

29-28-102. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Anticipated life.” The anticipated life of a product shall be determined by the expiration date placed on the product by the manufacturer when required by law but shall not commence until the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption;
  2. “Defective condition” means a condition of a product that renders it unsafe for normal or anticipatable handling and consumption;
  3. “Employer” means any person exercising legal supervisory control or guidance of users or consumers of products;
  4. “Manufacturer” means the designer, fabricator, producer, compounder, processor or assembler of any product or its component parts;
  5. “Product” means any tangible object or goods produced;
  6. “Product liability action” for purposes of this chapter includes all actions brought for or on account of personal injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, testing, service, warning, instruction, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product. “Product liability action” includes, but is not limited to, all actions based upon the following theories: strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent, or innocent; misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure, whether negligent, or innocent; or under any other substantive legal theory in tort or contract whatsoever;
  7. “Seller” includes a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor, and means any individual or entity engaged in the business of selling a product, whether such sale is for resale, or for use or consumption. “Seller” also includes a lessor or bailor engaged in the business of leasing or bailment of a product; and
  8. “Unreasonably dangerous” means that a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics, or that the product because of its dangerous condition would not be put on the market by a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller, assuming that the manufacturer or seller knew of its dangerous condition.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-3702; modified.

Cross-References. Privity, § 29-34-104.

Law Reviews.

Assumption of Risk in Tennessee Subsequent to the Adoption of Comparative Fault: Perez v. McConkey (Mark W. Milam), 60 Tenn. L. Rev. 1007 (1993).

Comments on the Report of the Governor's Commission on Tort and Liability Insurance Reform (Jerry J. Phillips), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 679 (1986).

A Purposeful Approach to Products Liability Warnings and Non-English-Speaking Consumers, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 1107 (1994).

Skimming the Trout From the Milk: Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Product Defects Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 3, Tennessee and Beyond, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 647 (2001).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

The Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 (Irvin L. Tankersley), 14-4 Tenn. B.J. 11.

Torts — First National Bank v. Brooks Farms: A Seller's Potential Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Innocent Misrepresentations, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 441 (1993).

Cited: Commercial Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc. v. McCampbell, 580 S.W.2d 765, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1979); Wilson v. Dake Corp., 497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130 (E.D. Tenn. 1980); Grindstaff v. Singer Co., 518 F. Supp. 44, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); Pemberton v. American Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 917, 42 A.L.R.4th 245 (Tenn. 1984); County of Johnson by Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co., 580 F. Supp. 284, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20642 (E.D. Tenn. 1984); Milligan v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 622 F. Supp. 56, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16397 (W.D. Tenn. 1985); Rollins v. Cherokee Warehouses, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 136, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26762 (E.D. Tenn. 1986); Electric Power Bd. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 1069, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17127 (E.D. Tenn. 1988); Whitehead v. Dycho Co., 775 S.W.2d 593, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 391 (Tenn. 1989); Miller v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 811 F. Supp. 1286, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21333 (D. Tenn. 1992); Spence v. Miles Lab., 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994); Smith v. Guadino, 911 F. Supp. 296, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 322 (E.D. Tenn. 1996); Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Olin Corp. v. Lambda Elecs., 39 F. Supp. 2d 912, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20765 (E.D. Tenn. 1998); Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17917 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); United States v. Kamen, 178 F.3d 1297, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 19200 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1999); Damron v. Media Gen., Inc., 3 S.W.3d 510, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); McConkey v. McGhan Med. Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19895 (E.D. Tenn. 2000); Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002); Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. July 24, 2008); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010); Ramirez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 414 S.W.3d 707, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2013).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

Plaintiffs must prove in a products liability action that the condition complained of is beyond contemplation of the ordinary consumer, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985).

The “consumer expectation” test has been codified in Tennessee statutes. In order to impose liability on a manufacturer or seller, the product in question must be shown to be either (1) “in a defective condition” or (2) “unreasonably dangerous”. The definitions of either of those terms focuses on what is anticipated or contemplated by the ordinary consumer. Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985).

Tennessee law casts liability if the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. Reece v. Lowe's of Boone, Inc., 754 S.W.2d 67, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 214 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Tatum v. Cordis Corp., 758 F. Supp. 457, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2743 (M.D. Tenn. 1991); Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. May 30, 1995).

Strict liability is not absolute liability. It is not enough to show that the product caused the plaintiff's injury or was involved in it. The plaintiff must show that there was something wrong with the product. Tatum v. Cordis Corp., 758 F. Supp. 457, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2743 (M.D. Tenn. 1991).

The consumer expectation test is generally defined as whether the product's condition poses a danger beyond that expected by an ordinary consumer with reasonable knowledge. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

Diet drug manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment in consumer's product liability action which alleged that the use of the diet drug Pondimin in 1996 and 1997 caused her to develop primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), a progressive fatal disease, in 2005, as the action was barred by the statute of repose under T.C.A. § 29-28-103 because it was filed more than one year after the expiration date of the product pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-103; Tennessee law dictated a harsh result because the anticipatory life provision of T.C.A. § 29-28-103 eliminated the consumer's cause of action before it accrued in 2005 when she developed PPH. Montgomery v. Wyeth, 540 F. Supp. 2d 933,  2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23591 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2008), aff'd, 580 F.3d 455, 2009 FED App. 314P, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19386 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009).

2. Defective Condition.

A new pickup truck which inexplicably catches fire is a defective product. Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Where there was no evidence whatever that the use of the defendant's cigarettes presented risks greater than those known to be associated with smoking, a reasonable jury could not find that the cigarettes were “defective.” Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

Consumer knowledge about the risks inherent in the use of a product is one factor to be considered when determining if a product is “defective.” Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

Plaintiff provided no evidence that the product in question, a photographic minilab, was “defective” under this section. Aquascene, Inc. v. Noritsu Am. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 602, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13411 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).

A product may be considered defective or unreasonably dangerous if the manufacturer failed to incorporate safety devices, which were available at the time of the product's manufacture and which would have prevented an injury resulting from the use of the product. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

Where carbon dioxide containing cyanide was sold to soft drink manufacturers for food grade use, the product was pre se defective. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006).

Severely injured car driver presented material evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the car was defective, and thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the car manufacturer a JNOV; the driver's expert testified that, based on his testing, had the driver had the benefit of the stronger design which was commercially available, she would not have received her injuries, and it was for the jury to decide, and the jury concluded that the car was defective. Potter v. Ford Motor Co., 213 S.W.3d 264, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1071 (Tenn. 2006).

3. “Employer.”

The definitions of “manufacturer” and “seller” do not encompass “employer” in its role as safety inspector. Gaines v. Excel Industries, Inc., 667 F. Supp. 569, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7840 (M.D. Tenn. 1987).

4. “Product.”

“Product” does not include an instruction manual furnished to TVA in 1980. Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29254 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986).

5. Unreasonably Dangerous.

A new pickup truck which inexplicably catches fire is unreasonably dangerous. Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

Cigarettes were not unreasonably dangerous. Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 623 F. Supp. 1189, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12661 (E.D. Tenn. 1985), aff'd, 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988), aff'd, Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d 228, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8106 (6th Cir. Mich. 1988).

Evidence was insufficient to establish that roofing products were dangerous pursuant to subdivision (8). Goode v. Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 184, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 528, 3 A.L.R.5th 1132 (Tenn. 1989), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1990 Tenn. LEXIS 53 (Tenn. Jan. 22, 1990).

Inflatable penile prosthesis was not an unreasonably dangerous product. Harwell v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 1287, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (M.D. Tenn. 1992).

This section establishes two distinct tests for ascertaining whether a product meets the definition of “unreasonably dangerous”, either of which a plaintiff may employ in meeting its burden of proof: the consumer expectation test and the prudent manufacturer test. The latter test requires a risk-utility balancing of factors, including those factors identified as part of the Wade-Keeton prudent manufacturer test. Ray by Holman v. BIC Corp., 925 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. 1996).

The statutory definition of an “unreasonably dangerous product” incorporates a consumer expectation test and a prudent manufacturer test; these two tests are distinct from each other, having different elements which require different types of proof and are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

The consumer expectations test is applicable to products about which the ordinary consumer would have knowledge, and is to be applied only to those products in which every day experience of the product's users permits a conclusion. Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2 S.W.3d 218, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Sept. 13, 1999).

Plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants' spinal system devices were unreasonably dangerous pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-102. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

In contrast to the consumer expectation test, the prudent manufacturer test is more applicable to those circumstances in which an ordinary consumer would have no reasonable basis for expectations. Accordingly, expert testimony about the prudence of the decision to market would be essential. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The prudent manufacturer test utilizes a “risk-utility balancing of factors” but still requires that the plaintiff prove that damages were proximately caused by the unreasonably dangerous condition. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Although the Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that the consumer expectation test is theoretically applicable to all products liability cases, a trial court must assess whether a given product is sufficiently familiar to ordinary consumers in order to determine whether the consumer expectation is actually useful to a plaintiff seeking to make out a products liability claim. Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002), aff'd, 89 Fed. Appx. 927, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26610 (6th Cir. 2003).

Allegation that a forklift was defectively designed was precisely the type of situation in which the ordinary consumer would not have an expectation regarding the safety of the product; therefore, a district court was correct in applying the prudent-manufacturer test. Brown v. Raymond Corp., 432 F.3d 640, 2005 FED App. 481P, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28264 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2005).

Directed verdict in a products liability case was reversed because admissible expert testimony was presented regarding the likelihood and seriousness of injury to an operator of a forklift without a door, and such would have prevented an injury without hindering the usefulness of the product. The trial court erred in excluding expert testimony under Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and Tenn. R. Evid. 703 since a consideration of all five factors for the admissibility of expert testimony was not mandated; only the factors necessary to reasonably measure reliability of the methodology were required. Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 868 (Tenn. 2005).

Where a chemical company sold a non-food grade carbon dioxide to a purification company, the fact that the company failed to properly purify the feedgas such that it was contaminated with cyanide did not make the feedgas either defective or unreasonably dangerous. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006).

District court erred under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in relying on unsworn hearsay reports of a car manufacturer's experts in finding no genuine issues as to whether airbag was defective under the consumer expectation test in relation to T.C.A. § 29-28-102(8) of the Tennessee Products Liability Act and whether allegedly defective airbag proximately caused the driver's injuries; summary judgment for the manufacturer was improper because the driver offered sufficient evidence to establish existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the airbag was defective and caused her injuries. Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 2008 FED App. 247P, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14479 (6th Cir. July 8, 2008).

Taser manufacturer was entitled summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue as to whether taser device was unreasonably dangerous or whether the taser device had a defect. Lee v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 596 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6030 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2009), aff'd, Lee v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 432 Fed. Appx. 435, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14872, 2011 FED App. 493N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2011).

Tire, though vastly different in function, is comparable in its analysis to that of a seat belt, and although the manufacturing process may be complex, the general driving populace understands the basic function and purpose of a tire; therefore, a tire is not considered “complex” for the purposes of considering the utility of the consumer expectations test. Tatham v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 2015).

6. Knowledge Common to Community.

Knowledge that cigarette smoking is harmful to health is widespread and can be considered part of the “common knowledge” of the community. Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

Whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous” can be determined from the knowledge of the ordinary consumers of the products. Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

7. Leases and Bailments.

The general assembly intended to expand the meaning of “seller” in products liability actions to include lease and bailment situations. Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985).

In a products liability action a cause of action for breach of warranty can be maintained against a lessor or bailor of personal property; if the action is not a products liability action for personal injury or property damages as defined in subdivision (6), then the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code would control and an actual “sale” would be required. Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985).

8. Privity.

Lack of privity bars the recovery of damages other than for personal injury and property damage in suits based on the legal theories named in § 29-34-104. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

9. Pecuniary Damages.

An action for pecuniary loss based on innocent misrepresentation is not a products liability action as defined in the products liability statute. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

The reasons that prompted the decision recognizing actions for pecuniary loss based on innocent misrepresentations made by a seller of chattels to the public concerning the character or quality of the chattel no longer exist. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

Where there is no allegation of injury to plaintiff's person or property by the defendant's product, an action for pecuniary economic loss may not be brought as a products liability action under the Tennessee Products Liability Act. Olin Corp. v. Lambda Elecs., 39 F. Supp. 2d 912, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20765 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).

10. Manufacturer Liability.

A manufacturer is not an insurer of its product. It is not required that the design be perfect, or render the product accident proof or incapable of causing injury. Where it is simply shown that there is a better, safer, or different design which would have averted the injury, this does not establish that there has been a departure from the required standard of care. Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F. Supp. 1421, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20246 (E.D. Tenn. 1991).

The approval in Lonon of the legal proposition set forth in formerly proposed § 552D of the Restatement, upon reconsideration by the court, is found to be inappropriate and that rule as a cause of action is disapproved. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

Considerations which are relevant to the prudent manufacturer test include: (1) the usefulness and desirability of the product to the user; (2) the safety aspects of the product or the likelihood and probable seriousness of an injury; (3) the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need in a safer manner; (4) the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing the product's utility or making it too expensive; (5) the user's ability to avoid danger by exercise of care; (6) the user's awareness of the danger inherent in the product and (7) the feasibility of spreading the loss. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

A manufacturer of a component part clearly is liable for injuries caused by a component that was defective or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the manufacturer's control. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

Tennessee law supports the imposition of liability when a component manufacturer substantially participates in the integration of the non-defective component into the design of the final product, if the integration of the component causes the final product to be defective and if the resulting defect causes the harm. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

A component seller who simply designs a component to its buyer's specifications and does not substantially participate in the integration of component into the design of the product is not liable. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

Race car driver's assembly of his racing vehicle that injured a spectator during the race did not qualify the driver as a manufacturer; the vehicle assembled by the driver never left the control of the driver, and there was no evidence that the driver constructed the vehicle with the intention of selling, leasing, trading, or loaning the car to another individual. Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. 2003).

Although T.C.A. § 29-28-102 did not prohibit a chemical company from simply selling its feedgas to an entity who claimed the ability to purify the feedgas and then resell it, the chemical company could, however, be liable if it knew the feedgas contained cyanide, if it substantially participated in the integration of its feedgas into the design of the food grade carbon dioxide, if the integration of the feedgas caused the carbon dioxide to be defective, and if the defect the carbon dioxide caused property damage. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006).

Chemical company that sold its feedgas to an entity who claimed the ability to purify the feedgas and then resell it as food grade carbon dioxide was component part “manufacturer,” as that term was defined in T.C.A. § 29-28-102(4); as a manufacturer, the chemical company could be held liable for cyanide that was discovered in the carbon dioxide. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006).

Where relatives alleged that a decedent contracted a bacterial infection due to a defect in a manufacturer's bronchoscope, their breach of implied warranty claim under the Tennessee Products Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-28-101 et seq., failed because the relatives did not present evidence that the bronchoscope used in the decedent's case manifested the alleged loose-port defect or that it was in an unreasonably dangerous condition when it left the manufacturer's control. Young v. Olympus Am., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9096 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2012).

Where prescription drug users'  claims that they sustained injuries were based on their ingestion of the generic version of the drugs, their product liability claims against the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the brand name drug lacked merit under T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6) of the Tennessee Products Liability Act; the brand name manufacturers could not be liable for a product that they did not manufacture or sell. Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110804 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012).

Material evidence supported the jury's verdict in a products liability case against a car manufacturer because a five-point seat belt system was superior to the adult, three-point seat belt to protect children from injury in automobile collisions. There was no dispute that such a system was available when the car was manufactured, and in its 1995 vehicles the manufacturer failed to warn of the “hidden hazard” of the foreseeable misuse of placing the shoulder strap behind children because it simply did not fit them. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012), rev'd, Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 702 (Tenn. Aug. 30, 2013).

Plaintiff's products liability claim against defendant pharmaceutical company did not survive summary judgment; as the evidence established that plaintiff's physician independently learned that defendant's medications posed a risk of bone death but prescribed them anyway, plaintiff could not establish that defendant's failure to warn proximately caused her injury. Payne v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127162 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

Oyster suppliers were not entitled to immunity under the sealed container doctrine of T.C.A. § 29-28-106, even though the suppliers were “manufacturers” under this section, because the court held that a living oyster's shell was not a “sealed container.” Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014), appeal denied, In re Estate of Bissinger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2014).

11. Product Liability Action.

Plaintiff's action for damages against blood-clotting concentrate manufacturer pursuant to § 68-32-102, based upon manufacturer's failure to test plasma it collected for the presence of AIDS, fell within Tennessee's broad definition of products liability actions; consequently, it was governed by the statute of repose applicable to products liability cases. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

Summary judgment was granted in favor of manufacturer in a product liability action because under the prudent manufacturer test, expert testimony was necessary to establish that the design of the boom truck crane was defective and unreasonably dangerous; while the proposed opinions of plaintiff's expert appeared to be initially relevant, they failed to satisfy the reliability factors set forth by Dauber and Fed. R. Evid. 702. Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 852, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36447 (M.D. Tenn. 2005), aff'd, 484 F.3d 426, 2007 FED App. 149P, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9895 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2007).

Defendants, a hot tub manufacturer and a property manager, were entitled to summary judgment, because a vacation homeowner failed to establish that a specific defect in the hot tub rendered it defective or unreasonably dangerous and caused the fire; because the property manager did not make or sell hot tubs it could not be liable under T.C.A. § 29-28-105. Langford v. Gatlinburg Real Estate & Rental, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47714 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2007).

Couple stated a claim under T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6) and (7) with regard to the Michigan rental truck company and its owner with regard to the rental truck and the alleged injuries caused by inhalation of noxious fumes, including carbon monoxide. Hagen v. U-Haul Co., 613 F. Supp. 2d 986, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6106 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2009).

“Anticipated life of the product” was the expiration date placed on the product by the manufacturer when required by law but shall not commence until the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption. T.C.A. § 29-28-102; as the district court observed, the corporation stopped manufacturing Pondimin on September 2, 1997 and the corporation offered uncontested evidence that packaging for Pondimin contained the expiration dates as required by law, and those expiration dates were three years from the date of manufacture, the latest expiration being September 2000. The patient filed the instant case in October 2005; therefore, because the undisputed evidence established that all Pondimin tablets had an expiration date of five or more years before the patient brought the instant suit, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the expiration date for purposes of applying the Tennessee statute of repose, and the district court properly found that the claim was barred by Tennessee's statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-28-103(a). Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 2009 FED App. 314P, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19386 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009), rehearing denied, — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23703 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1031, 130 S. Ct. 1896, 176 L. Ed. 2d 403, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2415 (U.S. 2010).

Customer who bit into insect-infested candy failed to show that either the manufacturer or the distributor of the candy could be found liable under the Tennessee Product Liability Act of 1978, because, though the Act was encompassing, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6), there was no evidence that the candy at issue was in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-105, when it was in the hands of either the manufacturer or the distributor. Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9278 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2010).

T.C.A. §§ 29-28-102(6) and 29-28-105, did not apply to plaintiff consumers'  fraud claims against defendant manufacturer, thus, those claims were not atypical under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) on that basis and dismissal of the class allegations was not warranted. Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 2d 932, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58359 (M.D. Tenn. June 14, 2010).

Plaintiff's product liability action under the Tennessee Product Liability Act of 1978, T.C.A. § 29-28-101 et seq., was dismissed because she failed to allege facts for the court to infer that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, and that the product's condition caused plaintiff's alleged injuries. Maness v. Boston Sci., 751 F. Supp. 2d 962, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118748 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2010).

On their failure to warn claim, plaintiffs, parents of a decedent who died of excited delirium after being tased nine times by police officers, focused on whether the manufacturer's warning was adequate and ignored the “unreasonably dangerous” and “proximate cause” elements of the claim, so summary judgment was proper. Lee v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 432 Fed. Appx. 435, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14872, 2011 FED App. 493N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2011).

Prescription drug users'  claims against the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the brand name drug, arising from injuries that they allegedly sustained upon ingesting the generic version of the drugs, were all considered a “products liability action” under T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6) of the Tennessee Products Liability Act, despite what the claims were labeled, as the Act included multiple theories involving product liability. Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110804 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012).

In a failure to warn case involving a prescription drug for heartburn, the generic defendants'  motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted because federal case law established that any claims to enforce Federal Drug Administration regulations were preempted as were the claims under the Tennessee Products Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-28-102. Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 799, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110806 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012).

Expectant mother's allegations of pharmacists' failure to warn about mislabeling on oral contraceptives was product liability claim. Graves v. Qualitest Pharms., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87292 (W.D. Tenn. June 21, 2013).

Manufacturer lacked objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal of product liability action based on Labor Management Relations Act preemption because determining whether product was unreasonably dangerous under state law and considering designs of other similar manufacturers as required by state law did not necessitate interpretation of collective bargaining agreement. Powers v. Cottrell, Inc., 728 F.3d 509, 2013 FED App. 237P, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17158 (6th Cir. May 6, 2013).

Trial court properly denied sellers'  motion for summary judgment in a purchaser's products liability action because based on the deposition testimony of a purchaser's expert, along with that of the purchaser and a witness, the proof established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a defect existed in a tire or that the tire posed a danger beyond that expected by an ordinary consumer with reasonable knowledge. Tatham v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 2015).

Trial court properly denied a seller's motion for summary judgment in a purchaser's products liability action because the proof established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the seller had an opportunity to inspect a tire and discover the defect alleged to have caused the accident. Tatham v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 2015).

Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a distributor in an action filed by a widow and the deceased worker's employer for failure to warn of potential danger to users of the ball valve because it was undisputed that the coupling attached by an employee to the ball valve, not the ball valve itself, broke when the worker attempted to release pressure, causing his injury, the ball valve, which had been removed from a forklift due to its difficultly in opening and closing, should have been discarded. Long v. Quad Power Prods., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2015).

Debtor's products liability claim was not property of a bankruptcy estate since: (!) while the manufacturer's act or omission giving rise to the claim occurred pre-petition, the debtor did not suffer a personal injury from the defective or unreasonably dangerous product until 4 years after she filed her petition; (2) the stipulations regarding an FDA notification and its update did not prove the likelihood that any particular mesh implant patient would suffer an injury or when such injury would occur; and (3) assuming a settlement agreement afforded the debtor the right to share in the settlement without proof of injury simply because she was implanted with the mesh device, the settlement agreement was made post-petition. In re Davis, — B.R. —, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2219 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. July 27, 2018).

12. Strict Liability.

Statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 28-3-104, had expired as to a truck buyer's products liability negligence claim against the seller, because it was filed more than one year after a nonsuit, T.C.A. § 28-1-105. The buyer's strict liability claim under T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b) was timely, however, because this claim did not accrue until the manufacturer was insolvent. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1151 (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2011).

Bus owner and lessor were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the strict liability claim of alleged injured parties because the owner and lessor were not the bus's manufacturer or designer, as the owner ordering the bus, pursuant to the lessor's specifications, without passenger seat belts or front-facing seating did not make either a manufacturer or designer. Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2014), appeal denied, Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

State law strict liability theory could not save a wife's individual claim or her claim as personal representative of her husband's estate because her complaint relied strictly upon a manufacturer's alleged failure to ensure availability of the required Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act medical guide for distribution, not on the adequacy of the warnings, and the statute did not create a parallel duty to provide a medication guide. McDaniel v. Upsher-Smith Labs., 893 F.3d 941, 2018 FED App. 0128P, 2018 FED App. 128P, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17884 (6th Cir. June 29, 2018).

13. —Defenses.

Due to the absence of any authoritative Tennessee interpretation to the contrary the district court declined to extend Tennessee common-law principles of comparative fault to statutory actions in strict liability. Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 834 F. Supp. 987, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15233 (E.D. Tenn. 1993).

In a products liability action, defendants' averment in the answer that they relied “on all of the defenses contained in the Tennessee Products Liability Act” did not include the defense of comparative negligence or assumption of risk, and the trial court correctly ruled that the evidence did not warrant a charge on either of these affirmative defenses. Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. May 30, 1995).

Contrary to any notion that a warning from a taser manufacturer to a city and other taser purchasers was defective, the warning clearly identified the risk stemming from one particular use of the product and clearly and appropriately instructed its audience how to avoid that risk; specifically, the warning stated that repeated applications could cause health problems, including breathing difficulties and over-exertion. Lee v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 596 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6030 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2009), aff'd, Lee v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 432 Fed. Appx. 435, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14872, 2011 FED App. 493N (6th Cir. Tenn. 2011).

14. Misrepresentations.

A manufacturer of all-terrain vehicles was not shielded from liability for representations in advertising about all-terrain vehicles in general if the general advertising contained misrepresentations applicable to all of the manufacturer's vehicles, including the specific model plaintiff was operating when he was injured. Ladd by Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., 939 S.W.2d 83, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

15. Seller.

Where a consumer appealed district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of online marketplace, it did not exercise sufficient control over the hoverboard to be deemed a seller of the hoverboard under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978. Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 415, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20043, 2019 FED App. 143P (6th Cir. 2019).

16. Construction with Health Care Liability Act.

Provisions of the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) and Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA) maintain some overlap in coverage when the product involved has a medical use or application; the terms “any” and “related” emphasize the expansive nature of the THCLA, and the TPLA provides expansive coverage governing all actions brought for or on account of personal injury, death, or property damage caused by or resulting from any product under any theory in tort or contract whatsoever. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Collateral References. 63 Am. Jur. 2d, Products Liability §§ 221-223.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: Failure to provide product warning or instruction in foreign language or to use universally accepted pictographs or symbols. 27 A.L.R.5th 697.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Secondary smoke as battery. 46 A.L.R.5th 813.

29-28-103. Limitation of actions — Exception.

  1. Any action against a manufacturer or seller of a product for injury to person or property caused by its defective or unreasonably dangerous condition must be brought within the period fixed by §§ 28-3-104, 28-3-105, 28-3-202 and 47-2-725, but notwithstanding any exceptions to these provisions, it must be brought within six (6) years of the date of injury, in any event, the action must be brought within ten (10) years from the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption, or within one (1) year after the expiration of the anticipated life of the product, whichever is the shorter, except in the case of injury to minors whose action must be brought within a period of one (1) year after attaining the age of majority, whichever occurs sooner.
  2. The foregoing limitation of actions shall not apply to any action resulting from exposure to asbestos or to the human implantation of silicone gel breast implants.
    1. Any action against a manufacturer or seller for injury to a person caused by a silicone gel breast implant must be brought within a period not to exceed twenty-five (25) years from the date such product was implanted; provided, that such action must be brought within four (4) years from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury.
    2. For purposes of this subsection (c) only, “seller” does not include a hospital or other medical facility where the procedure took place, nor does “seller” include the physician or other medical personnel involved in the procedure.
    3. This subsection (c) only applies to causes of action not pending or decided on or before May 26, 1993. For the purposes of this subsection (c), a “pending case” is defined as a case actually filed by a silicone gel-filled breast implant recipient.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 3; 1979, ch. 162, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3703; Acts 1993, ch. 457, §§ 1, 2.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 637.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, §§ 4, 17, 34, 45; 19 Tenn. Juris., Negligence, § 14.

Law Reviews.

An Analysis of the Legal, Social, and Political Issues Raised by Asbestos Litigation (Special Project), 36 Vand. L. Rev. 573 (1983).

Constitutional Law — Limitation of Actions — Application of the Vested Rights Doctrine (David A. King), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 129 (1983).

Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986).

Products Liability — Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.: The Purist's Form of Market Share Liability Applied to DES Cases, 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 667 (1991).

Savings Statutes v. Statutes of Repose: A Decision Is Reached with Cronin v. Howe (Philip E. Mischke), 32 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 21 (1996).

The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns, 38 Vand. L. Rev. 627 (1985).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

The Tolling of Statutes of Limitations in Tennessee, 14 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (1984).

Attorney General Opinions. Constitutionality of proposed exception for PCBs, OAG 86-57 (3/11/86).

Constitutionality, OAG 86-60 (3/13/86).

Cited: Commercial Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc. v. McCampbell, 580 S.W.2d 765, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1979); Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 577 F. Supp. 35, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10225 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); County of Johnson by Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co., 580 F. Supp. 284, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20642 (E.D. Tenn. 1984); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 776 F.2d 1565, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23925 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985); Lee v. Toshiba Machine Co., 804 F. Supp. 1029, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21204 (E.D. Tenn. 1992); Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., 913 F. Supp. 1077, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19800 (E.D. Tenn. 1995); Harper v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 1025, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19777 (E.D. Tenn. 1996); Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

This section is not a conventional statute of limitations. It imposes an outer limit or ceiling upon the existing statute of limitations relating to actions for personal injuries in § 28-3-104. Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Tennessee's statute of repose is part of Tennessee's substantive law. Myers v. Hayes International Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348 (M.D. Tenn. 1988).

2. Constitutionality.

The section is not violative of due process because legislation adopting the date of the wrongful act or the date of the sale of a defective product as the inception date for the running of a statute of limitations cannot be said to be so arbitrary or capricious as to fall under the bans of the due process clause. Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

This section cannot be said to be sufficiently arbitrary or unreasonable as to be constitutionally impermissible merely because it establishes an absolute limit of 10 years from the date a product was sold for use or consumption after which all product liability actions are barred instead of a conventional statute of limitation based upon the occurrence of the event giving rise to a cause of action. Hawkins v. D & J Press Co., 527 F. Supp. 386, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16194 (E.D. Tenn. 1981).

This section is constitutional. Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29254 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986).

The statute of repose in subsection (a) does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution, Tenn. Const., art. I, § 17, the “open courts” provision of the Tennessee Constitution. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

The exemption for asbestos-related injuries from the products liability statute of repose, but not for other long-term continuing type injuries, such as becoming infected with HIV from contaminated blood products, does not violate equal protection requirements. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

This section does not impair vested rights under Tennessee law. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17917 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).

3. —Due Process.

Ten-year limitation barring action against manufacturer for cancer appearing in daughter 25 years after mother purchased and took drug during pregnancy did not unconstitutionally violate due process or public policy. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

An injury in the nature of a tort which occurs after a specified limitation period, such as the discovery of cancer does not give rise to due process protection. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

Statute of limitations barring actions 10 years after purchase of product is not an unconstitutional disseizing or depriving of life, liberty or property, here the cancer occurred 25 years after exposure to the product, because of the legislative concern with indefinite exposure to claims and because the statute did not eliminate a remedy for a wrong, it merely provides that after 10 years no cause of action can arise. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

This section does not violate the due process clauses of the federal or Tennessee constitutions. Jones v. Five Star Engineering, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 882, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. 1986).

4. —Equal Protection.

The provisions of this section barring actions against manufacturers or sellers after 10 years from purchase does not deny injured persons equal protection because there is a reasonable relation between the statutory classification and the statutory objective, namely, relieving manufacturers and sellers from indefinite liability and helping stem the increasing costs of products liability insurance. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F. Supp. 100, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12082 (M.D. Tenn. 1983); Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

This section does not violate the equal protection clauses of the federal or Tennessee constitutions. Jones v. Five Star Engineering, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 882, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. 1986); King-Bradwall Partnership v. Johnson Controls, 865 S.W.2d 18, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, King-Bradwell Partnership v. Johnson Controls, Inc., — S.W.2d —, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Sept. 27, 1993).

The exception of asbestos-related claims from the Tennessee Product Liability Act's general statute of repose scheme does not offend Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 8. Wyatt v. A-Best Prods. Co., 924 S.W.2d 98, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. May 28, 1996).

Tennessee General Assembly had a reasonable basis upon which it distinguished claims related to asbestos and silicone gel breast implants from silica-related and other injuries that also have long latency periods, and the statute of repose and its exceptions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Tennessee Class Legislation Clause, and the dismissal of this action was affirmed; silica and asbestos claims are not similarly situated, silica has no similarity to silicone gel breast implants, and if silica-related claims and asbestos-related claims were similarly situated, the Tennessee General Assembly had a rational basis to distinguish between the two. Adams v. Air Liquide Am., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014).

5. —Impairment of Contracts.

The statute of limitations barring a claim against a manufacturer or seller of a product 10 years after sale of the product was not a retrospective law and did not impair any obligations of contracts; here, claim was barred where cancer appeared 25 years after exposure to drug diethylstilbestrol (DES). Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

6. —Open Court Provisions.

The 10-year ceiling on products liability actions did not violate open court provisions of Tenn. Const., art. I, § 17. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F. Supp. 100, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12082 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

This section does not violate the open court provisions of the constitution. Jones v. Five Star Engineering, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 882, 1986 Tenn. LEXIS 796 (Tenn. 1986).

7. —Vested Rights Doctrine.

Retroactive application of 1979 amendment making asbestos actions exempt from ten-year statute of limitations was not barred by vested rights doctrine in Tenn. Const., art. I, § 20, and was applicable as a matter of law. Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14709 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983), cert. denied, Raymark Industries, Inc. v. Clay, 467 U.S. 1253, 104 S. Ct. 3537, 82 L. Ed. 2d 842, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 2695 (1984).

The Tennessee supreme court will no longer apply the vested rights doctrine to prevent the Tennessee legislature from ameliorating the harshness of a rule that bars a plaintiff's claim before he discovers it. A retrospective application of the statutory amendment excepting asbestos-related disease causes of action from the ten-year limitations based on sale does not abridge any right protected under the Tennessee Constitution. Clarksville-Montgomery County Bd. of Educ. v. United States Gypsum Co., 710 F. Supp. 1157, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4166 (M.D. Tenn. 1989).

8. —Title and Subject of Act.

Tennessee Const., art. II, § 17 imposes two requirements: first, a bill is to embrace one subject that is expressed in the bill's title, second, any act repealing or amending another act must state as much in the caption or title of the repealing act. The Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 embraces the one subject mentioned in its title, that of products liability, and it would be unreasonable to require that every important particularity of an act be mentioned in its title. The Tennessee Constitution makes no such requirement. As for the second requirement of Tenn. Const., art. II, § 17, the act does not repeal, alter, or amend § 28-3-104. In this section, the limitation of actions provision of the act, the general one-year statute of limitations (§ 28-3-104) is expressly mentioned as remaining in effect. The 10-year ceiling does not amend existing limitations but is superimposed upon them. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F. Supp. 100, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12082 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

9. Minors.

The Products Liability Act suggests that there is a general legislative policy not to include minors in the operation of restrictive statutes of limitations and thus supports the view that § 29-26-116 was not intended to supersede the legal disability statute in the case of minors. Parlato v. Howe, 470 F. Supp. 996, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12922 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

The minors' exception in subsection (a) applies only to rights of action accrued during minority. Tate v. Eli Lilly & Co., 522 F. Supp. 1048, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (M.D. Tenn. 1981).

The minors' exception in subsection (a) should read “except in the case of injury to minors whose action must be brought within a period of one (1) year after attaining the age of majority” without reference to the phrase “whichever occurs sooner.” Tate v. Eli Lilly & Co., 522 F. Supp. 1048, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (M.D. Tenn. 1981); Holt v. Hypro, Div. of Lear Siegler, Inc., 746 F.2d 353, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17495 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1984).

This statute does not abrogate the usual special consideration given to minors to extend the period in which they may sue to one year after attaining the age of majority. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

The “whichever occurs sooner” language must be excluded and the minors' exception must be read literally as a clean exception to the other periods of limitations contained in the same section and the minors' exception is an exception to the ten year cap as well as the six year limitations period. Holt v. Hypro, Div. of Lear Siegler, Inc., 746 F.2d 353, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17495 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1984).

10. Applicability.

Applying lex loci, Kentucky substantive law controlled, precluding application of Tennessee's ten-year statute of repose in product liability action. Myers v. Hayes International Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348 (M.D. Tenn. 1988).

Plaintiff's action for damages against blood-clotting concentrate manufacturer pursuant to § 68-32-102, based upon manufacturer's failure to test plasma it collected for the presence of AIDS, fell within Tennessee's broad definition of products liability actions; consequently, it was governed by the statute of limitation applicable to products liability cases. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

Where an insurer's product liability suit was transferred from federal court in Connecticut to federal court in Tennessee, Tennessee's statute of repose did not bar the product liability claims, because: (1) Connecticut's choice-of-law rules applied under the Van Dusen  rule; and (2) A Connecticut court would apply its own statute of repose since Tennessee's statute of repose was deemed procedural in nature. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Broan Nutone, LLC, 348 F. Supp. 2d 934, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26324 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

11. Construction.

The clear language of this statute bars all suits for personal injuries brought after 10 years have expired from the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption. Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

In construing similar statutes of limitations, the Tennessee supreme court has recognized that once the period of time provided by such ceiling has expired, actions brought after that period of time are barred. This is so even when the occurrence or the injury giving rise to the cause of action happens or is discovered after the ceiling period. Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

This section does not eliminate a remedy for a civil wrong, it simply provides that after 10 years no cause of action can arise; the general assembly has the power to create new rights and abolish old ones so long as they are not vested. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

There is not an irreconcilable conflict between the products liability statute of repose and § 68-32-102. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

The language “in any event” in T.C.A. § 29-28-103(a) carries precisely the same connotation as “notwithstanding other exceptions” or “without regard to any other limitations,” and the legislature's use of this language compels the conclusion that it intended for the ten-year repose period to be an absolute bar beyond which no products liability cause of action could exist. Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 2000).

11.5. Construction With Other Statutes.

Contention that the statute, along with the current statute of repose which bars silica claims after 10 years, would effectively abolish all silica claims in Tennessee is erroneous; because the latest plaintiff first used or consumed the products at issue was in 1991, the Silica Claims Priority Act (SCPA) had no application to the issue presented in this appeal, and when the SCPA is considered in conjunction with the 10-year statute of repose in the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the plain language of the SCPA extends the discovery rule only to products first purchased for use or consumption after July 1, 1996. Adams v. Air Liquide Am., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014).

12. “Whichever Occurs Sooner” — Effect.

The clause “whichever occurs sooner” in subsection (a) was inadvertently left in the statute after one of its two antecedents was removed by amendment and has no effect. Tate v. Eli Lilly & Co., 522 F. Supp. 1048, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (M.D. Tenn. 1981); Holt v. Hypro, Div. of Lear Siegler, Inc., 746 F.2d 353, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17495 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1984).

This section was meant to supplement in part and supersede in part the statute of limitations for personal tort actions provided in § 28-3-104. Milligan v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 622 F. Supp. 56, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16397 (W.D. Tenn. 1985).

13. Manufacturers.

This section indicates the intention of the legislature that the time period of four years fixed by § 28-3-202 apply to manufacturers furnishing component parts of an improvement to real property if the manufacturer is otherwise within the scope of that statute. Pridemark Custom Plating, Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 702 S.W.2d 566, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3053 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), superseded by statute as stated in, Wheeler v. Harvey (In re Estate of Porter), 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 1997).

The usual and ordinary meaning of the words “observation of construction” used in § 28-3-202 and interpreted in the context of both that statute and this section indicates the legislature intended to make the four-year time period set out in § 28-3-202 applicable to manufacturers who observe the application of their products in “the improvement of real property.” Thus, the manufacturer or seller of a product installed in and becoming a part of the real property in connection with the improvement thereof is covered by the time period referred to in § 28-3-202 if the manufacturer observes the installation of its product during the construction. Pridemark Custom Plating, Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 702 S.W.2d 566, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3053 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), superseded by statute as stated in, Wheeler v. Harvey (In re Estate of Porter), 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 1997).

Federal law, and not this section, governs in products liability actions against cigarette manufacturers. Phillips v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 488, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), appeal denied, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Phillips, 1989 Tenn. LEXIS 219 (Tenn. Apr. 3, 1989).

14. Burden of Proof.

Plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial to show that neither the statute of limitations nor the statute of repose bars property damage and warranty claims where plaintiff seeks to avoid the defendants' assertion of affirmative defense. Electric Power Bd. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 1069, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17127 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

15. Discovery Rule.

The “discovery rule,” that is, the rule that a statute of limitations does not begin to run until the injury occurs or is discovered or should have been discovered, cannot in any event extend the period of time limited by the absolute ceiling. Buckner v. GAF Corp., 495 F. Supp. 351, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9742 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Where alleged negligent act is discovered within the one-year period but after the date of injury, the statute of limitations is one year from the date of discovery, with a three-year ceiling. Hoffman v. Hospital Affiliates, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 341, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 668 (Tenn. 1983).

The judicially created discovery rule cannot extend to the ceiling or absolute time limit established by this section. Spence v. Miles Lab., 810 F. Supp. 952, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20664 (E.D. Tenn. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

16. Action Held Barred.

In products liability action premised on strict liability, and breach of warranty theories, plaintiff's argument that manufacturer had a continuing duty to plaintiff to warn of the dangers of the machine, to provide updated safety instructions, and to install updated safety equipment on the machines did not prevent barring of action by 10-year statute of limitations contained in this section. Wilson v. Dake Corp., 497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Person injured 13 years after purchase of tractor was barred by 10-year limitation of this section. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F. Supp. 100, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12082 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

Action for cancer occurring in daughter 25 years after mother took DES during pregnancy was barred as occurring more than ten years after purchase of product. Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 719 F.2d 134, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1983).

Where dry-cleaning company employee who purchased chemicals for the company became ill from his exposure to chemicals in his work place, his knowledge of his illness and the causal connection between the illness and his exposure to the chemicals involved put him on inquiry as to the manufacturers and suppliers who were the source of the chemicals; and where wife of employee filed wrongful death action more than one year after employee had knowledge of the causal connection, her suit was barred. Craig v. R.R. Street & Co., 794 S.W.2d 351, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

Plaintiffs, hotel owners, had only 10 years from the last date of purchase of wooden roofing products to bring suit. King-Bradwall Partnership v. Johnson Controls, 865 S.W.2d 18, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, King-Bradwell Partnership v. Johnson Controls, Inc., — S.W.2d —, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 340 (Tenn. Sept. 27, 1993).

Where parties claiming injury remain unaware of that injury at time at which statute of repose is enacted, that statute will bar future claims. Bowman v. A-Best Co., 960 S.W.2d 594, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 580 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

This section's ten-year statute of repose barred plaintiff from recovering on her negligence, strict tort liability and conspiracy claims to the extent they related to the sale of cigarettes more than ten years prior to the filing of the suit. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17917 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).

17. —Latent Illnesses.

Assuming § 68-32-102 applies, hemophiliac plaintiff's suit against defendant manufacturer of blood-clotting factor was time barred by this section. The plaintiff's claims manifestly related to a product; therefore, plaintiff had one year from product distribution date to bring suit even though AIDS diagnosis followed three years later. Spence v. Miles Lab., 37 F.3d 1185, 1994 FED App. 352P, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29071 (6th Cir. 1994).

Diet drug manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment in consumer's product liability action which alleged that the use of the diet drug Pondimin in 1996 and 1997 caused her to develop primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), a progressive fatal disease, in 2005, as the action was barred by the statute of repose under T.C.A. § 29-28-103 because it was filed more than one year after the expiration date of the product pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-102; Tennessee law dictated a harsh result because the anticipatory life provision of T.C.A. § 29-28-103 eliminated the consumer's cause of action before it accrued in 2005 when she developed PPH. Montgomery v. Wyeth, 540 F. Supp. 2d 933,  2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23591 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2008), aff'd, 580 F.3d 455, 2009 FED App. 314P, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19386 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009).

18. Accrual of Action.

Daughter's actions alleging prenatal injuries as a result of her mother's diethylstilbestrol (DES) usage during pregnancy accrued at the time of her birth. Tate v. Eli Lilly & Co., 522 F. Supp. 1048, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (M.D. Tenn. 1981).

19. Construction with § 50-6-112.

If the one-year limitation in § 50-6-112 has not expired, an action under that section may be brought but is subject to the 10-year limitation of this section. Hawkins v. D & J Press Co., 527 F. Supp. 386, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16194 (E.D. Tenn. 1981).

The Products Liability Act, specifically this section, does not in any sense repeal, revive or amend § 50-6-112. Hawkins v. D & J Press Co., 527 F. Supp. 386, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16194 (E.D. Tenn. 1981).

20. Rebuilt or Reconditioned Products.

A piece of machinery that is substantially rebuilt or reconditioned becomes a “new” product for the purpose of a products liability action and a new statute of limitations begins to run from the date of its sale. Fugate v. AAA Machinery & Equipment Co., 593 F. Supp. 392, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23298 (E.D. Tenn. 1984).

The 10-year statute in this section runs from the date of sale by other than the original manufacturer only if the reseller comes within the definition of manufacturer in § 29-28-102(4). Rollins v. Cherokee Warehouses, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 136, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26762 (E.D. Tenn. 1986).

21. Claims Against Employers.

This section would not apply to employees' claim against employer in its role as safety inspector, but would apply to bar claims which relate to employer's role in designing, fabricating, or assembling safety apparatus. Gaines v. Excel Industries, Inc., 667 F. Supp. 569, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7840 (M.D. Tenn. 1987).

22. Breach of Warranty Claims.

The statute of repose was intended by the Tennessee general assembly to apply to breach of warranty claims despite their accrual at tender of delivery. Electric Power Bd. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 1069, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17127 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

23. Saving Statute Inapplicable.

The Tennessee saving statute, § 28-1-105, may not be used to revive a claim after the 10-year period of repose for product liability cases at this section has run. Via v. General Electric Co., 799 F. Supp. 837, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14532 (W.D. Tenn. 1992).

24. Statute of Repose.

The ten-year period established by subsection (a) is a statute of repose. Wyatt v. A-Best Prods. Co., 924 S.W.2d 98, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. May 28, 1996).

In an action for asbestos-related injuries, where the sales of asbestos were made more than ten years prior to the enactment of the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the cause of action was barred by the ten-year statute of repose and, because of the constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws, the asbestos exception enacted in 1979 could not save the worker's claim. Wyatt v. A-Best Prods. Co., 924 S.W.2d 98, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. May 28, 1996).

Application of the ten-year statute of repose in subsection (a) does not conflict with § 28-3-104(b). Wyatt v. A-Best Prods. Co., 924 S.W.2d 98, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 371 (Tenn. May 28, 1996).

Summary judgment in favor of defendants in a products liability action was reversed and remanded, because T.C.A. § 28-1-105 saved the action, which had been filed within the statutes of limitations and repose, had been voluntarily dismissed and refiled within one year, notwithstanding the expiration of the products liability statute of repose under T.C.A. § 29-28-103 during the one-year savings period. Maino v. Southern Co., 253 S.W.3d 646, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2007), appeal denied, Maino v. The Southern Co., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008).

“Anticipated life of the product” was the expiration date placed on the product by the manufacturer when required by law but shall not commence until the date the product was first purchased for use or consumption. T.C.A. § 29-28-102; as the district court observed, the corporation stopped manufacturing Pondimin on September 2, 1997 and the corporation offered uncontested evidence that packaging for Pondimin contained the expiration dates as required by law, and those expiration dates were three years from the date of manufacture, the latest expiration being September 2000. The patient filed the instant case in October 2005; therefore, because the undisputed evidence established that all Pondimin tablets had an expiration date of five or more years before the patient brought the instant suit, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the expiration date for purposes of applying the Tennessee statute of repose, and the district court properly found that the claim was barred by Tennessee's statute of repose, T.C.A. § 29-28-103(a). Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 2009 FED App. 314P, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19386 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009), rehearing denied, — F.3d —, — FED App. —, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23703 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1031, 130 S. Ct. 1896, 176 L. Ed. 2d 403, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2415 (U.S. 2010).

Because district court did not err in determining, under Michigan's choice of law rules, that plaintiffs insurers' products liability action against defendant auto manufacturer was governed by Tennessee law, Tennessee's statute of repose barred the action. Std. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 2013 FED App. 191P (6th Cir.),— F.3d —, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14978 (6th Cir. July 24, 2013).

Seller was entitled to judgment on the pleadings on breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and negligence claims related to an allegedly defective product because the statute of repose barred them and had no equitable estoppel exception. Ismoilov v. Sears Holdings Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2018).

The trial court erred by granting the valve manufacturer summary judgment based on the statute of repose in the worker's product liability action filed after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma because the manufacturer failed to submit any evidence that it ceased selling products to the employer in 1966 and the worker stated that he personally installed one new pump from the manufacturer in the early 1970s. Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019).

The trial court erred by granting the pump manufacturer summary judgment based on the statute of repose in the worker's product liability action filed after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma because the manufacturer failed to carry its burden of showing that it did not sell asbestos-containing valves and internal replacement gaskets to the worker's employer on or after July 1, 1969, as the worker's testimony that he remembered seeing others install new valves of the manufacturer, in combination with a co-worker's affidavit, raised an issue of fact as to whether the employer purchased new valves from the manufacturer on or after July 1, 1960. Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019).

The trial court erred by granting the packaging manufacturer summary judgment in the worker's product liability action filed after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma because there were questions of fact as to whether the manufacturer sold asbestos-containing valves and replacement parts to the worker's employer on or after July 1, 1969, and therefore the manufacturer failed to carry its burden of identifying undisputed facts that established the statute of repose defense. When asked whether the valves were pre-1968 valves, it was unclear whether the manufacturer's response of “these valves” referred to gate valves and not all valves. Coffman v. Armstrong Int'l, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2019).

25. Refiling Action.

Where a products liability action was timely filed within both the statute of limitations and statute of repose of this section, plaintiff who voluntarily nonsuited the initial action could rely upon the savings statute, § 28-1-105, and refile within one year of the nonsuit, even if the nonsuit and refiling occurred beyond the six-year statute of repose. Sharp v. Richardson, 937 S.W.2d 846, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. 1996).

26. Fraudulent Concealment.

This section's statute of repose provides no exception for cases of fraudulent concealment. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17917 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).

27. Mental Incompetency.

T.C.A. § 29-28-103(a) is not tolled during any period of the plaintiff's mental incompetency. Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 2000).

To the extent that the language in Bowers ex rel. Bowers v. Hammond, 954 S.W.2d 752, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 310 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)  can be read to toll any statute of repose for mental incompetency under T.C.A. § 28-1-106, it is overruled. Penley v. Honda Motor Co., 31 S.W.3d 181, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 2000).

Collateral References.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: Liability of manufacturer, supplier, or seller of passenger or freight elevator, hoist, or elevator component for injury or damage resulting from alleged defect in elevator or component. 117 A.L.R.5th 267.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Retroactive application of state statutes concerning asbestos liability. 41 A.L.R.6th 445.

Validity and construction of statute terminating right of action for product-caused injury at fixed period after manufacture, sale, or delivery of product. 30 A.L.R.5th 1.

What statute of limitation governs actions based on strict liability in tort. 91 A.L.R.3d 455.

Limitation of actions 55(1), 95(2).

29-28-104. Compliance with government standards — Rebuttable presumption.

  1. Compliance by a manufacturer or seller with any federal or state statute or administrative regulation existing at the time a product was manufactured and prescribing standards for design, inspection, testing, manufacture, labeling, warning or instructions for use of a product, shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the product is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition in regard to matters covered by these standards.
  2. A manufacturer or seller, other than a manufacturer of a drug or device, shall not be liable for exemplary or punitive damages if:
    1. The product alleged to have caused the harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold, or represented in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of approval, license or similar determination of a government agency; or
    2. The product was in compliance with a statute of the state or the United States, or a standard, rule, regulation, order, or other action of a government agency pursuant to statutory authority, when such statute or agency action is relevant to the event or risk allegedly causing the harm and the product was in compliance at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller.
  3. Subsection (b) shall not apply if the claimant establishes that the manufacturer or seller:
    1. At any time before the event that allegedly caused the harm, sold the product after the effective date of an order of a government agency that ordered the removal of the product from the market or withdrew the agency's approval of the product; or
    2. In violation of applicable regulations, withheld or misrepresented to the government agency information material to the approval and such information is relevant to the harm which the claimant allegedly suffered.
  4. The award of punitive or exemplary damages against a manufacturer of a drug or device shall be governed by § 29-39-104.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-3704; Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 11.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1, provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24, provided that the act, which added subsections (b)-(d), shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Law Reviews.

Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986).

Products Liability and Economic Activity: An Empirical Analysis of Tort Reform's Impact on Businesses, Employment, and Production (Joanna M. Shepherd), 66 Vand. L. Rev. 257 (2013).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Role of Federal Safety Regulations in Products Liability Actions (Teresa Moran Schwartz), 41 Vand. L. Rev. 6 (1988).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

Cited: Baker v. Lederle Laboratories, 696 S.W.2d 890, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2971 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Myers v. Hayes International Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348 (M.D. Tenn. 1988); Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 200 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2010); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

The purpose of this section is to give refuge to the manufacturer who is operating in good faith and in compliance with what the law requires him to do. Tuggle v. Raymond Corp., 868 S.W.2d 621, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

2. Evidence.

Where defendant-company offered evidence that warning labels on its products were EPA approved and in full compliance with all applicable federal standards, and the plaintiff introduced no evidence to challenge defendants' compliance with any of these federal regulations, the rebuttable presumption that the defendant's products were not unreasonably dangerous was not overcome. Goins v. Clorox Co., 926 F.2d 559, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991).

Because the jury could have reasonably concluded from evidence presented that automobile manufacturer was aware that compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207 and the industry standard for seat design was insufficient, punitive damages were not barred. Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. July 24, 2008), rehearing denied, Flax v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 970 (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2008), cert. denied, ,, 556 U.S. 1257, 129 S. Ct. 2433, 174 L. Ed. 2d 227, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3910 (U.S. 2009), superseded by statute as stated in, Grant v. Kia Motors Corp., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157325 (E.D. Tenn. May 10, 2016), superseded by statute as stated in, Cone v. Hankook Tire Co., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8607 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2017).

There was no evidence that defendant manufacturer failed to comply with any federal, state, or administrative regulation in making, packaging, and shipping candy which was infested with insects when sold, so there was a statutory (albeit rebuttable) presumption that the candy was not in an unreasonably dangerous or defective condition, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-104. Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9278 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2010).

Court erred in denying a car manufacturer's motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages because as early as 1993 the manufacturer began to develop materials designed to warn consumers of the dangers of improper seat belt use. Unfortunately, it did not begin to include the material in its vehicles until 1996 or 1997; the record demonstrated that the manufacturer complied with industry standards and governmental regulations, and did not act recklessly, intentionally, maliciously, or fraudulently. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012), rev'd, Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 702 (Tenn. Aug. 30, 2013).

Oyster suppliers were entitled the presumption of this section because the record contained ample proof of compliance with statutes and regulations governing the commercial handling of fresh seafood and regulations regarding notice or warning of potential dangers with the oysters, and the customer did not dispute their compliance. Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014), appeal denied, In re Estate of Bissinger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2014).

Because the restaurant did not provide evidence that demonstrated compliance with any applicable regulations, it was not entitled to the presumption that the oysters it served were not unreasonably dangerous. Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014), appeal denied, In re Estate of Bissinger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2014).

3. Jury Instructions.

Evidence of compliance with government standards sufficient to justify instruction based on this section. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991), rehearing denied, Clarksville/Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., — F.2d —, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 5163 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 1991).

Where the jury instruction went to the heart of the case by increasing the plaintiffs' burden of proof on the issue of liability by directly suggesting that occupational health and safety administration regulations applied to defendant where they did not, the instruction more probably than not affected the judgment of the jury. Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2 S.W.3d 218, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Sept. 13, 1999).

4. Customer Usage.

This section does not create a presumption arising from the U.S. department of transportation regulations in relation to safety for customer usage. Hurt v. Coyne Cylinder Co., 956 F.2d 1319, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2023 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1992), rehearing denied, — F.2d —, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6179 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 1992).

5. Applicability of Standards.

The presumption of this section is limited to matters covered by standards created by statute or regulation that are directly applicable to a manufacturer or manufacturer's conduct; thus, occupational health and safety administration regulations covering employers' conduct relative to the operation of forklifts were not applicable to forklift manufacturer's conduct and did not give rise to rebuttable presumption in favor of manufacturer. Tuggle v. Raymond Corp., 868 S.W.2d 621, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 1000 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Where a manufacturer could not comply with standards that did not apply to the manufacturer's conduct, the rebuttable presumption was not applicable. Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2 S.W.3d 218, 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), review or rehearing denied, — S.W.3d —, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (Tenn. Sept. 13, 1999).

In a negligence and products liability suit against the manufacturer, owner, and lessor of an allegedly defective bus, it was not error to admit evidence that the bus complied with federal safety standards because such evidence was explicitly made relevant by T.C.A. § 29-28-104. Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2014), appeal denied, Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability § 94.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: Liability of manufacturer, supplier, or seller of passenger or freight elevator, hoist, or elevator component for injury or damage resulting from alleged defect in elevator or component. 117 A.L.R.5th 267.

Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Products liability 75-80.

29-28-105. Determination of defective or dangerous condition.

  1. A manufacturer or seller of a product shall not be liable for any injury to a person or property caused by the product unless the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller.
  2. In making this determination, the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to the manufacturer or seller at the time the product was placed on the market, rather than at the time of injury, is applicable. Consideration is given also to the customary designs, methods, standards and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting and testing by other manufacturers or sellers of similar products.
  3. This section does not apply to an action based on express warranty or misrepresentation regarding the chattel.
  4. A product is not unreasonably dangerous because of a failure to adequately warn of a danger or hazard that is apparent to the ordinary user.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, §§ 5, 8; T.C.A, § 23-3705.

Law Reviews.

Comments on the Report of the Governor's Commission on Tort and Liability Insurance Reform (Jerry J. Phillips), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 679 (1986).

For an article, Products Liability — Tennessee's Prudent Manufacturer Test, see 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 307 (2000).

Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986).

Skimming the Trout From the Milk: Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Product Defects Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 3, Tennessee and Beyond, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 647 (2001).

Symposium: On Product “Design Defects” and Their Actionability (John W. Wade), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551 (1980).

Symposium: Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence (Sheila L. Birnbaum), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 593 (1980).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

Cited: Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); McKinnie v. Lundell Mfg. Co., 825 F. Supp. 834, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9130 (W.D. Tenn. 1993); Abbott v. American Honda Motor Co., 682 S.W.2d 206, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3056 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985); Cansler v. Grove Mfg. Co., 826 F.2d 1507, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11061 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1987); Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Water Services, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 525, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. 1988); Ray by Holman v. BIC Corp., 925 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. 1996); Ladd by Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., 939 S.W.2d 83, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Generally.

Plaintiffs must prove in a products liability action that the condition complained of is beyond contemplation of the ordinary consumer, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985).

The “consumer expectation” test has been codified in Tennessee statutes. In order to impose liability on a manufacturer or seller, the product in question must be shown to be either (1) “in a defective condition” or (2) “unreasonably dangerous.” The definitions of either of those terms focuses on what is anticipated or contemplated by the ordinary consumer. Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12146 (E.D. Tenn. 1985).

The Tennessee legislature intended to deviate from § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1966) and allow a products liability action when the product is either defective or unreasonably dangerous. Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

Tennessee law casts liability if the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. Reece v. Lowe's of Boone, Inc., 754 S.W.2d 67, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 214 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. May 30, 1995).

Strict liability is not absolute liability. It is not enough to show that the product caused the plaintiff's injury or was involved in it. The plaintiff must show that there was something wrong with the product. Tatum v. Cordis Corp., 758 F. Supp. 457, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2743 (M.D. Tenn. 1991).

A plaintiff may show that a product is either defective or unreasonably dangerous for liability to accrue under the Tennessee Products Liability Act. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

Although the Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that the consumer expectation test is theoretically applicable to all products liability cases, a trial court must assess whether a given product is sufficiently familiar to ordinary consumers in order to determine whether the consumer expectation is actually useful to a plaintiff seeking to make out a products liability claim. Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002), aff'd, 89 Fed. Appx. 927, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26610 (6th Cir. 2003).

In a products liability case in which plaintiff's theory was that the roof structure and seatbelt restraint system in a vehicle were defective and caused her injuries during a rollover, a magistrate judge properly denied her discovery request for information about alternative designs, as she failed to make a threshold showing of relevance where she did not establish that her vehicle was itself defective in any way or that a defect in the vehicle caused her injuries. Without at least some plausible causal connection between the design and harm, it was neither necessary nor tenable to surmise that an alternative design would have reduced or prevented plaintiff's harm. Steede v. GM, LLC, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5557 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 11, 2013).

2. Unreasonably Dangerous Product.

If the product is determined to be unreasonably dangerous then failure of the plaintiff or his employer to heed instructions or warnings do not as a matter of proximate cause interrupt the defendants' liability unless the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered and assumed a known danger. Young v. Reliance Electric Co., 584 S.W.2d 663, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

The dangers of the use of alcohol are common knowledge to such an extent that the product cannot objectively be considered to be unreasonably dangerous. Pemberton v. American Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690, 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 917, 42 A.L.R.4th 245 (Tenn. 1984).

Any language in Parker v. Prince, 656 S.W.2d 391, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 552 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983), or Young v. Reliance Elec. Co., 584 S.W.2d 663, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) which purports to stand for the proposition that the product must be both defective and unreasonably dangerous is dicta and that language is in error. Smith v. Detroit Marine Engineering Corp., 712 S.W.2d 472, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3190 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

Inflatable penile prosthesis was not an unreasonably dangerous product. Harwell v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 1287, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (M.D. Tenn. 1992).

The statute provides two tests for determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), appeal denied, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. 1998).

The consumer expectation test and the prudent manufacturer test are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Nor does the Act limit the application of either test to only certain kinds of actions. Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), appeal denied, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. 1998).

Under the “consumer expectation test,” a product is not unreasonably dangerous if the ordinary consumer would appreciate the condition of the product and the risk of injury. Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), appeal denied, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. 1998).

The prudent manufacturer test imputes knowledge of the condition of the product to the manufacturer; the test is whether, given that knowledge, a prudent manufacturer would market the product. The consumer's expectations are irrelevant under this test. Rutherford v. Polar Tank Trailer, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), appeal denied, 978 S.W.2d 102, 1998 Tenn. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. 1998).

The statutory definition of an “unreasonably dangerous product” incorporates a consumer expectation test and a prudent manufacturer test; these two tests are distinct from each other, having different elements which require different types of proof and are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

The consumer expectation test applicable under this section is generally defined as whether the product's condition poses a danger beyond that expected by an ordinary consumer with reasonable knowledge. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

Considerations which are relevant to the prudent manufacturer test include: (1) the usefulness and desirability of the product to the user; (2) the safety aspects of the product or the likelihood and probable seriousness of an injury; (3) the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need in a safer manner; (4) the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing the product's utility or making it too expensive; (5) the user's ability to avoid danger by exercise of care; (6) the user's awareness of the danger inherent in the product and (7) the feasibility of spreading the loss. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

A product may be considered defective or unreasonably dangerous if the manufacturer failed to incorporate safety devices, which were available at the time of the product's manufacture and which would have prevented an injury resulting from the use of the product. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 46 F. Supp. 2d 745, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9712 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, — F.3d —, — ## FED App. ## (6th Cir.) —, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 9, 2000), aff'd, 225 F.3d 658, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26547 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000), rev'd, 19 Fed. Appx. 253, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19830 (2001).

Detailed allegations as to the health hazards of cigarette smoking were sufficient to state claims of negligence, strict liability and and conspiracy based upon the prudent manufacturer test. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17917 (W.D. Tenn. 1999).

A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Martin v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 745, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7793 (E.D. Tenn. 2000).

Plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants' spinal system devices were unreasonably dangerous pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-105. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

In contrast to the consumer expectation test, the prudent manufacturer test is more applicable to those circumstances in which an ordinary consumer would have no reasonable basis for expectations. Accordingly, expert testimony about the prudence of the decision to market would be essential. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

The prudent manufacturer test utilizes a “risk-utility balancing of factors” but still requires that the plaintiff prove that damages were proximately caused by the unreasonably dangerous condition. King v. Danek Med., 37 S.W.3d 429, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Plaintiffs were unable to make out a claim for products liability without the use of an expert because the product at issue was simply too complex and too unfamiliar to ordinary consumers to allow plaintiffs to make out a claim without an expert witness. Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002), aff'd, 89 Fed. Appx. 927, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26610 (6th Cir. 2003).

3. Evidence.

Evidence concerning defendants' design and manufacturing processes should not have been excluded although plaintiffs voluntarily elected to proceed solely on the basis of strict products liability. The evidence concerning defendants' own conduct relative to manufacturing and design processes was relevant and admissible as circumstantial proof on the question of whether the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. Hood v. Roadtec, Inc., 785 S.W.2d 359, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 1989).

Evidence regarding the defendant's compliance with customary designs and standards of manufacturing, was sufficient to justify a charge to the jury based on this section. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1991), rehearing denied, Clarksville/Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., — F.2d —, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 5163 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 1991).

A defect in a product may be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. May 30, 1995).

The mere occurrence of an accident is not sufficient to prove a defect. Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied, — S.W.2d —, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 296 (Tenn. May 30, 1995).

In an action by plaintiff who was injured when her hair caught in a rotating gear of a machine manufactured by defendant, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of warnings about the product and as to the understood purpose of a covering for the gear that was not in place at the time of the accident. Smith v. Guadino, 911 F. Supp. 296, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 322 (E.D. Tenn. 1996).

Under Tennessee law, expert testimony is required to establish liability in cases alleging manufacturing and design defects. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 2000 FED App. 222P, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15652 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000).

To establish a prima facie case of defect, the plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff's harm. Martin v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 745, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7793 (E.D. Tenn. 2000).

4. —Insufficient.

Plaintiffs failed to put on proof that the product which allegedly caused his injuries was in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of manufacturer or seller, and thus manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's strict liability claim. Masters v. Rishton, 863 S.W.2d 702, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

Mere evidence of a failure of the product, a medium plastic patella component, did not constitute proof that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control. Fulton v. Pfizer Hosp. Prods. Group, 872 S.W.2d 908, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

Where a forklift operator claimed that the forklift built by the manufacturer was in defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-105(a), but neither of his experts proposed a different design or warning which could have prevented the accident, their testimony was struck and the manufacturer's motion for partial summary judgment was granted. Brown v. Raymond Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d 591, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9985 (W.D. Tenn. 2004).

Summary judgment was granted in favor of manufacturer in a product liability action because under the prudent manufacturer test, expert testimony was necessary to establish that the design of the boom truck crane was defective and unreasonably dangerous; while the proposed opinions of plaintiff's expert appeared to be initially relevant, they failed to satisfy the reliability factors set forth by Dauber and Fed. R. Evid. 702. Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 852, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36447 (M.D. Tenn. 2005), aff'd, 484 F.3d 426, 2007 FED App. 149P, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9895 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2007).

Customer who bit into insect-infested candy failed to show that either the manufacturer or the distributor of the candy could be found liable under the Tennessee Product Liability Act of 1978, because, though the Act was encompassing, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6), there was no evidence that the candy at issue was in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-28-105, when it was in the hands of either the manufacturer or the distributor. Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9278 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2010).

Where relatives alleged that a decedent contracted a bacterial infection due to a defect in a manufacturer's bronchoscope, their breach of implied warranty claim under the Tennessee Products Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29-28-101 et seq., failed because the relatives did not present evidence that the bronchoscope used in the decedent's case manifested the alleged loose-port defect or that it was in an unreasonably dangerous condition when it left the manufacturer's control. Young v. Olympus Am., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9096 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 26, 2012).

Bus owner and lessor were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the strict liability claim of alleged injured parties because the bus never left the control of the owner and lessor. Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2014), appeal denied, Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 728 (Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014).

Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a distributor in an action filed by a widow and the deceased worker's employer for failure to warn of potential danger to users of the ball valve because it was undisputed that the coupling attached by an employee to the ball valve, not the ball valve itself, broke when the worker attempted to release pressure, causing his injury, the ball valve, which had been removed from a forklift due to its difficultly in opening and closing, should have been discarded. Long v. Quad Power Prods., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2015).

5. —Sufficient.

In action against manufacturer and seller of boom unit used in bucket truck for injuries sustained by worker when boom unit weld failed, evidence supported jury verdict against manufacturer for negligent design and for failing to provide appropriate standards for welding in repair manual or repair bulletins. Benson v. Tennessee Valley Elec. Coop., 868 S.W.2d 630, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).

Directed verdict in a products liability case was reversed because admissible expert testimony was presented regarding the likelihood and seriousness of injury to an operator of a forklift without a door, and such would have prevented an injury without hindering the usefulness of the product. The trial court erred in excluding expert testimony under Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and Tenn. R. Evid. 703 since a consideration of all five factors for the admissibility of expert testimony was not mandated; only the factors necessary to reasonably measure reliability of the methodology were required. Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 868 (Tenn. 2005).

Severely injured car driver presented material evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the car was defective, and thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the car manufacturer a JNOV; the driver's expert testified that, based on his testing, had the driver had the benefit of the stronger design which was commercially available, she would not have received her injuries, and it was for the jury to decide, and the jury concluded that the car was defective. Potter v. Ford Motor Co., 213 S.W.3d 264, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1071 (Tenn. 2006).

In Tennessee, to establish a prima facie case of product liability, there is no requirement that a plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff's harm. Potter v. Ford Motor Co., 213 S.W.3d 264, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 1071 (Tenn. 2006).

Where a proposed witness had presented evidence that boom crane trucks similar to the one defendant manufactured currently had an interlocking outrigging system in place, which indicated that interlocking outriggers had become generally accepted within the truck crane industry, the proposed testimony fit well within one of the Daubert principles; while it was true that interlocking outriggers had become the industry standard, the same could not be said for the date when the manufacturer's equipment was put into the marketplace. Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks, Inc., 484 F.3d 426, 2007 FED App. 149P, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9895 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2007).

6. Manufacturer Liability.

A manufacturer is not an insurer of its product. It is not required that the design be perfect, or render the product accident proof or incapable of causing injury. Where it is simply shown that there is a better, safer, or different design which would have averted the injury, this does not establish that there has been a departure from the required standard of care. Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F. Supp. 1421, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20246 (E.D. Tenn. 1991).

For strict liability to apply, the product had to actually leave the control of the manufacturer; the driver's racing vehicle that he assembled himself never left his control, and there was no evidence that the driver constructed the vehicle with the intention of selling, leasing, trading, or loaning the car to another individual. Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. 2003).

Defendants, a hot tub manufacturer and a property manager, were entitled to summary judgment, because a vacation homeowner failed to establish that a specific defect in the hot tub rendered it defective or unreasonably dangerous and caused the fire; because the property manager did not make or sell hot tubs it could not be liable under T.C.A. § 29-28-105. Langford v. Gatlinburg Real Estate & Rental, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47714 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2007).

T.C.A. §§ 29-28-102(6) and 29-28-105, did not apply to plaintiff consumers'  fraud claims against defendant manufacturer, thus, those claims were not atypical under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) on that basis and dismissal of the class allegations was not warranted. Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 2d 932, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58359 (M.D. Tenn. June 14, 2010).

Even though doctors, including the patient's doctors, had used pain pumps to provide anesthetics to post-operative joints for years, no reported case of chondrolysis linked to anesthetics appeared until 2005, after the patient's surgery; the patient claimed the companies should have known about the risk. But the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to the companies at the time the product was placed on the market, defeated this claim as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Stryker Corp., 2012 FED App. 145P, 680 F.3d 568, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 (6th Cir. May 21, 2012).

Material evidence supported the jury's verdict in a products liability case against a car manufacturer because a five-point seat belt system was superior to the adult, three-point seat belt to protect children from injury in automobile collisions. There was no dispute that such a system was available when the car was manufactured, and in its 1995 vehicles the manufacturer failed to warn of the “hidden hazard” of the foreseeable misuse of placing the shoulder strap behind children because it simply did not fit them. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 234 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2012), rev'd, Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 702 (Tenn. Aug. 30, 2013).

Manufacturer lacked objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal of product liability action based on Labor Management Relations Act preemption because determining whether product was unreasonably dangerous under state law and considering designs of other similar manufacturers as required by state law did not necessitate interpretation of collective bargaining agreement. Powers v. Cottrell, Inc., 728 F.3d 509, 2013 FED App. 237P, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17158 (6th Cir. May 6, 2013).

Brand-name drug manufacturers were properly granted summary judgment as to product liability claims by consumers because the Tennessee Products Liability Act applied to all of the consumers' claims against them, and the brand-name manufacturers were not liable under the Act since they were not the manufacturers or sellers of the generic drugs that injured the consumers. Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 737 F.3d 378, 2013 FED App. 335P, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23933 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013).

7. Jury Question.

The unreasonable dangerousness of a product, as well as a lack of warnings about a dangerous product that can serve as a basis for a manufacturer's liability, are usually jury questions. Harwell v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 1287, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (M.D. Tenn. 1992).

8. Refiling Action.

Where a products liability action was timely filed within both the statute of limitations and statute of repose, § 28-1-103, plaintiff who voluntarily nonsuited the initial action could rely upon this section, and refile within one year of the nonsuit, even if the nonsuit and refiling occurred beyond the six-year statute of repose. Sharp v. Richardson, 937 S.W.2d 846, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 585 (Tenn. 1996).

9. Causation.

Drug manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment on a patient's claim under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, T.C.A. § 29-28-01 et seq., because the patient failed to offer expert testimony establishing that Paxil was the proximate cause of the injuries he suffered as a result of his suicide attempts. Thus, the patient failed to establish causation. Richardson v. GlaxoSmithKline, 412 F. Supp. 2d 863, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7471 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).

Plaintiff's products liability claim against defendant pharmaceutical company did not survive summary judgment; as the evidence established that plaintiff's physician independently learned that defendant's medications posed a risk of bone death but prescribed them anyway, plaintiff could not establish that defendant's failure to warn proximately caused her injury. Payne v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127162 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2013).

10. Pleading.

Plaintiff's product liability action under the Tennessee Product Liability Act of 1978, T.C.A. § 29-28-101 et seq., was dismissed because she failed to allege facts for the court to infer that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, and that the product's condition caused plaintiff's alleged injuries. Maness v. Boston Sci., 751 F. Supp. 2d 962, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118748 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2010).

10.5. Warning.

Given the current state of knowledge about the dangers of vibrio vulnificus in oysters, the restaurant had a duty to warn its customers about those dangers, and therefore the trial court did not err by determining that the restaurant was not entitled to dismissal on summary judgment of the customer's claims based on failure to warn. Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014), appeal denied, In re Estate of Bissinger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2014).

11. Summary Judgment.

Trial court properly denied sellers'  motion for summary judgment in a purchaser's products liability action because based on the deposition testimony of a purchaser's expert, along with that of the purchaser and a witness, the proof established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a defect existed in a tire or that the tire posed a danger beyond that expected by an ordinary consumer with reasonable knowledge. Tatham v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 2015).

Collateral References. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability §§ 42-61.

77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability §§ 7-34.

Admissibility, against manufacturer, of product recall letter. 84 A.L.R.3d 1220.

Admissibility of evidence of subsequent repairs or other remedial measures in products liability cases. 74 A.L.R.3d 1001, 38 A.L.R.4th 583.

Admissibility of expert or opinion evidence that product is or is not defective, dangerous, or unreasonably dangerous. 4 A.L.R.4th 651.

Duty of manufacturer to equip product with safety device to protect against patent or obvious danger. 95 A.L.R.3d 1066.

Modern cases determining whether product is defectively designed. 96 A.L.R.3d 22.

Products Liability: Cardiac Pacemakers. 23 A.L.R.6th 223.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: firearms, ammunition, and chemical weapons. 96 A.L.R.5th 239.

Products liability for defective vehicular gasoline tanks. 96 A.L.R.3d 265.

Products liability: Liability of manufacturer, supplier, or seller of passenger or freight elevator, hoist, or elevator component for injury or damage resulting from alleged defect in elevator or component. 117 A.L.R.5th 267.

Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395.

Products Liability: Prudent Manufacturer Test. 86 A.L.R.5th 215.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Promotional efforts directed toward prescribing physician as affecting prescription drug manufacturer's liability for product-caused injury. 94 A.L.R.3d 1080.

Product liability 8.

29-28-106. Seller's liability.

No product liability action, as defined in § 29-28-102, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller, other than the manufacturer, unless:

  1. The seller exercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging or labeling of the product that caused the alleged harm for which recovery of damages is sought;
  2. Altered or modified the product, and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought;
  3. The seller gave an express warranty as defined by title 47, chapter 2;
  4. The manufacturer or distributor of the product or part in question is not subject to service of process in this state and the long-arm statutes of Tennessee do not serve as the basis for obtaining service of process; or
  5. The manufacturer has been judicially declared insolvent.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-3706; Acts 1983, ch. 286, § 1; 2011, ch. 510, § 12.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24 provided that the act, which rewrote this section, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Law Reviews.

Selected Tennessee Legislation of 1983 (N. L. Resener, J. A. Whitson, K. J. Miller), 50 Tenn. L. Rev. 785 (1983).

Symposium: On Product “Design Defects” and Their Actionability (John W. Wade), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551 (1980).

Symposium: Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence (Sheila L. Birnbaum), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 593 (1980).

The Exclusiveness of an Employee's Workers' Compensation Remedy Against His Employer (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 405 (1988).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Standard of Care for Veterinarians in Medical Malpractice Claims (Joseph H. King, Jr.), 58 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1990).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

1985 Tennessee Survey: Selected Developments in Tennessee Law, 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 415 (1986).

Cited: Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Water Services, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 525, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. 1988); Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (Tenn. 1996); Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Because a distributor received candy in a sealed corrugated cardboard box, stored it in a temperature-controlled environment, and had no ability to inspect the wrapped candies in the box, the distributor was entitled to rely on the closed container doctrine of T.C.A. § 29-28-106. Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9278 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2010).

Oyster suppliers were not entitled to immunity under the sealed container doctrine of this section, even though the suppliers were “manufacturers” under T.C.A. § 29-28-102(4), because the court held that a living oyster's shell was not a “sealed container.” Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014), appeal denied, In re Estate of Bissinger, — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2014).

Because patients'  complaint against pharmacies stated a cause of action pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), the provisions of that statute prevailed as to all matters and questions growing out of the subject matter of that title or chapter; as such, the seller shield defense contained within the Tennessee Products Liability Act was applicable only to product liability actions and could not be used as a defense to the patients'  THCLA claims. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Seller shield defense found in the Tennessee Products Liability Act is inapplicable to claims made under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA); a natural and reasonable reading of the language of the statute demonstrates that it only applies to product liability actions, and the THCLA applies to all health care providers, including pharmacies and pharmacists, without limitation based on any type of product seller immunity. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

Trial court properly determined that the complaint filed by the patients was a health care liability action because pharmacies conceded the applicability of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THLCA) to the cause of action when they identified the issue as whether Tennessee law allowed the seller shield defense to be asserted as a defense to claims asserted against a pharmacist under the THCLA; thus, the the seller shield defense contained within the Tennessee Products Liability Act could not apply. Heaton v. Mathes, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 141 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020).

2. “Commenced or Maintained.”

The “commenced or maintained” language means that a plaintiff seeking to pursue a strict liability claim against a defendant seller must, where insolvency is an issue, allege that the manufacturer either: (1) Has been judicially declared insolvent; or (2) is insolvent. This means that, if the matter is contested, the trial court must determine whether either of these conditions has been satisfied. If the trial court cannot make that determination, the case against the defendant seller must be dismissed. Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 688 F. Supp. 1252, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6014 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

3. Warranty Claims.

In products liability action, subsection (b) prohibited strict tort claim against National Automotive Parts Association (NAPA), one of whose member outlets had sold the allegedly defective steering wheel, but warranty claims based upon marketing and advertising relationship between NAPA and its member dealers could not likewise be dismissed. Carpenter v. Technibilt Corp., 502 F. Supp. 153, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15227 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

In expectant mother's wrongful conception case alleging non-diverse pharmacists failed to advise of contraceptives' recall, with date of conception not provided, it was possible older version of this section applied, which would not shield pharmacists; diversity was lacking. Graves v. Qualitest Pharms., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87292 (W.D. Tenn. June 21, 2013).

4. Failure to Satisfy Former T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b).

Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted where plaintiff had not alleged that any one of the situations listed in former § 29-28-106(b) for commencement or maintenance of a claim existed in the case; had not offered any affidavits or evidentiary materials contradicting the facts set forth in the affidavits submitted by the movant; and had failed to offer any opposition to the motion. Grindstaff v. Singer Co., 518 F. Supp. 44, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526 (E.D. Tenn. 1981).

In order to hold a seller/rebuilder liable on a theory of strict liability a plaintiff must prove that the seller/rebuilder is both a seller and a manufacturer. Rollins v. Cherokee Warehouses, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 136, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26762 (E.D. Tenn. 1986).

Both the manufacturer of a dangerous product and the seller of such product cannot be held to strict liability in tort unless, as to the seller, one or more of the conditions set forth in former T.C.A. 29-28-106(b) is satisfied. Wielgus v. Dover Indus., 39 S.W.3d 124, 2000 Tenn. App. LEXIS 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

5. Punitive Damages.

Punitive damages were not appropriate in a strict liability asbestos litigation. Sanford v. Celotex Corp., 598 F. Supp. 529, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23088 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).

6. Leases and Bailments.

The legislature intended to expand the meaning of “seller” in products liability actions to include lease and bailment situations. Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985).

7. Insolvent Manufacturers.

This section authorizes a trial court to determine whether a defendant manufacturer is “insolvent” for purposes of proceeding against a defendant seller on a strict liability cause of action. Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 688 F. Supp. 1252, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6014 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

A primary purpose of the statute is to ensure that where the manufacturer is insolvent, an injured party may look to a solvent seller for his losses, and this purpose implies that the trial court is empowered to determine manufacturer insolvency. Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 688 F. Supp. 1252, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6014 (E.D. Tenn. 1988).

For strict liability to apply, the product had to actually leave the control of the manufacturer; the driver's racing vehicle that he assembled himself never left his control, and there was no evidence that the driver constructed the vehicle with the intention of selling, leasing, trading, or loaning the car to another individual. Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 116 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 789 (Tenn. 2003).

Statute of limitations, T.C.A. § 28-3-104, had expired as to a truck buyer's products liability negligence claim against the seller, because it was filed more than one year after a nonsuit, T.C.A. § 28-1-105. The buyer's strict liability claim under former T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b) was timely, however, because this claim did not accrue until the manufacturer was insolvent. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1151 (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2011).

8. Component Manufacturers.

Former T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b) imposed liability upon a component manufacturer for injuries caused by a component that was defective or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the manufacturer's control. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

Providing mechanical or technical services or advice concerning a component part does not, by itself, constitute substantial participation that would subject the component supplier to liability. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

9. Reliance.

Plaintiffs were unable to make out a claim for breach of warranty against the manufacturers; although the manufacturers expressly warranted that the product was suitable for the purposes intended and free from defects, it was not clear that the injured party read or specifically relied on these affirmations. Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (M.D. Tenn. 2002), aff'd, 89 Fed. Appx. 927, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26610 (6th Cir. 2003).

10. Limitations Period.

Limitation period against a seller began to run at the time the manufacturer was adjudicated bankrupt; thus, a victim could maintain a products liability action against a seller under former T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b) who was not sued within the original statute of limitations time period. Braswell v. AC and S, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 587, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 893 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), review or rehearing denied, Braswell v. AC & S, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 392 (Tenn. May 5, 2003).

11. Summary Judgment.

Trial court properly denied a seller's motion for summary judgment in a purchaser's products liability action because the proof established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the seller had an opportunity to inspect a tire and discover the defect alleged to have caused the accident. Tatham v. Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Oct. 30, 2015).

Collateral References.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395.

Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury or death caused by defect in boat or its parts, supplies, or equipment. 1 A.L.R.4th 411.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Products liability 26.

29-28-107. Complaint — Statement of damages.

Any complaint filed in a products liability action shall state an amount of such suit sought to be recovered from any defendant.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 7; T.C.A., § 23-3707.

Law Reviews.

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

Collateral References. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability §§ 206-227.

77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability §§ 35-48, 69-96.

Allowance of punitive damages in products liability case. 13 A.L.R.4th 52.

Liability of cigarette manufacturers for punitive damages. 108 A.L.R.5th 343.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Products liability 73.

29-28-108. Product altered or abnormally used.

If a product is not unreasonably dangerous at the time it leaves the control of the manufacturer or seller but was made unreasonably dangerous by subsequent unforeseeable alteration, change, improper maintenance or abnormal use, the manufacturer or seller is not liable.

Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 9; T.C.A., § 23-3708.

Law Reviews.

Comparative Fault in Tennessee: Where Are We Going and Why Are We in this Handbasket? 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 765 (2000).

Constitutional Law — Limitation of Actions — Application of the Vested Rights Doctrine (David A. King), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 129 (1983).

The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

Cited: Myers v. Hayes International Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13348 (M.D. Tenn. 1988); Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (Tenn. July 24, 2008); Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 293 S.W.3d 487, 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 512 (Tenn. Aug. 21, 2009); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Test of Foreseeability.

Failure to follow instructions or heed a warning is improperly characterized as an intervening cause, misuse or even abnormal use because the test of foreseeability attaching to those characterizations would necessarily frustrate those defenses. Young v. Reliance Electric Co., 584 S.W.2d 663, 1979 Tenn. App. LEXIS 315 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979).

2. Alteration/Improper Maintenance by One Other than Plaintiff.

Products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based an allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce evidence at trial that plaintiff's employer's alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of defendants' product was a cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries. Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH, 955 S.W.2d 252, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1997).

3. Component Parts Doctrine.

Tennessee products liability law recognizes and includes the component parts doctrine which provides that a manufacturer who supplies a non-defective and safe component part generally will not be held liable for a defective or unreasonably dangerous final product. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

When a component manufacturer participates in designing a defective or unreasonably dangerous final product, the component manufacturer may be held liable for injuries caused by the final product even though the component itself was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (Tenn. 2001).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability § 48.

Products Liability: Exercise, Fitness, and Related Equipment. 76 A.L.R.6th 395.

Products liability — fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, fungicides, weed killers, and the like, or articles used in application thereof. 12 A.L.R.4th 462, 29 A.L.R.4th 1045.

Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395.

Products liability: recovery for injury or death resulting from intentional inhalation of product's fumes or vapors to produce intoxicating or similar effect. 50 A.L.R.5th 275.

Products Liability: Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle. 76 A.L.R.6th 465.

Products liability 16.

Chapter 29
Quieting Title

29-29-101. Persons not in being made defendants.

In any suit in equity brought in any court under its general equity jurisdiction to quiet, perfect, or adjudge the title to real estate, or to remove clouds from the title thereof, situated within the state, in which suit it is sought to determine the rights or claims of any person not in being, such person may be made defendant, and such parties defendant may be designated by general words of descriptions such as the unborn children or representatives of children of A. B. a living person.

Acts 1919, ch. 13, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 5009a1; Code 1932, § 9160; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2201.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, § 97.

Law Reviews.

Quiet Title Actions in Tennessee, 15 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 263 (1985).

Comparative Legislation. Quieting title:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-540 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-701 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 44-2-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.120.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-17-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 527.150 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-10 et seq.

Va. Code § 55-153 et seq.

Cited: Fulenwider v. Firefighters Asso. Local Union 1784, 649 S.W.2d 268, 1982 Tenn. LEXIS 375 (Tenn. 1982).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application of Section.

Where bill was filed to reform deed and to have objectionable clauses of deed declared cloud on title, but there was not sufficient evidence to permit reformation of deed there was no cloud to be removed from title and this section could have no application. Jones v. Jones, 150 Tenn. 554, 266 S.W. 110, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 30 (1924).

In action by life tenant against her unborn child or children to sell property and invest proceeds or for permission to mortgage property to improve it or else to have title vested in her in fee where complainant averred that under will she had a life estate in property with remainder to a child or children surviving her, bill showed on its face that there was no controversy or doubt as to condition of title and action could not be maintained as adversary proceedings against the unborn children to quiet, perfect or adjudge title to real estate or to remove clouds from the title thereof. Rodgers v. Unborn Child or Children of Rodgers, 204 Tenn. 96, 315 S.W.2d 521, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1958).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quieting Title and Determination of Adverse Claims §§ 68-70.

74 C.J.S. Quieting Title §§ 50, 56.

Apparent invalidity of pretended title or lien as affecting its character as cloud. 78 A.L.R. 62.

Attorney's compensation for services in action to quiet title, amount of. 143 A.L.R. 830, 56 A.L.R.2d 13, 57 A.L.R.3d 475, 57 A.L.R.3d 550, 58 A.L.R.3d 317, 10 A.L.R.5th 448, 17 A.L.R.5th 366, 23 A.L.R.5th 241, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 866.

Betterment or occupying claimant acts as available to plaintiff seeking affirmative relief. 137 A.L.R. 1078.

Contingent or defeasible future interest, right of owner of, to maintain action in equity to quiet title. 144 A.L.R. 799.

Covenants, remedies of grantor who has conveyed with, against third person asserting title or interest hostile to covenant. 97 A.L.R. 711.

Fraud as affecting right of one not in possession to maintain suit to remove cloud on title. 36 A.L.R. 698.

Jurisdiction of justice's court (or similar court) of actions to remove, or growing out of removal of, cloud from title to land. 115 A.L.R. 540.

Necessary or proper parties to suit or proceeding to establish private boundary line. 73 A.L.R.3d 948.

Nonresidence or absence of defendant from state as suspending statute of limitations where relief is sought, or could have been sought, by action to quiet title to local property. 119 A.L.R. 365.

Reimbursement by owner as condition of cancelation of tax sale and deed because taxes had been paid prior to the sale. 26 A.L.R. 629.

Remaindermen's right to sue, during continuance of life estate, to remove cloud on title, as affecting character of possession of grantee under deed from life tenant purporting to convey fee as adverse during life estate. 112 A.L.R. 1048.

Rescission as essential to cancelation of instrument or lien voidable for fraud or failure of consideration. 109 A.L.R. 1032.

Restrictive covenant, cancelation of, as a cloud on title, because of change in neighborhood or other conditions. 4 A.L.R.2d 1111.

Return of payments as condition of cancelation of land contract as cloud on title. 35 A.L.R. 274.

Statute of limitations on presumption of payment from lapse of time, mortgage barred by as cloud entitling mortgagor to affirmative relief. 164 A.L.R. 1393.

Tax sale and deed, action to set aside, as cloud on title when taxes had been paid prior to sale. 26 A.L.R. 629.

Timber, right of owner of land to have his title quieted as to timber remaining after the expiration of the time fixed in a timber contract for its removal. 15 A.L.R. 111, 31 A.L.R. 944, 42 A.L.R. 641, 71 A.L.R. 143, 164 A.L.R. 423.

What constitutes cloud on title. 78 A.L.R. 24.

What constitutes special damages in action for slander of title. 4 A.L.R.4th 532.

Quieting title 17.

29-29-102. Constructive service on persons not in being.

If in such suit it shall appear that there is or may be any person who has been made a party defendant under § 29-29-101, a general notice of such suit shall be published in a newspaper within the county in which the land involved is situated, and if there is no newspaper in the county, then in an adjoining county, for four (4) consecutive weeks next preceding the hearing of such suit, and also general notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises for four (4) weeks next preceding the hearing of such suit, and notice given in accordance with this section shall be deemed constructive service on all unborn parties defendant.

Acts 1919, ch. 13, § 2; Shan. Supp., § 5009a2; Code 1932, § 9161; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2202.

Cited: Sanford v. Louisville & N. Railroad, 225 Tenn. 350, 469 S.W.2d 363, 1971 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1971).

Collateral References. Quieting title 31.

29-29-103. Guardian ad litem or next friend.

If, after notice has been given as provided in § 29-29-102, it shall appear to the court that there are parties defendant who are not in being and who are not represented before the court, the court may of its own motion or on the motion of any party, appoint a suitable person to act as guardian ad litem or next friend of any such party or parties, and if there are or may be any parties defendant who have conflicting interests, the court may appoint different guardians ad litem or next friends to represent them.

Acts 1919, ch. 13, § 3; Shan. Supp., § 5009a3; Code 1932, § 9162; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2203.

Cited: Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1988).

29-29-104. Costs of guardian or next friend.

The cost of appearance of any such guardian ad litem or next friend, including compensation of counsel, shall be determined by the court and paid by the complainant, and execution against the complainant may issue therefor in the name of the guardian ad litem or next friend.

Acts 1919, ch. 13, § 4; Shan. Supp., § 5009a4; Code 1932, § 9163; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2204.

Collateral References. Quieting title 54.

29-29-105. Effect of decree — Jurisdiction in personam — Testamentary contingent remainders.

  1. After the appointment of a guardian ad litem or next friend, the court may proceed as though the parties defendant were in being and actually served with process.
  2. Such suit shall be deemed to be a proceeding in rem against the land, and a decree establishing or declaring the validity, nature, or extent of complainant's title or interest, shall operate directly on the land and shall have the force of a release made by or on behalf of all parties defendant of all claims inconsistent with the title established thereby.
  3. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the court from also exercising its ordinary jurisdiction in personam against parties defendant who have been actually served with process, and who are personally amenable to its decree.
  4. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect any contingent remainder created by any will or devise of any deceased person.

Acts 1919, ch. 13, § 5; Shan. Supp., § 5009a5; Code 1932, § 9164; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2205.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 11 Tenn. Juris., Equity, §§ 93, 94.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Remainder Created by Will or Devise.

Where bill alleged that under will complainant was vested with life estate in real property with remainder in fee to her unborn child or children, action against life tenant's unborn child or children seeking to sell the property or to mortgage if for improvements or to have title vested in life tenant in fee could not be maintained under this chapter. Rodgers v. Unborn Child or Children of Rodgers, 204 Tenn. 96, 315 S.W.2d 521, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1958).

Collateral References. Quieting title 52.

Chapter 30
Recovery of Personal Property

Part 1
Action to Recover Personal Property

29-30-101. Action to recover personal property.

Where goods, chattels, or other items of tangible personal property are in the possession of another, the person entitled to possession thereof may recover such goods, chattels, or other tangible personal property by filing an action to recover personal property.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-2341.

Cross-References. General sessions court, actions to recover personal property, § 16-15-502.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 8.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 1, 4, 23.

Law Reviews.

Actions for Possession of Personal Property or, “Son of Replevin” (Hon. Robert A. Lanier), 23 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 27 (1987).

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. — The Repossession of Fuentes (David L. Franklin), 5 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 74.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

The Elusive Security Interest: Tennessee Variations on a Theme (John A. Walker, Jr.), 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 831.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

Attorney General Opinions. Personal check as tangible personal property, OAG 98-012 (1/9/98).

Comparative Legislation. Action to recover personal property:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-260 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-809 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 51-10-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 425.011 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 11-23-1 et seq.

Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 99.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-472 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-114 et seq.

Cited: Woods v. Tennessee, 378 F. Supp. 1364, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8020 (W.D. Tenn. 1974); Brackner v. Estes, 698 S.W.2d 637, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2999 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Rags, Inc. v. Thoroughbred Motor Cars, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 493, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Except for the provisions of § 29-30-106 relating to the expedition of possessory hearings, actions commenced pursuant to § 29-30-104 are governed by the remaining provisions of this part. Mack Financial Corp. v. Clevinger, 489 F. Supp. 1301, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Former Statute Unconstitutional.

Former replevin statute unconstitutionally denied due process insofar as it authorized deprivation of property without a right to prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Right to Possession of Property in General.

Where the owner of personalty by adverse possession has been dispossessed by recaption by the original and barred owner, such owner by prescription may recover the property. Kegler v. Miles, 8 Tenn. 426, 1825 Tenn. LEXIS 14 (1825); Collomb v. Taylor, 28 Tenn. 689, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 108 (1849); Garrett v. Vaughan, 60 Tenn. 113, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 423 (1873).

The recaption of property by the rightful owner whose title has not been barred, though the recaption is tortious or illegal, will not entitle the party from whom the property was taken to regain the possession. Neely v. Lyon, 18 Tenn. 473, 1837 Tenn. LEXIS 57 (1837); Garrett v. Vaughan, 60 Tenn. 113, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 423 (1873).

3. Application of Statutes.

In attachment, where defendant intervened replevying the property under § 29-6-149 statute relating to replevin bonds was not applicable, and, judgment going against the intervenor, there should be no provision for return. People's Nat'l Bank v. Corse, 133 Tenn. 720, 182 S.W. 917, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1915).

4. Common Law and Statutory Actions Differentiated.

At common law, the action of replevin could be maintained only where the taking amounted to a trespass, but under our statutes, the action will lie in all cases where the plaintiff has a present right to the possession of any personal property in the possession of the defendant. Shaddon v. Knott, 32 Tenn. 358, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1852); Wilson v. McQueen, 38 Tenn. 17, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1858); Cartwright v. Smith, 104 Tenn. 689, 58 S.W. 331, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1900); Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

5. Relation of Replevin and Detinue.

Replevin is a substitute for an coextensive with detinue, and lies in every instance where the plaintiff's personal property is wrongfully detained by the defendant. Shaddon v. Knott, 32 Tenn. 358, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 83 (1852); Wilson v. McQueen, 38 Tenn. 17, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1858).

6. Demand Before Suit Unnecessary.

In order to maintain the action it is not necessary to show a demand, on the part of the plaintiff, for the property in controversy, before bringing his suit. Draper v. Moseley, 62 Tenn. 201, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 169 (1873).

7. Right of Possession as Basis for Suit.

The mere right of possession, for whatever purpose, is sufficient to maintain the action, and it makes no difference whether the right is absolute or for purposes of security. Brammell v. Hart, 59 Tenn. 366, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1873).

Where the defendant is entitled to the possession, for whatever purpose, whether absolute or a security by lien thereon, he will succeed in the suit. Shields v. Dodge, 82 Tenn. 356, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1884); Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

Special property conferred by possession is sufficient to support action of replevin against a trespasser. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

8. Title — Proof Unnecessary.

Replevin is a possessory action, and it is not necessary to prove title. Young v. Harris-Cortner Co., 152 Tenn. 34, 268 S.W. 1120, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 98, 54 A.L.R. 524 (1925).

9. Proof of General or Special Property in Plaintiff.

Plaintiff must prove either a general or special property in himself, and will be defeated if the proof shows that the right of property and possession is in a stranger. McFerrin v. Perry, 33 Tenn. 314, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1853); Parham v. Riley, 44 Tenn. 5, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1867); Duncan v. Starr, 77 Tenn. 238, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1882); Robb v. Cherry, 98 Tenn. 72, 38 S.W. 412, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 205 (Dec. 1896).

10. Equitable Title as Basis of Replevin.

The endorsee of note secured by mortgage, to whom no assignment of the mortgage itself was made, is but equitable owner of the chattels or title to the mortgage, and has no right to maintain replevin. Richmond Type & Electrotype Foundry v. Carter, 133 Tenn. 489, 182 S.W. 240, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1916).

One claiming right to possession of a note as equitable assignee may not maintain the action. Horn v. Nicholas, 139 Tenn. 453, 201 S.W. 756, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 121, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1918E157 (1918).

11. Ownership by Third Party — Effect.

Replevin is not maintainable where the property belongs to a third person, and if the property has been taken from the defendant, there must be a judgment for its return. Collier v. Yearwood, 64 Tenn. 581, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1875); Robb v. Cherry, 98 Tenn. 72, 38 S.W. 412, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 205 (Dec. 1896).

12. Necessary Parties Plaintiff.

In replevin, the plaintiff recovers personal chattels in specie. So, where the chattel is owned jointly by different parties, not susceptible of separation or not separated, so that the plaintiff could aver that some particular part belonged to him, the action must be brought in the joint names of all the owners. Collier v. Yearwood, 64 Tenn. 581, 1875 Tenn. LEXIS 130 (1875); Jackson v. Stockard, 68 Tenn. 260, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1878).

13. Immaterial Parties Plaintiff.

Where the whole possessory right of property is in one of the plaintiffs in an action of replevin, it is immaterial to the defendants that he joins others with him in the suit, and shares his recovery with them. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

14. Right of Particular Persons to Maintain Replevin.

15. —Holder of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached.

Where bank discounted a draft drawn by the seller of personal property with the bill of lading attached and where other evidence indicated an absolute purchase of the draft, the bank was in effect owner of the property described in the bill of lading and when the drawee refused to pay at request of the bank, such bank was entitled to replevy the property. Imperial Cotton Milling Co. v. Citizens Bank of Olin, 4 Tenn. Civ. App. (4 Higgins) 332 (1914).

16. —Mortgagee.

A mortgagee who has advanced only part of the sum stipulated may maintain replevin to recover the mortgaged property, upon the mortgagor's default in repaying the sum advanced where the mortgagee was justified or excused for not advancing the remainder of the stipulated sum because of the default of the mortgagor in declining to plant and raise a crop which was likewise to be covered by the mortgage. Cartwright v. Smith, 104 Tenn. 689, 58 S.W. 331, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1900).

17. —Persons Stealing Goods and His Purchaser.

Where goods have been obtained by theft or robbery, neither the felon nor an innocent purchaser from him can maintain replevin to recover possession of them. Parham v. Riley, 44 Tenn. 5, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1867); Dawson v. Susong, 48 Tenn. 243, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1870).

An innocent purchaser of stolen property, after a continuous adverse possession for three years, may maintain an action of replevin and recover the same from the original owner who had reacquired the possession thereof, without his consent. Garrett v. Vaughan, 60 Tenn. 113, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 423 (1873); Morris v. Lowe, 97 Tenn. 243, 36 S.W. 1098, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 133 (1896).

18. —Purchaser Under Executed Contract.

Where personalty was sold and delivered to the purchaser, and thereafter the seller forcibly took and detained the property, because of the alleged failure of consideration, the purchaser may maintain the action of replevin against the seller for the same. Applewhite v. Allen, 27 Tenn. 697, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1848).

19. —Purchaser Under Executory Contract.

Purchaser under executory contract of sale may not maintain unless by the terms the title and right of possession are at once vested in him. Standard Candy Co. v. Corn Prods. Ref. Co., 2 Tenn. Civ. App. (2 Higgins) 608 (1911). See also Knoxville Tinware & Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 158 Tenn. 126, 11 S.W.2d 874, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1928).

20. —Receiver in Chancery Attachment Suit.

The receiver in a chancery attachment suit cannot maintain replevin to recover the possession of the attached goods taken from his custody under the levy of an execution which was a prior lien upon the attached property. The dignity of the chancery court, within the same jurisdiction, cannot be asserted by an action of replevin, in a common law court, against a party having in fact a superior right to the possession of the property. Conley & Harrison v. Deere, Mansure & Co., 79 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1883).

21. —Receiver of Another State.

A receiver appointed by a court of another state, and having obtained possession of property as such receiver, may prosecute in this state an action of replevin to recover such property shipped here by him for sale and taken from his possession. Cagill v. Wooldridge, 67 Tenn. 580, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 11, 35 Am. Rep. 716 (1876); Conley & Harrison v. Deere, Mansure & Co., 79 Tenn. 274, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1883).

A receiver appointed by a court of another state cannot sue in this state to recover property never in his possession. Cagill v. Wooldridge, 67 Tenn. 580, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 11, 35 Am. Rep. 716 (1876); Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Matherwell Iron & Steel Co., 95 Tenn. 172, 31 S.W. 1002, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 75, 29 L.R.A. 164 (1895); Dillingham v. Traders' Ins. Co., 120 Tenn. 302, 108 S.W. 1148, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 49, 16 L.R.A. (n.s.) 220 (1907).

22. —Riparian Owner Suing Owner of Property Removed from Premises.

The owner of riparian premises cannot recover from a former finder of sawlogs subsequently deposited on such premises by high water. Deaderick v. Oulds, 86 Tenn. 14, 5 S.W. 487, 1887 Tenn. LEXIS 18, 6 Am. St. Rep. 812 (1887).

23. —Owner of Undivided Half Interest with Landlord's Lien on Other Half.

Where complainant owned an undivided half interest in cotton, and had a landlord's lien on the other half for supply account, which exceeded its value, and he was authorized by his tenants to sell the cotton and apply the proceeds on their accounts, he had a right to maintain a replevin suit for the cotton. Young v. Harris-Cortner Co., 152 Tenn. 34, 268 S.W. 1120, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 98, 54 A.L.R. 524 (1925).

24. —Surety.

Where at the time of acquisition, title to a chattel is vested in a surety for his indemnity, the surety on paying the debt may maintain the action. Ramsey v. Puckett, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. (2 Higgins) 539 (1911).

25. —Executor.

Executor has power to bring action of replevin for recovery of personal property specifically disposed of by will. First Nat'l Bank v. Howard, 42 Tenn. App. 347, 302 S.W.2d 516, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

26. Replevin as Against Particular Persons.

27. —Defendant in Possession with Title of One Joint Owner.

As against the plaintiff in replevin who shows no valid title in himself, a defendant in possession under a bill of sale from one joint owner may successfully defend. Bogard v. Jones, 28 Tenn. 739, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1849).

28. —Defendant with Lien.

Where the defendant has a lien on the replevined property, the judgment must be for the restitution of the property where the plaintiff has failed to discharge the lien. Shields v. Dodge, 82 Tenn. 356, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1884); Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

29. —Husband and Wife.

In an action where the declaration averred that both defendants, husband and wife, took and detained the property, and the proof showed that the wife took and detained the same, the variance did not defeat the recovery, for the husband was liable for the wrongful acts of his wife. Corn v. Brazelton, 32 Tenn. 273, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 62 (1852); Memphis St. R.R. v. Berry, 118 Tenn. 581, 102 S.W. 85, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Apr. 1907).

30. —Replevin Against Officer by Defendant.

The defendant to an execution cannot maintain the action against the levying officer for his property levied on thereunder, upon the ground that the judgment has been satisfied. He must make that issue with the creditor, not with the officer, whose duty is to execute process in his hands. The remedy is by petition for supersedeas. Mason v. Vance, 33 Tenn. 178, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (1853).

The defendant in a replevin suit, whose chattels have been taken under the writ, cannot maintain a counter replevin against the officer. Dearmon v. Blackburn, 33 Tenn. 390, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1853); Wilson v. McQueen, 38 Tenn. 17, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1858).

In replevin action, defendant whose chattels have been taken under the writ, may maintain counter replevin against the officer where the property is exempt from execution. Wilson v. McQueen, 38 Tenn. 17, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 104 (1858); Russell v. Ray, 1 Tenn. App. 637, 1925 Tenn. App. LEXIS 84 (1925).

The general rule that a defendant in an execution cannot maintain an action of replevin for the goods seized thereunder only applies when the officer is proceeding rightfully. Sherron v. Hall, 72 Tenn. 498, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1880); Sharp-Flanigan-Hamilton Co. v. Tyler, 6 Tenn. Civ. App. (6 Higgins) 217 (1915).

31. —Replevin Against Officer by Third Party.

A stranger to the process under which the property is taken may maintain an action of replevin against the officer for the same. Dearmon v. Blackburn, 33 Tenn. 390, 1853 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1853); Maley v. Barrett, 34 Tenn. 501, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1855); Sherron v. Hall, 72 Tenn. 498, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1880); Brown v. Litton, 7 Tenn. App. 351, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 52 (1928).

A reasonable time is allowed in which to bring suit. Summers & Lewis v. Sanderson, 7 Tenn. App. 624, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

32. —Federal Execution — Replevin Against Marshal.

The possession of goods levied on by a United States marshal under a federal court execution could not be interfered with by state process of replevin, and the remedy was by recourse to the federal court. Clements v. Berry, 52 U.S. 398, 13 L. Ed. 745, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1517 (1851).

33. Replevin as to Particular Property.

34. —Fixtures.

Unattached article intended for fixture may be replevined in a proper case. Where there is no transfer of property from a contractor to an insolvent mortgagor of the premises, possession may be obtained by the writ. Knoxville Tinware & Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 158 Tenn. 126, 11 S.W.2d 874, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 132 (1928).

35. —Partnership Property.

Replevin will lie by a partner, upon his giving proper bond, to recover partnership property from an officer holding it under levy for the individual debt of a copartner. Jones v. Richardson, 99 Tenn. 614, 42 S.W. 440, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1897).

36. —Timber.

Where a third person transferred his right in timber to the plaintiff, prior to the institution of the replevin suit, it is immaterial to the defendant that part of the timber was cut from the land of such third person, and it was impossible to distinguish it. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

Actual possession of part of the land, under registered assurance of title, extends adverse possession to the whole tract, enabling such adverse possessor to maintain a replevin suit for timber felled and removed therefrom, without deraigning his title, and regardless of the invalidity of his title or the superiority of the title of the person who removed the timber, under a deed made to him after such possession was taken and during the continuance thereof. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904).

In an action to recover logs cut from land in possession of plaintiff, it is not improper in the court to look to the deed showing title in plaintiff, for the purpose of defining his possession. Lieberman, Loveman & O'Brien v. Clark, 114 Tenn. 117, 85 S.W. 258, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 77 (1904); Butler v. State, 128 Tenn. 164, 159 S.W. 602, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1913).

The complainant's unlawful extension of his fences over upon the defendant's land and possession did not effect a lawful change of the possession, and gave him no right to the possession of the timber, though cut and severed upon the land, so as to entitle him to replevin such logs and timber, partly cut and severed by him and cut and severed by defendant, and all removed from the land by defendant, after his abatement of the private nuisance so created by complainant's extension of his fences, by tearing down such fences, peaceably and without committing a breach of the peace. Walker v. Davis, 139 Tenn. 475, 202 S.W. 78, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (1918).

37. —Undivided Chattel Claimed Jointly by Plaintiff and Defendant.

The action of replevin will not lie to recover an undivided part of a specific chattel claimed jointly by plaintiff and defendant, where there has been no severance of the joint ownership. Jackson v. Stockard, 68 Tenn. 260, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (1878).

38. Maxims Available to Defendant.

The maxim that “he who seeks equity must do equity” is available to defendant in a replevin suit brought under the extended statutory jurisdiction of the chancery court without pleading it. Sartain v. Dixie Coal & Iron Co., 150 Tenn. 633, 266 S.W. 313, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1924).

Whether the complainant comes under the original or under the statutory jurisdiction of the chancery court, he must come with clean hands, and must, in proper case, do equity. Sartain v. Dixie Coal & Iron Co., 150 Tenn. 633, 266 S.W. 313, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1924).

39. Amendment of Answer.

In a replevin bill for coal, in which the original sworn answer alleged that not more than one-fifth of the coal came from complainant's land, an allowance of amendment to the pleading that no part thereof came from such land, without objection thereto on the part of the complainant, was not an abuse of the court's discretion. Sartain v. Dixie Coal & Iron Co., 150 Tenn. 633, 266 S.W. 313, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1924).

40. Death of Defendant Pending Appeal — Revivor.

Where the appellant, who was the defendant below in a replevin suit, died pending the appeal, the suit may be revived in the name of his nonresident heirs, if no one will administer in this state, and the proof of heirship and no administration in this state may be made in the appellate court. Campbell v. Hubbard, 79 Tenn. 6, 1883 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1883).

41. Surety — Effect of Judgment.

Surety on replevin bond is bound by the result of the litigation with his principal; and, if the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, he is bound by the orders and judgment of the court. Wells v. W. L. Griffin & Co., 39 Tenn. 568, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 279 (1859); Barry v. Frayser, 57 Tenn. 206, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 416 (1872); Upton v. Philips, 58 Tenn. 215, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 249 (1872).

If a judgment be rendered by the appellate court against a surety upon a replevin bond, or any other bond taken in the progress of the cause, on motion, without notice, the remedy of such person, if he contests his liability, if the amount is $50.00 or more, is in chancery, and if less than $50.00 the remedy is in the appellate court where the execution will be superseded, and the cause remanded for trial of the issue joined. Dodds v. Duncan, 80 Tenn. 731, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 157 (1884); Wyler, Ackerland & Co. v. Blevins, 113 Tenn. 528, 82 S.W. 829, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1904).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin § 101 et seq.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 325 et seq.

Action against landowner for recovery of possession of cut timber after his revocation of license. 26 A.L.R.2d 1194.

Availability of replevin or similar possessory action to one not claiming as heir, legatee, or creditor of decedent's estate, against personal representative. 42 A.L.R.2d 418.

Bank account, replevin for. 44 A.L.R. 1522.

Claim of interest in property or other conduct of defendant after commencement of replevin action, as excusing or waiving demand. 145 A.L.R. 743.

Conditional seller's action of replevin to recover possession of forfeited property, demand for payment or possession as condition precedent. 59 A.L.R. 140.

Contempt by replevying goods seized in execution. 27 A.L.R. 1225.

Damages from wrongful seizure of property, right to maintain action for, on replevin bond or must claim for, be interposed in replevin action. 85 A.L.R. 682.

Evidence for use in a criminal trial, right to recover property held by public authorities as. 11 A.L.R. 681, 13 A.L.R. 1168.

Executor, administrator or trustee, replevin against, in official capacity. 44 A.L.R. 637, 127 A.L.R. 687.

Federal control of railroad as affecting right to recover shipment by replevin against carrier. 8 A.L.R. 982, 10 A.L.R. 956, 11 A.L.R. 1450, 14 A.L.R. 234, 19 A.L.R. 678, 52 A.L.R. 296.

Illegal contract, rule that denies remedy in case of, as applicable to an action of replevin or detinue for property possession of which was obtained by defendant as result of such a contract with the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest. 132 A.L.R. 619.

Indebtedness of plaintiff to defendant, or latter's claim of indebtedness, as defense in action of replevin. 100 A.L.R. 1376.

Joint owner of personal property, right of, to maintain replevin against third person. 110 A.L.R. 353.

Judgment by consent, confession or default of principal as affecting sureties whose obligation is conditioned upon judicial determination of liability of principal. 51 A.L.R. 1493.

Loss or destruction of property pending replevin action as affecting liability under bond given therein. 31 A.L.R. 1290.

Mere possession in plaintiff as basis of action of replevin. 150 A.L.R. 163.

Moving picture film. 19 A.L.R. 1015.

Partner's right to maintain action of replevin or unlawful detainer against copartner. 21 A.L.R. 21, 168 A.L.R 1088.

Political subdivision, right to return in specie of property received by, under invalid or unenforceable contract. 93 A.L.R. 441.

Real property, duty and liability of one in possession of, in respect to personal property which he finds thereon belonging to another. 131 A.L.R. 165.

Remedy of replevin where agent, employed to purchase personal property, buys it for himself. 20 A.L.R.2d 1140.

Rescission of contract, right to litigate question of, in replevin action. 94 A.L.R. 960.

Rule that in general inhibits foreign corporation which has failed to comply with conditions of doing business in state, or domestic corporation which has forfeited its charter, from maintaining action, as applicable to action of replevin. 136 A.L.R. 1162.

Sheriff or other officer levying on property, duty of, to bring replevin upon loss of possession. 138 A.L.R. 741.

Stolen chattels, demand as a condition of replevin against innocent purchaser of. 51 A.L.R. 1465.

Superior title or lien of third person, or seizure thereunder, as affecting liability. 36 A.L.R. 1102.

Undivided share in or undivided quantity of a larger mass, replevin for. 26 A.L.R. 1015.

Wrongful seizure of property, may or must claim for damages from, be interposed in replevin action. 85 A.L.R. 674.

29-30-102. Jurisdiction and venue.

  1. The action may be instituted in the court of general sessions or in the circuit court or chancery court.
  2. The action may be instituted in any county where any part of the personal property is located, in the county where the contract was executed, in the county where any defendant resides or in the county where the address of any defendant was stated to be in any writing on which the plaintiff's claim to possession is founded.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 2; T.C.A., § 23-2342.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 17 Tenn. Juris., Justices of Peace and General Sessions Courts, § 19; 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 15.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Venue.

The issues of proper venue are contingent upon whether there is proper joinder of parties. Fred's Finance Co. v. Fred's of Dyersburg, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 903, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3203 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

29-30-103. Complaint or warrant — Affidavit — Exhibit.

  1. The action to recover personal property shall be commenced by filing a complaint in the circuit or chancery court, or by causing a warrant to issue in the general sessions court.
  2. If the plaintiff's right of possession is founded upon a writing, a copy of the writing shall be attached as an exhibit to the affidavit.
  3. The complaint or warrant shall be sworn to, or have attached a sworn affidavit. The following facts shall be sworn to:
    1. That the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the described property and the reason plaintiff is so entitled;
    2. A description which reasonably identifies the property sought; and
    3. The value of the property.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 3; T.C.A., § 23-2343.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 483.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 15, 17, 19.

Law Reviews.

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Lack of Affidavit — Effect.

Where there was no affidavit, the replevin suit will be dismissed, upon motion, but if the property was not taken under the replevin writ, the suit may be sustained as an action of detinue or in case. Stone v. Hopkins, 58 Tenn. 190, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 245 (1872).

2. Sufficiency of Affidavit.

The plaintiff is not required to state the value of the property in his affidavit, nor is the clerk required to state it in his writ. The bond is required to fix the value of the property. Cline v. Gaut, 48 Tenn. 399, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1870).

The affidavit for a writ of replevin stating that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the property, describing it, that it is in the possession of the defendant, and that such property was not subject to seizure, is in substantial compliance with the statutory requirement that it shall state “that the defendant has seized, or that he detains the same.” Cartwright v. Smith, 104 Tenn. 689, 58 S.W. 331, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1900).

3. Time of Objection to Defects.

Objections of a formal character to the affidavit, upon which a justice's replevin writ issued, had to be made in the justice's court, or the same were waived. Cartwright v. Smith, 104 Tenn. 689, 58 S.W. 331, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1900).

Once property involved is placed in hands of plaintiff in a replevin proceeding he and his sureties cannot thereafter contend that affidavit is defective because plaintiff did not sign affidavit. Pruitt v. Cantrell, 196 Tenn. 142, 264 S.W.2d 793, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (1954).

4. Amendment.

Affidavit could be amended, either before the justice or in the circuit court. Applewhite v. Allen, 27 Tenn. 697, 1848 Tenn. LEXIS 23 (1848).

Collateral References.

Officer's jurat or certificate to affidavit for, necessity, sufficiency of. 1 A.L.R. 1568, 116 A.L.R. 587.

Possessory warrant 2.

29-30-104. Filing of action — Process — Possessory hearing — Procedure — Forms.

  1. The action to recover personal property shall be filed with the clerk and process shall issue. The process shall show on its face that a possessory hearing will be held on a date and a time specified before the judge or chancellor of the court where the action is filed.
  2. The purpose of the possessory hearing is to protect the defendant's use and possession of the property from arbitrary or mistaken deprivation. If the judge shall, after conducting the possessory hearing, find that the plaintiff's claim for immediate possession should be sustained, the judge shall issue a writ of possession.
  3. The possessory hearing shall be held in not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days after the process is served upon the defendant; provided, failure to do so within the time period shall not be grounds for dismissal.
  4. The process shall notify the defendant that if the defendant fails to appear and offer evidence, the court shall issue the writ of possession, and in actions filed in courts of general sessions, the process shall also notify the defendant that if the defendant fails to appear and offer evidence, the judge shall enter a default judgment for the relief sought in the warrant.
  5. Whether or not the claim for immediate possession is allowed at a possessory hearing the action commenced hereunder shall be tried in all respects as other actions are tried in the particular court in which it is filed.
  6. The process in general sessions court shall have attached or annexed to it a blank form for the use of the court in entering its judgment and a blank form for the use of the defendant or defendants in waiving a hearing, all of which shall be in substantially the following form:

    “State of Tennessee

    County of

    To any lawful officer to execute and return:

    Summon  to appear before the court of general sessions of  County, Tennessee, to be held in the courtroom of the court in that county, on the  day of  , 20  , at  a.m., then and there to answer in a civil action brought by  for  under $ .

    This is the  day of  , 20 .

    Clerk of the Court of General

    Sessions

    By:

    Deputy Clerk

    Judgment for the plaintiff for $  and the costs of the cause, and for the possession of the property described in the warrant. The officer is hereby directed to take the property described in the warrant out of the possession of the defendant(s) and deliver the same to the plaintiff(s). The plaintiff(s) shall dispose of the property in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and shall notify the defendant(s) the amount to be credited against this judgment prior to the issuance of any writ of execution.

    This  day of  , 20 .

    Judge”

    “WAIVER

    I (we),  , the defendant(s) herein, acknowledge that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the described property, and I (we) hereby voluntarily waive any right to a hearing by tendering the property herewith to the officer, and I (we) acknowledge that if I (we) do not appear and answer as to the merits of the matter on the date specified herein, that a default judgment may be entered against me (us). I (we) the defendant(s) herein acknowledge that the process server has read and explained to me (us) that I (we) have a constitutional right to a hearing and that I (we) are not required to sign this document of waiver and that I (we) have signed this document of waiver voluntarily.

    Defendant(s)”

    If the action to recover personal property is an action to satisfy a lien on a motor vehicle for repayment of a loan, the process in general sessions court shall also have attached or annexed to it a blank inventory from which shall be in substantially the following form:

    “INVENTORY

    I (we),   , the defendant(s) herein, acknowledge that the following items are attached to or a part of the motor vehicle which is the subject of this action as described by the officer serving this process:

    1. (tires, type and model)
    2. (radio equipment)
    3. (stereo or tape equipment)
    4. (citizen's band radio)
    5. (other special items added to vehicle after purchase)

      Defendant(s)  (Date)

      Officer Serving Process  (Date)

  7. No objection shall be made as to the form of process if the essential matters of this section are set forth in the process.
  8. The process in all other courts shall have attached or annexed to it a blank form for the use of the defendant or defendants in waiving a hearing, all of which shall be in substantially the following form:

    “State of Tennessee

    County of

    To the Sheriff of  County:

    I command you to summon the defendant,  , to appear before  , judge or chancellor for this county, on the  day of  , 20 , and answer the complaint of the plaintiff,  , for recovery of the following property:

    (Describe property)

    This the  day of  , 20

    Circuit Court Clerk (or Clerk and Master)

    By:  ”

    “WAIVER

    I (we),  , the defendant(s) herein, acknowledge that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the described property, and I (we) hereby voluntarily waive any right to a hearing by tendering the property herewith to the officer and acknowledge that if I (we) do not appear and answer as to the entire matter on the date specified herein, a default judgment may be entered against me (us).

    Defendant(s)”

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 4; 1979, ch. 290, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-2344.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 25.

Law Reviews.

Actions for Possession of Personal Property or, “Son of Replevin,” 23 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 27 (1987).

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Cited: Fred's Finance Co. v. Fred's of Dyersburg, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 903, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3203 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Except for the provisions of § 29-30-106 relating to the expedition of possessory hearings, actions commenced pursuant to this section are governed by the remaining provisions of this part. Mack Financial Corp. v. Clevinger, 489 F. Supp. 1301, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

2. Time of Hearing.

It is specifically required by subsection (c) that a possessory hearing shall be held in not less than five nor more than 20 days after the process is served upon the defendant. Mack Financial Corp. v. Clevinger, 489 F. Supp. 1301, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Collateral References. Possessory warrant 3.

29-30-105. Restraining order against defendant — Penalty for violation — Form of order.

  1. If requested by the plaintiff and upon the plaintiff's posting bond in an amount to be determined by the court, but not to exceed the value of the property, the judge may concurrently issue an order restraining the defendant from damaging, concealing or removing such property from the court's jurisdiction.
  2. Upon proper showing that such order has been violated, the defendant commits a Class C misdemeanor.
  3. The restraining order shall be substantially in the following form:

    “FIAT

    Upon the plaintiff posting a bond in the amount of $  , the defendant(s) is (are) hereby restrained from damaging, concealing or removing the described property from the jurisdiction of this court.

    Judge (Chancellor)”

    IF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER IS VIOLATED, THE DEFENDANT(S) COMMITS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT FOR EACH VIOLATION TO A FINE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00) OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS, OR BOTH.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 5; T.C.A., § 23-2345; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 18.

Law Reviews.

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Collateral References. Injunction 150.

29-30-106. Procedure to expedite action for writ of possession.

  1. As an alternative to commencing an action to recover personal property as otherwise provided in this part, any party needing or desiring to expedite the proceeding may commence and expedite the action by proceeding as follows:
    1. Application for a writ of possession may be made to the appropriate court at the beginning of the first session of court during the day, or at such other time of day as the court, by local rule, has established. Either simultaneously with the making of such application or prior thereto, the party seeking a writ of possession shall file a verified complaint with which shall be exhibited a copy of any writing upon which the alleged claim to possession is founded. Upon the making of such application, the court shall hear the parties and shall order the writ of possession issued giving the plaintiff immediate possession of the property where the court finds either:
      1. That at least five (5) days prior to such application plaintiff mailed by certified mail or delivered to defendant a notice of the time and place of such application and that:
        1. Such notice had either been received by the defendant, or was directed to the defendant at the address stated in any writing, signed by the defendant, and on which the plaintiff's claim to possession is founded;
        2. Such notice was accompanied by a copy of plaintiff's complaint, including a copy of any writing on which the plaintiff's claim to possession was founded; and
        3. The plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property, or that there is no substantial controversy as to the plaintiff's right to such possession; or
        1. (a)  That the property was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or theft, or
  2. That the defendant is:
    1. Concealing the property;
    2. Likely to remove it from the jurisdiction of the court;
    3. Likely to dispose of the property;
    4. Endangering the property by unusually hazardous use; or
    5. Seriously impairing the plaintiff's security interest in the property, such as by use in some manner other than that contemplated by the parties, or by failing to maintain hazard insurance on the property where the written instrument or agreement on which the plaintiff's claim is founded requires such insurance;
      1. If, at the time the plaintiff makes application pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A), the defendant does not appear, there shall be an inference that the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's right to possession, and the writ of possession shall be issued if the verified complaint demonstrates the plaintiff's right to possession. The writ shall direct the officer to take possession of the property and deliver it to the plaintiff and to summon the defendant to appear and answer within ten (10) days if the action is in the court of general sessions and within thirty (30) days if in any other court;
      2. In like manner, where a writ of possession is issued pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(B), the writ shall direct the officer to take possession of the property and deliver it to the plaintiff and to summon the defendant to appear and answer within ten (10) days if the action is in the court of general sessions and within thirty (30) days if in any other court;
      3. When the defendant appears and resists the plaintiff's application for a writ of possession made in accordance with subdivision (a)(1)(A), the court shall at that time either try the action or:
        1. Fix a time within which defendant shall answer;
        2. Fix a time for the trial; and
        3. Determine which party shall have possession of the property pending a final determination by the court and condition such possession upon the posting of such bond as the court may deem advisable. Where such party fails or refuses to post such bond, the officer shall take possession of the property and retain it either until the bond is posted or until the court enters its final judgment.

A writ of possession issued pursuant to this subdivision (B) shall be conditioned on the plaintiff's posting a bond in an amount fixed by the court which shall not be less than the value of the property;

(A)  If, at the time the plaintiff makes application pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A), the defendant appears and admits in open court the plaintiff's right to possession of the property, the court shall issue a writ of possession to the plaintiff;

Except for the provisions of this section which must be complied with in order to expedite the proceeding, actions commenced pursuant to this section shall be governed by the remaining provisions of this part.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-2346.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 3, 19, 25.

Law Reviews.

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Except for the provisions of this section relating to the expedition of possessory hearings, actions commenced pursuant to § 29-30-104 are governed by the remaining provisions of this part. Mack Financial Corp. v. Clevinger, 489 F. Supp. 1301, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

2. Constitutionality.

The provisions of this section providing for pre-notice and prehearing repossession of personal property sold under conditional sales contract were held not to be unconstitutional as depriving the owner of his property without procedural due process of law under Amend. 14, U. S. Const. Woods v. Tennessee, 378 F. Supp. 1364, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8020 (W.D. Tenn. 1974).

Collateral References. Possessory warrant 1.

29-30-107. Writ of possession — Execution — Preservation of property — Answer.

  1. The writ of possession shall direct the proper officer to take the property out of the possession of the defendant and deliver the same to the plaintiff.
  2. The writ of possession shall be executed by the proper officer by seizing the personal property and delivering the same to the plaintiff.
  3. If the property subject to the action hereunder is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value, the court shall issue such other and further orders as it may find necessary to preserve the property or the value thereof for the benefit of either or both of the parties pending such final determination of the litigation.
  4. If the action in circuit or chancery courts is answered before or after the possessory hearing, the answer shall set forth with reasonable certainty the location of the personal property and any and all rights, remedies, credits, setoffs, or affirmative action growing out of the same matter the defendant may have had against the plaintiff.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 7; T.C.A., § 23-2347.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Collateral References. Possessory warrant 3.

29-30-108. Additional relief — Prerequisites to deficiency judgment.

  1. In an action to recover personal property, in addition to the recovery of the property, the plaintiff may proceed to recover the balance due on the debt or the plaintiff may, in addition to recovering the personal property, obtain a judgment against the defendant for any debt or other claim arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances, or the plaintiff may proceed solely for recovery of the personal property with the right to seek a judgment for additional relief in a subsequent action.
  2. No deficiency judgment shall be obtained by the plaintiff or plaintiffs until plaintiff or plaintiffs shall have complied with all requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code applicable thereto.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 8; T.C.A., § 23-2348.

Law Reviews.

Creation, Perfection, and Enforcement of Security Interest Under the “Tennessee” Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 819 (1981).

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Cited: International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Hill, 496 F. Supp. 329, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9181 (M.D. Tenn. 1979); Gibson Lumber Co. v. Neely Coble Co., 651 S.W.2d 232, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 561 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

29-30-109. Execution of appeal bond.

In the event an appeal is perfected to the supreme court or to the court of appeals, or to the circuit court from such judgment, the appellant shall execute an appeal bond as is otherwise provided for by law.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 9; T.C.A., § 23-2349.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Collateral References. Possessory warrant 6.

29-30-110. Exemplary damages — Attorneys fees.

The court may, in proper cases, give exemplary damages, including reasonable attorneys fees, in favor of the defendant for the plaintiff's wrongful suing out of this possessory action or in the event that the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action after it has been instituted.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 11; T.C.A., § 23-2350.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Cited: Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

29-30-111. Issue of counterparts of writs.

Counterpart of the writ of possession may issue, upon suggestion of the plaintiff, to any other county, to be executed upon the goods, or chattels, or served upon defendants found in such county. The court has power to order the issuance of alias and pluries process and writs of possession, and the necessary counterparts thereof, as often as may be necessary.

Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 13; T.C.A., § 23-2351.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 19.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. In General.

Except for the provisions of § 29-30-106 relating to the expedition of possessory hearings, actions commenced pursuant to § 29-30-104 are governed by the remaining provisions of this part. Mack Financial Corp. v. Clevinger, 489 F. Supp. 1301, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Property Out of County When Suit Brought.

Jurisdiction of property out of the county at the time replevin suit is instituted may be thereafter acquired when defendant is regularly brought before the court. Miles v. Securities Inv. Co., 171 Tenn. 417, 104 S.W.2d 823, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 121, 104 A.L.R. 823 (1937).

2. Issuance and Writ to Other Counties.

Where a writ of replevin is not fully executed by service upon one of the defendants, a counterpart of the writ, under the statute, may be issued to any other county of the state to be executed upon the goods sought to be replevied. Miles v. Securities Inv. Co., 171 Tenn. 417, 104 S.W.2d 823, 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 121, 104 A.L.R. 823 (1937).

Part 2
Detinue

29-30-201. Detinue.

Where the action is to recover specific personal property, if the party seeks to recover the possession only at the end of the suit, the party may bring detinue.

Code 1858, § 2749; Shan., § 4440; Code 1932, § 8566; Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 12(a); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2301.

Cross-References. One form of action, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 2.

Replevy of attached property, §§ 29-6-149, 29-6-150, 29-6-151, 29-6-152, 29-6-153, 29-6-154, 29-6-155, 29-6-156.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 483.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 1, 23.

Law Reviews.

Attorney v. Client: Lien Rights and Remedies in Tennessee (Margret H. Tucker), 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 435.

Pleading — General Issue — Scope in Tennessee, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 256.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Replevin and Non-Judicial Repossession in Light of, Fuentes v. Shevin, 3 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 125.

Replevin — Prior Notice and Hearing — Due Process, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 125.

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

Cited: Patton v. Beech, 2 Tenn. App. 437, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction of Chancery Court.

In view of the enlarged jurisdiction of the chancery court by § 16-11-102, such court may entertain an action in detinue. Patton v. Hardison, 20 Tenn. App. 585, 101 S.W.2d 698, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

2. Protection Pending Appeal.

If suit is in detinue the property is to remain in possession of the defendant pending an appeal after a decision in favor of plaintiff, however should the plaintiff feel aggrieved by reason of the fact that the defendant is not required to give a delivery bond he may apply to the circuit court for an injunction or stay order to preserve the status quo pending final disposition of the case. Swan v. Williams, 206 Tenn. 33, 330 S.W.2d 557, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1959).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Former Statute Unconstitutional.

Former provisions of this chapter were unconstitutional under due process clause of constitution insofar as they authorized a deprivation of property without a right to prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin §§ 2, 5, 7.

1 C.J.S. Actions § 36; 26A C.J.S. Detinue § 1; 77 C.J.S. Replevin §§ 1, 2.

Escrow, detinue to secure instrument or property placed in, where depositary fails or refuses to deliver notwithstanding performance of condition of delivery. 95 A.L.R. 297.

Detinue 1.

29-30-202. Venue of action.

The action may be brought in any county in which the goods and chattels, or any part of them, are, or in which either of the defendants may be found.

Code 1858, § 3375 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 65, § 1; 1853-1854, ch. 60, § 1); Shan., § 5129; Code 1932, § 9284; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2303.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Necessary Allegations.

Administrator appointed by county court was not entitled to file a proceeding in chancery court located in same county to recover assets of estate from defendant living in another county where it was not alleged that chattels or goods were located in county of suit. Harris v. Harris, 190 Tenn. 506, 230 S.W.2d 982, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1950).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin § 57.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 86.

Proper county for bringing replevin, or similar possessory action. 60 A.L.R.2d 487.

Replevin 19.

29-30-203. Procedure after personal service but failure to get property.

If the officer's return is that the officer has summoned the defendant, but could not get possession of the goods and chattels sued for, the plaintiff may elect to proceed in case or detinue, and then the cause shall be conducted as if the leading process had been in one of those forms.

Code 1858, § 3383 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 65, § 12); Shan., § 5137; Code 1932, § 9292; Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 12(c); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2310.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 14.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

The Constitutionality of Prejudgment Seizure of Property Under Tennessee Law (Roger W. Dickson), 38 Tenn. L. Rev. 575.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This part was unconstitutional under due process clause of constitution insofar as they authorized a deprivation of property without a right to prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Where the state replevin laws were found unconstitutional, the words “…or, the plaintiff may sue out an alias and pluries writ of replevin, in order to get possession of the goods” should be excised from this section. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Defective Record.

On application for certiorari to the court of appeals, in an action of detinue, where no service of the warrant issued by justice (now general sessions judge) appears in transcript, but no question of service was raised below, and it affirmatively appears from the evidence that there was such a return, it will be treated as misprision of the clerk in preparing the transcript. Hardcastle v. National Clothing Co., 137 Tenn. 64, 191 S.W. 524, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 52 (1916).

Decisions Under Prior Law

1. Prosecution in Detinue.

Where the action was commenced in replevin, and upon plaintiff's failure to get possession of the property under the writ, the case may be then prosecuted in detinue or for the value of the property, without an affidavit and under the pauper's oath. Stone v. Hopkins, 58 Tenn. 190, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 245 (1872). See Horton v. Vowel, 51 Tenn. 622, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 214 (1871).

Where the suit was originally commenced in replevin, the case may be prosecuted in detinue, if the possession of the goods be not obtained. Williams v. Elkins, 48 Tenn. 88, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1870); Brooks v. Paper Co., 94 Tenn. 701, 31 S.W. 160, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1895).

2. Replevin Suit After Judgment in Case.

Where the plaintiff, failing to get possession of the property, proceeded in case and recovered judgment, the execution whereon was returned nulla bona, such judgment is no bar to a subsequent action of replevin to get possession of the property itself, when found. Turner v. Brock, 53 Tenn. 50, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1871).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 119.

Replevin 34-38.

29-30-204. Publication on nonresident.

Should the defendant, or any defendant, be a nonresident of the state, the officer shall return the fact and the court shall order publication to be made for four (4) successive weeks in some newspaper published in the county in which the suit is pending, or in the nearest county. The publication shall state the names of the parties and briefly set forth the nature of the writ.

Code 1858, § 3385 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 60, § 3); Shan., § 5139; mod. Code 1932, § 9294; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2312.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 115.

Replevin 41, 42.

29-30-205. Clerk's liability for insufficient bond.

The clerk shall not be exempt, by reason of such orders made by the court, from liability for any damages proceeding from failure to take good and sufficient security.

Code 1858, § 3393 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 65, § 4); Shan., § 5148; Code 1932, § 9303; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2314.

Compiler's Notes. The applicability of this section may be affected by Acts 1973, ch. 365 which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 102.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. Replevin 124.

29-30-206. Trial without personal service.

If there be no personal service, the court shall impanel a jury and try the cause as though the defendant had filed a plea.

Code 1858, § 3387 (deriv. Acts 1853-1854, ch. 60, § 2); Shan., § 5141; Code 1932, § 9296; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2316.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 115.

Replevin 85-97.

29-30-207. Monetary damages.

On the issue being found for the plaintiff, or in case of default, upon writ of inquiry, the jury shall ascertain the plaintiff's damages for the seizure and detention, and judgment shall be rendered therefor with costs.

Code 1858, § 3389 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 65, § 8; 1853-1854, ch. 60, § 2); Shan., § 5143; Code 1932, § 9298; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2318.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 21, 22.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Damages in Chancery.

The chancery court has jurisdiction under this chapter concurrent with the circuit court and upon the issue being found for the complainants, damages for the seizure and detention may be awarded, for where the chancery court acquires jurisdiction for one purpose it may proceed to decide all the issues and to award complete relief. Summers & Lewis v. Sanderson, 7 Tenn. App. 624, — S.W.2d —, 1928 Tenn. App. LEXIS 88 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1928).

3. Instructions as to Amount of Damages.

It is error to instruct the jury that if they find in favor of the plaintiff he will be entitled to recover the property and one cent damages. Under this section, it is the duty of the jury to ascertain the damages of plaintiff for the seizure and detention. Parham v. Riley, 44 Tenn. 5, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1867).

4. Effect of Discharge in Bankruptcy.

Where plaintiff sued in replevin to recover a ring, under a title retaining contract, and, failing to recover the ring, was awarded a money judgment, and on appeal to the circuit court defendant pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy, and that plaintiff's claim had been scheduled therein, plaintiff having sued on a secured debt, and having the option of so suing or filing his claim in bankruptcy his action could not be stayed by the bankrupt. De Busk v. United Jewelry Co., 169 Tenn. 645, 90 S.W.2d 528, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1936).

5. Necessity of Judgment.

It is necessary that some judgment be entered, either for the plaintiff under this section for damages, or for the defendant under § 29-30-208 that the goods be returned to him or in lieu thereof that defendant recover the value. Parks v. McGuire, 197 Tenn. 32, 270 S.W.2d 347, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 448 (1954).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin §§ 59, 101, 114, 115, 119-129.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 263.

Alternative judgment in replevin as giving option to either party in regard to payment of damages or return of property. 170 A.L.R. 122.

Recovery of attorney's fees as damages by successful litigant in replevin or detinue action. 60 A.L.R.2d 945.

Recovery of damages in replevin for value of use of property detained, by successful party having only security interest as conditional vendor, chattel mortgagee, or the like. 33 A.L.R.2d 774.

Right of plaintiff in replevin to damages for detention of property during pendency of action as affected by his failure to claim immediate possession by complying with statutory provisions in that regard. 164 A.L.R. 758.

Detinue 19.

29-30-208. Judgment for defendant.

If the issue is found for the defendant, or the plaintiff dismisses or fails to prosecute the suit, the judgment shall be that the goods be returned to the defendant, or, on failure, that the defendant recover their value, with interest thereon and damages for the detention, the value of the property and the damages to be assessed by the jury trying the cause; or, where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, by a jury impaneled for the purpose.

Code 1858, § 3390 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 65, § 9); Shan., § 5144; Code 1932, § 9299; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2319.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 18—22.

Law Reviews.

Procedure and Evidence — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Edmund M. Morgan), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1071.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Replevin — Prior Notice and Hearing — Due Process, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 125.

Cited: Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. In General.

If judgment is for the defendant, he is entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff for the value of the property replevined with interest, and damages for the detention of the property, but such judgment to be satisfied by a return of the property. Patton v. Beech, 2 Tenn. App. 437, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

3. Specification of Property in Verdict and Judgment — Necessity.

Where neither the verdict nor the judgment specifies the property sued for, in an action of replevin, both the verdict and judgment are void for uncertainty. Harris v. Austell, 61 Tenn. 148, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 353 (1872).

4. Fixing Value of Property.

Although it was error if jury did not fix value of property in case where defendant was successful in replevin suit, where judgment fixed its value at $250 and plaintiff in replevin made no objection to such value, plaintiff could not thereafter question value, and surety on replevin bond having no higher standing than its principal, court had no authority, on application of surety, to change amount of value after expiration of more than 30 days from rendition of judgment. Braden v. Clark, 203 Tenn. 265, 310 S.W.2d 462, 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 299 (1958).

5. Return of Property — Effect.

The defendant who succeeds in an action of replevin is entitled to the damages assessed by the jury for the detention of the property, without regard to the fact that the property has or has not been returned to him. The return of the property replevined only discharges the judgment for its value, but does not affect the defendant's right to damages for its detention. Haskins & Reynolds v. Everett, 36 Tenn. 531, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1857); Colby v. Yates, 59 Tenn. 267, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1873).

The judgment for the value of the property and interest may be satisfied by a return of the property, but the judgment for damages for seizure and detention of the property cannot be thus satisfied. If the property be restored to the defendant, he is entitled to no interest upon his assessed value. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869); Smith v. Roby, 53 Tenn. 546, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1871); Richards v. Craig, 67 Tenn. 457, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 400 (1874).

The judgment for costs is not satisfied by a return of the property. Hamilton v. Henney Buggy Co., 102 Tenn. 714, 52 S.W. 160, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1899).

6. Judgment in Alternative.

The judgment for defendant in a replevin suit should be for the damages for the detention of the property, but an unconditional judgment should not be pronounced for the value of the property replevined; for the judgment should be that the goods be restored to the defendant, or on failure of the plaintiff to restore them that the defendant recover the assessed value thereof, with interest, and thereupon execution should be awarded. Sayers v. Holmes, 42 Tenn. 259, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1865).

7. Property Destroyed — Judgment in Alternative Unnecessary.

Where it is established by the undisputed proof that the replevined property was destroyed before the trial, it is not error to decline to render judgment allowing the discharge of the money judgment by the return of the property. Epperson v. Van Pelt, 68 Tenn. 73, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1876).

8. Enforcement of Judgment for Value — Defendant's Right.

The successful defendant in replevin has the right to enforce by execution his alternative money judgment for the value of the property, unless the plaintiff can and does return the whole of the property, or offers to do so, or has the right, under the judgment of the court, to return less than the whole and to make an ascertained money compensation for the remainder. Connor v. Bates, 92 Tenn. 465, 22 S.W. 4, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1893).

9. Loss of Property in Plaintiff's Possession.

The plaintiff in replevin is not liable for the death or destruction of the replevined property, while in his possession and before the trial, but without his fault, though the suit be decided against him. Bobo v. Patton, 53 Tenn. 172, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 338, 19 Am. Rep. 593 (1871); Epperson v. Van Pelt, 68 Tenn. 73, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1876).

Where the property replevined is proved to have been destroyed, without any evidence to show whether it was destroyed by the plaintiff's fault, he will be held liable for the value thereof, where the judgment is for the defendant. Epperson v. Van Pelt, 68 Tenn. 73, 1876 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1876).

The question being one of common law and not statutory, the federal court declined to follow the state court, and held that impossibility to return property did not relieve plaintiff from liability in case of judgment for defendant. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 133 F. 479, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4436, 69 L.R.A. 283 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1904). But see on question of federal courts following state decisions on common law Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 984, 114 A.L.R. 1487 (1938).

10. Evidence of Value of Property — Necessity.

It is error to render money judgment for defendant on the bond, in absence of evidence of the value of the property. Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914); Frazier v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 164 Tenn. 8, 46 S.W.2d 62, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1932).

11. Date as of Which Property Valued.

Where the verdict is for the defendant, the value of the property is to be assessed as it stood at the date of its seizure under the writ. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

12. Separate Assessment of Different Articles — Necessity.

Where the verdict is for the defendant, if the property sued for be all of a like character, and not possessed of a separate and distinct quality, and be so described in the pleadings, as so many barrels of corn, a general verdict of value will be proper; but if the property replevined be of different kinds, and separate and distinct articles, having no identity of character, as a horse or cow, the value ought to be assessed for each separate article, with interest, and damages for the detention of each article, so that the plaintiff may return such articles as may be under his control, and pay for such as he may be unable to return. Pickett v. Bridges, 29 Tenn. 171, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1849); Sayers v. Holmes, 42 Tenn. 259, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1865).

13. Value of Property and Damages for Detention — Separate Assessment.

In replevin suits, the value of the property and the damages for the detention thereof constitute separate and independent items, and the jury has no power to amalgamate them, but must return them separately, in order that the plaintiff may not be confounded by uncertainty, but may distinctly know what damages are given against him for the seizure and detention, and what he has to pay provided he returns the property, and in order that it may be seen whether the damages are excessive. Hashville & Ins.Trust Co. v. Alexander, 29 Tenn. 378, 1849 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1849); Sayers v. Holmes, 42 Tenn. 259, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1865).

14. Damages for Injury to Property — Exclusion from Damages for Detention.

Injury to the property during the detention is not to be included in the damages for the detention, but may be subsequently sued for in a separate action. Colby v. Yates, 59 Tenn. 267, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 56 (1873).

15. Principles Governing Allowance for Damages.

Our statutes expressly confer a large discretion upon the jury in ascertaining the damages for the seizure and detention of property in replevin. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

The damage to the defendant, if any by loss of the use and enjoyment or hire of the property, may be allowed by the jury. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

If the property is damaged or deteriorated in actual value while in the plaintiff's custody in any respect, not the normal wear and deterioration which is compensated by the allowance made for use or hire, this damage must be allowed in calculating the damages. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

If the market value of the property be less at the time of trial than when seized, the jury will allow the depreciation as damages. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

If the market value of the property has appreciated and remains at a higher value at the time of trial than when seized under the writ, this difference must be allowed the defendant as damages for the detention. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

If there has been a mere temporary increase in the market value of the property between the time of the seizure and the time of the trial, the value at the trial being no greater than at the time of the seizure, it will be left to the discretion of the jury whether they will allow damages for such temporary appreciation. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

16. Interest.

Interest, as a matter of law, is to be allowed from date of seizure under writ, for the statute requires the allowance of interest. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869).

If the property be restored to the defendant, he is entitled to no interest upon his assessed value. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869); Smith v. Roby, 53 Tenn. 546, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1871).

A judgment for the defendant in a replevin suit, allowing him interest on the value of the property seized during detention, cannot be impeached by motion to quash the execution issued thereon; but, if it could, the impeachment would be vain, as such judgment conforms strictly to the law. Dornan v. Benham Furniture Co., 102 Tenn. 303, 52 S.W. 38, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1899).

17. Excessive Levy and Conversion — Defendant's Rights.

A judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action of replevin is not a bar to a subsequent action by the defendant against the plaintiff for an excessive levy made by the officer at the instance of the plaintiff and for a conversion by the plaintiff, because, in the replevin suit, the question of the plaintiff's trespass in taking and converting other property was not involved, and could not be adjudicated. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 118 Tenn. 627, 102 S.W. 79, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1907).

Where it was adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to a less quantity than that sued for and levied on under the writ, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for the value of the excess so sued for and levied on, such judgment is not a bar to a subsequent suit by the defendant against the plaintiff for an excessive levy made by the officer, at the instance of the plaintiff. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 118 Tenn. 627, 102 S.W. 79, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1907).

An unsuccessful suit against an officer and his sureties, on their bond, for an excessive levy and wrongfully taking possession of property in excess of the quantity called for in the writ of replevin is not a bar to a subsequent suit against the plaintiff in the replevin suit for the conversion of property procured by him to be levied on under a writ of replevin, but not specified or called for in the writ. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 118 Tenn. 627, 102 S.W. 79, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 68 (1907).

18. Execution.

Where a judgment for the defendant is in the alternative for the return of the goods seized or their value in a sum specified, an execution issued thereon against the plaintiff's property for the value of the goods, without providing for satisfaction by return of the property, is fatally variant from the judgment, and will be quashed on motion. Dornan v. Benham Furniture Co., 102 Tenn. 303, 52 S.W. 38, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 50 (1899).

19. —Prerequisites to Execution in Detinue.

After a distringas issued in detinue has failed of its effect, an execution for the money may issue on a judgment in detinue; but if such execution be issued before it is ascertained, by the return of a distringas, that the thing cannot be had, it is certainly erroneous, if not irregular, and the plaintiff would acquire no title by his purchase of land sold under it, though the sale might be valid as to a stranger purchasing thereunder. Molloy's Ex'rs v. M'Daniel, 1 Tenn. 222, 1806 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1806); Waite v. Dolby, 27 Tenn. 406, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 92 (1847).

20. Remanding Case on Appeal.

Where judgment was for the value of the property alone and damages assessed without permission for plaintiff to return the property, the Supreme Court directed that the judgment provide for permission to return such property without remanding the case. Fugate v. Stapleton, 65 Tenn. 321, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 356 (1873).

Where no proof was taken as to the value of the property, and no issue submitted to the jury as to such value and the decree of chancery court only provided that the property was to be returned to the defendant within 30 days, the Court of Appeals remanded the cause to the chancery court to the end that unless the property be returned to the defendant within 30 days, the value of the property was to be determined and an alternative judgment rendered as provided in this section Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. Pope, 28 Tenn. App. 679, 192 S.W.2d 496, 1945 Tenn. App. LEXIS 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin §§ 59, 101, 102.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 264.

Alternative judgment in replevin as giving option to either party in regard to payment of damages or return of property. 170 A.L.R. 122.

Basis in case of alternative judgment in replevin, for determining value of property having different value when installed or used in connection with other property. 86 A.L.R. 111.

Judgment in replevin as implying a direction for return of property. 65 A.L.R. 1302.

Jurisdictional amount in replevin suit by several claimants. 72 A.L.R. 219.

Jurisdiction of justice of the peace, or similar court, in replevin action to recover fixtures on real property. 115 A.L.R. 524.

Lien of third person, sale of property under foreclosure of, while in hands of unsuccessful party, as affecting amount of alternative money judgment in replevin. 22 A.L.R. 215.

Sale price of property as sufficient evidence of value to support alternative money judgment in replevin action between the parties to the sale or between one of the parties and a third person. 149 A.L.R. 1027.

Voluntary dismissal of replevin action by plaintiff as affecting defendant's right to judgment for the return or value of the property. 24 A.L.R.3d 768.

Replevin 103.

29-30-209. Failure to return goods under alternative judgment for defendant.

Where judgment has been rendered in the alternative, under § 29-30-208, if the goods are not returned to the defendant, and the writ of fieri facias is returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part, the defendant may have an accordant final judgment over, by motion, without notice against plaintiff and plaintiff's sureties in the replevin bond, at the term of the court to which the fieri facias shall have been returned. The proceedings of the judgment final shall be a part of the record of the original cause.

Acts 1885, ch. 59, § 1; Shan., § 5145; Code 1932, § 9300; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2320.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, §§ 18, 21; 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, § 15.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Application and Effect.

This section does not affect the form or substance of an original judgment for the defendant in replevin, but provides for a supplemental judgment, not extinguishable, in whole or in part, by return of the property for any part of the original judgment that may remain unsatisfied upon the return of the first execution thereon. Hamilton v. Henney Buggy Co., 102 Tenn. 714, 52 S.W. 160, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1899).

3. Return of Part of Property and Payment of Remainder.

Where there is a judgment for the return of the property, or for its value, the plaintiff cannot return a part of the property and pay for the balance, unless this is the judgment of the court, and this section has no application to such case, but provides an additional remedy when such judgment cannot be executed. Connor v. Bates, 92 Tenn. 465, 22 S.W. 4, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 79 (1893); Leach v. Rich, 138 Tenn. 94, 196 S.W. 138, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1917).

4. Premature Judgment.

A judgment on a replevin bond, rendered at the trial term before the plaintiff has had an opportunity to return the property, and before the issuance of an execution, is premature, under this section. Nighbert v. Hornsby, 100 Tenn. 82, 42 S.W. 1060, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 91, 66 Am. St. Rep. 736 (1897).

A defect in the judgment upon the bond, in rendering same before return of execution unsatisfied, in whole or in part, is not cured by a provision therein staying its operation for 40 days. Nighbert v. Hornsby, 100 Tenn. 82, 42 S.W. 1060, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 91, 66 Am. St. Rep. 736 (1897).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin §§ 103, 107-113.

77 C.J.S. Replevin §§ 257-259.

Replevin 54.

29-30-210. Exemplary damages.

  1. The jury may, in proper cases, give exemplary damages in favor of either party.
  2. In all cases where the plaintiff fails to prosecute the suit with effect, the jury may make such valuation as will be likely to effect a return of the property to the defendant, if the character of the property is such as to make the return of the specific property important.

Code 1858, § 3391; Shan., § 5146; Code 1932, § 9301; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2321.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 22.

Law Reviews.

Punitive Damages in Tennessee (John H. Peay), 27 Tenn. L. Rev. 381.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Enforcing Return of Property.

This section expressly authorizes the jury to fix such valuation as will be likely to effect a return of the property to the defendant, if the character of the property is such as to make the return of the specific property important, but the statute makes no other provision for compelling the return of the property. Mayberry v. Cliffe, 47 Tenn. 117, 1869 Tenn. LEXIS 16 (1869); Choate v. Quinichett, 59 Tenn. 427, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 88 (1873).

Exemplary damages may be awarded under T.C.A. § 29-30-210 for wrongfully obtaining a writ of possession if the wrongdoer's actions have departed from the type of conduct that society has the right to expect. Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin § 117.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 285.

Availability and scope of punitive damages under state employment discrimination law. 81 A.L.R.5th 367.

Replevin 81.

29-30-211. [Reserved.]

The method of obtaining the writ shall be the same as when the suit is prosecuted in court, and the following shall in substance be the form of the writ:

State of Tennessee,              To the sheriff or any constable of such county:

County

I command you to summon  to appear before me, or some other general sessions judge of such county, to answer the complaint of  , for unlawfully taking out of the possession and detaining [describe the property], the property of  .

This  day of  , 20 . E.F., G.S.J.

Code 1858, § 3395 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 32, § 8); Shan., § 5150; Code 1932, § 9305; Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 12(d); impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2323.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Former provisions of this chapter were unconstitutional under due process clause of constitution insofar as they authorized a deprivation of property without a right to prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Where the state replevin laws were found unconstitutional, the words “And I also command you to take said property out of the possession of the said  , and deliver the same to the said  , he having given bond and security as required by law,” should be excised from this section. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972) (Decision prior to 1973 amendment which deleted such words).

2. Name of State Requisite.

Writ of replevin not running in the name of the state was void and not amendable. Reynolds v. Lowthrop, 7 Tenn. Civ. App. (7 Higgins) 12 (1916).

Collateral References. 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 113.

Replevin 34-38.

29-30-213. Execution of general sessions judge's writ.

Any constable may execute this writ, and, in exercising this power, shall be governed by the laws regulating sheriffs in the execution of a writ issued by a court.

Code 1858, § 3396 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 32, § 3); Shan., § 5151; Code 1932, § 9306; Acts 1973, ch. 365, § 12(e); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2324.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Cited: Patton v. Beech, 2 Tenn. App. 437, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Former provisions of this chapter were unconstitutional under due process clause of constitution insofar as they authorized a deprivation of property without a right to prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Where the state replevin laws were found unconstitutional, the words “of replevin” should be excised from this section. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. 51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace § 123; 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 116.

Replevin 5.

29-30-214. General sessions court judgment for defendant.

If the general sessions judge finds the issue in favor of the defendant, or the plaintiff dismisses or fails to prosecute the suit, the judge shall render judgment against the plaintiff and the plantiff's sureties on the replevin bond that the property replevied be returned to the defendant, or on failure to do so, that the defendant recover of plaintiff and sureties on replevin bond the value of the property replevied with interest thereon and damages for the detention of the same, the value of the property and the damage to be assessed by the judge trying the case.

Code 1858, § 3397 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 32, § 7); Acts 1905, ch. 31, § 1; Shan., § 5152; Code 1932, § 9307; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 9307; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2325.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 18; 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, § 12.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Replevin — Prior Notice and Hearing — Due Process, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 125.

Cited: Patton v. Beech, 2 Tenn. App. 437, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 42 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926); Testerman v. Hart, 12 Tenn. App. 494, — S.W.2d —, 1930 Tenn. App. LEXIS 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1930).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Purpose.

The purpose of the statute was to coordinate the practice before justice (now general sessions court) and in circuit court. Frazier v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 164 Tenn. 8, 46 S.W.2d 62, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1932).

3. Availability of Other Remedies.

Defendant may maintain an action on the replevin bond or bonds given by the plaintiffs in a replevin suit, after plaintiffs have dismissed such suit, because summary remedies are in contravention of the common law, and are cumulative, in the absence of language showing that they were intended to be exclusive. Leach v. Rich, 138 Tenn. 94, 196 S.W. 138, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 9 (1917). But see Securities Inv. Co. v. Pioneer Sales Co., 178 Tenn. 360, 160 S.W.2d 895, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 144 A.L.R. 1144 (1942), distinguishing this case and stating that the above expressions are unnecessary to the conclusion and dicta.

Except in those cases in which the original plaintiff in replevin dismisses his suit or in which the court proves to be without jurisdiction or where damage to the property takes place while it is in the possession of the plaintiff and is unknown to the defendant when judgment is rendered in his favor, a subsequent and independent action may not be maintained on a replevin bond where in the original action the judgment in favor of the defendant goes no further than dismiss the action and award costs against the plaintiff. Securities Inv. Co. v. Pioneer Sales Co., 178 Tenn. 360, 160 S.W.2d 895, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 144 A.L.R. 1144 (1942).

Where judgment for plaintiff in a replevin action was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and plaintiff ordered to pay costs but no provision was made for the return of the property or for damages for its detention, defendant in such suit was not entitled to maintain a separate and independent action on the replevin bond for damages for detention and conversion of the property but should have sought such relief in the original action. Securities Inv. Co. v. Pioneer Sales Co., 178 Tenn. 360, 160 S.W.2d 895, 1941 Tenn. LEXIS 66, 144 A.L.R. 1144 (1942).

4. Ascertaining Damages.

Where conditional sales vendor wrongfully replevied car and sold it 20 days later, vendee was entitled to judgment for reasonable cash value of car at time it was replevied, plus interest thereon to time of trial, and as damages the reasonable rental value of car from date it was replevied until date of its sale. Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 19 Tenn. App. 540, 91 S.W.2d 581, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

5. Necessity of Evidence of Value.

It was error to render a money judgment for the defendant, on the bond, in the absence of evidence as to the value of the property. Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 S.W. 232, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 97, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1915A421 (1914); Frazier v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 164 Tenn. 8, 46 S.W.2d 62, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1932).

6. Setoff.

Where conditional sales vendee recovered judgment for value of car wrongfully replevied by vendor, latter could not set off its debt against judgment in absence of vendee's consent. Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 19 Tenn. App. 540, 91 S.W.2d 581, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

7. Costs.

In an action to replevin an automobile in which the only issue was the value of the car, and wherein the appellate court found the judgment excessive and reversed and remanded the case, the costs theretofore accrued and which might thereafter accrue in the trial court were properly withheld for the future judgment of the court. Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 19 Tenn. App. 540, 91 S.W.2d 581, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

8. Amount of Judgment.

Where the justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) or the circuit court on appeal finds in favor of the defendant, a valid judgment cannot be rendered against the unsuccessful plaintiff for property wrongfully replevined in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the justice even though the plaintiff's bond is in excess of that amount. Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 19 Tenn. App. 540, 91 S.W.2d 581, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

Justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) has jurisdiction to render judgment for value of the property up to the jurisdictional amount and in addition a judgment for interest and damages in equal amount. Pruitt v. Cantrell, 196 Tenn. 142, 264 S.W.2d 793, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (1954).

9. —Decisions Prior to 1905 Amendment.

Prior to the 1905 amendment, under former provisions of this section providing for judgment against the plaintiff of double the value of the property upon finding against the plaintiff and his failure or refusal to return the property, it was held that a justice of the peace was authorized to render judgment against such unsuccessful plaintiff for any sum the proof might justify up to an amount not exceeding twice the amount that was within the justice's jurisdiction as to the replevin of property and that the same judgment should be rendered by the circuit court and the appellate court. Godsey v. Weatherford, 86 Tenn. 670, 8 S.W. 385, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1888).

Under this section before the 1905 amendment it was held that the judgment on a bond in an action originating before a justice of the peace should be for double the value of the property, if not returned, instead of for the full amount of the bond. Nighbert v. Hornsby, 100 Tenn. 82, 42 S.W. 1060, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 91, 66 Am. St. Rep. 736 (1897); Hamilton v. Henney Buggy Co., 102 Tenn. 714, 52 S.W. 160, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1899).

10. Ambiguous Judgment.

Where judgment in favor of defendant in replevin proceeding before justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) for $100 more than the limit of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace was ambiguous, the Supreme Court construed the judgment for the value of the property to be the jurisdictional amount and the excess to be interest and damages. Pruitt v. Cantrell, 196 Tenn. 142, 264 S.W.2d 793, 1954 Tenn. LEXIS 354 (1954).

11. Judgment on Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Where the justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, because the value of the property was beyond his jurisdiction, the proper judgment, on plaintiff's dismissal of the suit, is for costs only, leaving defendant to his remedy on the bond, to his action on the case, or an action to recover the property. Jacobs v. Parker, 66 Tenn. 434, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 161 (1874).

12. Judgment on Appeal.

The appellate court will correct the judgment of the lower court, and enter such judgment upon the verdict as the court should have rendered. Nighbert v. Hornsby, 100 Tenn. 82, 42 S.W. 1060, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 91, 66 Am. St. Rep. 736 (1897).

Prior to the 1905 amendment it was held that a judgment of the appellate court upon affirming a judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed a judgment of the justice of the peace for defendant in replevin, will, if all the bonds are in the penalty required and sufficient, be against the plaintiff and his original sureties for double the value of the property, to be satisfied by its return, and for the damages and costs, and also against the sureties on appeal from the justice of the peace to the circuit court for the same measure of relief, and against the sureties for the appeal to the appellate court only for costs and damages consisting of interest on the recovery, but the judgment against the sureties on the justice's appeal bond must be limited to costs, if the bond is so limited, and the recovery on the original replevin bond must be limited to the amount of its penalty. Hamilton v. Henney Buggy Co., 102 Tenn. 714, 52 S.W. 160, 1899 Tenn. LEXIS 78 (1899).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin §§ 59, 101-113.

77 C.J.S. Replevin § 331.

Voluntary dismissal of replevin action by plaintiff as affecting defendant's right to judgment for the return or value of the property. 24 A.L.R.3d 768.

29-30-215. Exemplary damages in general sessions court.

  1. The general sessions judge may, in a proper case, give exemplary damages in favor of either party.
  2. In all cases where the plaintiff fails to prosecute the suit with effect, the general sessions judge may make such valuation as will be likely to effect the return of the property to the defendant if the character of the property is such as to make the return of the specific property important.

Acts 1905, ch. 31; Shan., § 5152; Code 1932, § 9307; C. Supp. 1950, § 9307; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2326.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be partially superseded by the 1973 amendment to § 29-30-201 and the enactment of part 1 of this chapter, which revised the law on recovery of personal property.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Recovery of Personal Property, § 18; 22 Tenn. Juris., Replevy and Forthcoming Bonds, § 12.

Law Reviews.

Punitive Damages in Tennessee (John H. Peay), 27 Tenn. L. Rev. 381.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

Replevin — Prior Notice and Hearing — Due Process, 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 125.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin § 117.

51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace § 31; 77 C.J.S. Replevin §§ 262, 285, 291.

29-30-216. Fees before general sessions court.

The following fees shall be allowed in such suit:

  1. For issuing the writ  $1.00;
  2. For rendering the judgment    .75;
  3. To the constable, for executing the writ   3.00.

Code 1858, § 3399; Shan., § 5154; Code 1932, § 9309; impl. am. Acts 1945, ch. 178, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1951, ch. 156, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1951, ch. 165, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1953, ch. 178, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2327.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

Collateral References. Replevin 117.

29-30-217. Appeal from general sessions court.

Either party may appeal from the general sessions court's judgment to the circuit court, within the ten (10) days allowed by § 27-5-108, on giving bond in double the value of the property replevied, payable to the opposite party, conditioned to prosecute the appeal with effect, and to abide by and perform the judgment of the circuit court; but a bond in double the value is not required of a defendant not in possession and unsuccessful before the general sessions court.

Code 1858, § 3398 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 32, § 5); Shan., § 5153; mod. Code 1932, § 9308; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2328; Acts 1989, ch. 20, § 2.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 2 Tenn. Juris., Appeal and Error, §§ 30, 65.

Law Reviews.

Remedies Under the Tennessee Commercial Code (John A. Walker, Jr.), 30 Vand. L. Rev. 1197.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

This section was not constitutionally defective. Mitchell v. Tennessee, 351 F. Supp. 846, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11816 (W.D. Tenn. 1972).

2. Application.

Where under Acts 1935, ch. 12, appeal from the court of general sessions of Davidson County was by certiorari in suits involving less than $50.00 and where the judgment of such court in an action of replevin was that plaintiff restore the property to the defendant or on failure to do so that defendant was to recover of plaintiff and her surety the sum of $425, such suit involved more than $50.00, and plaintiff was entitled to an appeal to the circuit court under the provisions of this section and it was not required that the case be brought up on certiorari. Marlin v. Merrill, 176 Tenn. 63, 138 S.W.2d 418, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 99 (1940).

3. Appellate Jurisdiction of Circuit Court.

The appellate jurisdiction of circuit court on appeal is that of the justice of peace (now general sessions judge). Crow v. Cunningham, 45 Tenn. 255, 1868 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1868); Patterson v. Sheffield, 54 Tenn. 373, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1872); Frazier v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 164 Tenn. 8, 46 S.W.2d 62, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (1932); Securities Inv. Co. v. White, 19 Tenn. App. 540, 91 S.W.2d 581, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

4. Pauper's Oath.

This section, when construed with § 20-12-127, authorizing a person to commence an action, without giving security, by taking the pauper oath, applies only to a plaintiff who appeals from a justice's (now general sessions judge's) adverse judgment in replevin, and a defendant in replevin may appeal, upon the pauper oath, from such adverse judgment. Scott v. Brandon, 125 Tenn. 314, 143 S.W. 601, 1911 Tenn. LEXIS 28 (1911).

In all cases where the action is one in detinue, the plaintiff may prosecute his suit in forma pauperis and the defendant may likewise appeal on a pauper's oath if and when the judgment is against him. Swan v. Williams, 206 Tenn. 33, 330 S.W.2d 557, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1959).

5. Bond — Time of Filing.

Where an appeal is demanded, and the justice (now general sessions judge) grants it when bond and security is given according to law, the bond must be given within the time allowed for appealing, and the time cannot be extended by the justice. Poindexter v. Cannon, 2 Shan. 290 (1877); Howard v. Long, 71 Tenn. 207, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 61 (1879); Chapman v. Howard, 71 Tenn. 363, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 89 (1879), superseded by statute as stated in, Red Boiling Springs v. Whitley, 777 S.W.2d 706, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Collateral References. Replevin 116, 135.

29-30-212. Form of warrant.

Chapter 31
Removal of Disability of Minors

29-31-101. Power to remove.

  1. The chancery court of a county in which a minor resides or the chancellor in vacation may remove the disabilities of minority; and the chancery court of any county, or the chancellor of such court in vacation, may remove the disabilities of minority of a nonresident minor of the state of Tennessee who owns, or has an interest in, any real or personal property located in the state of Tennessee, so as to enable the minor to sell and convey such real or personal property, or any interest therein, or to do any other act in respect thereof; all as fully and effectively as if the minor was eighteen (18) years of age.
  2. In all cases where a minor petitions for the removal of disabilities of minority in a county other than the county in which property is located, petition must show that no application has been previously made in the county where the property is located.
  3. The circuit court and the judge thereof shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the chancery court and chancellor to remove the disabilities of minority.

Acts 1915, ch. 162, § 1; Shan., § 6106a3; mod. Code 1932, § 10370; Acts 1941, ch. 60, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 10370; Acts 1957, ch. 195, § 1; 1961, ch. 142, § 1; 1967, ch. 354, § 1; 1968, ch. 453, § 1; 1971, ch. 162, § 2; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1201; modified.

Cross-References. Infants, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 17.03.

Judicial sale of minor's property, § 34-1-116.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 7.

Law Reviews.

Negligence — Subsequent Emancipation — Effect on Family Immunity, 29 Tenn. L. Rev. 595.

Recent Developments in Tennessee and Federal Procedure (Donald F. Paine), 36 Tenn. L. Rev. 276.

Special Legislation Removing Disabilities of Infancy (Seymour Samuels, Jr.), 15 Tenn. L. Rev. 655.

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

To Be or Not To Be in Tennessee: Deciding Surrogate Issues, 34 U. Mem. L. Rev. 333 (2004).

Torts — 1962 Tennessee Survey (Dix W. Noel), 16 Vand. L. Rev. 88.

Attorney General Opinions. Jurisdiction and procedures for emancipation proceedings, OAG 96-064 (4/8/96).

A married minor is fully emancipated from parental control and thus, like other emancipated minors, is not subject to compulsory school attendance laws, OAG 02-100 (9/16/02).

Comparative Legislation. Removing disabilities of minors:

Ala.  Code § 26-13-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 9-26-104.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 93-19-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 442.100.

Cited: Parker v. Parker, 497 S.W.2d 572, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 466 (Tenn. 1973); Crawford v. Gilpatrick, 646 S.W.2d 433, 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 608 (Tenn. 1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Legal Responsibility Act Valid.

The Legal Responsibility Act of 1971 (amending §§ 28-1-106, 29-31-101, 39-1003 (now § 39-15-404), 39-3706 (now § 39-13-505), 57-3-210) is not unconstitutional as being retrospective. Arnold v. Davis, 503 S.W.2d 100, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. 1973).

The Legal Responsibility Act of 1971 (amending §§ 28-1-106, 29-31-101, 39-1003 (now § 39-15-404), 39-3706 (now § 39-13-505), 57-3-210) is not a statute of limitations, although its effect shortens the time minors have to commence actions. Arnold v. Davis, 503 S.W.2d 100, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 433 (Tenn. 1973).

Collateral References. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Infants §§ 3-6.

43 C.J.S. Infants §§ 108, 109, 115-119.

Burden of proof of defendant's age, in prosecution where attainment of particular age is statutory requisite of guilt. 49 A.L.R.3d 526.

Minor's entry into home of parent as sufficient to sustain burglary charge. 17 A.L.R.5th 111.

Infants 11.

29-31-102. Application — Process — Appearance to resist application.

  1. The application therefor shall be made in writing by the minor by next friend, and shall state the age of such minor and the names and places of residence of the minor's parents, and if the minor has no parents, the names and places of residence of two (2) of the minor's nearest kin, within the third degree, computed according to the civil law, and the reason on which the removal of the disability is sought.
  2. When such petition shall be filed, the clerk of the court shall issue proper process as in other cases, to make the proper parties defendant, the same to be executed and returned as in other cases.
  3. Any person so made a party or other relative or friend of the minor, may appear and resist the application.

Acts 1915, ch. 162, § 2; Shan., § 6106a4; mod. Code 1932, § 10371; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1202.

Collateral References. Infants 11.

29-31-103. Defendants not required.

If such kindred unite in such application, or if the minor has no kindred within the prescribed degree, or the place of residence of such kindred is unknown to the minor or the next friend, it shall not be necessary to make any person defendant thereto; provided, that if any such minor shall have a general guardian, the minor's guardian shall be made a defendant.

Acts 1915, ch. 162, § 3; Shan., § 6106a5; mod. Code 1932, § 10372; Acts 1961, ch. 219, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1203.

Attorney General Opinions. Appointment of guardian ad litem in emancipation proceedings, OAG 96-064 (4/8/96).

Collateral References. Infants 74, 75.

29-31-104. Hearing and decree — Specific purpose.

  1. The court, or chancellor in vacation, shall examine the application and the objections thereto, if any, and may hear testimony, by depositions or by viva voce, in reference thereto, and shall make such decree thereon as may be for the best interest of the minor.
  2. If a decree is rendered removing the disability of a minor, it shall be rendered by the court having jurisdiction for a specific purpose and such purpose shall be so stated in such decree.

Acts 1915, ch. 162, § 4; Shan., § 6106a6; mod. Code 1932, § 10373; 1971, ch. 71, § 1; 1980, ch. 844, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1204.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 421.

Collateral References. Infants 11.

29-31-105. Scope of decree.

The decree may be for the partial removal of the disability of the minor so as to enable the minor to do some particular act, proposed to be done, to be specified in the decree; or it may be general and empower the minor to do all acts in reference to the minor's property, making contract, suing and being sued and engaging in any profession or vocation which the minor could do if eighteen (18) years of age; and the decree shall distinctly specify to what extent the disability of the minor is removed and what character of business the minor is empowered to do, notwithstanding minority, and may impose such restrictions and qualifications as the court or chancellor may judge proper.

Acts 1915, ch. 162, § 5; Shan., § 6106a7; mod. Code 1932, § 10374; Acts 1973, ch. 76, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-1205.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 421.

Collateral References. Infants 11.

Chapter 32
Scire Facias

29-32-101. Persons entitled to writ — Application.

A scire facias shall not issue on the application of any person other than the party of record, or that party's attorney, except an administrator de bonis non, in the case of a judgment recovered by a previous executor or administrator, unless such application be in writing and signed by the applicant, to be filed and preserved with the other papers.

Code 1858, § 3578 (deriv. Acts 1833, ch. 18, § 1; 1837-1838, ch. 20); Shan., § 5342; Code 1932, § 9502; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2501.

Cross-References. Clerk's fee, § 8-21-401.

Revival of judgment, title 25, ch. 4.

Sheriff's fee, § 8-21-901.

Supreme Court powers, § 16-3-204.

Writ on forfeiture of bail, § 40-11-202.

Textbooks. Tennessee Criminal Practice and Procedure (Raybin), § 4.45.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 22 Tenn. Juris., Scire Facias, § 1.

Comparative Legislation. Scire facias:

Ala. ARCP Rule 81(c).

Ark.  Code § 16-65-501.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 9-12-61 et seq.

Ky. CR 81.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 511.370 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-514.

Va. Code § 8.01-24 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Common Law.

The common law writ of scire facias has, to some extent, been modified by this chapter. However, the legislature has not completely abrogated the common law pertaining to the writ of scire facias. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2. Effect of Writ.

Under Tennessee case law, the writ of scire facias does not initiate a new lawsuit in the bail bond context, but merely gives notice of an incidental proceeding in an extant case. Thus, by entering into a bail bond agreement and assuming custody of its principal, the surety submits itself to the in personam jurisdiction of the court and a new lawsuit is begun. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

3. Contents of Writ.

Under Tennessee case law, the writ of scire facias must bear the name of the party against whom recovery is sought. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

4. Reissuance.

The law allows reissuance of a defective scire facias. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Collateral References. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 362, 368.

79 C.J.S. Scire Facias §§ 8, 9.

Scire facias 7.

29-32-102. Issuance by general sessions judges.

  1. Judges of the courts of general sessions have power to issue scire facias in all cases before them, when it may be necessary, in the same manner and subject to the same rules as such writs issue from courts of record.
  2. Scire facias is issued by the general sessions judge having legal possession of the papers in a cause.

Code 1858, §§ 3576, 3577 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 111, §§ 2, 3); Shan., §§ 5340, 5341; Code 1932, §§ 9500, 9501; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2502.

Cited: Nicholson v. Patterson, 25 Tenn. 394, 1845 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1845); Grantland v. Memphis, 12 F. 287, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2501 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1882).

Collateral References. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 362, 368.

51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace §§ 120, 122; 79 C.J.S. Scire Facias § 6.

Scire facias 5.

29-32-103. Endorsement of name of applicant.

When scire facias issues upon the application of any person other than the party of record or the party's attorney, the clerk shall endorse on the back of the scire facias the name of the applicant, who becomes thereby liable for costs.

Code 1858, § 3579 (deriv. Acts 1833, ch. 18, § 2); Shan., § 5343; Code 1932, § 9503; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2503.

Collateral References. 79 C.J.S. Scire Facias §§ 13, 20.

Scire facias 8.

29-32-104. Liability for failure to endorse.

The clerk who fails to make such endorsement is liable for costs, in the event judgment is against the party suing out the scire facias.

Code 1858, § 3580 (deriv. Acts 1833, ch. 18, § 3); Shan., § 5344; Code 1932, § 9504; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2504.

29-32-105. Fraudulent endorsement.

If such clerk falsely and fraudulently endorse the name of any person on a writ of scire facias by such clerk issued, under the foregoing provisions, such clerk commits a Class C misdemeanor and is liable to an action for damages at the suit of such person.

Code 1858, § 3581 (deriv. Acts 1833, ch. 18, § 4); Shan., § 5345; Code 1932, § 9505; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2505; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113.

Code Commission Notes.

Portions of this section have been rewritten by the executive secretary to the Tennessee code commission to implement Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113, effective November 1, 1989, which requested that the executive secretary amend this section by deleting the penalty provision and inserting language to indicate violation of the section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Cross-References. Penalty for Class C misdemeanor, § 40-35-111.

29-32-106. Service of writ.

The writ of scire facias is served by reading, or offering to read, the contents of such writ to the person on whom it is to be executed.

Code 1858, § 3582 (deriv. Acts 1801, ch. 12, § 2); Shan., § 5346; Code 1932, § 9506; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2506.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Equivalent Service.

There are two methods for serving writs of scire facias. One method is for the sheriff or a deputy to read or offer to read the writ to the person on whom it is to be executed. The other is an equivalent service upon the return of two nihils. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2. Service on Commissioner.

The commissioner of finance and insurance is appointed the attorney for service of process for all insurance companies doing business in Tennessee, and service of process and notice on the commissioner is permitted by § 56-2-504. However, although this latter statute sets out a general method of such service, the specificity of this section controls the method of service of the writ of scire facias. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

3. Service on Insurer.

Service of writ of scire facias may be had on insurer, surety on bail bond, by reading or offering to read the writ to the personnel in the commissioner's office or upon the commissioner, and service may also be had on surety by reading or offering to read the writ to the personnel in the bondsmen's office or upon the bondsmen. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

4. Service on Bonding Companies.

Service of writs of scire facias upon employees of local bonding companies is constitutionally adequate and statutorily permissible. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Collateral References. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 362, 368.

79 C.J.S. Scire Facias § 10.

Scire facias 9.

29-32-107. Judgment after two returns.

When two (2) scire facias have been returned “not found” by the proper officer of the county in which the undertaking was entered into, such returns are equivalent to a personal service, and judgment may be made absolute.

Code 1858, § 5179; Shan., § 7143; Code 1932, § 11692; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2507.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 15.

Cited: Blankenship v. State, 223 Tenn. 158, 443 S.W.2d 442, 1969 Tenn. LEXIS 398 (1969).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Alternate Service.

There are two methods for serving writs of scire facias. One method is for the sheriff or a deputy to read or offer to read the writ to the person on whom it is to be executed. The other is an equivalent service upon the return of two nihils. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

2. Discretion as to Relief.

Petition for relief from bail bond is addressed to discretion of the trial court, the principal not having been produced, and the exercise of such discretion will not be reviewed unless arbitrary. Goldsby v. State, 159 Tenn. 396, 19 S.W.2d 241, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1929).

3. One Return of “Not Found” — Effect.

A judgment nisi on a forfeited recognizance, upon which a scire facias has been issued and returned “not found,” without more, will not entitle the defendant to a writ of error. Brewer v. State, 74 Tenn. 198, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 232 (1880).

No binding final judgment may be rendered upon one return of “not found” and a false return of “executed.” In such case, sureties may have relief in chancery. Diehl v. Knight, 158 Tenn. 246, 12 S.W.2d 717, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1929).

4. Writ Returned Executed — Relief.

Upon return of scire facias executed, the trial court cannot relieve surety upon ground of nonservice. Diehl v. Knight, 158 Tenn. 246, 12 S.W.2d 717, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 145 (1929).

5. Deposit in Lieu of Bail.

There should be two returns of “not found” where money was deposited instead of bail, in order to warrant judgment final appropriating the money. Wash v. State, 43 Tenn. 91, 1866 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1866); Cole v. Warner, 93 Tenn. 155, 23 S.W. 110, 1893 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1893).

6. Revising Judgment Nisi.

The forfeiture of bond or recognizance may be moderated or remitted in the discretion of the court. Black v. State, 154 Tenn. 88, 290 S.W. 20, 1926 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1927).

7. Recitals in Final Judgment.

The better practice is to incorporate in the final judgment the recitations of the conditional judgment, but it is not essential, and deficiencies in form may be corrected on appeal. Goldsby v. State, 159 Tenn. 396, 19 S.W.2d 241, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1929).

8. Service on Bonding Companies.

Service of writs of scire facias upon employees of local bonding companies is constitutionally adequate and statutorily permissible. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Collateral References. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 362, 368.

79 C.J.S. Scire Facias §§ 11, 18.

Scire facias 13.

29-32-108. Form of writ on forfeitures.

All scire facias issued on conditional judgments and decrees rendered by any of the courts of this state on forfeited bonds, recognizances, subpoenas, summons, and other like obligations may be substantially in the following form, to wit:

State of Tennessee, county of

To the sheriff [or coroner, as the case may be] of the county:

You are hereby commanded in the name of the state to notify  and  that a conditional judgment was rendered against them in the circuit court [or whatever court it may be] of  county, for the sum of $  and costs on a forfeited bond [or recognizance, or whatever obligation it is], and the same will be made final unless you appear at the next term of court [or whatever the time may be under the order of the court], and show cause to the contrary.

Signed by the clerk, etc., with proper endorsement as to date of, etc.

Acts 1897, ch. 47, § 1; Shan., § 7142a1; Code 1932, § 11690; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2508.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 4 Tenn. Juris., Bail and Recognizance, § 13.

Cited: Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Blackwell, 653 S.W.2d 262, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessary Allegations and Recitals.

When based on a recognizance before a committing justice (now general sessions judge), the scire facias need not recite that the prisoner was adjudged guilty, for the judgment of commitment is sufficient. Pugh v. State, 39 Tenn. 227, 1858 Tenn. LEXIS 285 (1858).

The scire facias on a forfeited bail bond or recognizance must set out the bond or recognizance, or so much thereof as shows the undertaking and nature of the liability incurred by the party, against whom a judgment is sought. State v. Johnson, 65 Tenn. 198, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 331 (1873).

A scire facias requiring the sureties on a forfeited recognizance in a felony case to appear and show cause why judgment final should not be taken against them on a conditional judgment will not be quashed because of the omission of the words “in the name of the state” from the commanding part of the writ addressed to the sheriff. State v. Frankgos, 114 Tenn. 76, 85 S.W. 79, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 72 (1904).

2. Surplusage.

Where words are incorporated into the scire facias which are mere surplusage, there is no variance between it and the recognizance. State v. Rye, 17 Tenn. 386, 1836 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1836).

3. Federal Courts.

The United States may adopt the remedy by scire facias to recover of a bail bond and have judgment entered after return of process, if no sufficient cause is shown for setting aside the conditional judgment. Ewing v. United States, 240 F. 241, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346 (6th Cir. 1917).

A writ of scire facias issued by a federal district court for Tennessee upon a conditional judgment on a bail bond may be amended so as to include the jurisdictional averment that accused was admitted to bail by the judge. Ewing v. United States, 240 F. 241, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346 (6th Cir. 1917).

4. Objections.

When scire facias on a conditional judgment on a bail bond failed to allege that the accused was admitted to bail by the proper authority, yet where evidence of such fact was received without objection, the judgment could not be impeached on the ground that it was not supported by the writ. Ewing v. United States, 240 F. 241, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346 (6th Cir. 1917).

Technical objections cannot be sustained where defendant entered his appearance and made defense to merits of the final judgment. Goldsby v. State, 159 Tenn. 396, 19 S.W.2d 241, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 96 (1929).

Collateral References. 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 362, 368.

79 C.J.S. Scire Facias § 9.

Scire facias 8.

29-32-109. Form adapted to circumstances — Jurisdictional facts — Amendment of scire facias.

  1. If the conditional judgment be on a forfeited subpoena, or summons, to serve as jurors, or any other obligation, the scire facias shall be so changed in form from the above as to give the parties notice of the nature of the obligation on which it is rendered.
  2. It shall not be necessary to set out in full all the jurisdictional facts in any scire facias as heretofore required.
  3. When any scire facias fails to contain the necessary allegations or facts as required under § 29-32-108, it may be amended in court according to the practice in reference to amendments of other writs and pleadings.

Acts 1897, ch. 47, § 1; Shan., § 7142a2; Code 1932, § 11691; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2509.

Collateral References. Scire facias 8.

Chapter 33
Sureties on Bonds—Actions to Protect Interest

29-33-101. Application for release from prosecution or defense bond.

A surety for the prosecution or defense of any suit in law or equity may be released from such suretyship by giving five (5) days' notice to the surety's principal, if in the state, and to the surety's attorney, if out of the state, of the surety's intention to move for a rule upon the surety to give counter security to provide indemnity for any liability as a surety.

Code 1858, § 3665 (deriv. Acts 1822, ch. 42, § 1); Shan., § 5435; mod. Code 1932, § 9597; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2701.

Cross-References. Summary judgment proceedings, §§ 25-3-122, 25-3-123, 25-3-124, 25-3-125, 25-3-126, 25-3-127, 25-3-128, 25-3-129, 25-3-130, 25-3-131, 25-3-132, 25-3-133, 25-3-134.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Certiorari, § 62.

Comparative Legislation. Actions to protect surety interests on bonds:

Ala.  Code § 8-3-1 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-107-101 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 11-8-101 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 412.070 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 87-5-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 433.010 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 26-1 et seq.

Va. Code § 49-22 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. General Principles.

The general principle as to the right of sureties to bring the principal and obligees into a court of chancery to compel the principal to discharge the obligation is laid down in the following cases: Delaney v. Tipton, 4 Tenn. 14, 1816 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (1816); Williams v. Tipton, 24 Tenn. 66, 1844 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 42 Am. Dec. 420 (1844), questioned, Greene v. Starnes, 48 Tenn. 582, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1870); Gilliam v. Esselman, 37 Tenn. 86, 1857 Tenn. LEXIS 81 (1857); Croone v. Bivens, 39 Tenn. 339, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 220 (Tenn. Apr. 1859); Henry v. Compton, 39 Tenn. 549, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 273 (Tenn. Apr. 1959); Howell v. Cobb, 42 Tenn. 104, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 26, 88 Am. Dec. 591 (1865); Greene v. Starnes, 48 Tenn. 582, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 117 (1870); Saylors v. Saylors, 50 Tenn. 525, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1871); Miller v. Speed, 56 Tenn. 196, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 128 (1872); Watson v. Sutherland, 1 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 208 (1873); Macey v. Childress, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 438 (1875); Eberhardt v. Wood, 2 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 488 (1875); Harlan v. Sweeny, 69 Tenn. 682, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 158 (1878); Galliher v. Galliher, 78 Tenn. 23, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 135 (1882); Oneal v. Smith, 78 Tenn. 340, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 188 (1882); Ray v. Proffet, 83 Tenn. 517, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1885); McRady v. Thomas, 84 Tenn. 173, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 134 (1885); Winchester v. Heiskell, 84 Tenn. 556, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1886), aff'd, 119 U.S. 341, 7 S. Ct. 276, 30 L. Ed. 462, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1995 (1886); Memphis & C. R.R. v. Greer, 87 Tenn. 698, 11 S.W. 931 (1889); Howell v. Thompson, 95 Tenn. 396, 32 S.W. 309, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 107 (1895).

2. Application of Remedy.

The remedy given to sureties for costs applies as well in favor of the sureties of the defendant, in cases where the defendant is required to give security for costs, as of the plaintiff. Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859).

3. Summary Nature of Proceedings — Compliance with Statute.

These proceedings for the release of sureties are summary and are not to be extended by construction to embrace cases not provided for by the statute. Every fact necessary to confer jurisdiction and to authorize the court to act must appear by the record and be recited in the judgment or decree accepting the new and exonerating the original sureties. For example, the sureties of guardians, executors or administrators, and trustees or assignees for creditors are not released by proceedings in the county court for that purpose, unless the application was made in one of the modes designated by the statute, and a new bond with satisfactory sureties has been executed and accepted. Hickerson v. Price, 49 Tenn. 623, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1871); Johnson v. Johnson, 53 Tenn. 240, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 349 (1871); Tennessee Hosp. v. Fuqua, 69 Tenn. 608, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1878); McGlothlin v. Wyatt, 69 Tenn. 717, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (1878); Gower v. Shelton, 84 Tenn. 652, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1886).

4. Notice.

The notice must be in writing, and its service must be established by the return of the sheriff, or the testimony of some competent witness. It must inform the party of the surety's intention to apply for a rule upon him “to give counter security to indemnify him against his liability as such surety.” Paige v. Richards, 35 Tenn. 39, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1855); Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859).

5. Change or Substitution of Parties — Effect.

The surety on a replevin, prosecution, appeal, or certiorari bond is released by a change or substitution of parties. Phillips v. Wells, 34 Tenn. 154, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 24 (1854); Harris v. Taylor, 35 Tenn. 536, 1856 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1856); Smith v. Roby, 53 Tenn. 546, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1871). But see Elder v. Fielder, 68 Tenn. 272, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1878) concerning replevin bonds.

6. Discharge of Principal in Bankruptcy.

Discharge of principal in bankruptcy releases the surety. Thomas v. Cole, 57 Tenn. 411, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 224 (1873); Martin v. Kilbourn, 59 Tenn. 331, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 69 (1873).

Collateral References. 74 Am. Jur. 2d Suretyship §§ 82-85.

72 C.J.S. Principal and Surety §§ 120, 131.

Liability of surety on private bond for punitive damages. 2 A.L.R.4th 1254.

29-33-102. Rule to give counter security.

Upon notice thus given, the court shall make a rule requiring the principal, within a given time, to give such counter security; and on failure of the principal to comply with the rule, the court shall dismiss the suit, and give judgment against the principal and the principal's surety for the costs already accrued.

Code 1858, § 3666 (deriv. Acts 1822, ch. 42, § 1); Shan., § 5436; mod. Code 1932, § 9598; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2702.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 5 Tenn. Juris., Certiorari, § 62.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Necessity of Making Rule.

After service of proper notice, the court must, upon motion of the surety, make the rule upon the party that he give counter security within a time fixed by the court. Paige v. Richards, 35 Tenn. 39, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1855); Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859).

2. Failure to Give Counter Security.

If, upon rule of court on the party that he give counter security within a time fixed by the court, he refuse or fail to do so within the time allowed, or to take the oath prescribed for poor persons, it shall be the duty of the court to dismiss the suit, and adjudge all the accrued costs against the party and his surety. Paige v. Richards, 35 Tenn. 39, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 8 (1855); Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859).

Collateral References. 20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs § 45.

Principal and surety 51.

29-33-103. Continuation of suit in forma pauperis.

The plaintiff may, however, prosecute the suit in the manner prescribed for poor persons, in which case the surety shall be bound only for the costs accruing up to the giving of notice.

Code 1858, § 3667 (deriv. Acts 1822, ch. 42, § 1); Shan., § 5437; Code 1932, § 9599; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2703.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect as to Surety Not Applying to Be Released.

Where the plaintiff, upon a rule to justify his present surety or to give other sureties, took the pauper oath, his surety not applying to be released was liable for costs accruing after, as well as before, plaintiff took the oath. Grills v. Hill, 34 Tenn. 711, 1855 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1855); Crider v. Lifsey, 57 Tenn. 456, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 236 (1873); Lovelace v. Smith, 67 Tenn. 263, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 368 (1874).

Collateral References. 20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs §§ 47-51.

29-33-104. Relief of surety on replevy bond.

The surety upon any bond for the replevy of property, given in any cause may, by notice in writing, require the surety's principal to give surety sufficient counter security to indemnify surety against liability on such bond.

Code 1858, § 3668; Shan., § 5438; Code 1932, § 9600; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2704.

Cross-References. Recovery of personal property, title 29, chapter 30.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Substitution Not Releasing Surety.

The substitution of the party in interest as defendant, instead of an officer, in a replevin suit, does not release the surety on the replevin bond, such substitution being authorized by statute. Elder v. Fielder, 68 Tenn. 272, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 5 (1878).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 523-526, 534, 535, 544.

72 C.J.S. Principal and Surety § 131.

29-33-105. New replevy bond.

  1. The new replevy bond, if given, shall be made payable to the original surety, and such surety is authorized to act in reference to the property as if the surety had been the plaintiff in the action.
  2. The new bond shall be filed with the original replevy bond, and may be enforced by judgment or decree, upon a breach of the original replevy bond, in favor of either the plaintiff or of the original surety.

Code 1858, §§ 3670, 3671; Shan., §§ 5440, 5441; Code 1932, §§ 9602, 9603; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2705.

Cross-References. Recovery of personal property, title 29, chapter 30.

29-33-106. Attachment of replevied property.

If the principal fail to give such counter security within five (5) days after the service of notice, the clerk of the court is authorized upon affidavit of the facts, to issue a writ to the sheriff, commanding the sheriff to seize and hold such property, according to the terms of the original seizure or attachment, subject to the defendant's right to again replevy, and, in case the defendant fails so to do, then subject to such disposition as the law makes of property so seized.

Code 1858, § 3669; Shan., § 5439; Code 1932, § 9601; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2706.

Cross-References. Recovery of personal property, title 29, ch. 30.

29-33-107. Fiduciary bond — Petition for release.

The surety of any guardian, executor, or administrator, trustee or assignee for creditors, who conceives the surety to be in danger of suffering by the suretyship, and desires to be relieved therefrom, may file a petition, in writing, in the county court, or the court having cognizance of the estate or fund.

Code 1858, § 3672 (deriv. Acts 1813, ch. 119, § 5; 1825, ch. 62, § 1; 1829, ch. 15, § 2); Shan., § 5442; Code 1932, § 9604; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2707.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 597, 598.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 9; 12 Tenn. Juris., Executors and Administrators, § 81; 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 32.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Exclusiveness of Remedy.

This and the following sections prescribe the only mode of proceeding by which sureties may be released. Bankers Trust Co. v. Hamstead, 3 Tenn. App. 264, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

2. Agreement by Trustee to Release — Effect.

An agreement between a trustee and his surety that the surety could have his release at any time from his obligation is not binding on the beneficiaries of the trust who are real parties to the contract. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

3. Liability After Substitution.

Where sureties are substituted by one of the modes authorized by statute, the effect is to relieve the prior sureties from all liability occurring after the substitution and the sureties thereafter become liable for prior defaults of the principal in inverse order with the new surety becoming primarily liable for such prior defaults and the old surety becoming secondarily liable. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. App. 577, 385 S.W.2d 281, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

29-33-108. Relief to surety on fiduciary bond.

Upon such petition and notice, the court may compel the principal to give other sufficient security, or counter security, to be approved by the court, or to deliver up the estate to the petitioner, or such other person as may be directed, and may make such other orders and decrees for the relief of the petitioner and better security of the estate as may be just and equitable.

Code 1858, § 3673 (deriv. Acts 1813, ch. 119, § 5; 1829, ch. 15, § 2); Shan., § 5443; Code 1932, § 9605; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2708.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 597.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, § 9; 12 Tenn. Juris., Executors and Administrators, § 81.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Obviously, the words “other sufficient security,” in this section, “new bond” in § 29-33-110, or “additional bond” in § 29-33-112, are merely different modes of expressing the idea that there must be new security, to be approved by the court, in place of the old security. Hammond v. Beasley, 83 Tenn. 618, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1885).

2. Discretion of Court.

The right of a surety to be released from his obligation on compliance with the statutes is not absolute but rests in the sound discretion of the court, and apart from this section a surety has no inherent, absolute right to be released upon notice from further liability. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

Denial of surety's release was not abuse of court's discretion, where trustee's personal integrity was not questioned and estate was being handled in an efficient, businesslike manner, with joint control of all assets in surety and trustee, although trustee was insolvent and owed the estate a debt, of which surety had knowledge, but which was amply secured. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

The release may be granted or refused in the discretion of the court, notwithstanding contrary agreement with trustee. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

3. New Surety Signing Old Bond.

The new surety in place of the discharged guardian surety may sign the old bond, and bind himself. Hammond v. Beasley, 83 Tenn. 618, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 87 (1885).

4. Execution of New Bond on Order to Give Better Security — Effect.

The sureties upon a guardian bond are not released by the execution of another bond by the guardian, upon order of the court to give other and better security, nor are the sureties upon the last bond so given primarily liable. McGlothlin v. Wyatt, 69 Tenn. 717, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 166 (1878); Crook v. Hudson, 72 Tenn. 448, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1880).

Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Assignments for Benefit of Creditors § 106; 31 Am. Jur. 2d Executors and Administrators §§ 141, 148; 39 Am. Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward §§ 190, 197, 198; 74 Am. Jur. 2d Suretyship §§ 81-87; 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 560.

72 C.J.S. Principal and Surety § 120.

29-33-109. Substitution of surety as fiduciary.

Should no person be found willing to accept the office, and give the security required, the applicant surety shall qualify in the place of the principal; otherwise, the liability will continue until a successor is appointed and qualified.

Code 1858, § 3674; Shan., § 5444; Code 1932, § 9606; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2709.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), §§ 597, 599.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 32.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Discharge.

A guardian's surety may not be discharged from liability until his successor is appointed and qualified. Bankers Trust Co. v. Hamstead, 3 Tenn. App. 264, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

29-33-110. New bond furnished by principal.

Upon public or private application of any surety, if the principal consents to give a new bond, with satisfactory security, it may be taken without further proceedings, with the same effect, as if executed upon order.

Code 1858, § 3675; Shan., § 5445; Code 1932, § 9607; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2710.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 597.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 32.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

See note under heading “Construction,” § 29-33-108, Notes to Decisions.

2. Application.

Where the notice was given, and the party voluntarily came forward, and, without any compulsory order being made, executed a new bond, with sureties, which was accepted in open court, such was a compliance with the statute, and the former sureties may be released from further liability. Gower v. Shelton, 84 Tenn. 652, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 151 (1886).

3. Consent of Principal.

Where upon substitution of sureties guardian executed joint control agreement and otherwise actively participated in the substitution, failure of substitution order to recite willingness of guardian to furnish new bond did not invalidate release of old surety and substitution of new. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. App. 577, 385 S.W.2d 281, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

4. Liability After Substitution.

Where sureties are substituted by one of the modes authorized by statute, the effect is to relieve prior sureties from all liability occurring after the substitution and the sureties thereafter become liable for prior defaults of the principal in inverse order with the new surety becoming primarily liable for such prior defaults and the old surety secondarily liable. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. App. 577, 385 S.W.2d 281, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

5. New Bond Without Request.

No provision is made by law for the release of sureties of an officer, by giving new bonds, at the instance of the officer himself, though he may give a new bond, on application of the surety, without notice. Hickerson v. Price, 49 Tenn. 623, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1871).

29-33-111. Witnesses in hearings.

The officer authorized to hear and dispose of such applications may administer oaths and summon witnesses in the same way and under the same penalties as the courts of the state.

Code 1858, § 3679; Shan., § 5449; Code 1932, § 9611; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2711.

Cited: Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

29-33-112. Exoneration of surety.

On the execution of the additional bond as required, or the qualification of a successor, the applicant surety is exonerated from all liability accruing subsequently.

Code 1858, § 3676; Shan., § 5446; Code 1932, § 9608; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2712.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 599.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, §§ 5, 9.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

See note under heading “Construction,” § 29-33-108, Notes to Decisions.

Collateral References. Principal and surety 179.

29-33-113. Effect of exoneration.

The exoneration of the applicant surety does not affect the previous liability of any of the obligors in the original bond; nor are any of the obligors who have not joined in such application discharged from any liability accruing after the filing of such additional bond; and the obligors who are not exonerated are liable to any person injured by a breach of such bonds, in the same or separate actions.

Code 1858, § 3677; Shan., § 5447; Code 1932, § 9609; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2713.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 599.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, §§ 5, 9.

Cited: Bankers Trust Co. v. Hamstead, 3 Tenn. App. 264, — S.W. —, 1926 Tenn. App. LEXIS 100 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1926).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Respective Liabilities.

The sureties released are no longer liable for future defaults of the guardian, and are only secondarily liable for past defaults; and the new substituted sureties and the former unreleased sureties are primarily liable for such defaults, past and future, from the date of the original appointment and bond. The release of sureties on one bond does not affect or impair the obligation of another set of sureties on a prior or subsequent bond. Steele v. Reese, 14 Tenn. 263, 1834 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1834); Jamison v. Cosby & Ferguson, 30 Tenn. 273, 1850 Tenn. LEXIS 111 (1850); Crawford v. Penn, 31 Tenn. 388, 1852 Tenn. LEXIS 124 (Tenn. Apr. 1852); Tennessee Hosp. v. Fuqua, 69 Tenn. 608, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1878); Crook v. Hudson, 72 Tenn. 448, 1880 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1880).

A judgment for costs is mentioned in § 29-33-102, but the intention is not to release the surety from liability for a judgment or debt where that was embraced in the bond. The relief given is as to costs only. Accordingly, where the surety in a certiorari bond had obtained the relief granted by these provisions, and afterwards the principal was cast in the suit, judgment was rendered against the discharged surety for the amount of the judgment below, together with so much of the costs as had accrued before his discharge, the party having prosecuted the suit after the surety's discharge, on the pauper's oath. Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859).

The giving of counter surety does not release the original surety absolutely from all costs, but the new surety becomes first liable for all costs, and after his exhaustion, the original surety is then liable for costs accrued up to the giving of the new surety. Kincaid v. Sharp, 40 Tenn. 151, 1859 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1859); Crider v. Lifsey, 57 Tenn. 456, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 236 (1873).

Where sureties are substituted by one of the modes authorized by statute, the effect is to relieve prior sureties from all liability occurring after the substitution and the sureties thereafter become liable for prior defaults of the principal in inverse order with the new surety becoming primarily liable for such prior defaults and the old surety secondarily liable. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Wyatt, 53 Tenn. App. 577, 385 S.W.2d 281, 1964 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).

Collateral References. Principal and surety 179.

29-33-114. Contribution between sureties.

The sureties, in either bond who have been compelled to make payments thereon for the principal, have the same remedies against the sureties in all the bonds in force at the time of default, as cosureties in the same bond have against each other, the recovery being properly proportioned according to the penalties of the several bonds.

Code 1858, § 3678 (deriv. Acts 1809 (Sept.), ch. 69, § 3); Shan., § 5448; Code 1932, § 9610; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2714.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 599.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Contribution and Exoneration, §§ 4, 5, 7; 14 Tenn. Juris., Guardian and Ward, § 32; 19 Tenn. Juris., Motions and Summary Proceedings, § 5.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

The provision of this section, touching contribution between sureties on different bonds, relates to the sureties on bonds given under the next preceding sections. Tennessee Hosp. v. Fuqua, 69 Tenn. 608, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1878).

2. Contribution and Subrogation.

If only part of the sureties apply for a new bond, the old one remains in force against the sureties not applying, both as to prior and subsequent defaults, and may be binding on the sureties released to the extent of past defaults. The bonds, although separate, are in fact one as to all the sureties bound at the time of the default, and the rule of contribution is applicable between such sureties. But where the set of sureties is substituted for another set, clearly there can be no contribution between the two sets, although each set is bound for the same engagement and the same principal. If the original surety pays the obligation of the principal, he will be entitled to be subrogated to the creditor's rights against the principal obligor. Tennessee Hosp. v. Fuqua, 69 Tenn. 608, 1878 Tenn. LEXIS 144 (1878); Briggs v. Hinton, 82 Tenn. 233, 1884 Tenn. LEXIS 123 (1884); Moore v. Lassiter, 84 Tenn. 630, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 150 (1886).

3. Prerequisites to Contribution.

Chancery cannot give a surety upon a guardian bond relief, under this section, when he is asking contribution from cosureties and sureties on former bonds, unless he has been compelled to make payment. Dibbrell v. Mitchell, 2 Shan. 591 (1877).

4. Former Adjudication Preventing Contribution.

Where the ward sued two sets of guardian sureties, and it was adjudged that the first set alone was liable, the first set having paid the judgment is not entitled to contribution from the second set. Cross v. Scarboro, 65 Tenn. 134, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 320 (1873).

5. Irregular or Void Judgment.

If one surety has been forced to pay the whole amount of a judgment on a receiver's bond, and the sureties are liable, he is entitled to contribution from his joint obligors, although the judgment may have been irregular or void. Ross v. Williams, 58 Tenn. 410, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 277 (1872).

Collateral References. 74 Am. Jur. 2d Suretyship §§ 213-237.

72 C.J.S. Principal and Surety §§ 352, 353.

Right of guarantor or surety, in order to avoid paying amount in excess of his proportionate share, to compel coguarantors or cosureties to pay their share to creditor. 38 A.L.R.3d 680.

Contribution 9(4).

29-33-115. Costs.

The costs of the application, if unsuccessful, shall be paid by the applicant; if successful, by the principal, and judgment may be given and execution issued therefor.

Code 1858, § 3680 (deriv. Acts 1829, ch. 15, § 3); Shan., § 5450; Code 1932, § 9612; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2715.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 600.

Cited: Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. White, 22 Tenn. App. 1, 115 S.W.2d 249, 1937 Tenn. App. LEXIS 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1937).

Collateral References. Principal and surety 73.

Chapter 34
Torts

Part 1
Generally — Privity

29-34-101. Express consent required for settlements.

In any tort action, prior settlement of damages made on behalf of the plaintiff by another, in exchange for a release executed by or on behalf of the defendant, shall constitute no bar to the plaintiff's action, and proof by the defendant of such settlement and release shall be inadmissible, unless it be shown that such settlement made on behalf of the plaintiff was with the express consent of the plaintiff given in writing, after the cause of action arose.

Acts 1955, ch. 318, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3001.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Compromise and Settlement, § 2.

Tennessee Law of Evidence (2nd ed., Cohen, Paine and Sheppeard), § 803(1.2).4.

Law Reviews.

Procedure and Evidence — 1962 Tennessee Survey (Edmund M. Morgan), 16 Vand. L. Rev. 817.

Punitive Damages and Business Organizations: A Pathetic Fallacy, 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 971 (2000).

Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and the Collateral Source Rule Do Not Mix (Victor E. Schwartz), 39 Vand. L. Rev. 569 (1986).

Comparative Legislation. Torts in general:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-1 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 51-1-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 95-1-1 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.010 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-25 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Scope.

This section was applicable even though the release was in form of a judgment. Chattanooga v. Ballew, 49 Tenn. App. 310, 354 S.W.2d 806, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

2. Effect of Release.

Even in absence of statute, an insurer's settlement of a suit brought against its insured does not bar the insured's claim either on the principle of res judicata or estoppel in absence of participation in the settlement by the insured. Chattanooga v. Ballew, 49 Tenn. App. 310, 354 S.W.2d 806, 1961 Tenn. App. LEXIS 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961).

Collateral References.

Intoxication of automobile driver as basis for awarding punitive damages. 33 A.L.R.5th 303.

Products liability: contributory negligence or assumption of risk as defense under doctrine of strict liability in tort. 46 A.L.R.3d 240.

Validity and effect of “Mary Carter” or similar agreement setting maximum liability of one cotortfeasor and providing for reduction or extinguishment thereof relative to recovery against nonagreeing cotortfeasor. 22 A.L.R.5th 483.

Compromise 1-6.

29-34-102. Rescission of fraudulent or erroneous settlements.

Where a compromise settlement of a claim for damages resulting from personal injuries has been brought about by fraud or mistake, such settlement may be rescinded without return of the consideration to the party released, but such consideration paid shall constitute a credit to apply in satisfaction of any judgment procured on account of such personal injuries.

Acts 1955, ch. 67, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3002.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 1 Tenn. Juris., Accord and Satisfaction, § 6; 6 Tenn. Juris., Compromise and Settlement, § 2; 13 Tenn. Juris., Fraud and Deceit, § 46.

Law Reviews.

Contracts — Rescission of Release, Effect of Ignorance of Injury, 24 Tenn. L. Rev. 255.

Workers' Compensation Outline (Paul Campbell III), 18 No. 3 Tenn. B.J. 11 (1982).

Workmen's Compensation — Reopening in Tennessee, 7 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 261.

Cited: Jackson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 403 F. Supp. 986, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15309 (M.D. Tenn. 1975); Evans v. Tillett Bros. Const. Co., 545 S.W.2d 8, 1976 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Lindsey v. Lambert, 333 S.W.3d 572, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application and Scope.

Where an accident victim had been fraudulently induced to accept a settlement, and she later brought an action against the insurer for deceit, the district court erred in applying this section to the computation of damages; since this section is applicable only where rescission is sought, but in this case deceit rather than rescission was the theory relied upon by plaintiff. Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, 563 F.2d 105, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11251 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1977).

2. Workers' Compensation Awards.

Lindsey v. Hunt, 215 Tenn. 406, 387 S.W.2d 344, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 505 (1965) and Cordell v. Sky Rides of America, Inc., 218 Tenn. 485, 404 S.W.2d 488, 1966 Tenn. LEXIS 647 (1966), were overruled by Betts v. Tom Wade Gin, 810 S.W.2d 140, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. 1991).

3. Extrinsic Evidence.

In an action by plaintiffs, an injured driver and her husband, to set aside a release, pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-34-102, the trial court erred in refusing to consider plaintiffs'  extrinsic evidence and in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant attorneys, who were retained by an insurer to represent the commercial driver and his employer in plaintiffs'  personal injury action, because the court did not reach the issue of whether the content of defendants'  letters or any other extrinsic evidence sufficiently established plaintiffs'  claim for fraud or fraud in the inducement. Ewan v. Hardison Law Firm, — S.W.3d —, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2012).

Collateral References.

Validity of release from civil liability where release is executed by person while incarcerated. 86 A.L.R.3d 1230.

Compromise 18.

29-34-103. Provision of settlement agreement concealing details relating to claim of child sexual abuse void and unenforceable.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any provision of a settlement agreement that has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of child sexual abuse, as defined in § 37-1-602, is void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this state; except that identifying information concerning a victim of child sexual abuse shall be deemed and maintained as confidential.

Acts 2018, ch. 962, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 962, § 2. May 15, 2018.

Cross-References. Confidentiality of public records, § 10-7-504.

29-34-104. Privity not required.

In all causes of action for personal injury or property damage brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the Uniform Commercial Code, privity shall not be a requirement to maintain such action.

Acts 1972, ch. 670, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3004.

Cross-References. Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied, 47-2-318.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Commercial Law, § 12; 19 Tenn. Juris., Negligence, § 14.

Law Reviews.

Contracts and Sales Law in Tennessee: A Survey and Commentary: III. Sales (John A. Sebert, Jr.), 45 Tenn. L. Rev. 391.

Contribution and Indemnity in Products Liability (Jerry J. Phillips), 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 85.

Economic Loss in Strict Liability — Beyond the Realm of 402 A (Joe E. Manuel and Gregory B. Richards), 16 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 315 (1986).

New Home Construction Liability (Jeff Mueller), 43 Tenn. B.J. 18 (2007).

Products Liability — Bystander Recovery in Strict Liability, 41 Tenn. L. Rev. 756.

Products Liability, Economic Loss and the UCC (Richard E. Speidel), 40 Tenn. L. Rev. 309.

Products Liability: The Manufacturer's Responsibility for Economic Loss, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 653.

The Expanding Liability of Design Professionals, 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 611 (1991).

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105.

Torts — First National Bank v. Brooks Farms: A Seller's Potential Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Innocent Misrepresentations, 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 441 (1993).

Cited: Cumberland Corp. v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 383 F. Supp. 595, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11437 (E.D. Tenn. 1973); Agricultural Services Asso. v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co., 551 F.2d 1057, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14129 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1977); Dunkin v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 121, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13475 (W.D. Tenn. 1977); White v. Tennessee-American Water Co., 603 S.W.2d 140, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 479 (Tenn. 1980); Motley v. Fluid Power of Memphis, Inc., 640 S.W.2d 222, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985); Redbud Cooperative Corp. v. Clayton, 700 S.W.2d 551, 1985 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3060 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); John Martin Co. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 434 (Tenn. 1991); Turner v. Aldor Co. of Nashville, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 318, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

This section is not applied retroactively. Carroll v. National Car Rental Systems, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 474, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11872 (E.D. Tenn. 1973); Great American Music Machine, Inc. v. Mid-South Record Pressing Co., 393 F. Supp. 877, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14093 (M.D. Tenn. 1975).

Lack of privity bars the recovery of damages other than for personal injury and property damage in suits based on the legal theories named in this section. First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. 1991).

Trial court erroneously dismissed a buyer's breach of warranty claim based upon the fact that there was no privity between the buyer and the chemical company, because the buyer was entitled to pursue its claim for property damage under a breach of warranty theory in Tennessee even in the absence of privity; the buyer's argument for the application of Pennsylvania law was without merit. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 457, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment on a breach of warranty claim filed by a third party purchaser against a chemical company who sold carbon dioxide to a purification company where the chemical company made no warranty concerning whether the carbon dioxide contained cyanide; economic damages were not available because there was no privity between the third party purchaser and the chemical company. Messer Griesheim Indus. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 330 (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006).

2. Construction with Other Law.

The provisions of this section must be read in conjunction with those of § 47-2-318 and thus the latter statute was impliedly amended so as to broaden the class of persons who might claim the benefit of a warranty, as well as to eliminate the requirement of “vertical” privity. Commercial Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc. v. McCampbell, 580 S.W.2d 765, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1979).

3. Property Damage.

If a product is defective so as to be unreasonably dangerous and the only property damage is to the product itself, a plaintiff may pursue recovery under a theory of strict liability. Corporate Air Fleet, Inc. v. Gates Learjet, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 1076, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16821 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).

Although a plaintiff may recover for the loss of use of a defective chattel under a theory of negligence, such loss of use does not fall within the purview of “property damage” so as to allow recovery pursuant to a theory of strict liability. Corporate Air Fleet, Inc. v. Gates Learjet, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 1076, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16821 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).

4. Negligent Construction.

A subsequent purchaser of a residence who lacked privity with the builder could maintain an action against the builder for negligence in the construction of the residence. Briggs v. Riversound Ltd. Pshp., 942 S.W.2d 529, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), appeal denied, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 156 (Tenn. Mar. 17, 1997).

Collateral References.

Child's right of action for loss of support, training, parental attention, or the like, against a third person negligently injuring parent. 11 A.L.R.4th 549.

Compensation for diminution in value of the remainder of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land of others for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.

Drain cleaners. 85 A.L.R.3d 727.

Liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defect in mobile home or trailer. 81 A.L.R.3d 421.

Liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defect in snowmobile or other recreational-purpose vehicle. 81 A.L.R.3d 394, 66 A.L.R.4th 622.

Liability for injury or death allegedly caused by defective tires. 81 A.L.R.3d 318.

Liability of manufacturer or seller for injury or death allegedly caused by use of contraceptive. 54 A.L.R.5th 1.

Liability of manufacturer or seller for personal injury or property damage caused by television set. 89 A.L.R.3d 210.

Liability of manufacturer, seller, or installer for personal injury caused by door glass. 84 A.L.R.3d 877.

Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injuries from electrically operated door. 44 A.L.R.5th 525.

Liability to one injured in course of construction, based upon architect's alleged failure to carry out supervisory responsibilities. 59 A.L.R.3d 869.

Statements on container that enclosed toy, game, sports equipment, or the like, is safe as affecting manufacturer's liability for injury caused by product sold. 74 A.L.R.3d 1298.

Third-party beneficiaries of warranties under UCC § 2-313. 50 A.L.R.5th 327.

Torts 21.

29-34-105. Settlements on behalf of minors.

  1. Notwithstanding any other law or rule to the contrary, a judge or chancellor may sign an order approving any tort claim settlement involving a minor that is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) by relying on affidavits from the legal guardian. The court shall conduct a chambers hearing at which the minor and legal guardian are present to approve any tort claim settlement involving a minor that is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more.
  2. Such affidavit as described in subsection (a) shall contain the following:
    1. Description of the tort;
    2. Description of the injuries to the minor involved;
    3. Statement that the affiant is the legal guardian;
    4. Amount of the settlement;
    5. Statement that it is in the best interest of the minor to settle the claim in the approved amount; and
    6. Statement of what the legal guardian intends to do with the settlement proceeds until the minor reaches the age of eighteen (18).
  3. This section shall not apply to structured settlements.
  4. In the order approving any tort claim settlement authorized by this section, the court shall have the discretion to determine whether the settlement proceeds are to be paid to the minor's legal guardian or held in trust by the court until the appropriate time.

Acts 2004, ch. 701, § 1.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

T.C.A. § 29-34-105, rather than T.C.A. § 29-13-303, applied to the father's encroachment request where the source of the child's funds was a tort settlement. Smith v. Childlife, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

2. Encroachment Properly Denied.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the encroachment request where the father failed to show when the band instrument that was to be upgraded was originally purchased, and a speculative investment to remodel an old home in anticipation of renting it out was not a proper use of the minor's funds, even if the rent was to be paid to the child. Smith v. Childlife, Inc., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018).

29-34-106. Provision of settlement agreement prohibiting disclosure of identities of persons relating to claim void and unenforceable.

  1. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any provision of a settlement agreement entered into by a governmental entity that has the effect of prohibiting the disclosure of the identities of persons relating to a claim by any of the parties is void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this state; except that identifying information concerning a person who is a victim of sexual harassment or an offense under title 39, chapter 13, part 5; title 39, chapter 17, part 10; § 39-13-111; § 39-13-605; § 39-15-302; § 39-15-401; or § 39-15-402 is confidential until such person authorizes the disclosure of the information.
  2. For purposes of this section, “governmental entity” means any lawfully established department, agency, or entity of this state or any political subdivision of this state.

Acts 2019, ch. 425, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2019, ch. 425, § 2. May 21, 2019.

Part 2
Tort Liability

29-34-201. Injuries suffered in committing or attempting to commit felony on property of another — Recovery barred — Scope of immunity for one injuring a perpetrator of a criminal offense.

  1. Any person who is injured while committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony on the real property of another is barred from recovery of actual or punitive damages resulting from injuries, either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by the owner, lawful occupier or tenant of such property, which the person receives while committing or attempting to commit a felony.
    1. A person who accidentally or intentionally causes property damage to or inflicts injury or death upon the perpetrator of a criminal offense is absolutely immune from civil liability for or the payment of monetary damages from such person's actions if at the time such damage, injury or death occurred:
      1. The person was preventing or attempting to prevent the perpetrator from committing the offense or was apprehending the perpetrator of the offense; and
      2. The perpetrator was committing one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivisions (c)(1)-(9) or was attempting to commit one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivision (c)(10).
    2. The immunity conferred by this subsection (b) shall only apply to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a perpetrator of an enumerated offense and only under the conditions set out in this subsection (b). Such immunity shall not be construed to extend to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a bystander or other person who is not the perpetrator of an enumerated offense.
  2. The offenses for which such immunity applies are:
    1. Any criminal homicide;
    2. Aggravated rape;
    3. Kidnapping;
    4. Aggravated kidnapping;
    5. Especially aggravated kidnapping;
    6. Especially aggravated burglary;
    7. Aggravated robbery;
    8. Especially aggravated robbery;
    9. Carjacking; and
    10. Attempt to commit first or second degree murder.

Acts 1971, ch. 177, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 23-3003, 29-34-103; Acts 1999, ch. 268, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1999, ch. 268, § 1 provided that this section shall be known and may be cited as the “Good Samaritan Protection Act of 1999.”

Law Reviews.

Tort Liability for Intentional Acts of Family Members: Will Your Insurer Stand by You?, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (2000).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jury Instructions.

Where there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the victim was committing or attempting to commit a felony, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on this section. Buziashvili v. Inman, 106 F.3d 709, 1997 FED App. 50P, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2177 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1997).

Collateral References. Torts 5.

29-34-202. Immunity for natural gas providers — Exceptions — Product liability claims.

  1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
    1. “Natural gas equipment” means storage vessels, compressors, dryers, dispensers, piping, compressed or liquefied gas appliances, or any other item that is installed by a natural gas provider; and
    2. “Natural gas provider” means any person or entity engaged in the business of supplying, handling, transporting, or selling at retail compressed or liquefied natural gas intended for use with properly constructed, inspected, and certified vehicle fuel systems in this state.
  2. A natural gas provider shall be immune from civil liability, if the proximate cause of the injury or damages was caused by actions of an ultimate consumer by:
    1. An alteration, modification or repair of gas equipment that could not have been discovered by the natural gas provider in the exercise of reasonable care; or
    2. The use of natural gas equipment in a manner or for a purpose other than that for which the natural gas equipment was intended to be used or could reasonably have been foreseen; provided, that the natural gas provider or the manufacturer of the natural gas equipment has taken reasonable steps to warn the ultimate consumer of the hazards associated with foreseeable misuses of the equipment.
    1. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting, modifying, or eliminating the liability of a manufacturer of natural gas equipment or its employees under any legal claim, including, but not limited to, product liability claims.
    2. This section applies to liability resulting from retail operations at the point of sale only. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting, modifying, or eliminating the liability of a manufacturer of natural gas equipment or its employees under any legal claim, including, but not limited to, product liability claims.
  3. No defendant may allege or prove that a person or entity caused or contributed to causing a plaintiff’s injuries, death, or other losses, unless the plaintiff could have maintained an action against the person.

Acts 2012, ch. 711, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Former § 29-34-202 (Acts 1987, ch. 370, § 1; 1990, ch. 904, §§ 1, 3), concerning rented or leased horses, was repealed by Acts 1990, ch. 904, § 4, as amended by Acts 1992, ch. 820, § 1, effective June 1, 1997.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 711, § 2. July 1, 2012.

29-34-203. Immunity for first responders in responding to emergency calls.

  1. As used in this section, “first responder” means a law enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency services personnel or other person who responds to calls for emergency assistance from a 911 call.
  2. A first responder and the responder's supervisor, agency, employer or supervising entity is immune from civil liability resulting from a forcible entry of a home, business or other structure if the first responder:
    1. Is responding to a documented 911 call for emergency assistance;
    2. Has made reasonable efforts to summon an occupant of the home, business, or structure that made the call by knocking or otherwise notifying the occupant of the first responder's presence;
    3. Has not received a response from an occupant within a reasonable period of time after making reasonable efforts pursuant to subdivision (b)(2); and
    4. Has a good faith belief that it is necessary to make a forcible entry for the purposes of rendering emergency assistance or preventing imminent bodily harm.
  3. Nothing in this section shall affect the standard of care a first responder must employ when rendering aid after gaining entry.

Acts 2012, ch. 844, § 2.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2012, ch. 844, § 2 purported to enact a new § 29-34-208. The section was enacted as § 29-34-203 under the authority of the code commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2012, ch. 844, § 1 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall be known and may be cited as “Jaclyn's Law.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 844, § 3.  April 27, 2012.

Law Reviews.

The Emergency Aid Doctrine and 911 Hang-ups: The Modern General Warrant, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 919 (2015).

29-34-204. Charitable fundraisers — Immunity from suit.

If any philanthropic individual; cooperative, corporation, club, association or organization; or director, trustee or member of the governing body of any such cooperative, corporation, club, association or organization; supplies only financial sponsorship or support for another entity's charitable fundraising event and is not, in any way, involved in the management, organization, planning or execution of such event, and if the entity managing, organizing, planning or executing such charitable fundraising event provides liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any single occurrence and three million dollars ($3,000,000) for all occurrences of personal injury or property damage arising from such event, then such individual, cooperative, corporation, club, association, organization, director, trustee or member shall not be liable for any personal injury or damage to property arising from the other entity's charitable fundraising event. However, if such financial sponsorship or support constitutes willful, wanton or gross negligence, then such immunity from suit shall not attach.

Acts 2002, ch. 692, § 1.

29-34-205. Commonsense consumption.

  1. Except as exempted in subsection (b), a manufacturer, producer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, seller, marketer, or advertiser of a food, as defined in Section 201(f) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, codified in 21 U.S.C. § 321(f), or an association of one (1) or more such entities, shall not be subject to civil liability arising under any law of the state of Tennessee for any claim arising out of weight gain or obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long term consumption of food.
  2. Subsection (a) shall not preclude civil liability where the claim of weight gain, obesity, health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long term consumption of food is based on:
    1. A material violation of an adulteration or misbranding requirement prescribed by statute or regulation of the state of Tennessee or the United States of America and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation; or
    2. Any other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food; provided, that such violation is knowing and willful, and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation.
  3. For purposes of this section:
    1. “Claim” means any claim by or on behalf of a natural person, as well as any derivative or other claim arising therefrom asserted by or on behalf of any other person;
    2. “Generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long term consumption” means a condition generally known to result or to likely result from the cumulative effect of consumption, and not from a single instance of consumption;
    3. “Knowing and willful” violation of federal or state law means that:
      1. The conduct constituting the violation was committed with the intent to deceive or injure consumers or with actual knowledge that such conduct was injurious to consumers; and
      2. The conduct constituting the violation was not required by regulations, orders, rules or other pronouncement of, or any statute administered by a federal, state, or local government agency;
    4. “Other person” as used in subdivision (c)(1) means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or private attorney general.
    1. In any action exempted under subdivision (b)(1), the complaint initiating such action shall state with particularity the following:
      1. The statute, regulation, or other law of the state of Tennessee or of the United States that was allegedly violated;
      2. The facts that are alleged to constitute a material violation of such statute or regulation; and
      3. The facts alleged to demonstrate that such violation proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff.
    2. In any action exempted under subdivision (b)(2), in addition to the pleading requirements in this subsection (d), the complaint initiating such action shall state with particularity facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the violation was with intent to deceive or injure consumers or with the actual knowledge that such violation was injurious to consumers. For purposes of this section, the pleading requirements in this subsection (d) are hereby deemed part of the substantive law of the state of Tennessee and not merely in the nature of procedural provisions.
  4. In any action exempted under subsection (a), all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party. During the pendency of any stay of discovery pursuant to this subsection (e), unless otherwise ordered by the court, any party to the action with actual notice of the allegations contained in the complaint shall treat all documents, data compilations, including electronically recorded or stored data, and tangible objects that are in the custody or control of such party and that are relevant to the allegations, as if they were the subject of a continuing request for production of documents from an opposing party under the state of Tennessee rules of civil procedure.

Acts 2004, ch. 570, § 2; 2004, ch. 742, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2004, ch. 570, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and may be cited as the “Commonsense Consumption Act.”

Acts 2004, ch. 570, § 3 provided that the provisions of the act shall apply to all covered claims pending on July 1, 2004, and all claims filed thereafter, regardless of when the claim arose.

29-34-206. Liability for providing firefighting equipment to volunteer departments.

  1. Any person, corporation, business entity, charitable organization, or governmental agency that acts reasonably and in good faith in donating fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire department shall not thereafter be civilly liable for any personal injury, property damage, or death proximately caused by a defect in the equipment.
  2. Any governmental agency that acts reasonably and in good faith in administering the distribution of donated fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire department shall not thereafter be civilly liable for any personal injury, property damage, or death proximately caused by a defect in the equipment.
  3. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to a person, corporation, business entity, charitable organization, or governmental agency if:
    1. The defect that proximately causes the injury, damage, or loss resulted from an act or omission of the person, corporation, business entity, charitable organization, or governmental agency that constitutes malice, gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct;
    2. The person, corporation, business entity, charitable organization, or governmental agency is the manufacturer of the fire control or fire rescue equipment; or
    3. The person, corporation, business entity, charitable organization, or governmental agency modified or altered the fire control or fire rescue equipment after it had been recertified by an authorized technician as meeting the manufacturer's specifications.
  4. As used in this section, “authorized technician” means a technician who has been certified by the manufacturer of fire control or fire rescue equipment to inspect such equipment. The technician need not be employed by a state or local governmental agency administering the distribution of the fire control or fire rescue equipment.

Acts 2004, ch. 863, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2004, ch. 863, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and may be cited as the “Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighters' Assistance Act”.

29-34-207. Liability for liquefied petroleum gas.

  1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
    1. “Liquefied petroleum gas equipment” means storage vessels, piping, liquefied petroleum gas appliances, or any other item that is installed by a liquefied petroleum gas provider; and
    2. “Liquefied petroleum gas provider” means any person or entity engaged in the business of supplying, handling, transporting, or selling at retail liquefied petroleum gas in this state.
  2. A liquefied petroleum gas provider shall be immune from civil liability, if the proximate cause of the injury or damages was caused by:
    1. An alteration, modification, or repair of liquefied petroleum gas equipment that could not have been discovered by the liquefied petroleum gas provider in the exercise of reasonable care; or
    2. The use of liquefied petroleum gas equipment in a manner or for a purpose other than that for which the liquefied petroleum gas equipment was intended to be used or could reasonably have been foreseen; provided, that the liquefied petroleum gas provider or the manufacturer of the liquefied petroleum gas equipment has taken reasonable steps to warn the ultimate consumer of the hazards associated with foreseeable misuses of the liquefied petroleum equipment.
  3. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting, modifying, or eliminating the liability of a manufacturer of liquefied petroleum gas equipment or its employees under any legal claim, including, but not limited to, product liability claims.
  4. No defendant may allege or prove that a person or entity caused or contributed to causing a plaintiff's injuries, death, or other losses, unless the plaintiff could have maintained an action against the person.

Acts 2006, ch. 759, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2006, ch. 759, § 2 provided that this section shall apply only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2006 and that any cause of action arising prior to July 1, 2006 shall continue to be governed by the laws in effect at the time such cause of action arose.

29-34-208. Liability of possessor of real property for harm to trespasser.

  1. As used in this section:
    1. “Possessor of real property” means the owner, lessee, renter, or other lawful occupant of real property; and
    2. “Trespasser” means a person who enters or remains on the real property of another without actual or implied permission, or a person who engages in conduct that constitutes a criminal trespass offense under §§ 39-14-405 – 39-14-407.
  2. A possessor of real property owes no duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from willfully, with negligence so gross as to amount to willfully, intentionally, or wantonly causing injury; provided, however, that a possessor of real property may willfully, with negligence so gross as to amount to willfully, or intentionally cause injury to a trespasser or use force to prevent or terminate a trespass or criminal offense as permitted at common law, under §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-616, and under § 29-34-201.
  3. Notwithstanding subsection (b), a possessor of real property is subject to liability for physical injury or death to a child trespasser if:
    1. The possessor maintained a dangerous condition that was not a natural condition and the possessor knew or should have known the condition posed a risk of death or serious bodily harm to trespassing children;
    2. The possessor knew or should have known children were likely to trespass onto the property, either because they would be lured there by the dangerous condition or because children regularly use the property as a playground;
    3. The dangerous condition was not apparent, or children, because of their youth, would be unlikely to discover and comprehend the risk;
    4. The usefulness to the possessor of maintaining the dangerous condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were significantly outweighed by the risk of harm to children who would foreseeably trespass onto the property; and
    5. The possessor failed to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.
  4. This section shall not be construed to create or increase the liability of any possessor of real property or to affect any immunities from or defenses to liability established by another section of the code or available at common law to which a possessor of real property may be entitled.

Acts 2012, ch. 922, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2012, ch. 844, § 2 purported to enact a new § 29-34-208. The section was enacted as § 29-34-203 under the authority of the code commission.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 922, § 2.  May 10, 2012.

29-34-209. Immunity for forcible entry of a motor vehicle to remove minor or animal.

  1. A person whose conduct conforms to the requirements of subsection (b) shall be immune from civil liability for any damage resulting from the forcible entry of a motor vehicle for the purpose of removing a minor or an animal from the vehicle.
  2. Subsection (a) applies if the person:
    1. Determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise no reasonable method for the minor or animal to exit the vehicle;
    2. Has a good faith belief that forcible entry into the vehicle is necessary because the minor or animal is in imminent danger of suffering harm if not immediately removed from the vehicle and, based upon the circumstances known to the person at the time, the belief is a reasonable one;
    3. Has contacted either the local law enforcement agency, the fire department, or a 911 operator prior to forcibly entering the vehicle;
    4. Places a notice on the vehicle's windshield with the person's contact information, the reason the entry was made, the location of the minor or animal, and the fact that the authorities have been notified;
    5. Remains with the minor or animal in a safe location, out of the elements but reasonably close to the vehicle, until law enforcement, fire, or another emergency responder arrives; and
    6. Used no more force to enter the vehicle and remove the child or animal from the vehicle than was necessary under the circumstances.
  3. Nothing in this section shall affect the person's civil liability if the person attempts to render aid to the minor or animal in addition to what is authorized by this section.

Acts 2014, ch. 788, § 1; 2015, ch. 166, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment inserted “or an animal” following “a minor” throughout the section; substituted “a” for “the"“ preceding “911” in (b)(3); inserted “the fact” preceding “that the authorities” in (b)(4); substituted “another“ for “other” preceding “emergency responder” in (b)(5) and substituted “was” for “is” preceding “necessary” in (b)(6).

Effective Dates. Acts 2014, ch. 788, § 2. July 1, 2014.

Acts 2015, ch. 166, § 2. July 1, 2015.

29-34-210. Protection of Volunteer-Insured Drivers of the Elderly (PROVIDE) Act.

  1. As used in this section:
    1. “Charitable organization” means any charitable unit of a religious or civic group exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501, including those supported wholly or partially by private donations;
    2. “Human service agency” means any human service unit, clinic, senior citizens program, congregate meal center, or day care center for the elderly, whether supported wholly or partially by public funds;
    3. “Volunteer” means an individual providing volunteer transportation who may receive reimbursement for actual expenses or an allowance to defray expenses of operating the vehicle used to provide transportation services, but does not receive compensation for the person's time; and
    4. “Volunteer transportation” means motor vehicle transportation provided by a volunteer under the direction, sponsorship, or supervision of a human service agency or a charitable organization.
  2. Any volunteer, who provides volunteer transportation for senior citizens through a charitable organization or human service agency, shall not be individually liable for any civil damages above the policy limits collectable from any policy of insurance that would be obligated to make payment on behalf of the volunteer or on behalf of a person or entity that would be vicariously liable for the volunteer's conduct when liability for civil damages is limited by this section for an injury to the senior citizen arising out of or resulting from the transportation if the volunteer was acting in good faith and within the scope of the volunteer's official actions and duties on behalf of the charitable organization or human service agency, unless the volunteer's conduct constitutes gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct; provided, that the charitable organization or human service agency is liable for damages and maintains liability insurance coverage at least equal to the minimum limits set forth in § 29-20-403 of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

Acts 2015, ch. 152, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2015, ch. 152, § 1 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall be known and may be cited as the “Protection of Volunteer-Insured Drivers of the Elderly (PROVIDE) Act.”

For the Preamble to the act concerning the need for an increased number of volunteer drivers and volunteer transportation programs to assist older adults, please refer to Acts 2015, ch. 152.

Acts 2015, ch. 152, § 3 provided that the act, which enacted this section, shall apply to actions that arise on or after July 1, 2015.

Effective Dates. Acts 2015, ch. 152, § 3. July 1, 2015.

29-34-211. Liability for unlicensed psychotherapy treatment of mental health disorder — Exemptions.

  1. For the purposes of this section:
    1. “Mental health disorder” means a serious psychological condition, including, but not limited to, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, psychosis, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, or any disorder found in the most current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; and
    2. “Psychotherapy” means an intervention for a mental health disorder by a licensed mental health professional.
    1. A consumer is entitled to care from a competently qualified person when receiving care for a mental health disorder.
    2. A license is required under title 63 for a person to competently treat a mental health disorder. An unlicensed person is not competent to provide services that fall within any scope of practice for which a license is required under title 63 for treatment of a mental health disorder, and such treatment is illegal.
    1. An unlicensed person may be civilly liable to the client if the unlicensed person knowingly offered psychotherapy services to treat a mental health disorder without being licensed as a mental health provider.
    2. The client may maintain an action to recover damages for the unlicensed psychotherapy treatment of a mental health disorder, including consideration paid to the unlicensed person, costs in recovering consideration paid, and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.
  2. The following persons are exempt from this section:
    1. Clergy who are not being compensated on a fee-for-service basis;
    2. Students and practitioners in training when the student or practitioner is under the lawful supervision of a licensed healthcare professional;
    3. Persons holding a license under title 63 when acting within the lawful scope of practice;
    4. An unlicensed person operating under the supervision of a person holding a license under title 63, providing counseling or therapy services in a correctional facility;
    5. Any service provider at a homeless shelter, licensed behavioral health residential facility, hospital, or any state-operated agency or facility;
    6. State-contracted mobile crisis responders;
    7. An unlicensed person operating under the supervision of a person holding a license under title 63 providing counseling or therapy services in a community mental health center; and
    8. Any person providing peer counseling or social services not on a fee-for-service basis.
  3. This section does not expand or restrict the scope of practice for any person holding a license under title 63.

Acts 2019, ch. 359, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2019, ch. 359, § 2. July 1, 2019.

Part 3
Silica Claims Priorities Act

29-34-301. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Silica Claims Priorities Act.”

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 2.

Comparative Legislation. Silica:

Ark. Code § 11-9-602

Ga. Code § 51-14-1 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-62 et seq.

29-34-302. Legislative findings — Purpose.

  1. Silica is a naturally occurring mineral and is the second most common constituent of the earth's crust.
  2. Silica-related disease, including silicosis, can occur when silica is inhaled. To be inhaled, silica particles must be sufficiently small to be respirable.
  3. Silicosis was recognized as an occupational disease many years ago. The American Foundry Society has distributed literature to its members warning of the dangers of silica exposure for more than seventy (70) years. By the 1930s, the federal government had launched a silica awareness campaign that led to greater protection for workers exposed to silica dust.
  4. The legislature finds that the public interest requires giving priority to the claims of exposed individuals who are sick, in order to help preserve, now and for the future, access to our court system for those who develop silica-related disease and to safeguard the jobs, benefits, and savings of workers in Tennessee.
  5. It is the purpose of this part to:
    1. Give priority to silica claimants who can demonstrate actual physical impairment caused by exposure to silica;
    2. Fully preserve the rights of claimants who were exposed to silica to pursue compensation, should they become impaired in the future as a result of exposure;
    3. Enhance the ability of the judicial system to supervise and control silica litigation; and
    4. Provide access to the court system for those who are actually physically impaired by exposure to silica, while securing the right to similar access for those who may suffer physical impairment in the future.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 3.

29-34-303. Part definitions.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment” means the most recent version of the American Medical Association's “Guidelines for Assessment of Permanent Medical Impairment” at the time of the performance of any examination or test required under this part;
  2. “Board-certified” means the medical doctor is currently certified by one of the medical specialty boards approved by either the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Board of Osteopathic Specialties;
  3. “Board-certified in occupational medicine” means a medical doctor who is certified in the subspecialty of occupational medicine by the American Board of Preventive Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Preventive Medicine;
  4. “Board-certified oncologist” means a medical doctor who is certified in the subspecialty of medical oncology by the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine;
  5. “Board-certified pathologist” means a medical doctor who holds primary certification in anatomic pathology or clinical pathology from the American Board of Pathology or the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine;
  6. “Board-certified pulmonary specialist” means a medical doctor who is certified in the subspecialty of pulmonary medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine;
  7. “Certified B-reader” means a person who has successfully completed the x-ray interpretation course sponsored by the national institute for occupational safety and health (NIOSH) and passed the B-reader certification examination for x-ray interpretation and whose NIOSH certification is current at the time of any readings required by this part;
    1. “Civil action” means all suits or claims of a civil nature in a court of record, whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or admiralty;
    2. “Civil action” does not include a civil action:
      1. Relating to any claim for workers compensation under title 50;
      2. Alleging any claim or demand made against a trust established pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(g);
      3. Alleging any claim or demand made against a trust established pursuant to a plan of reorganization confirmed under the federal bankruptcy code; or
      4. Arising under the Federal Employers Liability Act pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.;
    1. “Competent medical authority” means a medical doctor who meets the following requirements:
      1. The medical doctor is board-certified in occupational medicine, a board-certified oncologist, a board-certified pathologist, or a board-certified pulmonary specialist;
      2. The medical doctor is actually treating, or has treated, the exposed person and has or had a doctor-patient relationship with the exposed person, or in the case of a board-certified pathologist, has examined tissue samples of pathological slides of the exposed person at the request of a treating medical doctor;
      3. As the basis for the diagnosis, the medical doctor has not relied, in whole or in part, on the reports or opinions of any doctor, clinic, laboratory, or testing company that performed an examination, test, or screening of the exposed person’s medical condition:
  1. In violation of any law, regulation, licensing requirement, or medical code of practice of the state in which that examination, test, or screening was conducted, with regard to the diagnosis set forth in the report required pursuant to § 29-34-305;
  2. Outside the context of an existing doctor-patient relationship; or
  3. That required the exposed person to agree to retain the services of a law firm or lawyer sponsoring the examination, test, or screening; and

The medical doctor spends not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the doctor's annual practice time in providing consulting or expert services in connection with prosecuting or defending actual or potential tort actions, and the medical doctor's medical group, professional corporation, clinic, or other affiliated group earns not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of its revenues from providing those services;

The requirements for determining “competent medical authority” set forth in subdivisions (9)(A)(ii)-(iv) may be waived by written agreement of all of the parties;

“Exposed person” means a person whose exposure to silica or mixed dust is the basis for a silicosis claim or mixed dust disease claim under this part;

“ILO scale” means the system for the classification of chest x-rays set forth in the International Labour Office's “Guidelines for the Use of ILO International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses,” 2000 edition, or if amended, the version in effect at the time of the performance of any examination or test on the exposed person required under this part;

“Lung cancer” means a malignant tumor in which the primary site of origin of the cancer is inside the lungs;

“Mixed dust” means a mixture of dusts composed of silica and one (1) or more other fibrogenic dusts capable of inducing pulmonary fibrosis if inhaled in sufficient quantity;

“Mixed dust disease claim” means any claim for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to inhalation of, exposure to, or contact with mixed dust. “Mixed dust disease claim” includes a claim made by or on behalf of any person who has been exposed to mixed dust, or any representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of that person, for injury, including mental or emotional injury, death, or loss to the person, risk of disease or other injury, costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, or any other effects on the person's health that are caused by the person's exposure to mixed dust;

“Mixed dust pneumoconiosis” means the lung disease caused by the pulmonary response to inhaled mixed dusts, and does not mean silicosis and another pneumoconiosis, including, but not limited to, asbestosis;

“Nonmalignant condition” means a condition, other than a diagnosed cancer, that is caused or may be caused by either silica or mixed dust, whichever is applicable;

“Pathological evidence of mixed dust pneumoconiosis” means a statement by a board-certified pathologist that more than one (1) representative section of lung tissue uninvolved with any other disease process demonstrates a pattern of peribronchiolar and parenchymal stellate, star-shaped, nodular scarring and that there is no other more likely explanation for the presence of the fibrosis;

“Pathological evidence of silicosis” means a statement by a board-certified pathologist that more than one (1) representative section of lung tissue uninvolved with any other disease process demonstrates a pattern of round silica nodules and birefringent crystals or other demonstration of crystal structures consistent with silica, consisting of well-organized concentric whorls of collagen surrounded by inflammatory cells, in the lung parenchyma and that there is no other more likely explanation for the presence of the fibrosis;

“Physical impairment” means a condition of an exposed person as defined in § 29-34-304(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(3) or (c)(4);

“Premises owner” means a person who owns, in whole or in part, leases, rents, maintains, or controls privately owned lands, ways, or waters, or any buildings and structures on those lands, ways, or waters, and all privately owned and state-owned lands, ways, or waters leased to a private person, firm, or organization, including any buildings and structures on those lands, ways, or waters;

“Radiological evidence of mixed dust pneumoconiosis” means an ILO quality chest x-ray read by a certified B-reader as showing bilateral rounded or irregular opacities in the upper lung fields graded at least 1/1 on the ILO scale;

“Radiological evidence of silicosis” means an ILO quality chest x-ray read by a certified B-reader as showing either bilateral small rounded opacities (p, q, or r) occurring primarily in the upper lung fields graded at least 1/1 on the ILO scale or A, B, or C sized opacities representing complicated silicosis, also known as progressive massive fibrosis;

“Silica” means a respirable crystalline form of the naturally occurring mineral form of silicon dioxide, including, but not limited to, quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite;

“Silica claim” means any claim for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to inhalation of, exposure to, or contact with silica. “Silica claim” includes a claim made by or on behalf of any person who has been exposed to silica, or any representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of that person, for injury, including mental or emotional injury, death, or loss to the person, risk of disease or other injury, costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, or any other effects on the person's health that are caused by the person's exposure to silica;

“Silicosis” means a lung disease caused by the pulmonary response to inhaled silica;

(A)  “Substantial contributing factor” means both of the following:

Exposure to silica or mixed dust is the predominate cause of the physical impairment alleged in the silica claim or mixed dust disease claim, whichever is applicable; and

A competent medical authority has determined with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that without the silica or mixed dust exposures the physical impairment of the exposed person would not have occurred;

In determining whether exposure to silica or mixed dust was a substantial contributing factor in causing the plaintiff's injury or loss, the trier of fact in the action shall consider, but not be limited to, all of the following:

The manner in which the plaintiff was exposed;

The proximity of silica or mixed dust to the plaintiff when the exposure occurred;

The frequency and length of the plaintiff's exposure; and

Any factors that mitigated or enhanced the plaintiff's exposure to silica or mixed dust;

“Substantial occupational exposure to mixed dust” means employment for a cumulative period of at least five (5) years in an industry and an occupation in which, for a substantial portion of a normal work year for that occupation, the exposed person did any of the following:

Handled mixed dust;

Fabricated mixed dust-containing products so that the person was exposed to mixed dust in the fabrication process;

Altered, repaired, or otherwise worked with a mixed dust-containing product in a manner that exposed the person on a regular basis to mixed dust; or

Worked in close proximity to other workers who experienced substantial occupational exposure to silica in a manner that exposed the person on a regular basis to mixed dust;

“Substantial occupational exposure to silica” means employment for a cumulative period of at least five (5) years in an industry and an occupation in which, for a substantial portion of a normal work year for that occupation, the exposed person did any of the following:

Handled silica;

Fabricated silica-containing products so that the person was exposed to silica in the fabrication process;

Altered, repaired, or otherwise worked with a silica-containing product in a manner that exposed the person on a regular basis to silica; or

Worked in close proximity to workers who experienced substantial occupational exposure to mixed dust in a manner that exposed the person on a regular basis to silica;

“Veterans' benefit program” means any program for benefits in connection with military service under title 38 of the United States Code; and

“Workers' compensation law” means title 50, chapter 6, and judicial decisions rendered under title 50, chapter 6.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 4.

29-34-304. Prima facie showing of impairment or disease required — Compliance with standards in determining impairment — Exhumation not authorized.

  1. No person shall bring or maintain a civil action alleging a silica or mixed dust disease claim based on a nonmalignant condition in the absence of a prima facie showing that, in the opinion of a competent medical authority, the exposed person has a physical impairment, and that the person's exposure to silica or mixed dust is a substantial contributing factor to the physical impairment. The prima facie showing shall include:
    1. Evidence that a competent medical authority has taken from the exposed person a detailed medical history, which includes, to the extent necessary to render the opinion referred to in this subsection (a), the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person. If the exposed person is deceased, the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person shall be taken from the person or persons who are most knowledgeable about these areas of the exposed person's life;
    2. Evidence verifying that there has been a sufficient latency period in the context of the chronic, accelerated, or acute forms of the silicosis or mixed dust disease;
    3. A diagnosis by a competent medical authority, based on the detailed medical history, a medical examination, and pulmonary function testing, that both of the following apply to the exposed person:
      1. The exposed person has a permanent respiratory impairment rating of at least Class 2, as defined by and evaluated pursuant to the AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment; and
      2. The exposed person has silicosis or mixed dust disease based at a minimum on radiological or pathological evidence of silicosis or radiological or pathological evidence of mixed dust disease; and
    4. Verification that the competent medical authority has concluded that exposure to silica or mixed dust was a substantial contributing factor to the exposed person's impairment. A diagnosis that states that the medical findings and impairment are consistent with or compatible with silica or mixed dust exposure does not meet the requirements of this subdivision (a)(4).
  2. No person shall bring or maintain a civil action alleging that silica or mixed dust caused that person to contract lung cancer in the absence of a prima facie showing that, in the opinion of a competent medical authority, the person has a primary lung cancer, and that the person's exposure to silica or mixed dust is a substantial contributing factor to the lung cancer. The prima facie showing shall include:
    1. Evidence that a competent medical authority has taken from the exposed person a detailed medical history, which includes, to the extent necessary to render the opinion referred to in this subsection (b), the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person. If the exposed person is deceased, the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person shall be taken from the person or persons who are most knowledgeable about these areas of the exposed person's life;
    2. Evidence sufficient to demonstrate that at least ten (10) years have elapsed from the date of the exposed person's first exposure to silica or mixed dust until the date of diagnosis of the exposed person's primary lung cancer;
    3. Radiological or pathological evidence of silicosis or of mixed dust disease;
    4. Evidence of the exposed person's substantial occupational exposure to silica or mixed dust; and
    5. Verification that the competent medical authority has concluded that exposure to silica or mixed dust was a substantial contributing factor to the exposed person's lung cancer. A diagnosis that states that the cancer is consistent with or compatible with silica or mixed dust exposure does not meet the requirements of this subdivision (b)(5).
  3. No person shall bring or maintain a civil action alleging a silica or mixed dust disease claim based on the wrongful death of an exposed person in the absence of a prima facie showing that, in the opinion of a competent medical authority, the death of the exposed person was the result of a physical impairment, and that the person's exposure to silica or mixed dust was a substantial contributing factor to the physical impairment causing the person's death. The prima facie showing shall include:
    1. Evidence that a competent medical authority has taken from the exposed person a detailed medical history, which includes, to the extent necessary to render the opinion referred to in this subsection (c), the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person. If the exposed person is deceased, the occupational and exposure history of the exposed person shall be taken from the person or persons who are most knowledgeable about these areas of the exposed person's life;
    2. Evidence sufficient to demonstrate that at least ten (10) years have elapsed from the date of the exposed person's first exposure to silica or mixed dust until the date of diagnosis of the exposed person's primary lung cancer or, if the death is not alleged to be cancer-related, evidence verifying that there has been a sufficient latency period in the context of the chronic, accelerated, or acute forms of the silicosis or mixed dust disease;
    3. Radiological or pathological evidence of silicosis or radiological or pathological evidence of mixed dust disease;
    4. Evidence of the exposed person's substantial occupational exposure to silica or mixed dust; and
    5. Verification that the competent medical authority has concluded that exposure to silica or mixed dust was a substantial contributing factor to the exposed person's death. A diagnosis that states that the medical findings, impairment, or lung cancer are consistent with or compatible with silica or mixed dust exposure does not meet the requirements of this subdivision (c)(5).
  4. Evidence relating to any physical impairment under this part, including pulmonary function testing and diffusing studies, shall comply with the technical recommendations for examinations, testing procedures, quality assurance, quality control, and equipment incorporated in the AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment and the official statements of the American Thoracic Society regarding lung function testing, including general considerations for lung function testing, standardization of spirometry, standardization of the measurement of lung volumes, standardization of the single-breath determination of carbon monoxide uptake in the lung, and interpretative strategies for lung testing in effect at the time of the performance of any examination or test on the exposed person required under this part.
  5. Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as authorizing the exhumation of bodies.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 5.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Contention that the statute, along with the current statute of repose which bars silica claims after 10 years, would effectively abolish all silica claims in Tennessee is erroneous; because the latest plaintiff first used or consumed the products at issue was in 1991, the Silica Claims Priority Act (SCPA) had no application to the issue presented in this appeal, and when the SCPA is considered in conjunction with the 10-year statute of repose in the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the plain language of the SCPA extends the discovery rule only to products first purchased for use or consumption after July 1, 1996. Adams v. Air Liquide Am., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014).

29-34-305. Report of supporting evidence making out prima facie case — Dismissal without prejudice on the basis of minimum prima facie — Move to reinstate case — Effect of court's findings and decision on prima facie showing — Jury as trier of fact.

  1. The plaintiff in any civil action, alleging a silica claim or a mixed dust disease claim, shall file, within one hundred and twenty (120) days after filing the complaint, a written report by a competent medical authority, and any supporting evidence, making out the applicable prima facie case described in § 29-34-304. Any defendant shall have one hundred and twenty (120) days from the filing of the plaintiff's proffered prima facie evidence to challenge the adequacy of the proffered prima facie evidence for failure to comply with the minimum applicable requirements specified in § 29-34-304.
  2. If the court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to plaintiff's failure to make out a prima facie case as described in § 29-34-304, the court shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice as a matter of law. The court shall maintain its jurisdiction over any case that is so dismissed without prejudice. Any plaintiff whose case has been so dismissed without prejudice may move at any time to reinstate the plaintiff's case, upon a renewed prima facie showing that meets the applicable minimum requirements specified in § 29-34-304.
    1. The court's findings and decision on the prima facie showing shall not:
      1. Result in any presumption at trial that the exposed person has a physical impairment that is caused by silica or mixed dust exposure;
      2. Be conclusive as to the liability of any defendant in the case; or
      3. Be admissible at trial.
    2. If the trier of fact is a jury:
      1. The court shall not instruct the jury with respect to the court's findings or decision on the prima facie showing; and
      2. Neither counsel for any party nor a witness shall inform the jurors or potential jurors of the prima facie showing.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 6.

29-34-306. Limitations — Consolidation.

  1. Notwithstanding any other law, with respect to any silica claim or mixed dust disease claim that is not barred as of July 1, 2006, the period of limitations shall not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that the person has a physical impairment resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure.
  2. A court may consolidate for trial any number and type of silica or mixed dust disease claims only with the consent of all of the parties. In the absence of such consent, a court may consolidate for trial any claims relating to the exposed person and members of the person's household.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 7.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Running of Limitations.

Contention that the statute, along with the current statute of repose which bars silica claims after 10 years, would effectively abolish all silica claims in Tennessee is erroneous; because the latest plaintiff first used or consumed the products at issue was in 1991, the Silica Claims Priority Act (SCPA) had no application to the issue presented in this appeal, and when the SCPA is considered in conjunction with the 10-year statute of repose in the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the plain language of the SCPA extends the discovery rule only to products first purchased for use or consumption after July 1, 1996. Adams v. Air Liquide Am., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014).

29-34-307. Claims against premises owner — Presumptions.

The following shall apply to all civil actions for silica or mixed dust disease claims brought against a premises owner to recover damages or other relief for exposure to silica or mixed dust on the premises owner's property:

  1. A premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure, unless that individual's alleged exposure occurred while the individual was on the premises owner's property;
  2. If exposure to silica or mixed dust is alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1972, it is presumed that products containing silica or mixed dust used on the premises owner's property contained silica or mixed dust only at levels below safe levels of exposure. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the levels of silica or mixed dust in the immediate breathing zone of the plaintiff regularly exceeded the threshold limit values adopted by this state; and
    1. A premises owner is presumed to be not liable for any injury to any invitee who was engaged to work with, install, or remove products containing silica or mixed dust on the premises owner's property, if the invitee's employer held itself out as qualified to perform the work. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the premises owner had actual knowledge of the potential dangers of the products containing silica or mixed dust at the time of the alleged exposure that was superior to the knowledge of both the invitee and the invitee's employer;
    2. A premises owner that hired a contractor before January 1, 1972, to perform the type of work at the premises owner's property that the contractor was qualified to perform shall not be liable for any injury to any individual resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure caused by any of the contractor's employees or agents on the premises owner's property, unless the premises owner directed the activity that resulted in the injury or approved the critical acts that led to the individual's injury;
    3. If exposure to silica or mixed dust is alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1972, a premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from that exposure caused by a contractor's employee or agent on the premises owner's property, unless the plaintiff establishes the premises owner's intentional violation of an established safety standard in effect at the time of the exposure, and that the alleged violation was in the plaintiff's immediate breathing zone and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 8.

29-34-308. Claims arising in Tennessee — Severance of actions — Venue.

  1. No civil action alleging a silica claim or mixed dust disease claim may be filed in the courts of Tennessee after July 1, 2006, unless the plaintiff was a resident of Tennessee at the time the claim arose or the plaintiff's claim arose in Tennessee. For purposes of this part, a claim arises in Tennessee if the plaintiff was located in Tennessee at the time the plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to silica or mixed dust.
  2. To comply with this section in relation to an action that involves both claims that arose in this state and claims that arose outside this state, a court shall consider each claim individually and shall sever from the action the claims that are subject to this part.
  3. A civil action under this part may be filed only in the venue where the plaintiff resides, or was exposed to silica, mixed dust, or both, that was a substantial contributing factor to the physical impairment on which plaintiff's claim is based. If a plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff was exposed to silica, mixed dust, or both, in more than one (1) venue, the court shall determine, upon motion of any defendant found outside the venue in which the tort action is pending, which venue is the most appropriate forum for the claim, considering the relative amounts and lengths of the plaintiff's exposure to silica or mixed dust in each venue.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 9.

29-34-309. Application.

This part shall apply to all civil actions that allege a silica or mixed dust disease claim that are filed on or after July 1, 2006.

Acts 2006, ch. 728, § 10.

Part 4
Operators of Ice Skating Rinks

29-34-401. Part definitions.

For purposes of this part:

  1. “Ice skating rink” means a facility that is designed for ice skating and that is used by the public for recreational or competitive ice skating;
  2. “Operator” mean a person who owns, controls, or has operational responsibility for an ice skating facility, or the agent of that person; and
  3. “Spectator” means an individual who is present at an ice skating rink to observe ice skating.

Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 2. July 1, 2012.

29-34-402. Limits on liability of operators — Assumption of risk by ice skaters and spectators.

  1. An operator shall not be liable for damage or injuries to an ice skater or spectator where the operator complies with the requirements of § 29-34-403.
  2. A person who participates as an ice skater at an ice skating rink operated in accordance with the requirements of § 29-34-403 assumes the risk of injury or damage that may occur as a result of that participation and shall comply with the requirements of § 29-34-404.
  3. A spectator at an ice skating rink operated in accordance with the requirements of § 29-34-403 assumes the risk of injury or damage that may occur as a result of being a spectator and shall comply with the requirements of § 29-34-404.

Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 2. July 1, 2012.

29-34-403. Duties of operators.

  1. An operator shall:
    1. Provide at least one (1) individual to act as a rink monitor for approximately every two hundred (200) skaters at any given time that ice skating is open to the public;
    2. Conduct periodic inspections of the ice, skating equipment and all other equipment in a manner that will ensure a safe operating condition;
    3. Comply with all guidelines for ice skating rinks endorsed or recommended by the Ice Skating Institute;
    4. Post duties and expectations of skaters and spectators as prescribed by this chapter in conspicuous places;
    5. Maintain liability insurance coverage of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) per single limit for personal injury death or property damage; and
    6. Maintain accurate records and daily logs for the ice skating facility.
  2. The rink monitor shall:
    1. Wear appropriate attire as to identify the individual as a rink monitor;
    2. Direct and supervise skaters and spectators;
    3. Watch for and remove in a timely manner any foreign objects that may have fallen off the ice surface; and
    4. Inspect and maintain, or request maintenance of, the ice surface, floors, railings, boards, and walls surrounding the surface in a manner that will ensure the good condition of those areas.

Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 2. July 1, 2012.

29-34-404. Duties of ice skaters — Compliance with signs or warnings by spectators.

  1. Skaters in an ice skating rink shall:
    1. Comply with all posted signs and warnings that relate to the skater’s behavior while participating in ice skating at the ice skating rink;
    2. Obey all instructions or warnings given by the rink monitor, rink personnel or rink operator;
    3. Maintain reasonable control over skate speed and direction at all times;
    4. Be aware that there are other skaters and objects on the ice surface and take reasonable care to avoid collision with those skaters or objects; and
    5. Be aware that ability and skill levels of ice skaters vary and each individual must take reasonable care to ice skate within the individual’s personal abilities.
  2. Ice skaters shall not act in a manner that may cause injury or damage to others or their property.
  3. Spectators shall comply with each posted sign or warning that relates to the behavior of the spectator.

Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 2. July 1, 2012.

29-34-405. No limits on liability between skaters and spectators or on operators who engage in gross negligence or willful and wanton conduct.

  1. This part shall not limit the liability of one (1) ice skater or spectator to another ice skater or spectator.
  2. This part shall not apply where an operator engages in behavior that amounts to gross negligence, or willful or wanton conduct.

Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 983, § 2. July 1, 2012.

Part 5
Successor Corporation Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act

29-34-501. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Successor Corporation Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act.”

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 2.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-502. Part definitions.

For purposes of this part:

  1. “Asbestos claim” means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including:
    1. The health effects of exposure to asbestos, including a claim for personal injury or death, mental or emotional injury, risk of disease or other injury, or the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance;
    2. Any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child or other relative of the person; and
    3. Any claim for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos;
  2. “Corporation” means a corporation for profit, including a domestic corporation organized under the laws of this state or a foreign corporation organized under laws other than the laws of this state;
  3. “Successor” means a corporation that assumes or incurs or has assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related liabilities that is a successor and became a successor before January 1, 1972, or is any of such successor corporation's successors;
    1. “Successor asbestos-related liabilities” means any liabilities, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or to become due, that are related in any way to asbestos claims and were assumed or incurred by a corporation as a result of or in connection with a merger or consolidation, or the plan of merger or consolidation related to the merger or consolidation with or into another corporation, or that are related in any way to asbestos claims based on the exercise of control or the ownership of stock of the corporation before the merger or consolidation.
    2. “Successor asbestos-related liabilities” includes liabilities that, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined under § 29-34-505, were or are paid or otherwise discharged, or committed to be paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation, or a successor of the corporation, or by or on behalf of a transferor, in connection with settlements, judgments, or other discharges in this state or another jurisdiction; and
  4. “Transferor” means a corporation from which successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were assumed or incurred.

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 3.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-503. Application of limitations.

  1. The limitations in § 29-34-504 shall apply to any successor corporation.
  2. The limitations of § 29-34-504 shall not apply to:
    1. Workers' compensation benefits paid by or on behalf of an employer to an employee under title 50, chapter 6, or a comparable workers' compensation law of another jurisdiction;
    2. Any claim against a corporation that does not constitute a successor asbestos-related liability;
    3. Any obligation under the National Labor Relations Act, compiled in 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended or under any collective bargaining agreement; or
    4. A successor that, after a merger or consolidation, continued in the business of mining asbestos or in the business of selling or distributing asbestos fibers or in the business of manufacturing, distributing, removing, or installing asbestos-containing products which were the same or substantially the same as those products previously manufactured, distributed, removed, or installed by the transferor.

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 4.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-504. Limitations on cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities of a successor corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The successor corporation does not have responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation.
  2. If the transferor had assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related liabilities in connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, then the fair market value of the total assets of the prior transferor determined as of the time of the earlier merger or consolidation shall be substituted for the limitation set forth in subsection (a) for purposes of determining the limitation of liability of a successor corporation.

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 5.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-505. Establishment of fair market value.

  1. A successor corporation may establish the fair market value of total gross assets for the purpose of the limitations under § 29-34-504 through generally accepted accounting principles, including:
    1. By reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction; or
    2. In the absence of other readily available information from which the fair market value can be determined, by reference to the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet.
  2. For purposes of this section, total gross assets may include any intangible assets.
  3. To the extent total gross assets include any liability insurance that was issued to the transferor whose assets are being valued for purposes of this section, the applicability, terms, conditions and limits of such insurance shall not be affected by this section, nor shall this section otherwise affect the rights and obligations of an insurer, transferor or successor under any insurance contract or any related agreements, including, without limitation, preenactment settlements resolving coverage-related disputes, and the rights of an insurer to seek payment for applicable deductibles, retrospective premiums or self-insured retentions or to seek contribution from a successor for uninsured or self-insured periods or periods where insurance is uncollectible or otherwise unavailable. Without limiting the foregoing, to the extent total gross assets include any such liability insurance, a settlement of a dispute concerning any such liability insurance coverage entered into by a transferor or successor with the insurers of the transferor before July 1, 2013, shall be determinative of the total coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 6.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-506. Rate of annual increase of fair market value.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the fair market value of total gross assets at the time of the merger or consolidation shall increase annually at a rate equal to the sum of:
    1. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year since the merger or consolidation, unless the prime rate is not published in that edition of the Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable determination of the prime rate on the first day of the year may be used; and
    2. One percent (1%).
  2. The rate determined pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be compounded.
  3. The adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall continue as provided in subsection (a) until the date the adjusted value is first exceeded by the cumulative amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of the successor corporation or a predecessor or by or on behalf of a transferor after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined.
  4. No adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall be applied to any liability insurance that may be included in total gross assets pursuant to § 29-34-505(c).

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 7.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

29-34-507. Liberal construction of part — Application of part.

  1. The courts of this state shall construe this part liberally with regard to successors.
  2. This part shall apply to all asbestos claims filed against a successor on or after July 1, 2013.
  3. This part shall also apply to any pending asbestos claims against a successor in which trial has not commenced as of July 1, 2013, except that any provisions of these sections which would be unconstitutional if applied retroactively shall be applied prospectively.

Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 8.

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 246, § 9. July 1, 2013.

Part 6
Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act

29-34-601. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act”.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-602. Part definitions.

As used in this part:

  1. “Asbestos” means chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, asbestiform winchite, asbestiform richterite, asbestiform amphibole minerals, and any of these minerals that have been chemically treated or altered, including all minerals defined as asbestos in 29 CFR 1910 at the time the asbestos action is filed;
  2. “Asbestos action” means a claim for damages or other civil or equitable relief presented in a civil action arising out of, based on or related to the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including loss of consortium, wrongful death, mental or emotional injury, risk or fear of disease or other injury, costs of medical monitoring or surveillance and any other derivative claim made by or on behalf of a person exposed to asbestos or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of that person. “Asbestos action” does not include a claim for compensatory benefits pursuant to workers' compensation law or for veterans' benefits;
  3. “Asbestos trust” means a government-approved or court-approved trust, qualified settlement fund, compensation fund, or claims facility created as a result of an administrative or legal action, a court-approved bankruptcy, or pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(g) or 11 U.S.C. § 1121(a) or other applicable provision of law, that is intended to provide compensation to claimants arising out of, based on, or related to the health effects of exposure to asbestos;
  4. “Plaintiff” means a person asserting an asbestos action, a decedent if the action is brought through or on behalf of an estate, or a parent or guardian if the action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or an incompetent person;
  5. “Trust claims materials” means a final executed proof of claim and all other documents and information related to a claim against an asbestos trust, including claims forms and supplementary materials, affidavits, depositions and trial testimony, work history, medical and health records, documents reflecting the status of a claim against an asbestos trust, and if the asbestos trust claim has settled, all documents relating to the settlement of the asbestos trust claim;
  6. “Trust governance documents” means all documents that relate to eligibility and payment levels for an asbestos trust, including claims payment matrices, trust distribution procedures, or plans for reorganization;
  7. “Veterans' benefits” means a program for benefits in connection with military service administered by the veterans' administration under title 38 of the United States Code; and
  8. “Workers' compensation” means a program administered by the United States or a state to provide benefits, funded by a responsible employer or its insurance carrier, for occupational diseases or injuries or for disability or death caused by occupational diseases or injuries. “Workers' compensation” includes the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq.), and Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 81). “Workers' compensation” does not include the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq.).

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-603. Required disclosures by plaintiff.

  1. For each asbestos action filed in this state, the plaintiff shall provide all parties with a sworn statement identifying all asbestos trust claims that have been filed by the plaintiff or by anyone on the plaintiff's behalf, including claims with respect to asbestos-related conditions other than those that are the basis for the asbestos action or that potentially could be filed by the plaintiff against an asbestos trust. The sworn statement shall be provided no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the date set for trial for the asbestos action. For each asbestos trust claim or potential asbestos trust claim identified in the sworn statement, the statement shall include:
    1. The name, address, and contact information for the asbestos trust;
    2. The amount claimed or to be claimed by the plaintiff;
    3. The date the plaintiff filed the claim;
    4. The disposition of the claim;
    5. Whether there has been a request to defer, delay, suspend, or toll the claim; and
    6. An attestation from the plaintiff, under penalties of perjury, that the sworn statement is complete and is based on a good faith investigation of all potential claims against asbestos trusts.
  2. The plaintiff shall make available to all parties all trust claims materials for each asbestos trust claim that has been filed by the plaintiff or by anyone on the plaintiff's behalf against an asbestos trust, including any asbestos-related disease.
  3. The plaintiff shall supplement the information and materials provided pursuant to this section within ninety (90) days after the plaintiff:
    1. Files an additional asbestos trust claim;
    2. Supplements an existing asbestos trust claim; or
    3. Receives additional information or materials related to any claim or potential claim against an asbestos trust.
  4. Failure by the plaintiff to make available to all parties all trust claims materials as required by this part shall constitute grounds for the court to extend the trial date in an asbestos action.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-604. Discovery.

  1. Trust claims materials and trust governance documents are presumed to be relevant and authentic and are admissible in evidence. No claims of privilege apply to any trust claims materials or trust governance documents.
  2. A defendant in an asbestos action may seek discovery from an asbestos trust. The plaintiff may not claim privilege or confidentiality to bar discovery and shall provide consent or other expression of permission that may be required by the asbestos trust to release information and materials sought by a defendant.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-605. Stay of action.

  1. A court shall stay an asbestos action if the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to make the disclosures required under § 29-34-603 within one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the trial date.
  2. If, in the disclosures required by § 29-34-603, a plaintiff identifies a potential asbestos trust claim, the judge shall have the discretion to stay the asbestos action until the plaintiff files the asbestos trust claim and provides all parties with all trust claims materials for the claim. The plaintiff shall also state whether there has been a request to defer, delay, suspend, or toll the claim against the asbestos trust.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-606. Identification of additional or alternative asbestos trusts by defendant.

  1. Not less than ninety (90) days before trial, if a defendant identifies an asbestos trust claim not previously identified by the plaintiff that the defendant reasonably believes the plaintiff can file, the defendant shall meet and confer with the plaintiff to discuss why the defendant believes the plaintiff has an additional asbestos trust claim, and thereafter the defendant may move the court for an order to require the plaintiff to file the asbestos trust claim. The defendant shall produce or describe the documentation it possesses or is aware of in support of the motion.
  2. Within ten (10) days of receiving the defendant's motion pursuant to subsection (a), the plaintiff shall, for each asbestos trust claim identified by the defendant, make one (1) of the following responses:
    1. File the asbestos trust claim;
    2. File a written response with the court setting forth the reasons why there is insufficient evidence for the plaintiff to file the asbestos trust claim; or
    3. File a written response with the court requesting a determination that the plaintiff's expenses or attorney's fees and expenses to prepare and file the asbestos trust claim identified in the defendant's motion exceed the plaintiff's reasonably anticipated recovery from the trust.
    1. If the court determines that there is a sufficient basis for the plaintiff to file the asbestos trust claim identified by a defendant, the court shall order the plaintiff to file the asbestos trust claim and shall stay the asbestos action until the plaintiff files the asbestos trust claim and provides all parties with all trust claims materials no later than thirty (30) days before trial.
    2. If the court determines that the plaintiff's expenses or attorney's fees and expenses to prepare and file the asbestos trust claim identified in the defendant's motion exceed the plaintiff's reasonably anticipated recovery from the asbestos trust, the court shall stay the asbestos action until the plaintiff files with the court and provides all parties with a verified statement of the plaintiff's history of exposure, usage, or other connection to asbestos covered by the asbestos trust.
  3. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to trial in an asbestos action, the court shall enter into the record a trust claims document that identifies each claim the plaintiff has made against an asbestos trust.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-607. Admissible evidence.

  1. If a plaintiff proceeds to trial in an asbestos action before an asbestos trust claim is resolved, the filing of the asbestos trust claim may be considered as relevant and admissible evidence.
  2. Trust claim materials that are sufficient to entitle a claim to consideration for payment under the applicable trust governance documents may be sufficient to support a jury finding that the plaintiff may have been exposed to products for which the asbestos trust was established to provide compensation and that such exposure may be a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury that is at issue in the asbestos action.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-608. Failure to provide information — Sanctions.

A plaintiff who fails to provide all of the information required under this part is subject to sanctions as provided in the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and any other relief for the defendant, or defendants, that the court considers just and proper.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-609. Applicability of part.

This part shall apply to all asbestos actions that are filed on or after July 1, 2016.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Act 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

Part 7
Asbestos Claims Priorities Act

29-34-701. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Asbestos Claims Priorities Act”.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-702. Part definitions.

As used in this part:

  1. “AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment” means the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment in effect at the time of the performance of any examination or test on the exposed person required under this part;
  2. “Asbestos” has the same meaning as defined in § 29-34-602;
  3. “Asbestos action” has the same meaning as defined in § 29-34-602;
  4. “Asbestosis” means bilateral diffuse interstitial fibrosis of the lungs caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers;
  5. “Board-certified in internal medicine” means a physician who is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine and whose certification was current at the time of the performance of any examination and rendition of any report required by this part;
  6. “Board-certified in occupational medicine” means a physician who is certified in the subspecialty of occupational medicine by the American Board of Preventive Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Preventive Medicine and whose certification was current at the time of the performance of any examination and rendition of any report required by this part;
  7. “Board-certified in pathology” means a physician who holds primary certification in anatomic pathology or clinical pathology from the American Board of Pathology or the American Osteopathic Board of Pathology, whose certification was current at the time of the performance of an examination and rendition of a report required by this part, and whose professional practice is principally in the field of pathology and involves regular evaluation of pathology materials obtained from surgical or postmortem specimens;
  8. “Board-certified in pulmonary medicine” means a physician who is certified in the subspecialty of pulmonary medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine and whose certification was current at the time of the performance of an examination and rendition of a report required by this part;
  9. “Certified B-reader” means an individual who has qualified as a national institute for occupational safety and health (NIOSH) “final” or “B-reader” of x rays under 42 CFR 37.51(b), whose certification was current at the time of any readings required under this part, and whose B-reads comply with the NIOSH B-Reader's Code of Ethics, Issues in Classification of Chest Radiographs, and Classification of Chest Radiographs in Contested Proceedings;
  10. “Chest x ray” means chest films taken in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulatory standards and taken in the posterior-anterior view;
  11. “DLCO” means diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, which is the measurement of carbon monoxide transfer from inspired gas to pulmonary capillary blood;
  12. “Exposed person” means a person whose exposure to asbestos or to asbestos-containing products is the basis for an asbestos action;
  13. “FEV1” means forced expiratory volume in the first second, which is the maximal volume of air expelled in one (1) second during performance of simple spirometric tests;
  14. “FEV1/FVC” means the ratio between the actual values for FEV1 over FVC;
  15. “Forced vital capacity” or “FVC” means the maximal volume of air expired with maximum effort from a position of full inspiration;
  16. “ILO system and ILO scale” mean the radiological ratings and system for the classification of chest x rays of the International Labour Office provided in Guidelines for the Use of ILO International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses in effect on the day any x rays of the exposed person were reviewed by a certified B-reader;
  17. “Nonmalignant condition” means any condition that can be caused by asbestos other than a diagnosed cancer;
  18. “Official statements of the American Thoracic Society” means lung function testing standards set forth in statements from the American Thoracic Society, including standardizations of spirometry, standardizations of lung volume testing, standardizations of diffusion capacity testing or single-breath determination of carbon monoxide uptake in the lung, and interpretive strategies for lung function tests, which are in effect on the day of the pulmonary function testing of the exposed person;
  19. “Pathological evidence of asbestosis” means a statement by a board-certified pathologist that more than one (1) representative section of lung tissue uninvolved with any other disease process demonstrates a pattern of peribronchiolar or parenchymal scarring in the presence of characteristic asbestos bodies graded 1(B) or higher under the criteria published in Asbestos-Associated Diseases, 106 Archive of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 11, Appendix 3 (October 8, 1982), or grade one (1) or higher in pathology of asbestosis, 134 Archive of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 462-80 (March 2010) (Tables 2 and 3), or as amended at the time of the exam, and there is no other more likely explanation for the presence of the fibrosis;
  20. “Plaintiff” has the same meaning as defined in § 29-34-602;
  21. “Plethysmography or body (box) plethysmography” means the test for determining lung volume in which the exposed person is enclosed in a chamber equipped to measure pressure, flow, or volume change;
  22. “Predicted lower limit of normal” means the test value that is the calculated standard convention lying at the fifth percentile, below the upper ninety-five percent (95%) of the reference population, based on age, height, and gender, according to the recommendations by the American Thoracic Society and as referenced in the applicable AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, primarily National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) predicted values, or as amended;
  23. “Pulmonary function test” means spirometry, lung volume testing, and diffusion capacity testing, including appropriate measurements, quality control data, and graphs, performed in accordance with the methods of calibration and techniques provided in the applicable AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and all standards provided in the official statements of the American Thoracic Society in effect on the day pulmonary function testing of the exposed person was conducted;
  24. “Qualified physician” means a board-certified internist, pathologist, pulmonary specialist, or specialist in occupational and environmental medicine, as may be appropriate to the actual diagnostic specialty in question, who:
    1. Has conducted a physical examination of the exposed person and has taken or has directed to be taken under the physician's supervision, direction and control, a detailed occupational, exposure, medical, smoking, and social history from the exposed person, or the physician has reviewed the pathology material and has taken or has directed to be taken under the physician's supervision, direction and control, a detailed history from the person most knowledgeable about the information forming the basis of the asbestos action;
    2. Spends no more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the physician's professional practice time in providing consulting or expert services in connection with actual or potential civil actions, and whose medical group, professional corporation, clinic, or other affiliated group earns not more than fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from providing such services;
    3. Does not require as a condition of diagnosing, examining, testing, screening, or treating the exposed person that legal services be retained by the exposed person or any other person pursuing an asbestos action based on the exposed person's exposure to asbestos;
    4. Prepared or directly supervised the preparation and final review of any medical report under this part; and
    5. Has not relied on any examinations, tests, radiographs, reports, or opinions of any doctor, clinic, laboratory, or testing company that performed an examination, test, radiograph, or screening of the exposed person in violation of any law, regulation, licensing requirement, or medical code of practice of the state in which the examination, test, or screening was conducted;
  25. “Radiological evidence of asbestosis” means a quality 1 or 2 chest x ray under the ILO system, showing bilateral small, irregular opacities (s, t, or u) occurring primarily in the lower lung zones graded by a certified B-reader as at least 1/0 on the ILO scale;
  26. “Radiological evidence of diffuse bilateral pleural thickening” means a quality 1 or 2 chest x ray under the ILO system, showing diffuse bilateral pleural thickening of at least b2 on the ILO scale and blunting of at least one (1) costophrenic angle as classified by a certified B-reader;
  27. “Spirometry” means a test of air capacity of the lung through a spirometer to measure the volume of air inspired and expired;
  28. “Supporting test results” means copies of the following documents and images:
    1. Pulmonary function tests, including printouts of the flow volume loops, volume time curves, DLCO graphs, lung volume tests and graphs, quality control data, and other pertinent data for all trials and all other elements required to demonstrate compliance with the equipment, quality, interpretation, and reporting standards set forth in this part;
    2. B-reading and B-reader reports;
    3. Reports of xray examinations;
    4. Diagnostic imaging of the chest;
    5. Pathology reports; and
    6. All other tests reviewed by the diagnosing physician or a qualified physician in reaching the physician's conclusions;
  29. “Timed gas dilution” means a method for measuring total lung capacity in which the subject breathes into a spirometer containing a known concentration of an inert and insoluble gas for a specific time, and the concentration of that inert and insoluble gas in the lung is compared to the concentration of that type of gas in the spirometer;
  30. “Total lung capacity” means the volume of gas contained in the lungs at the end of a maximal inspiration;
  31. “Veterans' benefits” has the same meaning as defined in § 29-34-602; and
  32. “Workers' compensation” has the same meaning as defined in § 29-34-602.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-703. Medical report — Evidence requirements — Class actions.

  1. A plaintiff in an asbestos action alleging a nonmalignant condition shall file within ninety (90) days of filing the complaint or other initial pleading a detailed narrative medical report and diagnosis, signed by a qualified physician and accompanied by supporting test results, constituting prima facie evidence that the exposed person meets the requirements of this part. The report shall not be prepared by a lawyer or person working for or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm.
  2. A defendant in an asbestos action shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity before trial to challenge the adequacy of the prima facie evidence that the exposed person meets the requirements of this part. An asbestos action shall be dismissed without prejudice upon a finding that the exposed person has failed to make the prima facie showing required by this part.
  3. A plaintiff in an asbestos action filed on or after July 1, 2016 shall also include an information form with the complaint for nonmalignant conditions containing all of the following:
    1. The name, address, date of birth, social security number, marital status, occupation, and employer of the exposed person and any person through which the exposed person alleges exposure;
    2. The plaintiff's relationship to the exposed person or the person through which the exposure is alleged;
    3. To the best of the plaintiff's ability, the location and manner of each alleged exposure, including the specific location and manner of exposure for any person through which the exposed person alleges exposure, the beginning and ending dates of each alleged exposure and the identity of the manufacturer of the specific asbestos product for each exposure when this information is reasonably available;
    4. The identity of the defendant or defendants against whom the plaintiff asserts a claim;
    5. The specific asbestos-related disease claimed to exist; and
    6. Any supporting documentation relating to subdivisions (c)(3)-(5).
  4. Asbestos actions must be individually filed. No asbestos action filed on or after July 1, 2016, shall be permitted on behalf of a group or class of plaintiffs.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-704. Prerequisite of prima facie showing.

  1. No asbestos action related to an alleged nonmalignant asbestos-related condition may be brought or maintained in the absence of prima facie evidence that the exposed person has a physical impairment for which asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor. The plaintiff shall make a prima facie showing of claim for each defendant and include a detailed narrative medical report and diagnosis signed under oath by a qualified physician that includes all of the following:
    1. Radiological or pathological evidence of asbestosis or radiological evidence of diffuse bilateral pleural thickening or a high-resolution computed tomography scan showing evidence of asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening;
    2. A detailed occupational and exposure history from the exposed person or, if that person is deceased, from the person most knowledgeable about the exposures that form the basis of the action, including identification of all of the exposed person's principal places of employment and exposures to airborne contaminants and whether each place of employment involved exposures to airborne contaminants, including asbestos fibers or other disease-causing dusts or fumes, that may cause pulmonary impairment and the nature, duration, and level of any exposure;
    3. A detailed medical, social, and smoking history from the exposed person or, if that person is deceased, from the person most knowledgeable, including a thorough review of the past and present medical problems of the exposed person and their most probable cause;
    4. Evidence verifying that at least fifteen (15) years have elapsed between the exposed person's date of first exposure to asbestos and the date of diagnosis;
    5. Evidence from a personal medical examination and pulmonary function testing of the exposed person or, if the exposed person is deceased, from the person's medical records, that the exposed person has or the deceased person had a permanent respiratory impairment rating of at least Class 2 as defined by and evaluated pursuant to the AMA's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment or reported significant changes year to year in lung function for FVC, FEV1, or DLCO as defined by the American Thoracic Society's Interpretative Strategies for Lung Function Tests, 26 European Respiratory Journal 948-68, 961-62, Table 12 (2005) and as updated;
    6. Evidence that asbestosis or diffuse bilateral pleural thickening, rather than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is a substantial factor to the exposed person's physical impairment, based on a determination the exposed person has:
      1. Forced vital capacity below the predicted lower limit of normal and FEV1/FVC ratio (using actual values) at or above the predicted lower limit of normal;
      2. Total lung capacity, by plethysmography or timed gas dilution, below the predicted lower limit of normal; or
      3. A chest x ray showing bilateral small, irregular opacities (s, t, or u) graded by a certified B-reader as at least 2/1 on the ILO scale; and
    7. The specific conclusion of the qualified physician signing the report that exposure to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor to the exposed person's physical impairment and not more probably the result of other causes. An opinion that the medical findings and impairment are consistent with or compatible with exposure to asbestos, or words to that effect, does not satisfy the requirements of this subdivision (a)(7).
  2. If the alleged nonmalignant asbestos-related condition is a result of an exposed person living with or having extended contact with another exposed person who, if the asbestos action had been filed by the other exposed person would have met the requirements of subdivision (a)(2), and the exposed person alleges extended contact with the other exposed person during the relevant time period, the detailed narrative medical report and diagnosis shall include all of the information required by subsection (a), except that the exposure history required under subdivision (a)(2) shall describe the exposed person's history of exposure to the other exposed person.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-705. Requirements for medical examinations and testing.

Evidence relating to physical impairment, including pulmonary function testing and diffusing studies, offered in any action governed by this part, shall:

  1. Comply with the quality controls, equipment requirements, methods of calibration and techniques set forth in the AMA's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and all standards set forth in the Official Statements of the American Thoracic Society that are in effect on the date of any examination or pulmonary function testing of the exposed person required by this part;
  2. Not be obtained or based on testing or examinations that violate any law, regulation, licensing requirement, or medical code of practice of the state in which the examination, test, or screening was conducted, or of this state; and
  3. Not be obtained under the condition that the plaintiff or exposed person retains the legal services of the attorney or law firm sponsoring the examination, test, or screening.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-706. Prima facie showing — Discovery — Consolidation of actions for trial.

  1. Evidence relating to the prima facie showings required under this part shall not create any presumption that the exposed person has an asbestos-related injury or impairment and shall not be conclusive as to the liability of any defendant.
  2. No evidence shall be offered at trial regarding, and the jury shall not be informed of:
    1. The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss an asbestos action under this part; or
    2. The provisions of this part with respect to what constitutes a prima facie showing of asbestos-related impairment.
  3. Until a court enters an order determining that the exposed person has established prima facie evidence of impairment, no asbestos action shall be subject to discovery, except discovery related to establishing or challenging the prima facie evidence or by order of the trial court upon motion of one (1) of the parties and for good cause shown.
    1. A court may consolidate for trial any number and type of nonmalignant asbestos actions with the consent of all the parties. In the absence of such consent, the court may consolidate for trial only asbestos actions relating to the exposed person and members of that person's household.
    2. No class action or any other form of mass aggregation relating to more than one (1) exposed person and members of that person's household shall be permitted.
    3. This subsection (d) does not preclude consolidation of cases by court order for pretrial or discovery purposes.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-707. Limitations period.

  1. With respect to an asbestos action not barred by limitations as of July 1, 2016, an exposed person's cause of action shall not accrue, nor shall the running of limitations commence, prior to the earlier of the date:
    1. The exposed person received a medical diagnosis of an asbestos-related impairment;
    2. The exposed person discovered facts that would have led a reasonable person to obtain a medical diagnosis with respect to the existence of an asbestos-related impairment; or
    3. The date of death of the exposed person having an asbestos-related impairment.
  2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to revive or extend limitations with respect to any claim for asbestos-related impairment that was otherwise time-barred on July 1, 2016.
  3. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to adversely affect, impair, limit, modify, or nullify any settlement or other agreements with respect to an asbestos action entered into prior to July 1, 2016.
  4. An asbestos action arising out of a nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action from an action for an asbestos-related cancer. Notwithstanding any law of this state to the contrary, no damages shall be awarded for fear or increased risk of future disease in an asbestos action.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-708. Qualified physician for purposes of report — Findings required.

    1. The trial court, in its discretion, may allow a physician who meets the other requirements of this part but does not meet the time and revenue requirements under § 29-34-702(24)(B) to be considered a qualified physician and submit a report required by this part if the trial court makes an evidentiary finding, after all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, that it would be manifestly unjust not to allow the physician at issue to submit the report.
    2. For subsection (a) to apply, the trial court also must make specific and detailed findings, setting forth the bases of such findings, that the physician's opinions appear to be reliable medical opinions in that they are supported by documented, reliable medical evidence obtained through testing or examinations that comply with and do not violate any applicable law, regulation, licensing requirement, or medical code of practice and that the opinions are not the product of bias or the result of financial influence due to the physician's role as a paid expert.
    3. The cost of retaining another physician who is qualified pursuant to § 29-34-702(24)(B) for the purpose of submitting a report required by this part shall not be considered in determining manifest injustice, but the availability or unavailability of other physicians who meet such time and revenue requirements shall be considered as a relevant factor.
  1. A physician who submits a report under this part may be an expert witness retained by counsel for the exposed person or claimant; provided, that the physician otherwise meets the requirements of this part, § 24-7-115, and the Tennessee Rules of Evidence governing the qualifications of expert witnesses.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

29-34-709. Applicability of part.

This part shall apply to all asbestos actions that are filed on or after July 1, 2016.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 2.

Complier's Notes. For Preamble to the act regarding asbestos-related liability, please refer to Acts 2016, ch. 635.

Acts 2016, ch. 635, § 4 provided that the act, which enacted this part, shall take effect July 1, 2016, and apply to all asbestos actions filed on or after such date.

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 635, §  4. July 1, 2016.

Chapter 35
Usurpation or Forfeiture of Office or Franchise — Corporate Misdeeds

29-35-101. Grounds for action.

An action lies in the name of the state against the person or corporation offending, in the following cases:

  1. Whenever any person unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise within this state, or any office in any corporation created by the laws of this state;
  2. Whenever any public officer has done, or suffered to be done, any act which works a forfeiture of that officer's office;
  3. When any person acts as a corporation within this state, without being authorized by law; or
  4. If, being incorporated, they:
    1. Do or omit acts which amount to a surrender or forfeiture of their rights and privileges as a corporation;
    2. Exercise powers not conferred by law; or
    3. Fail to exercise powers conferred by law and essential to the corporate existence.

Code 1858, § 3409 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., § 5165; Code 1932, § 9336; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2801.

Cross-References. Chancery jurisdiction, § 16-11-105.

Motor vehicles, financing sale, restraining violations, § 55-13-105.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 8, 506.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attorney General, §§ 3, 4; 6 Tenn. Juris., Charities, §§ 2, 16; 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 91, 96, 98; 10 Tenn. Juris., Elections, § 16; 17 Tenn. Juris., Justices of Peace and General Sessions Courts, § 8; 18 Tenn. Juris., Mandamus, § 23; 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, § 18; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, §§ 1, 2, 4, 6.

Law Reviews.

Business Associations — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Paul J. Hartman), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 954.

Business Associations — 1961 Tennessee Survey (II) (Kenneth L. Roberts), 15 Vand. L. Rev. 840.

Constitutional Law — 1961 Tennessee Survey (James C. Kirby, Jr.), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1171.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Local Government Law — 1955 Tennessee Survey (Clyde L. Ball), 8 Vand. L. Rev. 1061.

Methods of Judicial Review over Administrative Actions in Tennessee, 13 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 657 (1984).

Rights of Minority Stockholders in Tennessee (William I. Henderson), 27 Tenn. L. Rev. 261.

Tennessee Annexation Law: History, Analysis, and Proposed Amendments (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 55 Tenn. L. Rev. 577 (1989).

The Tennessee Court System (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 189.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Attorney General Opinions. Enforcement of statutory requirements for constables, OAG 99-025 (2/16/99).

A “duly qualified elector of the municipality” means a person qualified to vote in an election of the “municipality,” as that term is defined in T.C.A. § 7-53-101(10).  Improperly appointed members of boards are generally viewed as de facto officers, and acts of such officers are considered valid.  Nevertheless, as a precaution, the board, once all of its members are appropriately appointed, may wish to review the actions taken by the earlier board and vote to ratify, confirm, modify, or reject such actions.   OAG 15-72, 2015 Tenn. AG LEXIS 73 (11/3/2015).

Comparative Legislation. Usurpation of office:

Ala.  Code § 6-6-590 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 16-118-105.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 45-6-5.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 415.010 et seq.

Miss.  Code Ann. § 25-1-37.

Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 98.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-515 et seq.

Va. Code § 8.01-635 et seq.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

Public officials qualify as agents for the state sufficiently empowered to proceed with a declaratory judgment action involving the validity of a charter; therefore, a chancery court had jurisdiction to adjudicate such a controversy. Jordan v. Knox County, 213 S.W.3d 751, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. 2007).

2. —Annexation Challenges.

Section 6-51-103, and not the general quo warranto statute, provides the exclusive means to challenge an annexation ordinance. State ex rel. Cordova Area Residents for Environment v. City of Memphis, 862 S.W.2d 525, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

3. Nature of Action.

Authority to file a bill in the nature of quo warranto is strictly statutory. State ex rel. Thurman v. Scott, 184 Tenn. 76, 195 S.W.2d 617, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 262 (1946).

Suit by city to ascertain its authority to appoint member to board of trustees of hospital corporation could be maintained as declaratory judgment action and was not the sort of suit required to be maintained as quo warranto action. Rockwood v. Chamberlain Memorial Hospital, 221 Tenn. 468, 427 S.W.2d 829, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (1968).

Subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section provide the only grounds for maintaining a quo warranto action against persons holding public office while subdivisions (3) and (4) apply to corporation officers, corporations, trustees, etc. but not to public officials. State by Webster v. Word, 508 S.W.2d 539, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. 1974).

4. Standing.

Private citizens cannot maintain a quo warranto action complaining of the acts of public officials unless the private individuals aver a special interest or injury not common to the public generally. State ex rel. Vaughn v. King, 653 S.W.2d 727, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

Dismissal of a quo warranto action for lack of standing was appropriate because property owners and attorneys who represented property owners in forfeiture proceedings lacked standing to bring the action in their own names and the district attorney general declined to participate in the action. Heredia v. Gibbons, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2019).

5. Common Law Remedies — Statute as Substitute.

At common law, there were two modes of enforcing the forfeiture of a charter. One was by scire facias, the other by information in the nature of a quo warranto. By the statute in this chapter, a remedy is provided, covering both of such proceedings used at common law, and is intended as a substitute for them; and this remedy is exclusive. State v. Merchants' Ins. & Trust Co., 27 Tenn. 235, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1847); Hooper v. Rhea, 3 Shan. 145 (1885); State ex rel. Cates v. Standard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 S.W. 565, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1907), aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 30 S. Ct. 543, 54 L. Ed. 817, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1967 (1910).

It would be unprofitable to inquire whether the ancient writ of quo warranto, or the information in the nature thereof, was ever in force in this state, further than its history may tend to aid in the construction of our statutes. State v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1872).

This chapter embraces all the objects formerly reached or obtained by quo warranto, or the information in the nature thereof, and some other objects that were always obtainable by bill in equity. We may look to the English cases under the old mode of proceeding, for light in the administration of the new form of suits. State v. White's Creek Tpk. Co., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1876); State v. McConnell, 71 Tenn. 332, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1879); Hooper v. Rhea, 3 Shan. 145 (1885); State ex rel. Cates v. Standard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 S.W. 565, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1907), aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 30 S. Ct. 543, 54 L. Ed. 817, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1967 (1910).

6. Quo Warranto and Injunction Distinguished.

The writ of quo warranto is not a prohibitory writ. The writ of injunction is prohibitory. Bradley v. Commissioners, etc., 21 Tenn. 428, 1841 Tenn. LEXIS 37 (1841); State v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1872); State ex rel. Cates v. Standard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 S.W. 565, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1907), aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 30 S. Ct. 543, 54 L. Ed. 817, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1967 (1910).

7. Quo Warranto — How Conducted.

The proceeding quo warranto may be by information, but if by information it can only be presented by consent of the district attorney general and at all stages of the proceeding is subject to his control, and it is to be conducted as other suits in equity. State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1931).

Action in nature of quo warranto to resolve conflicting claims of two persons for the office of judge of supreme court and to have statute declared unconstitutional was properly brought under this section. State by Shriver v. Dunn, 496 S.W.2d 480, 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 480 (Tenn. 1973).

8. Proceedings Against Officers.

Officer who entered into competing business using company's former drivers and customers was not liable to fellow company shareholder for any breach of fiduciary duty where officer set up competing business only after fellow company shareholder effectively discontinued company's operation. State ex rel. Jones v. Burnett, 760 S.W.2d 629, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. 1988).

9. —Officers Covered.

This statute only applies to public and corporation officers, and not to officers of an unincorporated society. Crenshaw v. Barbour, 162 Tenn. 235, 36 S.W.2d 87, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1931).

10. —Necessary Parties.

A suit to adjudicate that defendant is unlawfully holding public office must be filed in name of the state by the district attorney general, and if bill on its face shows that suit is not thus instituted the court must dismiss the bill. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

Only the state may file an action questioning the authority of an incumbent officer to hold his office. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

11. —Actions During Preceding Term.

Acts committed in a previous term which subject the officeholder to ouster cannot be used either through the ouster statute (§ 8-47-101) or through the quo warranto statute (this section) as ground to oust him or get him out of office in a succeeding term. State ex rel. Chitwood v. Murley, 202 Tenn. 637, 308 S.W.2d 405, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 449 (1957).

12. —Proceedings Authorized.

This section does not authorize proceeding to contest election of officer. Boring v. Griffith, 48 Tenn. 456, 1870 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1870).

In a suit in the nature of quo warranto to oust members of county board of education in which the only question involved was the eligibility of the defendants to hold office as members of such board, chancery court had jurisdiction to hear and decide cause. Algee v. State, 200 Tenn. 127, 290 S.W.2d 869, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 385 (1956).

In quo warranto and declaratory judgment action arising out of reappraisal of property where quo warranto portion of suit would not lie against public officials because there was no allegation that public officials were usurping an office or had committed any act which would work a forfeiture of office, allegations which were justiciable controversies in a declaratory judgment action could be treated as though they were pleaded as part of the declaratory judgment action. State by Webster v. Word, 508 S.W.2d 539, 1974 Tenn. LEXIS 421 (Tenn. 1974).

A quo warranto action is a proper vehicle to challenge the qualifications of an elected official to hold the office to which he was elected. State by Lockert v. Knott, 631 S.W.2d 124, 1982 Tenn. LEXIS 397 (Tenn. 1982).

A quo warranto action will lie in a proceeding complaining of the wrongful acts of public officials, but not of private persons. State ex rel. Vaughn v. King, 653 S.W.2d 727, 1982 Tenn. App. LEXIS 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).

Determination whether deputy appointed interim successor under § 8-48-111 or trustee subsequently elected by county commission is entitled to serve as trustee is to be determined in a quo warranto proceeding rather than by a declaratory judgment proceeding. Jackson v. Hensley, 715 S.W.2d 605, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

13. —Suits Constituting Quo Warranto Against Officers.

Suit by state contesting right of justice of peace to hold office of school board member was not an election contest but a suit testing eligibility of defendant to hold office and was a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto. State ex rel. Howell v. Sensing, 188 Tenn. 684, 222 S.W.2d 13, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 390 (1949).

Where county election commission omitted office of justice of peace for municipality in general election due to practice of voting for office in October instead of August as provided by Tenn. Const., art. VII, § 5, there was no election hence chancery court was entitled to declare that person who was issued a certificate of election on basis of six written votes at general election was holding office without right, as proceeding was not an election contest but a proceeding to determine right of defendant to hold office which did not require court to look behind election returns to determine proceeding. State ex rel. Bryant v. Maxwell, 189 Tenn. 187, 224 S.W.2d 833, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (1949).

Suit by taxpayers seeking declaration that mayor was not qualified to hold office because of failure to comply with provisions of city charter requiring publication of election expenses was in nature of quo warranto and would be dismissed where not brought in name of state by district attorney general. Country Clubs, Inc. v. Knoxville, 217 Tenn. 104, 395 S.W.2d 789, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (1965).

A suit questioning the authority by which an incumbent officeholder performs his duty cannot be properly filed as a proceeding for a declaratory judgment but must be brought as an action in the nature of quo warranto. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

Suit by circuit court clerk questioning authority of clerk and master of Roane County to act as clerk of general sessions court under private act and asserting authority of circuit court clerk to act in that capacity under general statute could not be brought as declaratory judgment action but was required to be brought as action in nature of quo warranto. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

While the authority of various officers over the administration of local matters may be adjudicated in a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, where the issue is made that a defendant unlawfully holds an office a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto must be resorted to. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

A quo warranto action is a proper vehicle to challenge the qualifications of an elected official to hold the office to which he was elected, whether the alleged disqualification existed at the time of the election or came into existence after the office holder undertook to perform the duties of the office. State ex rel. Dye v. Rawls, 573 S.W.2d 159, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 668 (Tenn. 1978).

14. —Legal Fees.

Proceedings in quo warranto against temporary county judge was not a suit against the county or against such judge in his official capacity but was a suit against such person in his individual capacity and the county was not liable for legal fees incurred in defense of such suit. State v. Stine, 200 Tenn. 561, 292 S.W.2d 771, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 438 (1956).

15. —Removal from Office Without Criminal Conviction — Constitutionality.

In these cases of removals by courts the courts may remove one for an offense which is punishable criminally, even where such person has not been convicted on an indictment for such offense, and constitutional provisions that one shall not be answerable for a criminal offense except on indictment do not apply. State ex rel. Thompson v. Crump, 134 Tenn. 121, 183 S.W. 505, 1915 Tenn. LEXIS 150, L.R.A. (n.s.) 1916D951 (1916).

16. —Preventing Usurpation of Office — Bill.

A bill charging that defendant unlawfully holds the office of justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) may be filed in the nature of quo warranto by district attorney general on relation of third person, and where rights are predicated entirely upon certificate of election issued to relator, supported by majority according to election returns, it is not a contest election case. State ex rel. Pike v. Hammons, 163 Tenn. 290, 43 S.W.2d 395, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1931).

A case for relief under this and the sections following is stated by a bill in the nature of quo warranto in the name of the state by district attorney general on the relation of a citizen of the county, filed and prosecuted in chancery court, which asserts that relator holds the only legal certificate of election, supported by a majority on the face of the election returns, and that defendant's certificate is void for issuance after election commissioner's power was exhausted. State ex rel. Pike v. Hammons, 163 Tenn. 290, 43 S.W.2d 395, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1931).

17. —Certificate of Election Issued Under Duress.

A certificate of election issued to a claimant to the office of justice of the peace (now general sessions judge) as result of duress upon the election commissioners is void in quo warranto proceeding, and it was not incumbent on the opposing candidate, who subsequently received a certificate, second in time, to institute a contest. State ex rel. Pike v. Hammons, 166 Tenn. 469, 63 S.W.2d 660, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 102 (1933).

18. —Unqualified Persons.

Where city charter required commissioner to be freeholder in city, ownership of property by his wife, payment of debts on such property, the making of improvements on such property, a lease for a term of years or the ownership of property in the county did not satisfy such requirement. Kinkead v. State, 202 Tenn. 164, 303 S.W.2d 713, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 376 (1957).

19. —Acceptance of Another Office by Incumbent — Effect.

No person can hold more than one lucrative office, and an incumbent who accepts another vacates the first, so that he can only exercise the powers of the last office, and any attempt to do so is a usurpation for which a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto should be brought and not a suit under the ouster law. State ex rel. Harris v. Brown, 157 Tenn. 39, 6 S.W.2d 560, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1928).

Where acceptance of city manager's office by member of board of commissioners was legally ineffective, board member did not thereby hold second office while holding first and incompatible office of commissioner, and remedy against him, if any, was under provision of ouster statute rather than under quo warranto. State v. Thompson, 193 Tenn. 395, 246 S.W.2d 59, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (1952), superseded by statute as stated in, Jackson v. Hensley, 715 S.W.2d 605, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

20. —Incumbent's Right to Injunction.

An incumbent may enjoin claimant to his office from interfering with possession of the office. Hart v. Pierce, 169 Tenn. 411, 88 S.W.2d 798, 1935 Tenn. LEXIS 64 (1935).

21. —Appeal.

A quo warranto proceeding by a new road commission, created under a law impliedly repealing the former law, against the commission created under the former law to determine which of the two was entitled to administer the road law was a proceeding of equitable nature, in which discretionary appeal is allowable, though the case was tried in circuit court. State v. Meux, 166 Tenn. 286, 61 S.W.2d 974, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 93 (1933).

22. Proceedings Against Corporations.

Where general welfare corporation deeded hospital to county and corporation and its officers later brought action for cancellation of deed and county brought cross bill for declaratory judgment holding deed valid, such proceeding by corporation was valid and it was not required to bring its action under this law. Bedford County Hospital v. County of Bedford, 42 Tenn. App. 569, 304 S.W.2d 697, 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1957).

Action by town, in the nature of quo warranto, to negate city's prior annexation attempt was not timely where it was not filed prior to operative date of annexation ordinance. City of Bristol v. Town of Bluff City, 868 S.W.2d 282, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 487 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), appeal denied, City of Bristol v. City of Bluff City, 868 S.W.2d 282, 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 449 (Tenn. 1993).

23. —Corporations Covered.

Municipal corporations are not embraced within the provisions of this chapter, and they cannot be dissolved, or their charters declared void under these provisions, by proceedings in the nature of quo warranto. Their charters are subject to repeal, at any time, by direct act of the legislature. State ex rel. Palmer v. Wagoner, 88 Tenn. 290, 12 S.W. 721, 1889 Tenn. LEXIS 49 (1889); Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 487, 15 S.W. 364, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1891); Grainger County v. State, 111 Tenn. 234, 80 S.W. 750, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 22 (1904).

Municipal corporations may in proper cases be the subject of quo warranto proceedings. Fairview v. Spears, 210 Tenn. 404, 359 S.W.2d 824, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 451 (1962).

Private citizens could not bring an action as citizens, residents and taxpayers for themselves and others to have charter a city organized under title 6, chs. 18-23 declared null and void as such action should have been brought in the name of the state under ch. 35 of this title. Fairview v. Spears, 210 Tenn. 404, 359 S.W.2d 824, 1962 Tenn. LEXIS 451 (1962).

Where territory sought to incorporate under title 6, chs. 18-23, neighboring city had standing to challenge the proposed charter in its own right and was not required to bring suit under this section. Corporation of Collierville v. Fayette County Election Com., 539 S.W.2d 334, 1976 Tenn. LEXIS 573 (Tenn. 1976).

24. —Necessary Parties.

The state is an essential party to a suit under subsection (4) (A) of this section for forfeiture of the charter of defendant corporation. State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904).

25. —Dissolution of Corporation — Nature of Proceeding.

A suit in the name of the state upon the relation of several persons seeking injunction against alleged unlawful practices of a corporation and dissolution of the corporation and forfeiture of its charter is an action in the nature of quo warranto. State v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n, 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (1931).

26. —Rights of Stockholders.

Stockholder is not entitled to appointment of receiver for alleged misuse of corporate powers since remedy is restricted to action by the state which is exclusive. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

27. —Acts Meriting Expulsion.

Acts which lead to expulsion of corporation are acts which abuse charter privileges and produce or tend to produce injury to the public. State v. Family Loan Co., 167 Tenn. 654, 73 S.W.2d 167, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1934).

Issue of misuse or abuse of charter powers is dependent upon corporate character, corporate objects, nature of abuse or misuse, effect on the public, and available remedies for correction. State v. Family Loan Co., 167 Tenn. 654, 73 S.W.2d 167, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1934).

Corporation cannot be expelled for alleged abuse of charter for failure to pay taxes, since state provides its remedy for enforcement of payment of taxes which remedy is exclusive, even though failure to pay taxes is a nuisance. State v. Family Loan Co., 167 Tenn. 654, 73 S.W.2d 167, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1934).

28. —Quo Warranto Against Particular Corporations.

29. — —Corporation Illegally Practicing Optometry.

Where the evidence showed that defendant corporation was practicing optometry, or a “healing art,” without a license, its operation was ultra vires and unlawful, and a decree revoking defendant's charter was proper under this and the following sections. State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co., 189 Tenn. 433, 225 S.W.2d 263, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 439 (1949).

30. — —Small Loan Corporations.

Complaint by state for ouster of domiciled foreign corporation engaged in small loan business that corporation used offensive methods in exacting usury from borrowers alleged an abuse of corporate powers and required an answer. State v. Family Loan Co., 167 Tenn. 654, 73 S.W.2d 167, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1934).

31. — —Turnpike Companies.

A county may maintain a suit to restrain the collection of tolls in the county on a turnpike, including a bridge, after the right to exact tolls has expired by reason of the termination of the corporate existence of the company chartered and organized to construct the turnpike, with the right to exact tolls. Montgomery County v. Clarksville & R. Turnpike Co., 120 Tenn. 76, 109 S.W. 1152, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 40 (1908).

Injunction suit on relation to restrain unlawful exactions by a turnpike company is not a private suit and must be brought under this statute. State ex rel. Wilson County v. Lebanon & Nashville Turnpike Co., 151 Tenn. 150, 268 S.W. 627, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1925).

32. — —Railroad Corporations.

The state of Tennessee through its attorney general has authority to institute quo warranto proceedings against a railroad and its owners to procure a receivership and a forfeiture of the railroad company's charter where that company has refused to carry out the purposes for which the charter was issued and has tried to abandon operations. Tennessee ex rel. Atchley v. Taylor, 169 F.2d 626, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. Ohio 1948).

33. —Appellate Jurisdiction of Case for Dissolution of Corporation.

The appellate jurisdiction of a case to dissolve a corporation and forfeit its charter is with the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. State v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n, 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (1931).

Collateral References. 19 Am. Jur. 2d Corporation §§ 1613, 1613 — 1621, 1643, 1652; 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 3, 5, 12-48.

19 C.J.S. Corporations § 912; 67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 251-261.

Admissibility of election ballots in quo warranto proceedings. 71 A.L.R.2d 353.

Condemnation by de facto corporation, right of landowner to question by quo warranto legality of corporate existence. 44 A.L.R. 555.

Criminal or penal statute, quo warranto as a remedy for violation of, by corporation. 53 A.L.R. 1038.

Criminal prosecution as a condition of a civil action or proceeding for cancelation of a corporate charter for violation of law. 9 A.L.R. 106.

Dissolution of corporation on ground of intracorporate deadlock or dissension. 83 A.L.R.3d 458.

Forfeiture of franchise, quo warranto as proper remedy to enforce. 34 A.L.R. 1425.

Grand or petit juror, quo warranto to test right to serve as. 91 A.L.R. 1009.

Nome, quo warranto to protect corporation against use of, by another corporation. 66 A.L.R. 948, 115 A.L.R. 1253, 72 A.L.R.3d 8.

Power of district, county, or prosecuting attorney to bring quo warranto to try right or title to public office. 131 A.L.R. 1214, 153 A.L.R. 899.

Practice of law by corporation as ground for quo warranto. 73 A.L.R. 1336, 105 A.L.R. 1364, 157 A.L.R. 282.

Primary election, quo warranto to test results of. 86 A.L.R. 246.

Quo warranto to oust incumbent of public office, based on misconduct or other ground of forfeiture. 119 A.L.R. 725.

Tax statute, quo warranto to try title or right to office connected with administration of. 109 A.L.R. 330.

Teacher as an officer whose right may be tested by quo warranto. 30 A.L.R. 1423.

Office 86-89.

29-35-102. Corporate officers — Trustees.

The action also lies against the directors, managers, and officers of a corporation, or the trustees of funds given for a public or charitable purpose:

  1. To bring them to an account for the management and disposition of property entrusted to their care;
  2. To remove such officers or trustees on proof of misconduct;
  3. To prevent malversation, peculation, and waste;
  4. To set aside and restrain improper alienations of such property or funds, and to secure them for the benefit of those interested; and
  5. Generally to compel faithful performance of duty.

Code 1858, § 3410 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 8); Shan., § 5166; Code 1932, § 9337; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2802.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 506.

Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 189.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Charities, §§ 16, 19, 22; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 16; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, §§ 2, 3; 24 Tenn. Juris., Trusts and Trustees, § 61.

Law Reviews.

Conversions of Nonprofit Hospitals to For-Profit Status: The Tennessee Experience (Shannon McGhee Hernandez), 28 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1077 (1998).

Survey of Tennessee Property Law, V. Trusts (Beverly A. Rowlett), 48 Tenn. L. Rev. 95 (1980).

Cited: Munsey v. Russell Bros., 31 Tenn. App. 187, 213 S.W.2d 286, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948); State ex rel. Jones v. Burnett, 760 S.W.2d 629, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 206 (Tenn. 1988).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction and Application.

As used in this section the word “corporation” refers only to public corporations and funds given or appropriated to a public or charitable purpose. State v. Thompson, 193 Tenn. 395, 246 S.W.2d 59, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (1952), superseded by statute as stated in, Jackson v. Hensley, 715 S.W.2d 605, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Suit by city to ascertain its authority to appoint member to board of trustees of hospital corporation could be maintained as declaratory judgment action and was not the sort of suit required to be maintained as quo warranto action. Rockwood v. Chamberlain Memorial Hospital, 221 Tenn. 468, 427 S.W.2d 829, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 477 (1968).

The fact that a corporation is public or charitable is sufficient to make its directors, managers and officers accountable under this section, regardless of the source of the corporate funds. State by & Through Pierotti v. Sundquist, 884 S.W.2d 438, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Oct. 3, 1994).

A corporation with the stated purpose of “fulfill[ing] the social needs of humanity, particularly for the elderly,” which owned a retirement community and collected funds intended to benefit the residents who had no ownership in, no control, nor any membership in the corporation, was a charitable corporation for the purpose of this section. State by & Through Pierotti v. Sundquist, 884 S.W.2d 438, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Oct. 3, 1994).

An action against a charitable corporation under this section based on allegations of gross negligence and misconduct by certain directors was not precluded by § 48-58-601. State by & Through Pierotti v. Sundquist, 884 S.W.2d 438, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 255 (Tenn. 1994), rehearing denied, — S.W.2d —, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 282 (Tenn. Oct. 3, 1994).

2. Actions in Name of State.

Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 8 expressly provided “that it shall be lawful for the attorney general to file a bill in the nature of a bill in equity, in a court of chancery or circuit court, as hereinbefore directed, to restrain by injunction any corporation from assuming or exercising any franchise not granted.” The foregoing language was omitted from the Code of 1858 but the remaining language was carried into that Code. It was contended that the authority given the attorney general to file a bill for injunction was abrogated by its omission from the Code but it was held that the Code Commission had condensed and readjusted the act to avoid repetition but that the substance of the original act and Code provisions was the same and that an action in the name of the state on relation of others could be maintained under this section. State v. Southern Junior College, 166 Tenn. 535, 64 S.W.2d 9, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1933).

3. Office in Unincorporated Society.

The statute has no application to the case of one who holds an office in an unincorporated religious society. Crenshaw v. Barbour, 162 Tenn. 235, 36 S.W.2d 87, 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1931).

4. Trusts.

5. —Charitable Trusts.

If the trust be for a charitable or public purpose, the statute applies and gives the court jurisdiction. Frierson v. General Assembly of Presbyterian Church, 54 Tenn. 683, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 106 (1872).

Where there was a devise to a trustee for a definite charitable purpose, and the subject of the devise was adequate for the effectuation of that purpose, a court of equity would, at the suit of the attorney general, compel the observance of the trust, and in such cases, the heirs of the testator had no concern with the matter, and only the attorney general, who under this statute represented the beneficiaries of the trust, could bring a suit with respect to the management of the same. Nolfe v. Byrne, 142 Tenn. 309, 219 S.W. 1, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1920).

Where church created an unincorporated Sunday school union which held property in trust for the church and operated as an instrumentality of the church, the state was not an indispensable party in an action against the union based on the mismanagement of the trust property. Sunday School Union, A. M. E. C. v. Walden, 121 F.2d 719, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3307 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1941).

6. —Trusts for Private Benefit.

If the objects of the trust are for private benefit, or the property and funds are appropriated to private ends, and not dedicated to public or charitable purposes, the court has no jurisdiction. State v. Elliston, 63 Tenn. 99, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 216 (1874).

A corporation was held not to come within the provision of the statute, where its charter contained the following section: “That the profits of the company, after appropriating so much as may be judged necessary for promoting female education, the object for which the association is formed, shall be divided into equal portions between the members of the company.” State v. Elliston, 63 Tenn. 99, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 216 (1874).

7. —Appointment of Trustees Where None Originally Appointed.

This statute presupposes the valid appointment of trustees, and does not authorize the attorney general to represent unascertained beneficiaries of a charitable trust, so as to permit the appointment of trustees where none were originally appointed. Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn. 602, 191 S.W. 131, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 181, 5 A.L.R. 303 (1916).

8. —Trust Uncompleted — Compelling Raising of Funds.

Where a completed trust is not provided for, but only a contribution is made toward the establishment of a charitable trust, and the charitable trust fund is inadequate for the effectuation of the trust, it is manifest that the attorney general cannot compel the trustee or anybody else to raise funds elsewhere toward the completion of the charity to which the testator contributed. Nolfe v. Byrne, 142 Tenn. 309, 219 S.W. 1, 1919 Tenn. LEXIS 60 (1920).

9. —Accounting by Trustees Before Time for Investment.

The trustees under a will, directing the establishment of an old men's home, upon the death of testator's wife, cannot be required to account for the funds in their hands prior to the time for such establishment, at the suit of a district attorney, in the absence of any allegation of mismanagement or misapplication of the trust funds. State ex rel. Sims v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co., 143 Tenn. 278, 227 S.W. 1029, 1920 Tenn. LEXIS 18 (1921).

10. Recovery of Public Funds.

Where the attempted appointment of a member of the board of commissioners of a city to the office of city manager was illegal and void, and against public policy, this section authorized a judgment in a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto against him for funds of the city which had been paid to him as city manager. State v. Thompson, 193 Tenn. 395, 246 S.W.2d 59, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 305 (1952), superseded by statute as stated in, Jackson v. Hensley, 715 S.W.2d 605, 1986 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 32, 33.

67 C.J.S. Officers § 215.

Corporations 283(3).

29-35-103. Attachment of corporate property after nonuse or assignment of franchise.

A corporation is not dissolved by the nonuse or assignment to others, in whole or in part, of its powers, franchises, and privileges, unless all the corporate property has been appropriated to the payment of its debts; and any creditor, for the creditor and other creditors, whether that creditor has recovered judgment or not, or any stockholder for that stockholder and other stockholders, may file a bill under this chapter, to attach the corporate property, and have such property applied to the payment of the debts of the corporation, and any surplus divided among the stockholders.

Code 1858, § 3431 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 172); Shan., § 5187; Code 1932, § 9358; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2803.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 6 Tenn. Juris., Colleges and Universities, § 12; 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 95, 98, 122.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

This section relates to a case of nonuser or assignment of its powers and franchises by a corporation owning property undisposed of, and authorizes a creditor or stockholder to file a bill and attach the corporate property and have it applied to debts and the balance distributed among its stockholders, in view of §§ 29-12-107, 29-12-108. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

2. Application.

The section is not applicable to a suit in which the corporation is not a party and in which a creditor seeks to subject assets in the hands of another creditor or of a stockholder. Bickford v. McComb, 88 F. 428, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1898).

This section applies not only to domestic corporations, but also to foreign corporations; and a court of chancery may dissolve a foreign corporation as to its property within the jurisdiction. Adams v. Chattanooga Co., 128 Tenn. 505, 161 S.W. 1131, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1913).

3. Rights of Creditors.

The chancery court will follow the assets of an insolvent corporation, charged with a trust in favor of creditors, and compel their application to the corporate debts, and will not allow one creditor to appropriate a common fund of an insolvent corporation to his own benefit, so as to defeat others. Marr v. Bank of West Tennessee, 44 Tenn. 471, 1867 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1867).

The assets of an insolvent corporation become, from the date of its assured insolvency by some positive act of insolvency, a fixed trust fund for equal pro rata distribution among all its creditors, unless otherwise provided by law, or fixed by valid contract. Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Knoxville Car-Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634, 32 S.W. 1097, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 49 Am. St. Rep. 943, 31 L.R.A. 593 (1895); Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910).

A judgment against an insolvent corporation in circuit court, though case be yet pending on appeal, is sufficient basis for intervention in a general creditors' proceeding. Barnett v. East T., V. & G. R. Co., 48 S.W. 817, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 114 (1898).

The assets of a corporation are converted into a trust fund for creditors when the corporation has permanently ceased to do business, or to exercise its franchises, and such assets are not then subject to attachment by a creditor, so as to give priority. Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910).

4. Rights of Stockholders.

The chancery court will not entertain a suit of minority stockholders to wind up the affairs of a corporation and distribute its assets, upon the allegation that they disapprove of the management, or consider the speculation a bad one. Their remedy is to elect new officers or to sell their shares. But where it becomes impossible to attain the objects for which the corporation was formed, and failure is inevitable, chancery will wind up its affairs and distribute its assets. O'Connor v. Knoxville Hotel Ass'n, 93 Tenn. 708, 28 S.W. 308, 1894 Tenn. LEXIS 19 (1894); Adams v. Chattanooga Co., 128 Tenn. 505, 161 S.W. 1131, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1913).

The stockholders of a corporation that has become extinct by expiration of its charter, or their personal representatives, are entitled to recover its assets for pro rata distribution among themselves where such assets constitute a surplus after payment of all its debts. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724, 69 S.W. 345, 1902 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 91 Am. St. Rep. 769, 58 L.R.A. 694 (1902).

If a corporation has ceased to function under its charter, a stockholder may maintain a suit to impound and distribute the corporate assets. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

A stockholder of a corporation cannot maintain a suit for appointment of a receiver of the corporation to wind up its corporate affairs, because of nonuser of its corporate franchise, on the theory that the corporation is engaged in the gradual process of liquidation, and functioning for that purpose, with incidental profit. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

A stockholder had a right to maintain a bill to recover the corporate assets and to ask that they be applied on the debts, and that the balance of the assets be ratably distributed to the stockholders. Bean v. Commercial Sec. Co., 25 Tenn. App. 254, 156 S.W.2d 338, 1941 Tenn. App. LEXIS 103 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941).

Where a corporation has ceased to function, or has become insolvent, or where it is impossible to attain the objects for which it was formed, a stockholder may maintain a suit to impound and distribute the corporate assets. State v. Breedlove, 38 Tenn. App. 80, 270 S.W.2d 582, 1953 Tenn. App. LEXIS 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1953).

5. Gradual Liquidation — Effect.

Nonuser or abandonment of corporate functions may not be deduced from the adoption of a policy looking to a gradual liquidation of its affairs. Orman v. Bransford Realty Co., 168 Tenn. 70, 73 S.W.2d 713, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 21 (1934).

6. Bringing Whole Litigation into One Suit — Court's Power.

For the purpose of administering and distributing the assets of a corporation so as to do justice to all the parties, one chancery court may enjoin the prosecution of separate suits in that court or other chancery courts, and draw all the litigation into the one case, so that it may be conducted as an insolvent proceeding. Smith v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 502 (1877); Baxter v. Nashville & Hillsboro Tpk. Co., 78 Tenn. 488, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 212 (1882); Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910); Adams v. Chattanooga Co., 128 Tenn. 505, 161 S.W. 1131, 1913 Tenn. LEXIS 65 (1913).

7. Bill Not Made on Behalf of All Creditors — Curing Defect.

The defect in a bill of certain creditors to wind up the affairs of a corporation in not being on behalf of all other creditors is cured by decree directing notice to be given to other creditors, and allowing them to come in and participate in the proceeds of the corporate property. Moss v. Harpeth Academy, 54 Tenn. 283, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1872).

8. Bill to Wind Up Affairs by Creditor Without Judgment.

A general creditor, without first obtaining a judgment on his claim, can maintain a general creditor's bill to wind up the affairs of a corporation as insolvent, which had executed deeds of trust conveying its entire property, and suspended business and turned its property over to the trustees, rendering the assets a fixed trust fund for pro rata distribution among its creditors, and invalidating the preference made by such trust deeds. Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Knoxville Car-Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634, 32 S.W. 1097, 1895 Tenn. LEXIS 140, 49 Am. St. Rep. 943, 31 L.R.A. 593 (1895); Smith v. Bradt Printing Co., 97 Tenn. 351, 37 S.W. 10, 1896 Tenn. LEXIS 149 (1896); Memphis Barrel Co. v. Ward, 99 Tenn. 172, 42 S.W. 13, 1897 Tenn. LEXIS 21, 63 Am. St. Rep. 825 (1897); Rawlings v. New Memphis Gaslight Co., 105 Tenn. 268, 60 S.W. 206, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 76, 80 Am. St. Rep. 880 (1900); Voightman & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 123 Tenn. 452, 131 S.W. 982, 1910 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1910).

9. Description of Property in Bill — Necessity.

In stockholders' suit to wind up a corporation as insolvent, description of its property in the bill of complaint is not requisite to give the court jurisdiction to sell same. Williams v. American Asso., 197 F. 500, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1301 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1912).

10. Answer to Creditors' Bill Admitting Insolvency — Effect.

Where a general creditors' bill seeking a pro rata distribution among all the creditors of the proceeds of the sale of an insolvent corporation's property is brought, and the corporation answers admitting the insolvency and that it is indebted to plaintiffs in the sums alleged, intervening stockholders cannot thereafter raise objection that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the court of equity, because plaintiffs are mere contract creditors. American Nat'l Bank v. Tinsley Millinery Co., 20 Tenn. App. 459, 100 S.W.2d 665, 1936 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1936).

Collateral References. Corporations 509(1-4), 670.

29-35-104. Naming proper claimant to office — Adjudication of rights.

Whenever the action is brought against a person for usurping an office, in addition to the other allegations, the name of the person rightfully entitled to the office, with a statement of that person's right thereto, may be added, and the trial should, if practicable, determine the right of the contesting parties.

Code 1858, § 3419; Shan., § 5175; Code 1932, § 9346; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2804.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 507.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Assignments, § 12.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Use of Proceeding to Determine Right to Office.

The proceeding is in reality a mode by which the right to the office may be determined, if the district attorney general chooses to allow the proceeding to be instituted by his authority. State ex rel. Johnson v. Campbell, 76 Tenn. 74, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1881).

2. Dual Office Holding as Ground.

The action lies where a person holds more than one lucrative office in violation of constitutional provision. State ex rel. Harris v. Brown, 157 Tenn. 39, 6 S.W.2d 560, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1928).

3. Burden of Proof.

When an officer's title is assailed by the state, the burden of proof is upon him to show his title thereto; but this burden is discharged when he shows a legal election, and that he has received the majority of the legal vote cast. If the state relies upon some special objection peculiar to the individual, as ineligibility, the burden of proof is upon the state to show such special facts. State ex rel. v. Duncan, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 334 (1901).

In a quo warranto proceeding against a person for usurping an office the burden of proof is upon such person to prove his title to the office. State ex rel. Dobbins v. Larry, 206 Tenn. 261, 332 S.W.2d 669, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 513 (1960).

4. Expiration of Term — Effect on Proceedings.

An appeal questioning the right to hold an office will be dismissed when the question has become moot by reason of expiration of term of office and the appellate tribunal is without power to grant plaintiff any effectual relief whatever. Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U.S. 64, 23 S. Ct. 579, 47 L. Ed. 709, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1325 (1903); State ex rel. Wilson v. Bush, 141 Tenn. 229, 208 S.W. 607, 1918 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (1919).

In a proceeding which arose prior to the passage of § 20-12-119 making the awarding of costs discretionary in the trial judge it was held that where there was a question of eligibility of an officer to hold an office, the Supreme Court would determine the case on the merits, though the term of office had expired, where the matter of costs remained to be adjudicated, and this depended on the merits. State ex rel. Jones v. Howard, 139 Tenn. 73, 201 S.W. 139, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1918).

Collateral References. 67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85.

Office 86-89.

29-35-105. Judgment for claimant to office.

If judgment is rendered in favor of such claimant, the court may order the defendant to deliver to the claimant, upon the claimant's qualifying as required by law, all books and papers belonging to the office in defendant's custody, or under defendant's control, and such claimant may thereupon proceed to exercise the functions of the office.

Code 1858, § 3420; Shan., § 5176; Code 1932, § 9347; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2805.

Cited: State ex rel. Curry v. Wright, 52 Tenn. 612, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (1871).

Collateral References. 67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85, 88.

29-35-106. Damages for usurpation of office.

Such claimant, on claimant's recovery of the office, may also, at any time within one (1) year thereafter, bring suit against the defendant, and recover the damages claimant has sustained by reason of the act of the defendant.

Code 1858, § 3421; Shan., § 5177; Code 1932, § 9348; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2806.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 507.

Cited: State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Protecting Rightful Claimant During Contest.

The rightful claimant can generally secure himself against an insolvent intruder by injunction, or by such steps as will compel him to give a special bond to cover damages by his wrongful detention of the office. Curry v. Wright, 86 Tenn. 636, 8 S.W. 593, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1888).

2. Rights of Officer De Jure.

An officer de jure, wrongfully enjoined from acting, is entitled to the salary wrongfully paid to a mere de facto officer, the injunction not requiring the salary to be paid to him. Memphis v. Woodward, 59 Tenn. 499, 1873 Tenn. LEXIS 99, 27 Am. Rep. 750 (1873); Currey v. Wright, 77 Tenn. 247, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1882).

In a suit by the successful sheriff against the ousted sheriff for the fees of office during his incumbency, and remaining in the offices of the clerks of the courts, the fees in specie belonged to the successful contestant, and he was entitled to recover such fees, as against the assignees of such incumbent sheriff de facto who had been ousted. Currey v. Wright, 77 Tenn. 247, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 47 (1882).

3. Sureties of Officer De Facto — Liability to Officer De Jure.

The sureties on the official bond of a sheriff de facto are not liable, under our statutes, to the sheriff de jure, upon his recovery of the office, for the fees, salary, or other emoluments of the office, which were received by the intruder while wrongfully exercising the functions of the office. Curry v. Wright, 86 Tenn. 636, 8 S.W. 593, 1888 Tenn. LEXIS 17 (1888).

4. Judgment in Usurpation Case — Separate Action for Damages.

The only judgment that can be rendered against the defendant is one for his exclusion from the office or franchise and a money judgment for costs. The damages must be sued for in another suit. State ex rel. Curry v. Wright, 52 Tenn. 612, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (1871).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 117, 131.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83, 84.

Office 86-89.

29-35-107. Adjudication among several claimants to office.

When several persons claim to be entitled to the same office or franchise, they may be all made defendants, so as to determine their respective rights.

Code 1858, § 3422; Shan., § 5178; Code 1932, § 9349; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2807.

Cited: State v. Blazer, 619 S.W.2d 370, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 1981).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 74, 76.

37 C.J.S. Franchises § 15; 67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85.

Corporation as necessary or proper party defendant in proceedings to determine validity of election or appointment of corporate director or officer. 21 A.L.R. 1048, 166 A.L.R. 768.

29-35-108. Election contests.

The validity of any election which may be contested under this Code cannot be tried under this chapter.

Code 1858, § 3423; Shan., § 5179; Code 1932, § 9350; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2808.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 507.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, § 3.

Law Reviews.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Cited: State v. Blazer, 619 S.W.2d 370, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 1981); Brackin v. Sumner County, 814 S.W.2d 57, 1991 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (Tenn. 1991).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

This section must be construed as if written: “The validity of any election which may be contested under this Code, by the party who seeks this remedy, cannot be tried under the provisions of this chapter.” State v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1872).

2. Purpose.

This section was enacted to exclude the conclusion that this chapter gave an additional remedy in election contests and intent of the legislature was to provide that there was to be only one contest. State ex rel. Anderson v. Gossett, 77 Tenn. 644, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1882).

3. Application.

The language is imperative and this section applied to the filling of a vacancy in the office of sheriff by the county court and applied even though person contesting the validity was not a candidate before the county court. Conner v. Conner, 67 Tenn. 11, 1874 Tenn. LEXIS 316 (1874).

4. Facts of Case as Determining Nature of Suit.

A suit to determine the right of a party to public office may or may not be an election contest depending on the facts of the case. State ex rel. Bryant v. Maxwell, 189 Tenn. 187, 224 S.W.2d 833, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (1949).

5. Incumbent Ineligible or Disqualified.

Proceedings may be instituted under this chapter, in the name of the state, to oust an incumbent whose election was void because of his disqualification for office at the time of his election or induction. Lewis v. Watkins, 71 Tenn. 174, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1879).

A defeated opposing candidate or any citizen may contest the election upon the ground that it was void for ineligibility or disqualification of the candidate apparently elected. Lewis v. Watkins, 71 Tenn. 174, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1879).

6. Unauthorized Appointment to Fill Vacancy.

A bill by the state, on relation, to recover the office of county judge from one filling the same under an election by the quarterly county court when the court had no power to fill the vacancy, was maintainable under this chapter, to test the title to the office. State ex rel. Smiley v. Glenn, 54 Tenn. 472, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1872); Maloney v. Collier, 112 Tenn. 78, 83 S.W. 667, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1904).

7. Office Held Under False Certificate.

Where the person elected sheriff instituted proceedings under this chapter to oust his defeated opponent, who was wrongfully put into office under a false certificate of election, and to gain possession of the office, and in no way attacking the validity of the election, but insisting on the validity of the same, the remedy resorted to was the proper means to secure the relief sought. State v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1872).

8. Certificate and Face of Returns Showing Majority for Relator.

Where the rights are predicated upon a certificate of election issued to the relator, supported by a majority of the vote on the face of the returns, there is no election contest, and a bill in chancery in the nature of quo warranto lies. State ex rel. Pike v. Hammons, 163 Tenn. 290, 43 S.W.2d 395, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 114 (1931).

9. Suit Seeking to Go Behind Election Returns.

Suit which sought to go behind the certificate of the returning officer in a sheriff's election was an election contest and could not be brought under this chapter. State ex rel. Anderson v. Gossett, 77 Tenn. 644, 1882 Tenn. LEXIS 115 (1882).

10. Suit Against Person Holding More Than One Office.

Proper proceeding against person holding more than one lucrative office in violation of Tennessee Constitution, is by suit in nature of quo warranto, and not by ouster. State ex rel. Harris v. Brown, 157 Tenn. 39, 6 S.W.2d 560, 1927 Tenn. LEXIS 46 (1928).

11. Nature of Suit in Particular Instances.

Validity of election of beer committee by quarterly court could not be determined in bill filed in the nature of a quo warranto by the state as quarterly county court was the exclusive forum to test the validity of such election. State ex rel. Thurman v. Scott, 184 Tenn. 76, 195 S.W.2d 617, 1946 Tenn. LEXIS 262 (1946).

A suit to determine the right of a former justice of the peace to hold office as a member of county board of education attacking not the manner and form of election but the eligibility of the defendant to hold office was not an election contest but a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto. State ex rel. Howell v. Sensing, 188 Tenn. 684, 222 S.W.2d 13, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 390 (1949).

Where county election commission omitted office of justice of peace for municipality in general election due to practice of voting for office in October instead of August as provided by Tenn. Const., art. VII, § 5, there was no election hence chancery court was entitled to declare that person who was issued a certificate of election on basis of six written votes at general election was holding office without right, as proceeding was not an election contest but a proceeding to determine right of defendant to hold office which did not require court to look behind election returns to determine proceeding. State ex rel. Bryant v. Maxwell, 189 Tenn. 187, 224 S.W.2d 833, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (1949).

Petition by candidate for office of judge of general sessions court which alleged that his name was fraudulently withheld from official ballot by election commissioners was an action to contest validity of election and was not an action in the nature of quo warranto. Morrison v. Crews, 192 Tenn. 20, 237 S.W.2d 1, 1951 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (1951).

12. Enjoining Holder of Certificate of Election.

Where incumbent's opponent had received a certificate of election from election commissioners, such incumbent was not entitled to enjoin the induction of the certificate holder into office pending the contest. Hagan v. Henry, 168 Tenn. 223, 76 S.W.2d 994, 1934 Tenn. LEXIS 43 (1934).

29-35-109. Officers entitled to bring suit.

The suit is brought by the attorney general for the district or county, when directed so to do by the general assembly, or by the governor and attorney general of the state concurring.

Code 1858, § 3412 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., § 5168; Code 1932, § 9339; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2809.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), § 507.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Attorney General, § 4; 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 91, 98, 114.

Law Reviews.

Charitable Bequests: Delegating Discretion to Choose the Objects of the Testator's Beneficence (Denise Coffrey), 44 Tenn. L. Rev. (2) 307.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. State as Party.

The state is a necessary party. State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904); State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1931).

Only the state may file an action questioning the authority of an incumbent officer to hold his office. Snow v. Pearman, 222 Tenn. 458, 436 S.W.2d 861, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 442 (1968).

2. Official Entitled to Bring Suit — Necessary Party.

Whether the suit is directed to be brought by the general assembly, or by the governor and the attorney general of the state concurring, or is brought upon the information, or at the relation, of a private individual, it must equally be brought by the district attorney general for the county or district. State v. White's Creek Tpk. Co., 3 Cooper's Tenn. Ch. 163 (1876); State v. McConnell, 71 Tenn. 332, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (1879); State ex rel. Johnson v. Campbell, 76 Tenn. 74, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1881); State ex rel. Warner v. Agee, 105 Tenn. 588, 59 S.W. 340, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1900); Maloney v. Collier, 112 Tenn. 78, 83 S.W. 667, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 91 (1904); State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904).

The proceeding may be instituted by the district attorney general for the district or county, upon the information of any person who will give security for costs, without direction of the general assembly or governor and attorney general. State ex rel. Johnson v. Campbell, 76 Tenn. 74, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1881).

It is upon the district attorneys general, and not upon the attorney general for the state, that the principal authority is conferred by this section. Fugate v. Holloway, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 387 (1901); Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn. 602, 191 S.W. 131, 1917 Tenn. LEXIS 181, 5 A.L.R. 303 (1916).

This section and § 29-30-203 make it the duty of the district attorney general to bring suit to call to account trustees of funds given for public or charitable purposes or to set aside improper alienations of such property, and only the district attorney general may bring such a suit, even though it is upon relation of individuals, who are liable for the costs. Munsey v. Russell Bros., 31 Tenn. App. 187, 213 S.W.2d 286, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

A suit to adjudicate that defendant is unlawfully holding public office must be filed in name of the state by the district attorney general, and if bill on its face shows that suit is not thus instituted the court must dismiss the bill. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

Attorney general of the state had no authority either under the statute or at common law to bring action for recovery of money misappropriated from charitable institution. State use of Tenn. Children's Home Soc. v. Hollinsworth, 193 Tenn. 491, 246 S.W.2d 345, 1952 Tenn. LEXIS 315 (1952).

3. Signature Essential.

Signature of district attorney general to the bill is essential. State ex rel. Warner v. Agee, 105 Tenn. 588, 59 S.W. 340, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1900).

4. Attorney General's Authority — Estoppel to Question.

Where the attorney general of the state filed a bill to dissolve a corporation, and after final decree, a judgment creditor filed a petition, setting up his judgments and seeking payment, but, for some time after his intervention, he raised no question as to the authority of the attorney general to bring the suit, he was precluded from questioning such authority. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Colored Tennessee Industrial School, 144 Tenn. 182, 231 S.W. 544, 1920 Tenn. LEXIS 71 (1921).

5. Authority of Court to Question Right to Bring Suit.

In suits attacking validity of trustees' deed to realty acquired with trust funds bequeathed to trustees for benefit of high school, chancellor could on own motion question right to maintain suits without approval of district attorney general. Munsey v. Russell Bros., 31 Tenn. App. 187, 213 S.W.2d 286, 1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948).

6. Dismissal by District Attorney General.

The district attorney general, by whose consent and authority proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto has been instituted to impeach the title to a public office, has the right and power to dismiss the same, whenever he deems that the public interest demands. State ex rel. Warner v. Agee, 105 Tenn. 588, 59 S.W. 340, 1900 Tenn. LEXIS 109 (1900); State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904).

Although the suit may be instituted for the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation, in the name of the state, by the district attorney general on information of any person, on giving security for costs, such suit is under the control of the district attorney general, and may be dismissed on his motion or petition, without the consent of the relators. State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904); State ex rel. Cates v. Standard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 S.W. 565, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1907), aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 30 S. Ct. 543, 54 L. Ed. 817, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1967 (1910).

In a proceeding by the state, on the relation of private citizens, to have declared forfeited the office of justice of the peace, the attorney general, even when acting with the concurrence of the governor, cannot interfere with the district attorney general in respect to discontinuance. State ex rel. Hardwick v. Vest, 136 Tenn. 167, 188 S.W. 1143, 1916 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1916).

7. Leave of Court — Necessity.

Leave of court to file the proceeding is not necessary. State ex rel. Johnson v. Campbell, 76 Tenn. 74, 1881 Tenn. LEXIS 11 (1881).

8. Suit Against Domesticated Foreign Corporation.

Legally domesticated foreign corporation is subject to expulsion for abuse of corporate powers by an action filed by the district attorney general or by an action in the name of the state upon relation of a private person. State v. Family Loan Co., 167 Tenn. 654, 73 S.W.2d 167, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 74 (1934).

9. Bill of Injunction.

This section and related sections as codified in the Code of 1858 allows the attorney general to file the bill of injunction. State v. Southern Junior College, 166 Tenn. 535, 64 S.W.2d 9, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1933).

10. Suit for Declaratory Judgment.

Suit for petitioner to have declaratory judgment that office of justice of peace was vacant on ground that certificate of election was void for fraud was subject to dismissal where suit was not filed by attorney general for district or county as it was in nature of a quo warranto proceeding. Weaver v. Maxwell, 189 Tenn. 183, 224 S.W.2d 832, 1949 Tenn. LEXIS 412 (1949).

Suit by justices of quarterly court under Declaratory Judgment Law for a construction of § 5-5-109 relative to number of votes required to elect chairman of county quarterly court was a suit in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding for the purpose of determining whether successful candidate was unlawfully holding office, hence since suit was not filed in name of state by district attorney general the suit was subject to dismissal. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

Declaratory Judgment Law does not dispense with requirement that quo warranto proceedings must be filed in name of state by district attorney general. Jones v. Talley, 190 Tenn. 471, 230 S.W.2d 968, 1950 Tenn. LEXIS 508 (1950).

Suit by taxpayers seeking declaration that mayor was not qualified to hold office because of failure to comply with provisions of city charter requiring publication of election expenses was in nature of quo warranto and would be dismissed where not brought in name of state by district attorney general. Country Clubs, Inc. v. Knoxville, 217 Tenn. 104, 395 S.W.2d 789, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 648 (1965).

11. Annexation Proceedings.

An aggrieved property owner could file suit under § 6-51-103 to contest validity of annexation proceedings by town even though such section incorporated the applicable provisions of this chapter since § 6-51-103 clearly permitted this and the provisions of this section and § 29-35-110 were without application. State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956).

12. Private Citizen Bringing Suit.

Courts may take jurisdiction upon the relation of a private citizen, in the name of the state, where the district attorney general acts arbitrarily or capriciously or is guilty of abuse of discretion in declining to bring an action or in authorizing its institution. Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. 1975).

Dismissal of a quo warranto action for lack of standing was appropriate because property owners and attorneys who represented property owners in forfeiture proceedings lacked standing to bring the action in their own names and the district attorney general declined to participate in the action. Heredia v. Gibbons, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2019).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 70, 71.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85; 74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto § 4.

Office 86-89.

29-35-110. Suit on relation of private individual.

  1. The suit is also brought on the information of any person, upon such person giving security for the costs of the proceedings, to be approved by the clerk of the court in which the bill is filed.
  2. When the suit is brought at the relation of a private individual, it shall be so stated in the bill and proceedings, and such individual is responsible for costs in case they are not adjudged against the defendant.

Code 1858, §§ 3413, 3414 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 6); Shan., §§ 5169, 5170; Code 1932, §§ 9340, 9341; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2810.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 44, 507, 508.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 91, 98, 114; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 40; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, § 4.

Cited: Jordan v. Knox County, 213 S.W.3d 751, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. 2007); State Ex Rel. Deselm v. Owings, 310 S.W.3d 353, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2009); State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2010); State Ex Rel. Deselm v. Knox County Comm'n, 342 S.W.3d 1, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2010); State ex. rel. Watson v. Waters, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature of Suit.

A suit brought by the state on relation of individuals to restrain unlawful exactions of a turnpike company is in no sense a private suit, though the individual relators are bound for the costs. State ex rel. Wilson County v. Lebanon & Nashville Turnpike Co., 151 Tenn. 150, 268 S.W. 627, 1924 Tenn. LEXIS 55 (1925).

2. Control of Proceeding.

When resort is to information, the control of the proceedings is with the district attorney general. State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1931).

3. Title of Suit.

Suits under this section must be brought in the name of the district attorney general. State ex rel. Wallen v. Miller, 202 Tenn. 498, 304 S.W.2d 654, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 415 (1957).

4. Refusal of District Attorney General.

Courts may take jurisdiction upon the relation of a private citizen, in the name of the state, where the district attorney general acts arbitrarily or capriciously or is guilty of abuse of discretion in declining to bring an action or in authorizing its institution. Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. 1975).

When private citizens sue to rectify a public wrong, if it is determined by the trial court in an in limine hearing that plaintiffs' case is prima facie meritorious or that a refusal by the district attorney general to bring suit or to permit the use of his name in its institution is unjustified, the trial court shall permit the action to proceed. Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. 1975).

Trial court's failure to hold an in limine hearing on the issue of whether the citizen should be allowed to proceed with his quo warranto action after the district attorney general declined to participate in the lawsuit was not reversible error, because he failed to make an offer of proof regarding the evidence he would have presented in an in limine hearing to establish his standing to challenge the validity of the city ordinance. Dossett v. City of Kingsport, 258 S.W.3d 139, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2007), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 464 (Tenn. June 2, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 430 (Tenn. June 16, 2008), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 423 (Tenn. June 16, 2008).

5. Taxing and Apportioning Costs.

Costs in contest on merits and ineligibility of incumbent adjudged according to results of each branch of the litigation. Lewis v. Watkins, 71 Tenn. 174, 1879 Tenn. LEXIS 54 (1879).

Where, in such case, the complainant succeeds in having the charter declared void, the costs may be adjudged against the defendants, unless the equities appear in their favor to change the general rule that the losing party shall pay the costs. Hooper v. Rhea, 3 Shan. 145 (1885).

Suit in name of state, on relation of certain individuals, to enjoin justices of peace from keeping open certain office, was suit of relators, and not of the state and such relators and their sureties on their injunction bond were liable to defendant for consequent damages. State ex rel. Brown v. Springfield, 48 S.W. 813, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 113 (1898).

6. Dismissal of Suit Regardless of Accumulated Costs.

The liability for costs is one of the perils assumed by relators in a suit instituted in the name of the state to forfeit the charter of a corporation, and the fact that considerable costs have accrued does not affect the right of the district attorney general to dismiss. State v. Red River Turnpike Co., 112 Tenn. 615, 79 S.W. 798, 1903 Tenn. LEXIS 131 (1904).

7. Liability for Damages.

The suit is that of relators, not the state, and they and their sureties on their injunction bond, are liable to enjoined defendant for damages. State ex rel. Brown v. Springfield, 48 S.W. 813, 1898 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 113 (1898).

8. Proper Relators.

Ministers who brought quo warranto action against church department and its directors alleging diversion of funds were entitled to maintain suit under provisions of this section providing that anyone who gives security for costs can be a relator. State by Canale v. Minimum Salary Dep't of A. M. E. Church, Inc., 477 S.W.2d 11, 1972 Tenn. LEXIS 387 (Tenn. 1972).

9. Service on District Attorney General.

When private citizens sue to rectify a public wrong, a copy of the complaint is to be served upon the district attorney general. Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575, 1975 Tenn. LEXIS 689 (Tenn. 1975).

10. Annexation Proceedings.

An aggrieved property owner could file suit under § 6-51-103 to contest validity of annexation proceedings by town even though such section incorporated the applicable provisions of this chapter since § 6-51-103 clearly permitted this and the provisions of this section and § 29-35-110 were without application. State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956).

11. Private Citizen Suits.

Attorney failed to follow the procedures for either a quo warranto writ or an ouster claim in the State's name as relator to remove Disciplinary Counsel from her position as the complaint was brought in the attorney's name only and did not comply with the statutory requirement that 10 or more citizens be named as relators. State ex rel. Moncier v. Jones, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 379 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 920 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013).

Dismissal of a quo warranto action for lack of standing was appropriate because property owners and attorneys who represented property owners in forfeiture proceedings lacked standing to bring the action in their own names and the district attorney general declined to participate in the action. Heredia v. Gibbons, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 351 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 17, 2019).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 70, 71.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85; 74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto § 4.

Right of private person not claiming office to maintain quo warranto proceedings to test title to or existence of public office. 51 A.L.R.2d 1306.

Office 86-89.

29-35-111. Bill in equity — Venue.

The suit is brought by bill in equity, filed in either the circuit or chancery court of the county in which the office is usurped or held, or the corporation or supposed corporation holds its meetings or has its principal place of business.

Code 1858, § 3411 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., § 5167; Code 1932, § 9338; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2811.

Textbooks. Gibson's Suits in Chancery (7th ed., Inman), §§ 121, 507.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, § 91; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, § 4.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Circuit Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 241.

Cited: Tennessee ex rel. Atchley v. Taylor, 169 F.2d 626, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. Ohio 1948); Smyrna v. Ridley, 730 S.W.2d 318, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. 1987); State Ex Rel. Tommye Maddox Working, 216 S.W.3d 758, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2006); Jordan v. Knox County, 213 S.W.3d 751, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. 2007).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Effect of Statute.

The ancient writ of quo warranto was greatly improved by the English statutes, but our statutes have converted it into an “equity proceeding,” with prohibitory power and remedial vigor, whether the proceeding be initiated in a court of law or a court of equity. State v. Wright, 57 Tenn. 237, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 420 (1872); State ex rel. Cates v. Standard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 S.W. 565, 1907 Tenn. LEXIS 41 (1907), aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 30 S. Ct. 543, 54 L. Ed. 817, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1967 (1910); State ex rel. Abernathy v. Robertson, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 438 (1914).

2. Construction.

The provision that “the suit shall be conducted as other suits in equity” only means that it shall be conducted as such a suit, to the attainment of a decision whether there has been a usurpation of the office or franchise. The phrase cannot be held to include an inquiry into the damages sustained. State ex rel. Curry v. Wright, 52 Tenn. 612, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (1871); State ex rel. Abernathy v. Robertson, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 438 (1914); State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 110 (1931).

3. Jurisdiction.

In suit to abate public nuisance and to revoke corporate charter, fact that criminal court had narrow statutory concurrent jurisdiction with chancery court with reference to abatement of public nuisances did not permit criminal court to retain jurisdiction of suit for purpose of revocation of corporate charter under maxim that equity having taken jurisdiction for one purpose will retain jurisdiction for all purposes. Pan-O-Ram Club, Inc. v. State, 217 Tenn. 137, 395 S.W.2d 803, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 526 (1965).

4. Annexation Contests.

There being no conflict between this section and the annexation statutes, it is applicable to annexation contests brought by individuals pursuant to § 6-51-103. State ex rel. Hornkohl v. Tullahoma, 746 S.W.2d 199, 1987 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3099 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987), superseded by statute as stated in, Hardin County ex rel. Harris v. Adamsville, — S.W.2d —, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 801 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 1990).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto § 51.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85.

Office 86-89.

29-35-112. Contents of bill — Conduct of suit.

  1. The bill shall set forth briefly, and without technical forms, the grounds upon which the suit is instituted.
  2. The suit shall be conducted as other suits in equity.

Code 1858, § 3415 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 5); Shan., § 5171; Code 1932, § 9342; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2812.

Cross-References. General rules of pleading, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.

Cited: State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956); Smyrna v. Ridley, 730 S.W.2d 318, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. 1987); Jordan v. Knox County, 213 S.W.3d 751, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 26 (Tenn. 2007).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto § 88.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85.

Office 86-89.

29-35-113. Extraordinary process.

The court is authorized, upon the filing of the bill, properly verified, in all proper cases, to grant attachments and injunctions, and appoint receivers to effect the ends of justice, and to make all such orders, rules, and decrees, according to the practice of a court of chancery, as may be necessary to accomplish the objects had in view.

Code 1858, § 3417 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 8; 1851-1852, ch. 172, § 1); Shan., § 5173; Code 1932, § 9344; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2813.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, § 91; 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 16; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, § 4.

Cited: Fugate v. Holloway, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 387 (1901); Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 113 Tenn. 421, 82 S.W. 1131, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 106 Am. St. Rep. 851, 68 L.R.A. 852 (1904); Tennessee ex rel. Atchley v. Taylor, 169 F.2d 626, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. Ohio 1948); State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956); State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2010).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Nature of Relief — Facts Determining.

The relief is determined by the facts; it may be by injunction or forfeiture of charter of offending corporation. State v. Southern Junior College, 166 Tenn. 535, 64 S.W.2d 9, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1933).

2. Injunction After Hearing Case on Merits.

The authority given the court by this section to grant the writ of injunction and other writs upon the filing of the bill carries the conclusion that the court has similar power after hearing the case on the merits. State v. Southern Junior College, 166 Tenn. 535, 64 S.W.2d 9, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1933).

Collateral References. Office 86-89.

29-35-114. Answer — Evidence in criminal actions.

The defendants appear and answer the bill in the usual way, and such answer shall not be read against them in any criminal prosecution brought against them, or either of them.

Code 1858, § 3418 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 9); Shan., § 5174; Code 1932, § 9345; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2814.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 15 Tenn. Juris., Injunctions, § 16.

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 91, 92.

67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85, 88, 251-254.

Office 86-89.

29-35-115. Issues of fact.

Such issues of fact as may become necessary to try by jury in the progress of the cause shall be made up under the direction of the court, and submitted to a jury impaneled forthwith.

Code 1858, § 3416 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 6); Shan., § 5172; Code 1932, § 9343; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2815.

Law Reviews.

Judicial Review and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (Toxey H. Sewell), 6 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 253.

Cited: State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956); Smyrna v. Ridley, 730 S.W.2d 318, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 905 (Tenn. 1987).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Rules Governing Issues.

When the right to jury trial exists, the issues are governed by rules applicable to jury trials in chancery, even though the proceedings be in circuit court. State ex rel. Abernathy v. Robertson, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 438 (1914).

2. Right to Jury Trial.

The right to jury trial is not absolute, but exists only when material issues of fact are to be presented. State ex rel. Abernathy v. Robertson, 5 Tenn. Civ. App. (5 Higgins) 438 (1914).

Collateral References.

Public office, scope of inquiry on quo warranto to oust incumbent of, based on misconduct or other ground of forfeiture. 119 A.L.R. 725.

29-35-116. Judgment of exclusion from office or franchise.

When a defendant, whether a natural person or a corporation, is adjudged guilty of usurping, unlawfully holding, or exercising any office or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such defendant be excluded from the office or franchise, and that defendant pay the costs.

Code 1858, § 3424; Shan., § 5180; Code 1932, § 9351; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2816.

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 115-118, 131.

37 C.J.S. Franchises § 31; 67 C.J.S. Officers §§ 83-85.

Office 86-89.

29-35-117. Judgment of dissolution — Escheat of corporate property.

If it be adjudged that a defendant corporation has by neglect, nonuse, abuse or surrender, forfeited its corporate rights, judgment will be rendered that the defendant be altogether excluded from such rights and be dissolved; and in the event the court shall find that the corporation, its stockholders, directors, officers or managers have intentionally impaired or depreciated its assets or property for the purpose of preventing the corporation from efficiently discharging its duty to the public, the property of the corporation shall escheat to the state unless its stockholders, directors, officers or managers, within a reasonable period fixed by the court, restore to the treasury of the corporation a sufficient amount of money or property to enable it to efficiently discharge its duty to the public; and also that the corporation, its directors, or managers, as the case may be, pay the costs.

Code 1858, § 3425; Shan., § 5181; Code 1932, § 9352; Acts 1949, ch. 207, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 9352; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2817.

Cross-References. Disposition of unclaimed property, title 66, ch. 29.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, §§ 98, 99; 21 Tenn. Juris., Quo Warranto, § 4.

Cited: Crosby Milling Co. v. Grant, 7 Tenn. App. 162, — S.W. —, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 19 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927); Tennessee ex rel. Atchley v. Taylor, 169 F.2d 626, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. Ohio 1948).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Grounds for Forfeiture.

To work a forfeiture of the charter, there must be something wrong, arising from willful abuse or improper neglect; something more than accidental negligence, excess of power, or mistake in the mode of exercising an acknowledged power, from which it would seem that a mere negligent or mistaken excess of power would not, of itself, work a forfeiture of a charter of incorporation. State v. Merchants' Ins. & Trust Co., 27 Tenn. 235, 1847 Tenn. LEXIS 75 (1847); State v. Columbia & Hampshire Tpk. Co., 34 Tenn. 254, 1854 Tenn. LEXIS 44 (1854), questioned, State ex rel. Ellis v. Nonconnah Turnpike Co., 17 S.W. 128 (Tenn. 1875). But see State ex rel. Ellis v. Nonconnah Turnpike Co., 1 Shan. 511, 17 S.W. 128 (1875).

Where the statute so provides, forfeiture or ouster must be adjudged notwithstanding mistake and subsequent good behavior. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904).

Forfeiture for failure to comply with statutes not declaring forfeiture is not to be adjudged, unless public interest requires it. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904).

Unless a statute requires that a corporation be dissolved, a dissolution will not usually be decreed for acts merely in excess of its corporate powers. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904); State v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n, 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (1931).

Ouster is not adjudged against foreign corporation for its omission to comply with statute as to local business, where statute imposed no such penalty. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904).

Voluntary surrender of charter is embraced. State v. Chilhowee Wollen Mills Co., 115 Tenn. 266, 89 S.W. 741, 1905 Tenn. LEXIS 59, 112 Am. St. Rep. 825, 2 L.R.A. (n.s.) 493 (1905).

The state may maintain suit either to forfeit charter or to enjoin an educational institution chartered by it where it wrongfully conducts a commercial printing shop in competition with commercial printers, and injunction may be granted after trial on the merits. State v. Southern Junior College, 166 Tenn. 535, 64 S.W.2d 9, 1933 Tenn. LEXIS 112 (1933).

2. Compliance with Conditions in Grant of Franchise — Necessity.

There must be a substantial performance of the requirements as conditions attached to the grant of the franchise, whether the conditions be precedent or subsequent to the corporate existence. State ex rel. Ellis v. Nonconnah Turnpike Co., 1 Shan. 511, 17 S.W. 128 (1875).

3. Matters Not Warranting Forfeiture — Examples.

Forfeiture or ouster will not be decreed for a telephone company's purchase of competing companies. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904).

Ultra vires lease is not ground for forfeiture or ouster, years after the avoidance of such lease and the resumption of corporate duties. State v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 114 Tenn. 194, 86 S.W. 390, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 82 (1904).

4. Waiver of Forfeiture by Legislature.

Legislative recognition may operate as a waiver of prior acts of forfeiture, but will have no effect in the future as to continuing such acts or conditions. State ex rel. Ellis v. Nonconnah Turnpike Co., 1 Shan. 511, 17 S.W. 128 (1875).

Collateral References. 19 Am. Jur. 2d Corporations §§ 1641, 1644, 1645; 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto § 116.

19 C.J.S. Corporations § 1716.

Quo Warranto 19.

29-35-118. Receiver for corporation in dissolution.

Such judgment of dissolution shall not extinguish the debt due to or from the corporation; but the court shall appoint a receiver, with full power to take possession of all the debts and property, and sell, dispose of, collect, and distribute the same among the creditors and other persons interested, under the orders of the court.

Code 1858, § 3426 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 7); Shan., § 5182; Code 1932, § 9353; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2818.

Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 7 Tenn. Juris., Corporations, § 122; 21 Tenn. Juris., Receivers, § 7.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

Application is to private and not public corporations, such as a city or county. Devereaux v. Brownsville, 29 F. 742, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2392 (C.C.D. Tenn. 1887).

2. Appointment of Receiver.

A receiver is not to be appointed before judgment in an action of tort against a corporation, especially where it is not shown to be insolvent. Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 113 Tenn. 421, 82 S.W. 1131, 1904 Tenn. LEXIS 34, 106 Am. St. Rep. 851, 68 L.R.A. 852 (1904).

3. Ordering Receiver to Sell Assets.

Within judicial discretion a receiver may be ordered to sell corporate assets on terms deemed proper and advantageous. But such sale should not ordinarily be ordered unless necessary or for best interests of the parties. When the prime object of the receivership is a distribution of assets of insolvent corporation to creditors, such order will the more readily be made. State ex rel. Robertson v. Bank of Bristol, 165 Tenn. 354, 54 S.W.2d 967, 1932 Tenn. LEXIS 58 (1932).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto § 123.

19 C.J.S. Corporations §§ 1748, 1754.

Corporations 560, 622, 687.

29-35-119. Costs paid by state.

If such action is at the suit of the state alone, and judgment is for the defendant, or the defendants are insolvent, the costs are to be paid as in other state cases.

Code 1858, § 3427; Shan., § 5183; Code 1932, § 9354; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2819.

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 118, 131.

74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto § 52.

Quo Warranto 63.

29-35-120. Death of relators.

  1. Should the sole relator die pending the action, the suit abates, unless by the second term thereafter it is revived in the name of some person who, on application, and giving security for costs, is substituted in the place of the deceased relator.
  2. If there are several relators, the suit abates only on the death of all.
  3. On the abatement of the action as above, judgment shall be rendered against the sureties of the relator for the costs.

Code 1858, §§ 3428, 3429; Shan., §§ 5184, 5185; Code 1932, §§ 9355, 9356; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2820.

29-35-121. Appeal.

Either party is entitled to take the case to the proper appellate court as provided by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Code 1858, § 3430 (deriv. Acts 1845-1846, ch. 55, § 7); Shan., § 5186; Code 1932, § 9357; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2821; Acts 1981, ch. 449, § 2.

Compiler's Notes. This section may be affected by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Law Reviews.

The Tennessee Court System — Chancery Court (Frederic S. Le Clercq), 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 281.

Cited: State ex rel. Southerland v. Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133, 297 S.W.2d 68, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 475 (1956); State v. Blazer, 619 S.W.2d 370, 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 458 (Tenn. 1981).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Jurisdiction.

Appeals lie to the Supreme Court and not to the Court of Appeals. State v. Retail Credit Men's Ass'n, 163 Tenn. 450, 43 S.W.2d 918, 1931 Tenn. LEXIS 136 (1931).

2. Appeal Bond.

The bond given in case of appeal in an action for usurpation of an office need only be for costs. State ex rel. Curry v. Wright, 52 Tenn. 612, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 292 (1871); Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U.S. 64, 23 S. Ct. 579, 47 L. Ed. 709, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1325 (1903).

Collateral References. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quo Warranto §§ 124-126.

Quo Warranto 62.

Chapter 36
Waste And Trespass

29-36-101. Waste by parol purchaser — Liability for rent.

Any person going into possession of land under a parol agreement to purchase, which agreement is subsequently avoided by the person, is liable for waste committed during the person's possession, as well as for reasonable rent.

Code 1858, § 3405 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 66, § 1); Shan., § 5160; Code 1932, § 9319; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2901.

Cross-References. Timbering on land subject to delinquent tax lien, §§ 67-5-2301, 67-5-2302, 67-5-2303, 67-5-2304, 67-5-2305, 67-5-2306, 67-5-2307, 67-5-2308.

Waste on land subject to redemption, §§ 66-8-104, 66-8-105.

Comparative Legislation. Waste and trespass:

Ala.  Code § 6-5-210 et seq.

Ark.  Code § 18-60-201 et seq.

Ga. O.C.G.A. § 51-9-1 et seq.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 381.230 et seq.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.330 et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-533 et seq.

Va. Code § 55-211 et seq.

Collateral References. 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waste § 10.

Waste 13.

29-36-102. Trespass by railroad contractor.

Any railroad contractor the railroad contractor's agent or operatives, who wrongfully cuts down, appropriates, or otherwise injures or destroys any growing timber, or wood, or any fence rails, on ground not belonging to the railroad company, shall be liable in damages to the party injured.

Code 1858, § 3407 (deriv. Acts 1857-1858, ch. 65, § 5); Shan., § 5162; mod. Code 1932, § 9321; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2902.

Cross-References. Priority of claim for damages, § 65-10-112.

Collateral References. 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waste § 25.

Trespass 61, 63.

29-36-103. Defense of involuntary trespass.

It is a good plea to an action for trespass on land, that the defendant disclaims all title to the land, that the trespass was by negligence or involuntary, and that defendant tendered sufficient amount in satisfaction of the same before action brought.

Code 1858, § 3408 (deriv. Acts 1715, ch. 27, § 7); Shan., § 5163; mod. Code 1932, § 9322; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2903.

Collateral References. 75 Am. Jur. 2d Trespass §§ 37, 70, 71.

87 C.J.S. Trespass § 80.

Recovery in trespass for injury to land caused by airborne pollutants. 2 A.L.R.4th 1054.

Trespass 22-27.

29-36-104. Death of owner of real property — Survival of right of action.

When any person entitled to sue for injuries to real property dies before commencing action, it shall be lawful for the personal representative of such party to sue and recover for the benefit of the deceased.

Acts 1877, ch. 111; Shan., § 5164; Code 1932, § 9323; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2904.

Cross-References. Death, substitution of parties, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.

Survival of actions in general, § 20-5-102.

Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 688.

Tennessee Jurisprudence, 3 Tenn. Juris., Assignments, § 12.

29-36-105. Injunction against waste — Damages.

Nothing in this chapter shall deprive the person entitled to redress for waste, of the right to enjoin the commission thereof at any time, and recover damages for the waste actually committed.

Code 1858, § 3406 (deriv. Acts 1843-1844, ch. 170, § 2); Shan., § 5161; Code 1932, § 9320; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-2905.

Cross-References. Injunctive relief, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.01.

Collateral References. 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waste §§ 30-33.

43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 78.

Contingent or defeasible future interests, right of owner of, to maintain action for waste. 144 A.L.R. 769.

Injunction 45-53.

Chapter 37
Equal Access to Justice

29-37-101. Short title.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Equal Access to Justice Act of 1984.”

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 7 provided that the provisions of this chapter apply only to “legal complaints or petitions for review filed after the effective date of this act” (July 1, 1984).

Comparative Legislation. Fees or expenses in administrative proceedings:

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070.

Cited: Tenn. Envtl. Council v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd., 254 S.W.3d 396, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2007).

Collateral References. 20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs §§ 31, 32, 37.

73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure §§ 24, 38, 50, 91.

Administrative Law 512, 685, 686.

29-37-102. Legislative intent.

There are occasions when inequities exist between government and small business in terms of the ability with which each is able, without economic hardship, to be properly represented in administrative proceedings and in the courts. As part of the general assembly's continuing efforts to assure fairness and equity to all the citizens of this state, it is the intent of this chapter to offer small business an opportunity for adequate representation in any administrative hearing involving the operation of such business and, where necessary, in the resulting appeal process.

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 2.

Cited: BMC Enters. v. City of Mt. Juliet, 273 S.W.3d 619, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008).

29-37-103. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Fees and other expenses” means those reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees as determined by the court plus reasonable expenses and court costs, but does not include any portion of an attorney's fees or salary paid by a unit of local, state, or federal government for the attorney's services in the case;
  2. “Local government” means an incorporated municipality or county or subdivision of either;
    1. “Small business” means a business entity that is:
      1. A natural person who is licensed by one (1) or more state agencies or boards and whose claim under this chapter arises from such licensing, but the person shall not have a net worth of more than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) at the time the civil action is filed;
      2. A sole proprietor of an unincorporated business that meets each of the following conditions:
  1. Whose annual gross receipts do not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date the civil action was filed; and
  2. Who does not employ more than fifteen (15) persons on a full- time basis on the date the civil action was filed; or

A partnership or corporation that meets each of the following conditions:

Whose annual gross receipts do not exceed two million dollars ($2,000,000) during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date the civil action was filed; and

Who does not employ more than thirty (30) persons on a full- time basis on the date the civil action was filed; and

“Small business” also includes any neighborhood or homeowners' association which is an entity that:

Is not-for-profit;

Is supported solely by contributions, membership fees assessed to residents of a defined geographical area and/or fund-raising activities sponsored by the association; and

Does not employ more than ten (10) persons on a full-time basis on the date the civil action was filed; and

“State agency” means any entity of the state as defined in § 4-5-102.

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 3; 1989, ch. 365, §§ 1, 15.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 365, § 14 provided that the amendment of this section by that act only applies to actions commenced or petitions for review filed after July 1, 1989.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Application.

In a case in which both an individual and a limited liability company were a small business under the Equal Access to Justice Act's definition of that term, the ten thousand dollar limit was to be applied to each such small business, both of which were prevailing parties, and not to the businesses as a whole. State v. Thompson, 197 S.W.3d 685, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 2006).

2. Definitions.

Because an action was filed on behalf of the department of commerce and insurance, a department as formerly provided in T.C.A. § 4-5-102, and because it was filed by and through the attorney general, a state officer under the Tennessee constitution and for the purposes of § 4-5-102, the Equal Access to Justice Act applied to the case. State v. Thompson, 197 S.W.3d 685, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 2006).

29-37-104. Claims and awards for fees and expenses.

    1. Unless otherwise provided by law, the court having jurisdiction over the civil action brought by a state agency or over an action for judicial review brought pursuant to § 4-5-322, may award reasonable and actual fees and other expenses not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to the prevailing party unless the prevailing party is a state agency.
      1. Unless otherwise provided by law, the court having jurisdiction over the civil action brought by a local government or over an action for judicial review may award reasonable and actual fees and other expenses not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to the prevailing party unless the prevailing party is a local government.
      2. A small business that makes a claim against a local government for fees and expenses under this chapter that is not supported by substantial evidence or that is arbitrary or capricious or that is brought in bad faith for the purpose of harassment shall be subject to the procedures and sanctions of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11.
    1. The court may make an award pursuant to the terms of this chapter only if the small business has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of the state agency were not supported by substantial evidence or were arbitrary and capricious or were brought in bad faith for the purpose of harassment. The court may, in its discretion, decline to make an award if it finds that special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust.
    2. The court may make an award pursuant to the terms of this chapter only if the small business has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of the local government were arbitrary and capricious or were brought in bad faith for the purpose of harassment. The court may, in its discretion, decline to make an award if it finds that special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust.
    1. In a civil action commenced by a state agency or local government, a small business, in order to be eligible to make a claim for fees and other expenses under this chapter, must file a claim with the court within thirty (30) days after a final judgment has been rendered.
    2. In an action for judicial review brought in accordance with § 4-5-322 or an action for judicial review in a case in which a local government is a party, a small business must specifically state in the petition for review that it seeks fees and other expenses under this chapter. Failure to state shall bar the small business from making any claim under this chapter unless such a claim is filed subsequently with the court, in which event the small business shall be entitled to receive payment for fees or services actually rendered or expenses actually incurred after the notice of intent to make a claim is filed.
    3. All claims for fees and other expenses shall include, where applicable, an itemized statement for those fees including the actual time expended in representing a party and the rate at which the fees were computed, as well as invoices or statements showing the actual amount of other expenses incurred.
    1. Awards provided for in this chapter against a state agency shall, upon order of the court, be paid by the department of finance and administration from the general fund, except in the case of awards in cases involving the department of transportation, in which case the payment shall be made from the general highway fund.
    2. Awards provided for in this chapter against a local government shall, upon order of the court, be paid by the local government.
  1. [Deleted by 2016 amendment.]

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 4; 1989, ch. 365, §§ 2-6; 2010, ch. 1030, § 11; 2016, ch. 797, § 10.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 365, § 14 provided that the amendment of this section by that act only applies to actions commenced or petitions for review filed after July 1, 1989.

Amendments. The 2016 amendment deleted (e) which read: “(e) The department of finance and administration shall report annually to the speaker of the house of representatives, the speaker of the senate, the chairs of the finance, ways and means committees of the house of representatives and the senate and the office of legislative budget analysis the amount of fees and other expenses paid during the preceding fiscal year, and shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in the action, and other relevant information which might aid the general assembly in evaluating the scope and impact of these awards.”

Effective Dates. Acts 2016, ch. 797, § 19. April 14, 2016.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Ten thousand dollar limitation for attorney fees in the Equal Access to Justice Act applies to each prevailing party and to each stage of the litigation, and the Act allows a trial court to award post-judgment interest even if the total award exceeds the statutory cap. State v. Thompson, 197 S.W.3d 685, 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 632 (Tenn. 2006).

2. Small Business.

Appellate court may award costs to a funeral home on appeal regardless of the fact that the trial court already had awarded the funeral home $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. BMC Enters. v. City of Mt. Juliet, 273 S.W.3d 619, 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2008).

3. Attorney Fees.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an attorney's claim for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the action was brought by the attorney, not by a state agency, and was not a suit for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Moncier v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2013), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 915 (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013).

29-37-105. Exceptions.

This chapter shall not apply to:

  1. Proceedings or actions involving the employment, discipline, or discharge of wages, hours and working conditions of employees;
  2. Proceedings or actions wherein the state or local government, through any of its departments, institutions or agencies is exercising its power of condemnation or eminent domain;
  3. Proceedings or actions involving the payment or collection of revenue if the court determines that:
    1. The small business taxpayer has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to taxpayers to resolve disputed tax matters; or
    2. The small business taxpayer has acted in bad faith with regard to attempts to ascertain tax liability or to collect a tax;
  4. Any action taken by the department of revenue pursuant to title 67, chapter 1, part 15;
  5. Actions taken during the time of a civil emergency; or
  6. The proceedings or actions required by a state or federal law or federal regulation.

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 5; 1989, ch. 365, §§ 7-12.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 365, § 14 provided that the amendment of this section by that act only applies to actions commenced or petitions for review filed after July 1, 1989.

29-37-106. Bad faith or frivolous claims.

If the court finds that the small business' claim for fees and other expenses under this chapter was made in bad faith or was frivolous or was made for the sole basis of harassment, the court may impose a fine on the small business of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) which will go to the state agency or local government involved in the action.

Acts 1984, ch. 495, § 6; 1989, ch. 365, § 13.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 1989, ch. 365, § 14 provided that the amendment of this section by that act only applies to actions commenced or petitions for review filed after July 1, 1989.

Chapter 38
Drug Dealer Liability Act

29-38-101. Short title.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Drug Dealer Liability Act.”

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 1.

Attorney General Opinions. A rational basis exists for the use of state House districts to determine the field for which a person can bring a legal action for drug dealing under the Drug Dealer Liability Act, OAG 05-116 (7/27/05).

29-38-102. Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a civil remedy for damages to persons in a community injured as a result of illegal drug use. These persons include parents, employers, insurers, governmental entities, and others who pay for drug treatment or employee assistance programs, as well as infants injured as a result of exposure to drugs in utero, referred to in this chapter as “drug babies.” The chapter will enable injured persons to recover damages from those persons in the community who have joined the illegal drug market. A further purpose of the chapter is to shift, to the extent possible, the cost of the damage caused by the existence of the illegal drug market in a community to those who illegally profit from that market. The further purpose of the chapter is to establish the prospect of substantial monetary loss as a deterrent to those who have not yet entered into the illegal drug distribution market. The further purpose is to establish an incentive for drug users to identify and seek payment for their own drug treatment from those dealers who have sold drugs to the user in the past.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 2.

29-38-103. Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and declares all of the following:

  1. Every community in the country is affected by the marketing and distribution of illegal drugs. A vast amount of state and local resources is expended in coping with the financial, physical, and emotional toll that results from the existence of the illegal drug market. Families, employers, insurers, and society in general bear the substantial costs of coping with the marketing of illegal drugs. Drug babies and parents, particularly those of adolescent illegal drug users, suffer significant noneconomic injury, as well;
  2. Although the criminal justice system is an important weapon against the illegal drug market, the civil justice system can and must also be used. The civil justice system can provide an avenue of compensation for those who have suffered harm as a result of the marketing and distribution of illegal drugs. The persons who have joined the illegal drug market should bear the cost of the harm caused by that market in the community;
  3. The threat of liability under this chapter serves as an additional deterrent to a recognizable segment of the illegal drug network. A person who has nondrug related assets, who markets illegal drugs at the workplace, who encourages friends to become users, among others, is likely to decide that the added cost of entering the market is not worth the benefit. This is particularly true for a first-time casual dealer who has not yet made substantial profits. This chapter provides a mechanism for the cost of the injury caused by illegal drug use to be borne by those who benefit from illegal drug dealing;
  4. This chapter imposes liability against all participants in the illegal drug market, including small dealers, particularly those in the workplace, who are not usually the focus of criminal investigations. The small dealers increase the number of users and are those people who become large dealers. These small dealers are most likely to be deterred by the threat of liability;
  5. A parent of an adolescent illegal drug user often expends considerable financial resources, typically in the tens of thousands of dollars, for the child's drug treatment. Local and state governments provide drug treatment and related medical services made necessary by the distribution of illegal drugs. The treatment of drug babies is a considerable cost to local and state governments. Insurers pay large sums for medical treatment related to drug addiction and use. Employers suffer losses as a result of illegal drug use by employees due to lost productivity, employee drug-related workplace accidents, and employer contributions to insurers. Local and state governments have existing legal staffs that can bring civil suits against those involved in the illegal drug market, in appropriate cases, if a clear legal mechanism for liability and recovery is established;
  6. Drug babies, who are clearly the most innocent and vulnerable of those affected by illegal drug use, are often the most physically and mentally damaged due to the existence of an illegal drug market in a community. For many of these babies, the only hope is extensive medical and psychological treatment, physical therapy, and special education. All of these potential remedies are expensive. These babies, through their legal guardians and through court appointed guardians ad litem, should be able to recover damages from those in the community who have entered and participated in the marketing of the types of illegal drugs that have caused their injuries;
  7. In theory, civil actions for damages for distribution of illegal drugs can be brought under existing law. They are not. Several barriers account for this. Under existing tort law, only those dealers in the actual chain of distribution to a particular user could be sued. Drug babies, parents of adolescent illegal drug users, and insurers are not likely to be able to identify the chain of distribution to a particular user. Furthermore, drug treatment experts largely agree that users are unlikely to identify and bring suit against their own dealers, even after they have recovered, given the present requirements for a civil action;
  8. Those involved in the illegal drug market in a community are necessarily interrelated and interdependent, even if their identity is unknown to one another. Each new dealer obtains the benefit of the existing illegal drug distribution system to make illegal drugs available to the dealer. In addition, the existing market aids a new entrant by the prior development of people as users. Many experts on the illegal drug market agree that all participants are ultimately likely to be indirectly related. That is, beginning with any one dealer, given the theoretical ability to identify every person known by that dealer to be involved in illegal drug trafficking, and in turn each of such others known to the dealer, and so on, the illegal drug market in a community would ultimately be fully revealed;
  9. Market liability has been created with respect to legitimate products by judicial decision in some states. Case law provides for civil recovery by plaintiffs who are unable to identify the particular manufacturer of the product that is claimed to have caused them harm, allowing recovery from all manufacturers of the product who participated in that particular market. The market liability theory has been shown to be destructive of market initiative and product development when applied to legitimate markets. Because of its potential for undermining markets, this chapter expressly adopts a legislatively crafted form of liability for those who intentionally join the illegal drug market. The liability established by this chapter grows out of, but is distinct from, existing judicially crafted market liability;
  10. The prospect of a future suit for the costs of drug treatment may drive a wedge between prospective dealers and their customers, by encouraging users to turn on their dealers. Therefore, liability for those costs, even to the user, is imposed under this chapter, as long as the user identifies and brings suit against the user's own dealers;
  11. Allowing dealers who face a civil judgment for their illegal drug marketing to bring suit against their own sources for contribution may also drive a wedge into the relationships among some participants in the illegal drug distribution network;
  12. While not all persons who have suffered losses as a result of the marketing of illegal drugs will pursue an action for damages, at least some individuals, guardians of drug babies, government agencies that provide treatment, insurance companies, and employers will find such an action worthwhile. These persons deserve the opportunity to recover their losses. Some new entrants to retail drug dealing are likely to be deterred, even if only a few of these suits are actually brought.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 3.

29-38-104. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Illegal drug” means a drug, the distribution of which is a violation of state law;
  2. “Illegal drug market” means the support system of illegal drug related operations, from production to retail sales, through which an illegal drug reaches the user;
  3. “Illegal drug market target community” is the area described under § 29-38-109;
  4. “Individual drug user” means the individual whose illegal drug use is the basis of an action brought under this chapter;
  5. “Level 1 offense” means possession of one fourth ounce (¼ oz.) or more, but less than four ounces (4 oz.), or distribution of less than one ounce (1 oz.) of a specified illegal drug; or possession of one pound (1 lb.) or twenty-five (25) plants or more, but less than four pounds (4 lbs.) or fifty (50) plants, or distribution of less than one pound (1 lb.), of marijuana;
  6. “Level 2 offense” means possession of four ounces (4 oz.) or more, but less than eight ounces (8 oz.), or distribution of one ounce (1 oz.) or more, but less than two ounces (2 oz.), of a specified illegal drug; or possession of four pounds (4 lbs.) or more or fifty (50) plants or more, but less than eight pounds (8 lbs.) or seventy-five (75) plants, or distribution of more than one pound (1 lb.), but less than five pounds (5 lbs.), of marijuana;
  7. “Level 3 offense” means possession of eight ounces (8 oz.) or more, but less than sixteen ounces (16 oz.), or distribution of two ounces (2 oz.) or more, but less than four ounces (4 oz.), of a specified illegal drug; or possession of eight pounds (8 lbs.) or more or seventy-five (75) plants or more, but less than sixteen pounds (16 lbs.) or one hundred (100) plants or more, or distribution of more than five pounds (5 lbs.), but less than ten pounds (10 lbs.), of marijuana;
  8. “Level 4 offense” means possession of sixteen ounces (16 oz.) or more or distribution of four ounces (4 oz.) or more of a specified illegal drug; or possession of sixteen pounds (16 lbs.) or more or one hundred (100) plants or more, or distribution of ten pounds (10 lbs.) or more, of marijuana;
  9. “Participate in the illegal drug market” means to distribute, possess with an intent to distribute, commit an act intended to facilitate the marketing or distribution of, or agree to distribute, possess with an intent to distribute, or commit an act intended to facilitate the marketing or distribution of an illegal drug. “Participate in the illegal drug market” does not include the purchase or receipt of an illegal drug for personal use only;
  10. “Period of illegal drug use” means, in relation to the individual user, the time of the individual's first use of an illegal drug to the accrual of the cause of action. The period of illegal drug use is presumed to commence two (2) years before the cause of action accrues, unless the defendant proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence;
  11. “Person” means an individual, governmental entity, corporation, firm, trust, partnership, or incorporated or unincorporated association, existing under or authorized by the laws of this state, another state, or foreign country;
  12. “Place of illegal drug activity” means, in relation to the individual drug user, each state house of representatives legislative district in which the individual possesses or uses an illegal drug, or in which the individual resides, attends school, or is employed during the period of the individual's illegal drug use, unless the defendant proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence;
  13. “Place of participation” means, in relation to a defendant in an action brought under this chapter, each state house of representatives legislative district in which the person participates in the illegal drug market, or in which the person resides, attends school, or is employed during the period of the person's participation in the illegal market; and
  14. “Specified illegal drug” means cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine, or any other drug the distribution of which is a violation of state law.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 4.

29-38-105. Liability for participation in the illegal drug market — Exception for law enforcement in official investigations.

  1. A person who knowingly participates in the illegal drug market within this state is liable for civil damages as provided in this chapter. A person may recover damages under this chapter for injury resulting from an individual's use of an illegal drug.
  2. A law enforcement officer or agency, the state, or a person acting at the direction of a law enforcement officer or agency or the state, is not liable for participating in the illegal drug market, if the participation is in furtherance of an official investigation.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 5.

29-38-106. Persons allowed to bring an action for damages — Persons against whom damages may be sought — What damages may be sought.

  1. One (1) or more of the following persons may bring an action for damages caused by an individual's use of an illegal drug:
    1. A parent, legal guardian, child, spouse, or sibling of the individual drug user;
    2. An individual who was exposed to an illegal drug in utero;
    3. An employer of the individual drug user;
    4. A medical facility, insurer, governmental entity, employer, or other entity that funds a drug treatment program or employee assistance program for the individual drug user, or that otherwise expended money on behalf of the individual drug user; or
    5. A person injured as a result of the willful, reckless, or negligent actions of an individual drug user.
  2. A person entitled to bring an action under this section may seek damages from one (1) or more of the following:
    1. A person who knowingly distributed, or knowingly participated in the chain of distribution of, an illegal drug that was actually used by the individual drug user;
    2. A person who knowingly participated in the illegal drug market, if:
      1. The place of illegal drug activity by the individual drug user is within the illegal drug market target community of the defendant;
      2. The defendant's participation in the illegal drug market was connected with the same type of illegal drug used by the individual drug user; and
      3. The defendant participated in the illegal drug market at any time during the individual drug user's period of illegal drug use.
  3. A person entitled to bring an action under this section may recover all of the following damages:
    1. Economic damages, including, but not limited to, the cost of treatment and rehabilitation, medical expenses, loss of economic or educational potential, loss of productivity, absenteeism, support expenses, accidents or injury, and any other pecuniary loss proximately caused by the illegal drug use;
    2. Noneconomic damages, including, but not limited to, physical and emotional pain, suffering, physical impairment, emotional distress, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment, loss of companionship, services and consortium, and other nonpecuniary losses proximately caused by an individual's use of an illegal drug;
    3. Exemplary damages;
    4. Reasonable attorney fees; and
    5. Costs of suit, including, but not limited to, reasonable expenses for expert testimony.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 6.

Attorney General Opinions. Liability for infants born with narcotic drug dependency.  OAG 13-01 (revised),  2013 Tenn. AG LEXIS 12 (2/1/13).

29-38-107. Actions by individual drug users — Actions against distributors — What damages may be sought.

  1. An individual drug user shall not bring an action for damages caused by the use of an illegal drug, except as otherwise provided in this subsection (a). An individual drug user may bring an action for damages caused by the use of an illegal drug only if all of the following conditions are met:
    1. The individual personally discloses to narcotics enforcement authorities, more than six (6) months before filing the action, all of the information known to the individual regarding all that individual's sources of illegal drugs;
    2. The individual has not used an illegal drug within the six (6) months prior to filing the action; and
    3. The individual continues to remain free of the use of an illegal drug throughout the pendency of the action.
  2. A person entitled to bring an action under this section may seek damages only from a person who distributed, or is in the chain of distribution of, an illegal drug that was actually used by the individual drug user.
  3. A person entitled to bring an action under this section may recover only the following damages:
    1. Economic damages, including, but not limited to, the cost of treatment, rehabilitation, and medical expenses, loss of economic or educational potential, loss of productivity, absenteeism, accidents or injury, and any other pecuniary loss proximately caused by the person's illegal drug use;
    2. Reasonable attorney fees; and
    3. Costs of suit, including, but not limited to, reasonable expenses for expert testimony.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 7.

29-38-108. Third-party payment on behalf of an insured prohibited.

A third party shall not pay damages awarded under this chapter, or provide a defense or money for a defense, on behalf of an insured under a contract of insurance or indemnification.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 8.

29-38-109. Target communities for different offense levels.

A person whose participation in the illegal drug market constitutes the following level offense shall be considered to have the following illegal drug market target community:

  1. For a Level 1 offense, the state house of representatives legislative district in which the defendant's place of participation is situated;
  2. For a Level 2 offense, the target community described in subdivision (1), plus all state house of representatives legislative districts with a border contiguous to that target community;
  3. For a Level 3 offense, the target community described in subdivision (2), plus all state house of representatives legislative districts with a border contiguous to that target community; and
  4. For a Level 4 offense, the state.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 9.

29-38-110. Joinder.

  1. Two (2) or more persons may join in one (1) action under this chapter as plaintiffs, if their respective actions have at least one (1) place of illegal drug activity in common, and if any portion of the period of illegal drug use overlaps with the period of illegal drug use for every other plaintiff.
  2. Two (2) or more persons may be joined in one (1) action under this chapter as defendants, if those persons are liable to at least one (1) plaintiff.
  3. A plaintiff need not be interested in obtaining, and a defendant need not be interested in defending against, all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one (1) or more plaintiffs, according to their respective rights to relief, and against one (1) or more defendants, according to their respective liabilities.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 10.

29-38-111. Comparative fault.

  1. An action by an individual drug user is governed by the principles of comparative fault. Comparative fault attributed to the plaintiff does not bar recovery, but diminishes the award of compensatory damages proportionally, according to the measure of fault attributed to the plaintiff.
  2. The burden of proving the comparative fault of the plaintiff is on the defendant, which shall be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
  3. Comparative fault shall not be attributed to a plaintiff that is not an individual drug user.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 11.

Cross-References. Comparative fault and joinder of third party defendants, § 20-1-119.

29-38-112. Right of action for contribution.

A person subject to liability under this chapter has a right of action for contribution against another person subject to liability under this chapter. Contribution may be enforced either in the original action, or by a separate action brought for that purpose. A plaintiff may seek recovery in accordance with this chapter and existing law against a person whom a defendant has asserted a right of contribution.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 12.

29-38-113. Burden of proof — Estoppel of persons convicted under drug laws to deny participation in illegal drug market — Lack of criminal drug conviction no bar to action.

  1. Proof of participation in the illegal drug market in an action brought under this chapter shall be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, other elements of the cause of action shall be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
  2. A person against whom recovery is sought, who has a criminal conviction pursuant to state drug laws or the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., is estopped from denying participation in the illegal drug market. Such a conviction is also prima facie evidence of the person's participation in the illegal drug market during the two (2) years preceding the date of an act giving rise to a conviction.
  3. The absence of a criminal drug conviction of a person against whom recovery is sought does not bar an action against that person.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 13.

29-38-114. Ex parte prejudgment attachment order — Exemption of property from process — Forfeiture.

  1. A plaintiff under this chapter, subject to subsection (c), may request an ex parte prejudgment attachment order from the court, against all assets of a defendant, sufficient to satisfy a potential award. If attachment is instituted, a defendant is entitled to an immediate hearing. Attachment may be lifted if the defendant demonstrates that the assets will be available for a potential award, or if the defendant posts a bond sufficient to cover a potential award.
  2. A person against whom a judgment has been rendered under this chapter is not eligible to exempt any property, of whatever kind, from process to levy or process to execute on the judgment.
  3. Any assets sought to satisfy a judgment under this chapter, that are named in a forfeiture action or that have been seized for forfeiture by any state or federal agency, may not be used to satisfy a judgment, unless and until the assets have been released following the conclusion of the forfeiture action or released by the agency that seized the assets.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 14.

29-38-115. Limitation of actions.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a claim under this chapter shall not be brought more than two (2) years after the cause of action accrues. A cause of action accrues under this chapter when a person who may recover has reason to know of the harm from illegal drug use that is the basis for the cause of action and has reason to know that the illegal drug use is the cause of the harm.
  2. For a plaintiff, the statute of limitations under this chapter is tolled while the individual potential plaintiff is incapacitated by the use of an illegal drug to the extent that the individual cannot reasonably be expected to seek recovery under this chapter, or as otherwise provided by law. For a defendant, the statute of limitations under this chapter is tolled until six (6) months after the individual potential defendant is convicted of a criminal drug offense, or as otherwise provided by law.
  3. The statute of limitations under this chapter for a claim based on participation in the illegal drug market that occurred prior to July 1, 2005, does not begin to run until July 1, 2005.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 15.

29-38-116. Representation by prosecuting attorney — Motion for stay of action during drug investigation or prosecution.

  1. A prosecuting attorney may represent the state or a political subdivision of the state in an action brought under this chapter.
  2. On motion by a governmental agency involved in a drug investigation or prosecution, an action brought under this chapter shall be stayed until the completion of the criminal investigation or prosecution that gave rise to the motion for a stay of the action.

Acts 2005, ch. 377, § 16.

Chapter 39
Compensation for Economic and Noneconomic Damages

29-39-101. Chapter definitions.

When used in this chapter, the following words, shall have the meanings set forth below, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

  1. “Economic damages” means damages, to the extent they are provided by applicable law, for: objectively verifiable pecuniary damages arising from medical expenses and medical care, rehabilitation services, mental health treatment, custodial care, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of income, burial costs, loss of use of property, repair or replacement of property, obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment, loss of business or employment opportunities, and other objectively verifiable monetary losses;
  2. “Noneconomic damages” means damages, to the extent they are provided by applicable law, for: physical and emotional pain; suffering; inconvenience; physical impairment; disfigurement; mental anguish; emotional distress; loss of society, companionship, and consortium; injury to reputation; humiliation; noneconomic effects of disability, including loss of enjoyment of normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or physical health, well-being or bodily functions; and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 10.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24 provided that the act, which enacted this chapter, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Attorney General Opinions. Healthcare liability actions under the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.  OAG 12-58, 2012 Tenn. AG LEXIS 58 (5/31/12).

29-39-102. Civil damage awards.

  1. In a civil action, each injured plaintiff may be awarded:
    1. Compensation for economic damages suffered by each injured plaintiff; and
    2. Compensation for any noneconomic damages suffered by each injured plaintiff not to exceed seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for all injuries and occurrences that were or could have been asserted, regardless of whether the action is based on a single act or omission or a series of acts or omissions that allegedly caused the injuries or death.
  2. If multiple defendants are found liable under the principle of comparative fault, the amount of all noneconomic damages, not to exceed seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for each injured plaintiff, shall be apportioned among the defendants based upon the percentage of fault for each defendant, so long as the plaintiff's comparative fault (or in a wrongful death action, the fault of the decedent) is not equal to or greater than fifty percent (50%), in which case recovery for any damages is barred.
  3. If an injury or loss is catastrophic in nature, as defined in subsection (d), the seven-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollar amount limiting noneconomic damages, as set forth in subdivision (a)(2) and subsection (b) is increased to, but the amount of damages awarded as noneconomic damages shall not exceed, one million dollars ($1,000,000).
  4. “Catastrophic loss or injury” means one (1) or more of the following:
    1. Spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia or quadriplegia;
    2. Amputation of two (2) hands, two (2) feet or one (1) of each;
    3. Third degree burns over forty percent (40%) or more of the body as a whole or third degree burns up to forty percent (40%) percent or more of the face; or
    4. Wrongful death of a parent leaving a surviving minor child or children for whom the deceased parent had lawful rights of custody or visitation.
  5. All noneconomic damages awarded to each injured plaintiff, including damages for pain and suffering, as well as any claims of a spouse or children for loss of consortium or any derivative claim for noneconomic damages, shall not exceed in the aggregate a total of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000), unless subsection (c) applies, in which case the aggregate amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000).
  6. If there is a disputed issue of fact, the trier of fact, by special verdict, shall determine the existence of a catastrophic loss or injury as defined in subsection (d).
  7. The limitation on the amount of noneconomic damages imposed by subdivision (a)(2) and subsections (b)-(e) shall not be disclosed to the jury, but shall be applied by the court to any award of noneconomic damages.
  8. The limitation on the amount of noneconomic damages imposed by subdivision (a)(2) and subsections (b)-(e) shall not apply to personal injury and wrongful death actions:
    1. If the defendant had a specific intent to inflict serious physical injury, and the defendant's intentional conduct did, in fact, injure the plaintiff;
    2. If the defendant intentionally falsified, destroyed or concealed records containing material evidence with the purpose of wrongfully evading liability in the case at issue; provided, however, that this subsection (h) does not apply to the good faith withholding of records pursuant to privileges and other laws applicable to discovery, nor does it apply to the management of records in the normal course of business or in compliance with the defendant's document retention policy or state or federal regulations;
    3. If the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant or stimulant, resulting the defendant's judgment being substantially impaired, and causing the injuries or death. For purposes of this subsection (h), a defendant shall not be deemed to be under the influence of drugs or any other intoxicant or stimulant, if the defendant was using lawfully prescribed drugs administered in accordance with a prescription or over-the-counter drugs in accordance with the written instructions of the manufacturer; or
    4. If the defendant's act or omission results in the defendant being convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, another state, or under federal law, and that act or omission caused the damages or injuries.
  9. If there is a dispute of fact, the trier of fact, by special verdict, shall determine whether the exceptions set forth in subsection (h) apply to the defendant and the cause of action.
  10. The liability of a defendant for noneconomic damages whose liability is alleged to be vicarious shall be determined separately from that of any alleged agent, employee or representative.
  11. Noneconomic damages are not permitted for any claim arising out of harm or loss of property, except as authorized by statute.
  12. No provision in this part shall apply to claims against this state to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with or conflicts with the Tennessee Claims Commission Act, compiled in title 9, chapter 8, part 3. In addition, no provision in this part shall apply to claims against a governmental entity or its employees to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with or conflicts with the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in chapter 20 of this title.
  13. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to create or enhance any claim, right of action, civil liability, economic damage or noneconomic damage under Tennessee law.
  14. The limitations on noneconomic damages in this section shall apply to restrict such recoveries in all civil actions notwithstanding conflicting statutes or common law.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 10; 2012, ch. 902, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 22 provided that for the avoidance of any doubt with respect to the intent of the legislature, if the noneconomic damages limits established in § 29-39-102(a)(2) would be invalid due to the exceptions to the limits set forth in either § 29-39-102(c) or § 29-39-102(h), then § 29-39-102(c) or § 29-39-102(h) shall be severed to preserve the application of § 29-39-102(a)(2).

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24 provided that the act, which enacted this chapter, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment added (h)(4).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 902, § 3.  June 12, 2012.

Law Reviews.

Products Liability and Economic Activity: An Empirical Analysis of Tort Reform's Impact on Businesses, Employment, and Production (Joanna M. Shepherd), 66 Vand. L. Rev. 257 (2013).

The Best Welfare Point: A New Compensation Criterion and Goal for Tort Law, 48 U. Mem. L. Rev. 145 (2017).

Attorney General Opinions. Healthcare liability actions under the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.  OAG 12-58, 2012 Tenn. AG LEXIS 58 (5/31/12).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Procedure.

Jury should make its award as if the statutory cap does not exist, and the jury's award should be based only on its determination of the allocation of fault in the case and its determination of the type and amount of damages. Monypeny v. Kheiv, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2015).

Subsection (b) is applicable to those situations where liability has been assigned to multiple tortfeasors, and that was not the situation presented here, and an allocation of fault among multiple defendants does not reduce the overall award, and in some cases, a fault allocation to a plaintiff can reduce the damages to an amount below the cap, making the cap inapplicable and unnecessary; in personal injury cases, the trial court should first reduce the jury's award of non-economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault, and then, if the adjusted award is still above the statutory cap, the court should reduce the award further to comport with the cap. Monypeny v. Kheiv, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2015).

Statutory cap is a per plaintiff cap; each injured plaintiff is subject to the statutory cap. T.C.A. § 29-39-102(e) addresses the all-too-common scenario in which an injured plaintiff suffers more than one type of noneconomic damage, and when one injured plaintiff seeks compensation for both personal injuries and loss of consortium, the statute limits that plaintiff to one award of noneconomic damages for all injuries not to exceed $ 750,000. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).

Repeated phrase “each injured plaintiff” in T.C.A. § 29-39-102(a), (e) tells the court that the legislature chose to impose a per plaintiff limit on noneconomic damages; given the legislature's choice to impose a per plaintiff cap, when there are two injured plaintiffs, the cap should be applied separately to the noneconomic damages awarded to each injured plaintiff. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).

Trial court correctly reduced the noneconomic damages adjusted for the decedent's fault to the statutory cap amount before apportioning the damages among the entities found at fault for the injuries, and consistent with the doctrine of comparative fault, the court then appropriately apportioned the statutory cap amount among the company and the nonparties that caused or contributed to the injuries. Davis v. 3M Co., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).

Court does not read T.C.A. § 29-39-102(b) as limiting its approach to only cases involving multiple defendants; the trial court should first reduce the jury's award of noneconomic damages by the percentage of plaintiff's fault if less than 50 percent and if the award of noneconomic damages adjusted for the plaintiff's fault still exceeds the statutory cap, the court should reduce the award to the cap amount and apportion the amount among the persons or entities found at fault other than the plaintiff based upon the percentage of fault for each. Davis v. 3M Co., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).

Noneconomic damages, up to the amount of the statutory cap, are apportioned among all the liable defendants; by implication then, the amount of noneconomic damages must be reduced by the fault, if any, of the plaintiff before application of the cap. Davis v. 3M Co., — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).

2. Constitutionality.

Trial court erred in considering the defendants'  motion for partial summary judgment and the plaintiffs'  constitutional challenge because the matter was premature where the statutory cap on non-economic damages would have no relevance in the case unless and until the plaintiffs obtained a verdict in excess of that cap, whether the cap was implicated in the case thus remained an open question, and the issue of the constitutionality of that cap was not ripe for determination, and such consideration properly should await a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in excess of the statutory cap, should the same occur. Clark v. Cain, 479 S.W.3d 830, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 829 (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2015).

Statutory cap on noneconomic damages does not violate the right to trial by jury under the Tennessee Constitution because the right to trial by jury under the Tennessee Constitution is satisfied when an unbiased and impartial jury makes a factual determination regarding the amount of noneconomic damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff; that right is not violated when a judge then applies, as a matter of law, the statutory cap on noneconomic damages. McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 596 S.W.3d 686, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020).

Statutory cap on noneconomic damages does not violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Tennessee Constitution because it is a substantive change in the law that was within the General Assembly's legislative authority to enact; the statutory cap does not interfere with the judicial power of the courts to interpret and apply law, but to the contrary, courts exercise their judicial authority, and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, by applying it to the cases before them. McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 596 S.W.3d 686, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020).

Statutory cap on noneconomic damages does not violate the right to trial by jury, the doctrine of separation of powers, or the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 596 S.W.3d 686, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020).

With no evidence that the General Assembly acted with the purpose of discriminating against women in enacting the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, the statute does not violate the Tennessee Constitution by discriminating disproportionately against women; without evidence of discriminatory purpose, disparate impact alone does not violate the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 596 S.W.3d 686, 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 84 (Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020).

Tennessee Supreme Court had held that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages did not violate the right to a jury trial, the doctrine of separation of powers, or the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, and the court was bound by that decision. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).

Statutory cap only applied prospectively to causes of action that accrued on or after the effective date of the statute, and thus it did not diminish any vested property rights. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the statute is unconstitutional on its face, so the trial court did not err in applying the statutory cap separately to the noneconomic damages awarded to each injured plaintiff. Yebuah v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment, PLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2020).

29-39-103. Findings by trier of fact.

  1. If liability is found in a civil action, then the trier of fact, in addition to other appropriate findings, shall make separate findings for each claimant specifying the amount of:
    1. Any past damages for each of the following types of damages:
      1. Medical and other costs of health care;
      2. Other economic damages; and
      3. Noneconomic damages; and
    2. Any future damages and the periods over which they will accrue for each of the following types of damages:
      1. Medical and other costs of health care;
      2. Other economic damages; and
      3. Noneconomic damages.
  2. If the plaintiff claims a catastrophic loss or injury has occurred, and if there is a disputed issue of fact regarding whether such loss or injury has occurred, the trier of fact must make a specific finding of fact, by special verdict, that the loss or injury suffered by the plaintiff is catastrophic as defined in § 29-39-102(d).
  3. The calculation of all future medical care and other costs of health care and future noneconomic losses must reflect the costs and losses during the period of time the claimant will sustain those costs and losses. The calculation for other economic loss must be based on the losses during the period of time the claimant would have lived but for the injury upon which the claim is based. All such calculations of future losses shall be adjusted to reflect net present value.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 10; 2013, ch. 379, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24 provided that the act, which enacted this chapter, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment deleted “, on an annual basis,” following “will accrue” in the introductory paragraph of (a)(2).

Effective Dates. Acts 2013, ch. 379, § 2. May 14, 2013.

Attorney General Opinions. Healthcare liability actions under the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.  OAG 12-58, 2012 Tenn. AG LEXIS 58 (5/31/12).

29-39-104. Punitive damages.

  1. In a civil action in which punitive damages are sought:
    1. Punitive damages may only be awarded if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly;
    2. In an action in which the claimant seeks an award of punitive damages, the trier of fact in a bifurcated proceeding shall first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded and in what amount and by special verdict whether each defendant's conduct was malicious, intentional, fraudulent or reckless and whether subdivision (a)(7) applies;
    3. If a jury finds that the defendant engaged in malicious, intentional, fraudulent, or reckless conduct, then the court shall promptly commence an evidentiary hearing in which the jury shall determine the amount of punitive damages, if any;
    4. In all cases involving an award of punitive damages, the trier of fact, in determining the amount of punitive damages, shall consider, to the extent relevant, the following: the defendant's financial condition and net worth; the nature and reprehensibility of the defendant's wrongdoing; the impact of the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff; the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff; the defendant's awareness of the amount of harm being caused and the defendant's motivation in causing such harm; the duration of the defendant's misconduct and whether the defendant attempted to conceal such misconduct; the expense plaintiff has borne in attempts to recover the losses; whether the defendant profited from the activity, and if defendant did profit, whether the punitive award should be in excess of the profit in order to deter similar future behavior; whether, and the extent to which, defendant has been subjected to previous punitive damage awards based upon the same wrongful act; whether, once the misconduct became known to defendant, defendant took remedial action or attempted to make amends by offering a prompt and fair settlement for actual harm caused; and any other circumstances shown by the evidence that bear on determining a proper amount of punitive damages. The trier of fact shall be instructed that the primary purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar misconduct in the future by the defendant and others while the purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole;
    5. Punitive or exemplary damages shall not exceed an amount equal to the greater of:
      1. Two (2) times the total amount of compensatory damages awarded; or
      2. Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000);
    6. The limitation on the amount of punitive damages imposed by subdivision (a)(5) shall not be disclosed to the jury, but shall be applied by the court to any punitive damages verdict;
    7. The limitation on the amount of punitive damages imposed by subdivision (a)(5) shall not apply to actions brought for damages or an injury:
      1. If the defendant had a specific intent to inflict serious physical injury, and the defendant's intentional conduct did, in fact, injure the plaintiff;
      2. If the defendant intentionally falsified, destroyed or concealed records containing material evidence with the purpose of wrongfully evading liability in the case at issue; provided, however, that this subsection (a) does not apply to the good faith withholding of records pursuant to privileges and other laws applicable to discovery, nor does it apply to the management of records in the normal course of business or in compliance with the defendant's document retention policy or state or federal regulations;
      3. If the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant or stimulant, resulting in the defendant's judgment being substantially impaired, and causing the injuries or death. For purposes of this subsection (a), a defendant shall not be deemed to be under the influence of drugs or any other intoxicant or stimulant, if the defendant was using lawfully prescribed drugs administered in accordance with a prescription or over-the-counter drugs in accordance with the written instructions of the manufacturer; or
      4. If the defendant's act or omission results in the defendant being convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, another state, or under federal law, and that act or omission caused the damages or injuries;
    8. If there is a disputed issue of fact, the trier of fact, by special verdict, shall determine whether the exceptions set forth in subdivision (a)(7) apply to the defendant and the cause of action;
    9. The culpability of a defendant for punitive damages whose liability is alleged to be vicarious shall be determined separately from that of any alleged agent, employee or representative.
  2. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a right to an award of punitive damages or to limit the duty of the court, or the appellate courts, to scrutinize all punitive damage awards, ensure that all punitive damage awards comply with applicable procedural, evidentiary and constitutional requirements, and to order remittitur when appropriate.
  3. The seller of a product other than the manufacturer shall not be liable for punitive damages, unless the seller exercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging or labeling of the product that caused the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; the seller altered or modified the product and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; or the seller had actual knowledge of the defective condition of the product at the time the seller supplied the same.
    1. Except as provided in subdivision (d)(2), punitive damages shall not be awarded in a civil action involving a drug or device if the drug or device which allegedly caused the claimant's harm:
      1. Was manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of an approval or license issued by the federal food and drug administration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, compiled in 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-392, as amended, or the Public Health Service Act, 53 Stat. 682, compiled in 42 U.S.C. §§  201-300cc-15; or
      2. Was an over-the-counter drug or device marketed pursuant to federal regulations, was generally recognized as safe and effective and as not being misbranded pursuant to the applicable federal regulations, and satisfied in relevant and material respects each of the conditions contained in the applicable regulations and each of the conditions contained in an applicable monograph.
    2. Subdivision (d)(1) shall not apply in an action against a manufacturer of a drug or device, if, at any time before the event alleged to have caused the harm, the manufacturer, in violation of applicable regulations of the food and drug administration:
      1. Withheld from the food and drug administration information known to be material and relevant to the harm that the claimant allegedly suffered; or
      2. Misrepresented to the food and drug administration information of that type.
    3. For purposes this subsection (d):
      1. “Device” has the same meaning as in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, 1041, codified in 21 U.S.C. §  321(h);
      2. “Drug” has the same meaning as in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, 1041, codified in 21 U.S.C. §  321(g)(1).
  4. Punitive damages shall not be awarded in any civil action when a defendant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in substantial compliance with applicable federal and state regulations setting forth specific standards applicable to the activity in question and intended to protect a class of persons or entities that includes the plaintiff, if those regulations were in effect at the time the activity occurred.
  5. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to limit a court's authority to enter judgment as a matter of law prior to or during a trial on a claim for punitive damages.
    1. Notwithstanding subdivision (a)(9), punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant based on vicarious liability for the acts or omissions of an agent or employee only if the finder of fact determines by special verdict based on clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the following has occurred:
      1. The act or omission was committed by a person employed in a management capacity while that person was acting within the scope of employment;
      2. The defendant was reckless in hiring, retaining, supervising or training the agent or employee and that recklessness was the proximate cause of the act or omission that caused the loss or injury; or
      3. The defendant authorized, ratified or approved the act or omission with knowledge or conscious or reckless disregard that the act or omission may result in the loss or injury.
    2. Nothing in this subsection (g) shall be construed to expand or increase the scope of vicarious liability or punitive damages liability under Tennessee law.
    3. For purposes of this subsection (g), “a person employed in a management capacity” means an employee with authority to set policy and exercise control, discretion, and independent judgment over a significant scope of the employer's business.

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 10; 2012, ch. 902, § 2; 2013, ch. 224, § 1.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 1 provided that the act shall be known and cited as the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.”

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 23 provided that for the avoidance of any doubt with respect to the intent of the legislature, if the punitive damages limits established in § 29-39-104(a)(5) would be invalid due to the exceptions to the limits set forth in § 29-39-104(a)(7), then § 29-39-104(a)(7) shall be severed to preserve the application of § 29-39-104(a)(5).

Acts 2011, ch. 510, § 24 provided that the act, which enacted this chapter, shall apply to all liability actions for injuries, deaths and losses covered by this act which accrue on or after October 1, 2011.

Acts 2013, ch. 224, § 2 provided that the act, which added subsection (g), shall apply to all actions accruing on or after July 1, 2013.

Amendments. The 2012 amendment added (a)(7)(D).

The 2013 amendment added (g).

Effective Dates. Acts 2012, ch. 902, § 3. June 12, 2012.

Acts 2013, ch. 224, § 2. July 1, 2013.

Law Reviews.

Products Liability and Economic Activity: An Empirical Analysis of Tort Reform's Impact on Businesses, Employment, and Production (Joanna M. Shepherd), 66 Vand. L. Rev. 257 (2013).

Attorney General Opinions. Healthcare liability actions under the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011.  OAG 12-58, 2012 Tenn. AG LEXIS 58 (5/31/12).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

1. Applicability.

New law if applicable would have called for a large reduction in punitive damages, but the court was bound by the law existing prior to the enactment of the statute; the prior law was more lenient. Wilson v. Americare Sys., — S.W.3d —, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014).

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations did not preempt the statute governing assessment of liability for punitive damages between a principal and agent because the statute did not conflict with federal law by insulating a principal from liability for the negligence of an agent. Poole v. Dealers Warehouse Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018).

Special employer was not jointly and severally liable for punitive damages assessed against an employee because (1) no statutory basis for the employee's vicarious liability was proved, and (2) any noncompliance by the employer with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations was no basis for such liability, as punitive damages were not assessed against the employee on this basis. Poole v. Dealers Warehouse Corp., — S.W.3d —, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018).

Homeowners were not entitled to an award of attorney's fees against a developer as punitive damages because attorney's fees were meant to be compensatory. Innerimages, Inc. v. Newman, — S.W.3d —, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2019).

2. Compliance.

While an award of punitive damages was appropriate when a timeshare developer was found to have violated the Tennessee Time-share Act, T.C.A. § 66-32-101 et seq., and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, T.C.A. § 47-18-101 et seq., and was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, the amount of the award had to be reduced because of the statutory cap. Overton v. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., L.P., — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 45 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015), appeal denied, — S.W.3d —, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 515 (Tenn. June 15, 2015), cert. denied, Westgate Resorts, Ltd., L.P. v. Overton, 136 S. Ct. 486 (U.S. 2015), 193 L. Ed. 2d 350,  2015 U.S. LEXIS 7049.

Because a trial court did not conduct a bifurcated hearing on the amount of punitive damages, it was necessary to vacate the award of punitive damages and remand for further proceedings. The court was to enter a revised order regarding its decision to impose punitive damages from the evidence, clarifying whether it found by clear and convincing evidence that a lessor acted intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, or recklessly. If it did, the court was to hold an additional hearing as to the amount of punitive damages to be awarded, if any. Hudson, Holeyfield & Banks, G.P. v. MNR Hosp., LLC, — S.W.3d —, 2020 Tenn. App. LEXIS 358 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).

2.5. Constitutionality.

Punitive damages bar set forth in T.C.A. § 29-39-104 violated individual right to trial by jury set forth in Tennessee Constitution. Lindenberg v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,  2018 FED App. 0280P (6th Cir.), — F.3d —,  2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36097 (6th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018).

Chapter 40
Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

29-40-101. Short title.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act.”

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-102. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter:

  1. “Affiliate” means:
    1. With respect to an individual:
      1. A companion of the individual;
      2. A lineal ancestor or descendant, whether by blood or adoption, of:
  1. The individual; or
  2. A companion of the individual;

A companion of an ancestor or descendant described in subdivision (1)(A)(ii);

A sibling, aunt, uncle, great aunt, great uncle, first cousin, niece, nephew, grandniece, or grandnephew of the individual, whether related by the whole or the half blood or adoption, or a companion of any of them; or

Any other individual occupying the residence of the individual; and

With respect to a person other than an individual:

Another person that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the person;

An officer, director, manager, member, partner, employee, or trustee or other fiduciary of the person; or

A companion of, or an individual occupying the residence of, an individual described in subdivision (1)(B)(i) or (1)(B)(ii);

“Companion” means:

The spouse of an individual;

The domestic partner of an individual; or

Another individual in a civil union with an individual;

“Court” means a chancery court in this state;

“Executory contract” means a contract, including a lease, under which each party has an unperformed obligation and the failure of a party to complete performance would constitute a material breach;

“Governmental unit” means an office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other agency of this state or a subdivision of this state;

“Lien” means an interest in property that secures payment or performance of an obligation;

“Mortgage” means a record, however denominated, that creates or provides for a consensual lien on real property or rents, even if the mortgage also creates or provides for a lien on personal property;

“Mortgagee” means a person entitled to enforce an obligation secured by a mortgage;

“Mortgagor” means a person that grants a mortgage or a successor in ownership of the real property described in the mortgage;

“Owner” means the person for whose property a receiver is appointed;

“Person” means an individual; estate; business or nonprofit entity; public corporation; government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; or other legal entity;

“Proceeds” means the following property:

Whatever is acquired on the sale, lease, license, exchange, or other disposition of receivership property;

Whatever is collected on, or distributed on account of, receivership property;

Rights arising out of receivership property;

To the extent of the value of receivership property, claims arising out of the loss, nonconformity, or interference with the use of, defects or infringement of rights in, or damage to the property; or

To the extent of the value of receivership property and to the extent payable to the owner or mortgagee, insurance payable by reason of the loss or nonconformity of, defects or infringement of rights in, or damage to the property;

“Property” means all of a person's right, title, and interest, both legal and equitable, in real and personal property, tangible and intangible, wherever located and however acquired. “Property” includes proceeds, products, offspring, rents, or profits of or from the property;

“Receiver” means a person appointed by the court as the court's agent, and subject to the court's direction, to take possession of, manage, and, if authorized by this chapter or court order, transfer, sell, lease, license, exchange, collect, or otherwise dispose of receivership property;

“Receivership” means a proceeding in which a receiver is appointed;

“Receivership property” means the property of an owner which is described in the order appointing a receiver or a subsequent order. “Receivership property” includes any proceeds, products, offspring, rents, or profits of or from the property;

“Record”, used as a noun, means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored on an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form;

“Rents” means:

Sums payable for the right to possess or occupy, or for the actual possession or occupation of, real property of another person;

Sums payable to a mortgagor under a policy of rental-interruption insurance covering real property;

Claims arising out of a default in the payment of sums payable for the right to possess or occupy real property of another person;

Sums payable to terminate an agreement to possess or occupy real property of another person;

Sums payable to a mortgagor for payment or reimbursement of expenses incurred in owning, operating, and maintaining real property or constructing or installing improvements on real property; or

Other sums payable under an agreement relating to the real property of another person that constitute rents under the law of this state, other than this chapter;

“Secured obligation” means an obligation the payment or performance of which is secured by a security agreement;

“Security agreement” means an agreement that creates or provides for a lien;

“Sign” means, with present intent to authenticate or adopt a record:

To execute or adopt a tangible symbol; or

To attach to or logically associate with the record an electronic sound, symbol, or process; and

“State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-103. Notice and opportunity for hearing.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), the court may issue an order under this chapter only after notice and opportunity for a hearing, as appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The court may issue an order under this chapter:
    1. Without prior notice if the circumstances require issuance of an order before notice is given;
    2. After notice and without a prior hearing if the circumstances require issuance of an order before a hearing is held; or
    3. After notice and without a hearing if no interested party timely requests a hearing.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-104. Scope — Exclusions.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) or (c), this chapter applies to a receivership for an interest in real property and any personal property related to or used in operating the real property.
  2. This chapter does not apply to a receivership for an interest in real property improved by one (1) to four (4) dwelling units unless:
    1. The interest is used for agricultural, commercial, industrial, or mineral-extraction purposes, other than incidental uses by an owner occupying the property as the owner's primary residence;
    2. The interest secures an obligation incurred at a time when the property was used or planned for use for agricultural, commercial, industrial, or mineral-extraction purposes;
    3. The owner planned or is planning to develop the property into one (1) or more dwelling units to be sold or leased in the ordinary course of the owner's business; or
    4. The owner is collecting or has the right to collect rents or other income from the property from a person other than an affiliate of the owner.
  3. This chapter does not apply to a receivership authorized by the law of this state, other than this chapter, in which the receiver is a governmental unit or an individual acting in an official capacity on behalf of the governmental unit.
  4. This chapter does not limit the authority of a court to appoint a receiver under other state law.
  5. Unless displaced by a particular provision of this chapter, the principles of law and equity supplement this chapter.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-105. Power of court.

The court that appoints a receiver under this chapter has exclusive jurisdiction to direct the receiver and determine any controversy related to the receivership or receivership property.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-106. Appointment of receiver.

  1. The court may appoint a receiver:
    1. Before judgment, to protect a party that demonstrates an apparent right, title, or interest in real property that is the subject of the action, if the property or the property's revenue-producing potential:
      1. Is being subjected to or is in danger of waste, loss, dissipation, or impairment; or
      2. Has been or is about to be the subject of a voidable transaction;
    2. After judgment:
      1. To carry the judgment into effect; or
      2. To preserve nonexempt real property pending appeal or when an execution has been returned unsatisfied and the owner refuses to apply the property in satisfaction of the judgment;
    3. In an action in which a receiver for real property may be appointed on equitable grounds; or
    4. During the time allowed for redemption, to preserve real property sold in an execution or foreclosure sale and secure the property's rents to the person entitled to the property's rents.
  2. In connection with the foreclosure or other enforcement of a mortgage, a mortgagee is entitled to appointment of a receiver for the mortgaged property if:
    1. Appointment is necessary to protect the property from waste, loss, transfer, dissipation, or impairment;
    2. The mortgagor agreed in a signed record to appointment of a receiver on default;
    3. The owner agreed, after default and in a signed record, to appointment of a receiver;
    4. The property and any other collateral held by the mortgagee are not sufficient to satisfy the secured obligation;
    5. The owner fails to turn over to the mortgagee proceeds or rents the mortgagee was entitled to collect; or
    6. The holder of a subordinate lien obtains appointment of a receiver for the property.
  3. The court may condition appointment of a receiver without prior notice under § 29-40-103(b)(1) or without a prior hearing under § 29-40-103(b)(2) on the giving of security by the person seeking the appointment for the payment of damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs incurred or suffered by any person if the court later concludes that the appointment was not justified. If the court later concludes that the appointment was justified, the court shall release the security.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-107. Disqualification from appointment as receiver — Disclosure of interest.

  1. The court may not appoint a person as receiver unless the person submits to the court a statement under penalty of perjury that the person is not disqualified.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a person is disqualified from appointment as receiver if the person:
    1. Is an affiliate of a party;
    2. Has an interest materially adverse to an interest of a party;
    3. Has a material financial interest in the outcome of the action, other than compensation the court may allow the receiver;
    4. Has a debtor-creditor relationship with a party; or
    5. Holds an equity interest in a party, other than a noncontrolling interest in a publicly-traded company.
  3. A person is not disqualified from appointment as receiver solely because the person:
    1. Was appointed receiver or is owed compensation in an unrelated matter involving a party or was engaged by a party in a matter unrelated to the receivership;
    2. Is an individual obligated to a party on a debt that is not in default and was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; or
    3. Maintains with a party a deposit account as defined in § 47-9-102(a).
  4. A person seeking appointment of a receiver may nominate a person to serve as receiver, but the court is not bound by the nomination.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-108. Receiver's bond — Alternative security.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), a receiver shall post with the court a bond that:
    1. Is conditioned on the faithful discharge of the receiver's duties;
    2. Has one (1) or more sureties approved by the court;
    3. Is in an amount the court specifies; and
    4. Is effective as of the date of the receiver's appointment.
  2. The court may approve the posting by a receiver with the court of alternative security, such as a letter of credit or deposit of funds. The receiver may not use receivership property as alternative security. Interest that accrues on deposited funds must be paid to the receiver on the receiver's discharge.
  3. The court may authorize a receiver to act before the receiver posts the bond or alternative security required by this section.
  4. A claim against a receiver's bond or alternative security must be made not later than one (1) year after the date the receiver is discharged.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-109. Status of receiver as lien creditor.

On appointment of a receiver, the receiver has the status of a lien creditor under:

  1. The Uniform Commercial Code — Secured Transactions, compiled in title 47, chapter 9, as to receivership property that is personal property or fixtures; and
  2. Title 66, as to receivership property that is real property.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-110. Security agreement covering after-acquired property.

Except as otherwise provided by the law of this state, other than this chapter, property that a receiver or owner acquires after appointment of the receiver is subject to a security agreement entered into before the appointment to the same extent as if the court had not appointed the receiver.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-111. Collection and turnover of receivership property.

  1. Unless the court orders otherwise, on demand by a receiver:
    1. A person that owes a debt that is receivership property and is matured or payable on demand or on order shall pay the debt to or on the order of the receiver, except to the extent the debt is subject to setoff or recoupment; and
    2. Subject to subsection (c), a person that has possession, custody, or control of receivership property shall turn the property over to the receiver.
  2. A person that has notice of the appointment of a receiver and owes a debt that is receivership property may not satisfy the debt by payment to the owner.
  3. If a creditor has possession, custody, or control of receivership property and the validity, perfection, or priority of the creditor's lien on the property depends on the creditor's possession, custody, or control, the creditor may retain possession, custody, or control until the court orders adequate protection of the creditor's lien.
  4. Unless a bona fide dispute exists about a receiver's right to possession, custody, or control of receivership property, the court may sanction as civil contempt a person's failure to turn the property over when required by this section.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-112. Powers and duties of receiver.

  1. Except as limited by court order or the law of this state, other than this chapter, a receiver may:
    1. Collect, control, manage, conserve, and protect receivership property;
    2. Operate a business constituting receivership property, including preservation, use, sale, lease, license, exchange, collection, or disposition of the property in the ordinary course of business;
    3. In the ordinary course of business, incur unsecured debt and pay expenses incidental to the receiver's preservation, use, sale, lease, license, exchange, collection, or disposition of receivership property;
    4. Assert a right, claim, cause of action, or defense of the owner that relates to receivership property;
    5. Seek and obtain instruction from the court concerning receivership property, exercise of the receiver's powers, and performance of the receiver's duties;
    6. On subpoena, compel a person to submit to examination under oath, or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated records or tangible things, with respect to receivership property or any other matter that may affect administration of the receivership;
    7. Engage a professional as provided in § 29-40-115;
    8. Apply to a court of another state for appointment as ancillary receiver with respect to receivership property located in that state; and
    9. Exercise any power conferred by court order, this chapter, or a law of this state other than this chapter.
  2. With court approval, a receiver may:
    1. Incur debt for the use or benefit of receivership property other than in the ordinary course of business;
    2. Make improvements to receivership property;
    3. Use or transfer receivership property other than in the ordinary course of business as provided in § 29-40-116;
    4. Adopt or reject an executory contract of the owner as provided in § 29-40-117;
    5. Pay compensation to the receiver as provided in § 29-40-121, and to each professional engaged by the receiver as provided in § 29-40-115;
    6. Recommend allowance or disallowance of a claim of a creditor as provided in § 29-40-120; and
    7. Make a distribution of receivership property as provided in § 29-40-120.
  3. A receiver shall:
    1. Prepare and retain appropriate business records, including a record of each receipt, disbursement, and disposition of receivership property;
    2. Account for receivership property, including the proceeds of a sale, lease, license, exchange, collection, or other disposition of the property;
    3. File with the county clerk of the county where the real property is located a copy of the order appointing the receiver and, if a legal description of the real property is not included in the order, the legal description;
    4. Disclose to the court any fact arising during the receivership that would disqualify the receiver under § 29-40-107; and
    5. Perform any duty imposed by court order, this chapter, or the law of this state, other than this chapter.
  4. The powers and duties of a receiver may be expanded, modified, or limited by court order.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-113. Duties of owner.

  1. An owner shall:
    1. Assist and cooperate with the receiver in the administration of the receivership and the discharge of the receiver's duties;
    2. Preserve and turn over to the receiver all receivership property in the owner's possession, custody, or control;
    3. Identify all records and other information relating to the receivership property, including a password, authorization, or other information needed to obtain or maintain access to or control of the receivership property, and make available to the receiver the records and information in the owner's possession, custody, or control;
    4. On subpoena, submit to examination under oath by the receiver concerning the acts, conduct, property, liabilities, and financial condition of the owner or any matter relating to the receivership property or the receivership; and
    5. Perform any duty imposed by court order, this chapter, or the law of this state, other than this chapter.
  2. If an owner is a person other than an individual, this section applies to each officer, director, manager, member, partner, trustee, or other person exercising or having the power to exercise control over the affairs of the owner.
  3. If a person knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed by this section, the court may:
    1. Award the receiver actual damages caused by the person's failure, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs; and
    2. Sanction the failure as civil contempt.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-114. Stay — Injunction.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) or ordered by the court, an order appointing a receiver operates as a stay, applicable to all persons, of an act, action, or proceeding:
    1. To obtain possession of, exercise control over, or enforce a judgment against receivership property; and
    2. To enforce a lien against receivership property to the extent the lien secures a claim against the owner that arose before entry of the order.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d), the court may enjoin an act, action, or proceeding against or relating to receivership property if the injunction is necessary to protect the property or facilitate administration of the receivership.
  3. A person whose act, action, or proceeding is stayed or enjoined under this section may apply to the court for relief from the stay or injunction for cause.
  4. An order under subsection (a) or (b) does not operate as a stay or injunction of:
    1. An act, action, or proceeding to foreclose or otherwise enforce a mortgage by the person seeking appointment of the receiver;
    2. An act, action, or proceeding to perfect, or maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in receivership property;
    3. Commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding;
    4. Commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding, or enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment in an action or proceeding, by a governmental unit to enforce the governmental unit's police or regulatory power; or
    5. Establishment by a governmental unit of a tax liability against the owner or receivership property or an appeal of the liability.
  5. The court may void an act that violates a stay or injunction under this section.
  6. If a person knowingly violates a stay or injunction under this section, the court may:
    1. Award actual damages caused by the violation, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs; and
    2. Sanction the violation as civil contempt.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-115. Engagement and compensation of professional.

  1. With court approval, a receiver may engage an attorney, accountant, appraiser, auctioneer, broker, or other professional to assist the receiver in performing a duty or exercising a power of the receiver. The receiver shall disclose to the court:
    1. A person is not disqualified from engagement under this section solely because of the person's engagement by, representation of, or other relationship with the receiver, a creditor, or a party.
    2. This chapter does not prevent the receiver from serving in the receivership as an attorney, accountant, auctioneer, or broker when authorized by law.
    1. A receiver or professional engaged under subsection (a) shall file with the court an itemized statement of the time spent, work performed, and billing rate of each person that performed the work and an itemized list of expenses.
    2. The receiver shall pay the amount approved by the court.

The identity and qualifications of the professional;

The scope and nature of the proposed engagement;

Any potential conflict of interest; and

The proposed compensation.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-116. Use or transfer of receivership property not in ordinary course of business.

  1. As used in this section, “good faith” means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.
  2. With court approval, a receiver may use receivership property other than in the ordinary course of business.
    1. With court approval, a receiver may transfer receivership property other than in the ordinary course of business by sale, lease, license, exchange, or other disposition.
    2. Unless the agreement of sale provides otherwise, a sale under this section is:
      1. Free and clear of a lien of the person that obtained appointment of the receiver, any subordinate lien, and any right of redemption; and
      2. Subject to a senior lien.
  3. A lien on receivership property that is extinguished by a transfer under subsection (c) attaches to the proceeds of the transfer with the same validity, perfection, and priority the lien had on the property immediately before the transfer, even if the proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy all obligations secured by the lien.
    1. A transfer under subsection (c) may occur by means other than a public auction sale.
    2. A creditor holding a valid lien on the property to be transferred may purchase the property and offset against the purchase price part or all of the allowed amount secured by the lien, if the creditor tenders funds sufficient to satisfy in full the reasonable expenses of transfer and the obligation secured by any senior lien extinguished by the transfer.
  4. A reversal or modification of an order approving a transfer under subsection (c) does not affect the validity of the transfer to a person that acquired the property in good faith or revive against the person any lien extinguished by the transfer, whether the person knew before the transfer of the request for reversal or modification, unless the court stayed the order before the transfer.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-117. Executory contract.

  1. As used in this section, “timeshare interest” means an interest having a duration of more than three (3) years that grants its holder the right to use and occupy an accommodation, facility, or recreational site, whether improved or not, for a specific period less than a full year during any given year.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), with court approval, a receiver may adopt or reject an executory contract of the owner relating to receivership property. The court may condition the receiver's adoption and continued performance of the contract on terms appropriate under the circumstances. If the receiver does not request court approval to adopt or reject the contract within a reasonable time after the receiver's appointment, the receiver is deemed to have rejected the contract.
  3. A receiver's performance of an executory contract before court approval under subsection (b) of its adoption or rejection is not an adoption of the contract and does not preclude the receiver from seeking approval to reject the contract.
  4. A provision in an executory contract that requires or permits a forfeiture, modification, or termination of the executory contract because of the appointment of a receiver or the financial condition of the owner does not affect a receiver's power under subsection (b) to adopt the executory contract.
  5. A receiver's right to possess or use receivership property pursuant to an executory contract terminates on rejection of the executory contract under subsection (b). Rejection is a breach of the contract effective immediately before appointment of the receiver. A claim for damages for rejection of the contract must be submitted by the later of:
    1. The time set for submitting a claim in the receivership; or
    2. Thirty (30) days after the court approves the rejection.
  6. If at the time a receiver is appointed, the owner has the right to assign an executory contract relating to receivership property under the law of this state, other than this chapter, the receiver may assign the executory contract with court approval.
  7. If a receiver rejects under subsection (b) an executory contract for the sale of receivership property that is real property in possession of the purchaser or a real property timeshare interest, the purchaser may:
    1. Treat the rejection as a termination of the executory contract, and in that case the purchaser has a lien on the property for the recovery of any part of the purchase price the purchaser paid; or
    2. Retain the purchaser's right to possession under the executory contract, and in that case the purchaser shall continue to perform all obligations arising under the executory contract and may offset any damages caused by nonperformance of an obligation of the owner after the date of the rejection, but the purchaser has no right or claim against other receivership property or the receiver on account of the damages.
  8. A receiver may not reject an unexpired lease of real property under which the owner is the landlord if:
    1. The tenant occupies the leased premises as the tenant's primary residence;
    2. The receiver was appointed at the request of a person other than a mortgagee; or
    3. The receiver was appointed at the request of a mortgagee and:
      1. The lease is superior to the lien of the mortgage;
      2. The tenant has an enforceable agreement with the mortgagee or the holder of a senior lien under which the tenant's occupancy will not be disturbed as long as the tenant performs the tenant's obligations under the lease;
      3. The mortgagee has consented to the lease, either in a signed record or by the mortgagee's failure to timely object that the lease violated the mortgage; or
      4. The terms of the lease were commercially reasonable at the time the lease was agreed to and the tenant did not know or have reason to know that the lease violated the mortgage.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-118. Defenses and immunities of receiver.

  1. A receiver is entitled to all defenses and immunities provided by the law of this state, other than this chapter, for an act or omission within the scope of the receiver's appointment.
  2. A receiver may be sued personally for an act or omission in administering receivership property only with approval of the court that appointed the receiver.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-119. Interim report of receiver.

A receiver may file or, if ordered by the court, shall file an interim report that includes:

  1. The activities of the receiver since appointment or a previous report;
  2. Receipts and disbursements, including a payment made or proposed to be made to a professional engaged by the receiver;
  3. Receipts and dispositions of receivership property;
  4. Fees and expenses of the receiver and, if not filed separately, a request for approval of payment of the fees and expenses; and
  5. Any other information required by the court.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-120. Notice of appointment — Claim against receivership — Distribution to creditors.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), a receiver shall give notice of appointment of the receiver to creditors of the owner by:
    1. Deposit for delivery through first-class mail or other commercially reasonable delivery method to the last known address of each creditor; and
    2. Publication as directed by the court.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), the notice required by subsection (a) must specify the date by which each creditor holding a claim against the owner that arose before appointment of the receiver must submit the claim to the receiver.
    2. The date specified must be at least ninety (90) days after the later of notice under subdivision (a)(1) or last publication under subdivision (a)(2).
    3. The court may extend the period for submitting the claim.
    4. Unless the court orders otherwise, a claim that is not submitted timely is not entitled to a distribution from the receivership.
  2. A claim submitted by a creditor under this section must:
    1. State the name and address of the creditor;
    2. State the amount and basis of the claim;
    3. Identify any property securing the claim;
    4. Be signed by the creditor under penalty of perjury; and
    5. Include a copy of any record on which the claim is based.
  3. An assignment by a creditor of a claim against the owner is effective against the receiver only if the assignee gives timely notice of the assignment to the receiver in a signed record.
    1. At any time before entry of an order approving a receiver's final report, the receiver may file with the court an objection to a claim of a creditor, stating the basis for the objection.
    2. The court shall allow or disallow the claim according to the law of this state, other than this chapter.
  4. If the court concludes that receivership property is likely to be insufficient to satisfy claims of each creditor holding a perfected lien on the property, the court may order that:
    1. The receiver need not give notice under subsection (a) of the appointment to all creditors of the owner, but only such creditors as the court directs; and
    2. Unsecured creditors need not submit claims under this section.
  5. Subject to § 29-40-121:
    1. A distribution of receivership property to a creditor holding a perfected lien on the property must be made in accordance with the creditor's priority under the law of this state, other than this chapter; and
    2. A distribution of receivership property to a creditor with an allowed unsecured claim must be made as the court directs according to the law of this state, other than this chapter.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-121. Fees and expenses.

  1. The court may award a receiver from receivership property the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of performing the duties of the receiver and exercising the powers of the receiver.
  2. The court may order one (1) or more of the following to pay the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of the receivership, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs:
    1. A person that requested the appointment of the receiver, if the receivership does not produce sufficient funds to pay the fees and expenses; or
    2. A person whose conduct justified or would have justified the appointment of the receiver under § 29-40-106(a)(1).

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-122. Removal of receiver — Replacement — Termination of receivership.

  1. The court may remove a receiver for cause.
  2. The court shall replace a receiver that dies, resigns, or is removed.
  3. If the court finds that a receiver that resigns or is removed, or the representative of a receiver that is deceased, has accounted fully for and turned over to the successor receiver all receivership property and has filed a report of all receipts and disbursements during the service of the replaced receiver, the replaced receiver is discharged.
  4. The court may discharge a receiver and terminate the court's administration of the receivership property if the court finds that appointment of the receiver was improvident or that the circumstances no longer warrant continuation of the receivership. If the court finds that the appointment was sought wrongfully or in bad faith, the court may assess against the person that sought the appointment:
    1. The fees and expenses of the receivership, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and
    2. Actual damages caused by the appointment, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-123. Final report of receiver — Discharge.

  1. On completion of a receiver's duties, the receiver shall file a final report including:
    1. A description of the activities of the receiver in the conduct of the receivership;
    2. A list of receivership property at the commencement of the receivership and any receivership property received during the receivership;
    3. A list of disbursements, including payments to professionals engaged by the receiver;
    4. A list of dispositions of receivership property;
    5. A list of distributions made or proposed to be made from the receivership for creditor claims;
    6. If not filed separately, a request for approval of the payment of fees and expenses of the receiver; and
    7. Any other information required by the court.
  2. If the court approves a final report filed under subsection (a) and the receiver distributes all receivership property, the receiver is discharged.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-124. Receivership in another state — Ancillary proceeding.

  1. The court may appoint a receiver appointed in another state, or that person's nominee, as an ancillary receiver with respect to property located in this state or subject to the jurisdiction of the court for which a receiver could be appointed under this chapter, if:
    1. The person or nominee would be eligible to serve as receiver under § 29-40-107; and
    2. The appointment furthers the person's possession, custody, control, or disposition of property subject to the receivership in the other state.
  2. The court may issue an order that gives effect to an order entered in another state appointing or directing a receiver.
  3. Unless the court orders otherwise, an ancillary receiver appointed under subsection (a) has the rights, powers, and duties of a receiver appointed under this chapter.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-125. Effect of enforcement by mortgagee.

  1. A request by a mortgagee for appointment of a receiver, the appointment of a receiver, or application by a mortgagee of receivership property or proceeds to the secured obligation does not:
    1. Make the mortgagee a mortgagee in possession of the real property;
    2. Make the mortgagee an agent of the owner;
    3. Constitute an election of remedies that precludes a later action to enforce the secured obligation;
    4. Make the secured obligation unenforceable;
    5. Limit any right available to the mortgagee with respect to the secured obligation; or
    6. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), bar a deficiency judgment pursuant to the law of this state, other than this chapter, governing or relating to a deficiency judgment.
  2. If a receiver sells receivership property that pursuant to § 29-40-116(c) is free and clear of a lien, the ability of a creditor to enforce an obligation that had been secured by the lien is subject to the law of this state, other than this chapter, relating to a deficiency judgment.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-126. Uniformity of application and construction.

In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to the law's subject matter among states that enact it.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-127. Relation to electronic signatures in global and national commerce act.

This chapter modifies, limits, or supersedes the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq.) but does not modify, limit, or supersede Section 101(c) of that act (15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)) or authorize electronic delivery of any of the notices described in Section 103(b) of that act (15 U.S.C. § 7003(b)).

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

29-40-128. Transition.

This chapter does not apply to a receivership for which the receiver was appointed before July 1, 2018.

Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 3. July 1, 2018.

Chapter 41
Abusive Civil Actions

29-41-101. Chapter definitions.

As used in this chapter:

  1. “Abusive civil action” means a civil action filed by a plaintiff against a defendant with whom the plaintiff shares a civil action party relationship primarily to harass or maliciously injure the defendant and at least one (1) of the following factors are applicable:
    1. Claims, allegations, and other legal contentions made in the civil action are not warranted by existing law or by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law;
    2. Allegations and other factual contentions made in the civil action are without the existence of evidentiary support; or
    3. Issue or issues that are the basis of the civil action have previously been filed in one (1) or more other courts or jurisdictions by the same, and the actions have been litigated and disposed of unfavorably to the plaintiff;
  2. “Abusive civil action plaintiff” means a person who files a civil action that a court of record has determined to be an abusive civil action and against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed pursuant to this chapter;
  3. “Civil action” means a civil action, as defined in Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure;
  4. “Civil action defendant” means a person or persons against whom a civil action has been filed that a court of record has determined to be an abusive civil action and imposed prefiling restrictions against the abusive civil action plaintiff pursuant to this chapter;
  5. “Civil action party relationship” means the plaintiff commencing a civil action and the civil action defendant fall within one (1) of the following categories:
    1. Adults who are current or former spouses;
    2. Adults who live together or who have lived together;
    3. Adults who are dating or who have dated or who have or had a sexual relationship. As used in this subdivision (5)(C), “dating” and “dated” do not include fraternization between two (2) individuals in a business or social context;
    4. Adults related by blood or adoption;
    5. Adults who are related or were formerly related by marriage; or
    6. Adult children of a person in a relationship that is described in subdivisions (5)(A)-(E); and
  6. “Harass or maliciously injure” means the civil action determined to be an abusive civil action was filed with the intent or was primarily designed to:
    1. Exhaust, deplete, impair, or adversely impact the civil action defendant's financial resources unless:
      1. Punitive damages are requested and appropriate; or
      2. A change in the circumstances of the parties provides a good faith basis to seek a change to a financial award, support, or distribution of resources;
    2. Prevent or interfere with the ability of the civil action defendant to raise a child or children for whom the civil action defendant has legal custody in the manner the civil action defendant deems appropriate unless the civil action plaintiff has a lawful right to interfere and a good faith basis for doing so;
    3. Force, coerce, or attempt to force or coerce the civil action defendant to agree to or make adverse concessions concerning financial, custodial, support, or other issues when the issues in question have been previously litigated and decided in favor of the civil action defendant;
    4. Force, coerce, or attempt to force or coerce the civil action defendant to alter, engage in, or refrain from engaging in conduct when the conduct is lawful and is conduct in which the civil action defendant has the right to engage;
    5. Impair, or attempt to impair the health or well-being of the civil action defendant or a dependent of the civil action defendant;
    6. Prevent, interfere, or adversely impact the ability of the civil action defendant to pursue or maintain a livelihood or lifestyle at the same or better standard as the civil action defendant enjoyed prior to the filing of the action primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring the civil action defendant; or
    7. Impair, diminish, or tarnish the civil action defendant's reputation in the community or alienate the civil action defendant's friends, colleagues, attorneys, or professional associates by subjecting parties without knowledge of or not reasonably relevant to the civil action to unreasonably or unnecessarily complex, lengthy, or intrusive interrogatories or depositions.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-102. Applicability.

This chapter shall only apply to a civil action filed by a plaintiff against a defendant or defendants with whom the plaintiff shares a civil action party relationship.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-103. Defendant's right to raise claim — Hearing on court's own motion.

  1. If a civil action is filed and the defendant to the action believes it to be an abusive civil action, the claim may be raised by the defendant:
    1. In the answer to the civil action; or
    2. By motion made at any time during the civil action.
  2. The court may, on its own motion, determine that a hearing pursuant to § 29-41-104 is necessary to determine if the civil action is an abusive civil action.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-104. Hearing to determine merits of defendant's allegations.

  1. If the defendant to a civil action alleges, either by answer to the civil action or by motion made at any time the action is pending, that the action constitutes an abusive civil action and that the person filing the action is an abusive civil action plaintiff, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the merits of the defendant's allegations.
  2. At the time set for the hearing on the alleged abusive civil action, the court shall hear all relevant testimony and may require any affidavits, documentary evidence, or other records the court deems necessary.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-105. Evidence creating rebuttable presumption.

At the hearing conducted pursuant to § 29-41-104, evidence of any of the following creates a rebuttable presumption that the civil action is an abusive civil action and that the person filing the action is an abusive civil action plaintiff and prefiling restrictions should be imposed upon the abusive civil action plaintiff:

  1. The same or substantially similar issues between the same or substantially similar civil action parties that are the subject of the alleged abusive civil action have been litigated against the civil action defendant within the past five (5) years in another court within the judicial district or another judicial district and the actions were dismissed on the merits or with prejudice against the civil action plaintiff;
  2. The alleged abusive civil action plaintiff has used the same or substantially similar issues that are the subject of the current civil action as the basis for an adverse complaint against the civil action defendant to a regulatory or licensing board and the regulatory or licensing board dismissed the complaint after a contested case hearing in compliance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5;
  3. The alleged abusive civil action plaintiff has been sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or a similar rule or law in another state or the federal government for filing one (1) or more frivolous, vexatious, or abusive civil actions within the past ten (10) years of filing the current civil action alleged to be abusive and the previous frivolous, vexatious, or abusive civil actions involved the same or substantially the same issues between the same or substantially the same civil action parties; or
  4. A court of record in another judicial district has determined that a civil action filed against the civil action defendant was an abusive civil action and is under or has been under prefiling restrictions in that judicial district.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-106. Dismissal of abusive civil actions — Remedies — Costs.

  1. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a person filing a civil action is an abusive civil action plaintiff, and that any or all civil actions filed by the abusive civil action plaintiff against the abusive civil action defendant that are pending before the court are abusive civil actions, the civil actions shall be dismissed.
  2. In addition to dismissal of any pending abusive civil action within the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall:
    1. Tax all costs of any abusive civil action pending in the court at the time of the court's finding pursuant to subsection (a) against the abusive civil action plaintiff;
    2. Award the civil action defendant reasonable attorney fees and all reasonable costs of defending the abusive civil action; and
    3. Impose prefiling restrictions upon any civil action the abusive civil action plaintiff attempts to file for a period of not less than forty-eight (48) months nor more than seventy-two (72) months.
  3. If a civil action defendant alleges that a claim is an abusive civil action or that the plaintiff is an abusive civil action plaintiff, and the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the action was not an abusive civil action or that the plaintiff is not an abusive civil action plaintiff, the court may grant to the plaintiff such remedies as may be just, including granting judgment in favor of the plaintiff, granting partial judgment in favor of the plaintiff, or allowing factual interpretations in favor of the plaintiff.
  4. If a civil action defendant alleges that a claim is an abusive civil action or that the plaintiff is an abusive civil action plaintiff, and the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the action was not an abusive civil action or that the plaintiff is not an abusive civil action plaintiff, the court may:
    1. Tax all costs related to litigating the issue of whether the action is an abusive civil action or whether the plaintiff is an abusive civil action plaintiff, against the civil action defendant who made the claim; and
    2. Award the civil action plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and all reasonable costs of defending the claim that the action was an abusive civil action or that the plaintiff was an abusive civil action plaintiff.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41,  §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.

29-41-107. Restrictions on the filing of claims by plaintiff determined to be abusive civil action plaintiff.

  1. Except as provided in this section, a person whom a court of record has determined to be an abusive civil action plaintiff and against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed is prohibited from instituting a civil action against the abusive civil action defendant for the period of time the prefiling restrictions are in effect, or from continuing a civil action that was instituted against the same civil action defendant prior to the date the person was determined to be an abusive civil action plaintiff.
  2. Notwithstanding subsection (a) and consistent with the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, § 17, an abusive civil action plaintiff against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed may seek permission to file a civil action using the procedure set out in subsection (c).
    1. An abusive civil action plaintiff against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed pursuant to this chapter who wishes to institute a civil action in a court of record during the time the abusive civil action plaintiff is under filing restrictions must first appear before the judge who imposed the prefiling restrictions to make application for permission to institute the civil action.
      1. The judge may examine witnesses, including the abusive civil action plaintiff and the civil action defendant, to determine if the proposed civil action is or is not an abusive civil action and if there are reasonable and legitimate grounds upon which the complaint is based.
      2. There is a rebuttable presumption that any proposed civil action is an abusive civil action if any of the defendants in the proposed action were civil action defendants in one (1) or more of the actions that were the basis for the person being declared an abusive civil action plaintiff.
      1. If the judge who imposed the prefiling restrictions believes that the civil action the abusive civil action plaintiff is making application to file will be an abusive civil action, the application shall be denied and the judge shall determine a time when the person may next make application to file a civil action.
      2. If the judge reasonably believes that the civil action the abusive civil action plaintiff is making application to file will not be an abusive civil action, the judge may grant the application and issue an order permitting the filing of the civil action. The order shall be attached to the front of the complaint when the abusive civil action plaintiff files the civil action with the clerk. The defendant to the action shall be served with a copy of the order at the same time the complaint is served.
    2. The findings of the judge shall be reduced to writing and made a part of record in the matter. If the abusive civil action plaintiff disputes the finding of the judge, the abusive civil action plaintiff may appeal to the presiding judge of the judicial district of the sanctioning judge. If the sanctioning judge is the presiding judge, the presiding judge shall randomly select two (2) other judges of courts of record in the judicial district to review the findings of the sanctioning judge. If there are not two (2) other judges in the judicial district available, the presiding judge may select a judge from an adjoining judicial district to review the findings. If the presiding judge or both reviewing other judges believe that the civil action the person is making application to file is not an abusive civil action, the findings of the sanctioning judge are overruled and both judges shall sign an order permitting the filing of the action. The order shall be entered and attached to the complaint and the defendant shall be served with a copy of the order at the same time the complaint is served.
  3. If the application for the filing of a civil action is granted pursuant to this section, the period of time commencing with the filing of the application requesting permission to file the action and ending with the issuance of an order permitting filing of the action shall not be computed as a part of an applicable period of limitations within which the civil action must be instituted.
  4. If after an abusive civil action plaintiff has made application and been granted permission to file a civil action pursuant to this section, the judge with jurisdiction over the action determines that the person is attempting to add parties, amend the complaint, or is otherwise attempting to alter the parties and issues involved in the civil action in a manner that the judge reasonably believes would make the action an abusive civil action, the judge may order a continuance or nonsuit of the action and return it to the presiding judge for further disposition.
    1. If a civil action defendant is served with a complaint from an abusive civil action plaintiff who filed a civil action in a judicial district in which the person has not been determined to be an abusive civil action plaintiff, and the complaint does not have an attached order from the judge who imposed the prefiling restrictions, the civil action defendant may obtain a certified copy of the order finding the person to be an abusive civil action plaintiff in another jurisdiction and send it to the judge where the new civil action was filed and the judge who imposed the prefiling restrictions.
    2. If it is brought to the attention of the court, or on the court's own motion, that a person against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed has filed a civil action or continued a legal proceeding in the sanctioning judge's judicial district, or in another judicial district, without application to do so being granted by the sanctioning judge pursuant to this section, or the abusive civil action plaintiff has attempted to file an action through another party, the court in which the civil action is pending shall dismiss the action or revoke the continuance. The sanctioning judge may take whatever action against the abusive civil action plaintiff deemed necessary for a violation of the court's order.
    3. If an abusive civil action plaintiff against whom prefiling restrictions have been imposed files a civil action and the order granting permission to file the action is not attached to the complaint or served on the defendant, the defendant is under no obligation or duty to respond to the complaint, answer interrogatories, appear for depositions, or any other responsive action required by rule or statute in a civil action.
  5. If the judge who imposed the prefiling restrictions is no longer serving in the same capacity in the same judicial district where the restrictions were placed, any other judge in that judicial district may perform the review required and permitted by this section.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1.

Code Commission Notes.

Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 enacted a new chapter 40, §§ 29-40-10129-40-107; however, chapter 40 was previously enacted by Acts 2018, ch. 731, § 1; therefore, the enactment by Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 1 was designated as chapter 41, §§ 29-41-10129-41-107 by authority of the Code Commission.

Compiler's Notes. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2 provided that evidence of conduct constituting an abusive civil action under this chapter that occurred prior to July 1, 2018 may be used for a motion made pursuant to §  29-41-103(a) on or after July 1, 2018.

Effective Dates. Acts 2018, ch. 872, § 2. July 1, 2018.