Friday, March 30, 2012

Court reviews whether a lease guarantor was entitled to an interpreter who was not his co-defendant

MOHINDER N. SUD, v. MAN KENG HO, a/k/a SIMON HO, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2012)

The Trial Court held Man Keng Ho liable for unpaid rents on commercial property that Ho had leased from his landlord. Ho claimed against Soon Lee Pang, appellant, on the grounds that Pang was the guarantor on the lease. At the subsequent trial between Ho and Pang, Ho acting as an interpreter for Pang, the Trial Court entered Judgment against Pang for the full amount of the Judgment against Ho as guarantor under the terms of the lease.

Pang then filed a Rule 60 Motion seeking relief from the Judgment, principally on the grounds that he was entitled to an interpreter and the Trial Court erred in utilizing his co-defendant, who had an interest in the case, as Pang's interpreter. The Trial Court overruled the Rule 60 Motion and Pang appealed to this Court.

We hold that the Trial Court abused its discretion in not complying with Rules 41 and 42 of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and remand for a retrial on the merits.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/sudm_033012.pdf

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Court determines which of two deeds of trust has priority

EQUITY MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. OF TENNESSEE ET AL. v. JOE BOB HAYNES (Tenn. Ct. App. March 21, 2012)

The issue in this case is which of two deeds of trust has priority. Deed of trust A was executed before deed of trust B was executed; A was also registered before B was registered, but after B was executed. We affirm the chancellor’s decision that A has priority over B and that equitable estoppel does not apply to change this result.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/equitymortgage_032112.pdf

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Court reviews the enforceability of a real estate sales contract

CASEY E. BEVANS v. RHONDA BURGESS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 20, 2012)

Prospective buyer who signed real estate sales contract sued seller, seller’s real estate agent and broker, and the actual buyers for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that there was no enforceable contract. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bevansc_032012.pdf

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Court reviews an award of deficiency damages following a foreclosure sale

COMMERCIAL BANK, INC. v. RAYMOND E. LACY (Tenn. Ct. App. March 14, 2012)

This appeal results from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee bank. Appellant defaulted on promissory notes executed in favor of Appellee, resulting in a foreclosure sale. After the sale, a foreclosure deficiency existed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, awarding deficiency damages including amounts for unpaid taxes on the property. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lacyr_031412.pdf