Tennessee Business Litigation Lawyers Blog

Statutes of Limitations Applicable to Mutual Will Cases in Tennessee

Published on: April 11, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has issued an opinion clarifying which statutes of limitations are applicable to cases involving the breach of a contract to make mutual wills. If you are involved in a mutual will case, and are worried that your case might be barred by the statute of limitations which is applicable to claims against an estate, T.C.A. §30-2-307, your worries might be over.

In the case at hand, a married couple, both of whom were previously married, and both of whom had children by a previous marriage, signed a contract to make mutual wills. The same day that they signed the contract to make mutual wills, they executed wills. In the contract to make mutual wills, the husband and wife agreed that, when the first of them died, the survivor would not change his or her will.

The wills which the couple executed provided that each would receive a life estate in the real property they owned together or jointly and that, after both had passed away, the real property which they owned jointly or together, as of the time the wills were made, would pass in equal shares to the four children of both of them. (Husband had three children and wife had one, a son).

Evidentiary Issues in Undue Influence and Will Contest Cases

Published on: April 5, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has recently issued an opinion in an undue influence and will contest case which speaks to what type of evidence a party can use, at trial, to attempt to set aside a will based on undue influence. In will contest cases, undue influence cases, breach of contract cases, and just about every other kind of case, clients are often surprised about what type of evidence cannot be used at trial to help prove their cases. In analyzing any case, an experienced trial lawyer knows that he or she must consider, not only what facts help prove his or her client’s case, but also, which of those facts might not be admissible at trial.

In trials, only relevant evidence is admissible. What makes evidence relevant? The test for determining relevance, in many instances, becomes very, very subjective. Here is the test under Tennessee law: Does the evidence have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the case more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence? If so, it is relevant.

In the case at hand, In Re Estate of Smallman, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed a jury verdict because it determined that the trial court had let the jury hear evidence which was not relevant. What was the offending evidence?

Recovering Future Commissions in Tennessee

Published on: March 28, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

For salespeople, brokers, and agents who derive a substantial part, if not all, of their income from commissions, knowing something about Tennessee law on the subject of future commissions is worthwhile. By future commissions, I am referring, broadly, to commissions that become due after an account is established, but while the relationship between the organization that originally agreed to pay the commission and the salesperson, broker or agent is intact. I am also referring to commissions which accrue after the salesperson, broker or agent has terminated their relationship with the organization that agreed to pay commissions.

The best way for a salesperson, broker or agent in Tennessee to avoid the headaches, uncertainty and expense of a breach of contract lawsuit to recover future commissions is to make sure that there is a clear, written agreement which outlines specifically the circumstances under which future commissions are owed. In the absence of any written agreement which clearly sets forth the agreement of the parties as to future commissions, parties involved in cases about future commissions are likely to become embroiled in a legal slugfest about what was agreed to between the parties and who said what.

I have seen many employment agreements which make it crystal clear that, once the employer terminates the employee, or once the employment relationship is terminated for whatever reason, the employer will owe no future commissions even from accounts or business generated by the terminated employee. These types of provisions are enforceable. Agreements between organizations agreeing to pay commissions and independent contractors, or other non-employees, often contain similar provisions which restrict the right to future commissions once the relationship is terminated.

State Court in Tennessee vs. Federal Court in Tennessee: Advantages and Disadvantages

Published on: March 19, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

What are the differences between litigating a breach of contract case, personal injury case, or any other type of case in a Tennessee federal district court as opposed to a Tennessee state trial court? Which court is better for your case? When can your case be filed in federal court as opposed to state court?

The first thing to consider is whether or not your case can be filed in federal court. The federal trial courts in Tennessee, which are referred to as federal district courts, are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” as we lawyers say. By “limited jurisdiction” what we mean, in a very general sense, is that, of all of the cases that can be filed in a Tennessee state court, only a limited number of those could also be filed in a Tennessee federal district court.

A federal district court has jurisdiction over two broad categories of cases: (1) Diversity jurisdiction cases; and (2) federal subject matter jurisdiction cases. A federal court in Tennessee can hear a case (because it has jurisdiction to do so) where the case involves citizens of different states and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. A Tennessee federal court also has jurisdiction over cases brought under federal laws and statutes which specifically provide for federal court jurisdiction like overtime pay cases under the FLSA, or age discrimination cases under the ADEA.

Supreme Court of Tennessee: Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applies To “Silent Consent” Clause In Contract

Published on: March 6, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

In a breach of contract case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Dick Broadcasting v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., the Court held that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing applied to a contract provision which allowed a party to assign it rights under the contract at issue to another party. The plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) and defendant (“Defendant”) entered into an agreement giving the Plaintiff a right of first refusal to purchase certain assets of the Defendant.

The Right-of-First Refusal Agreement (“Agreement”) provided that the Plaintiff could assign it rights under the Agreement, but that it had to have the prior written consent of the Defendant to do so. Unlike many other contracts that are entered into in Tennessee and in other jurisdictions, the Agreement did not provide any explanation of the conditions under which the Defendant could withhold consent. For example, many agreements with assignment clauses provide that the contract cannot be assigned without the written consent of the non-assigning party, but provide that the non-assigning party’s consent “shall not be unreasonably withheld.”

The Defendant refused to give Plaintiff permission to assign the Agreement. The Plaintiff filed suit in a Tennessee Chancery Court for breach of contract. The Plaintiff’s theory was that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, which has been consistently held by Tennessee courts to apply to all contracts governed by Tennessee law, applied to the assignment clause in that case. The Defendant argued that the consent clause, which was silent as to the conditions under which it could withhold consent, allowed it unfettered discretion in deciding whether to give consent.

Exclusion of Coverage for “Residents” under Homeowners’ Insurance Policies: Tennessee Law

Published on: January 10, 2013 | by J. Ross Pepper

Homeowners’ insurance policies abound in Tennessee (and in other states), and are frequently the source of insurance litigation. Such insurance policies provide liability coverage to homeowners for bodily injuries and a source of monetary recovery for injured persons, provided that the policy in question (1) covers the bodily injury, and (2) does not exclude coverage in some other provision.

Homeowners’ insurance policies typically contain provisions which specifically exclude coverage for residents of the household of the owner if the resident was also a relative of the owner. Homeowner’s insurance policies also typically exclude from coverage, by defining as “residents,” persons under the age of twenty-one and in the care of a relative of the owner , if that relative is also a resident of the household.

When a relative is staying with a homeowner temporarily, or on less than a permanent basis, can that relative be considered a “resident” of the household? Keep in mind that, if the answer to that question is “yes,” then, the relative will not be able to look to an insurance company standing behind a homeowner’s insurance policy to pay a judgment entered against the owner of the home. A recent Tennessee case lays out a good road map to use in evaluating how a Tennessee court might determine whether or not an injured relative was a resident under a homeowner’s insurance policy.

Joint and Mutual Will Cases: Tennessee Law

Published on: December 12, 2012 | by J. Ross Pepper

Often in Tennessee, a husband and wife will sign a will in which both leave their property to the surviving spouse. Sometimes, particularly it seems, when the husband and/or wife have children from a previous marriage, will contest cases are brought to determine whether the surviving spouse is bound by terms allegedly agreed to between the surviving spouse and the deceased spouse in a will signed while both were alive.

If you are a beneficiary or relative trying to figure out your rights and/or the rights of other beneficiaries in a joint or mutual will case, a good starting point is to understand some basic Tennessee will terminology. The first determination which should be made to analyze your legal rights and the strength of your case is whether your situation involves joint wills or a joint and mutual will. If the husband and wife signed two separate wills with reciprocal provisions, they would typically be considered joint wills. If the husband and wife executed one will with reciprocal provisions, the will would typically be considered a joint and mutual will.

Where a husband and wife have executed a joint and mutual will wherein they express that the bequests that they have both made are made in consideration for each other, the odds are that the chances of the surviving spouse’s ability to avoid his or her bequest made in that will, by trying to revoke the will after the death of the other spouse or by executing a new will after the death of the other spouse, are not very good. On the other hand, as evidenced by several Tennessee cases, where joint wills (two separate wills with reciprocal provisions) are involved, it is quite possible, depending on the circumstances, that a Tennessee court might well find that the surviving spouse is not bound by will terms to which he or she previously agreed.

Tennessee Case Proves that Real Estate Commission Can be Recovered Even Without a Contract

Published on: December 7, 2012 | by J. Ross Pepper

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, in the case of Rocky Top Realty, Inc. v. Young, issued an opinion that is a good reminder that, under Tennessee law, you don’t necessarily have to prove a breach of a contract to recover money you are owed for services (or goods). The case was a real estate commission case. Here are the facts of the case:

• The plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) acted as a “facilitator” in a real estate transaction

• It was undisputed that the Plaintiff introduced to the sellers (“Sellers”) the buyer (“Buyer”) who purchased Sellers’ property for 2.7 million dollars

Strict Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Wills Reaffirmed by Supreme Court of Tennessee

Published on: December 3, 2012 | by J. Ross Pepper

The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in a recent case, reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in which the appeals court had relaxed one of the requirements for a valid will and had upheld the validity of a will which did not strictly comply with a rule laid down by the Tennessee legislature for creating a legally valid Tennessee will. This will contest case resulted in an important decision for Tennessee lawyers who handle will contest cases.

A little historical background about Tennessee will law is helpful. In 1941, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted, in Tennessee, the provisions of the “Execution of Wills Act.” The purpose of the Act was to provide uniform standards for the execution of wills. One of the requirements of the Act, which is codified at T.C.A. §32-1-104, is that a will, other than a holographic will (handwritten) or nuncupative will (unique and very rare), must be signed by the testator (the person making the will).

The facts of the case are pretty simple. The Decedent’s daughter offered a will (the “Will”) for probate. The Will was two pages. The Decedent had initialed the first page of the Will, but had not signed it. Attached to the Will was a separate one page document which was titled “Self-Proved Will Affidavit.” The Decedent and the witnesses all signed the Affidavit. Some nieces and nephews of the Decedent filed a will contest case wherein they alleged that the Will was not valid because the Decedent had not signed the Will.

Tennessee Law: A Contractor’s Right to Recover Amounts in Excess of Monetary Limit of Contractor’s License

Published on: November 20, 2012 | by J. Ross Pepper

In a case involving a breach of a construction contract for a development in Gallatin, Tennessee, a contractor was allowed to recover money for work done, which work substantially exceeded the monetary limit of the contractor’s license. This decision is very significant, and favorable for Tennessee contractors and subcontractors.

The contractor (“Contractor”) submitted a bid to the owner (“Owner”) for over three million dollars. The bid was accepted. Contractor was licensed, but its license had a monetary limit of $750,000.00. At the point Contractor ceased work on the project, it had been paid in excess of $650,000.00. Contractor filed a lien in excess of $625,000.00 for work which it had done, but for which it had not been paid.

Contractor filed suit to enforce its lien and for breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act. The Contractor’s dispute was not with the Owner, but with a bank (“Bank”) that claimed its deed of trust had priority over Contractor’s lien. The trial court, the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tennessee, dealt a blow to Contractor by dismissing its lawsuit against the Bank on a summary judgment motion. The trial court held that, since the Contractor had done work exceeding the monetary limit of its contractor’s license, it was “not licensed for the project from its inception.”

For a Consultation(615) 256-4838

Name (Required)Email (Required)Phone (Required)Message I accept the terms and conditions. Terms and Conditions: You are sending a form to an email address of Pepper Law, PLC. Before accepting any representation, Pepper Law's professional obligations require that it determine whether there are any actual or potential conflicts with any current or former clients of the Firm. In addition, we do not accept any representation solely as a result of having been contacted via email. By sending this form, you acknowledge that you will not become a client of Pepper Law, PLC merely by sending this email or by the Firm's receipt of it. Any information you send to this Firm before an attorney-client relationship is acknowledged by the Firm and a representation agreement is signed will not be considered confidential or protected by the attorney-client relationship. Do not send any information in this email that is, or that you wish to be treated as, confidential.