In Re Lewis Bonding Company, W2016-02171-CCA-R3-CD

Lewis Bonding Company, licensed and operating in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District since 1960, sought to substitute unencumbered real property (office at 212 E. Main St., valued at $120,000) for $80,000 cash collateral held by the circuit court clerk.
Owners Daryl and David Lewis testified they would transfer title to the clerk and use the $80,000 cash to renovate the building; both passed court-ordered drug screens and were in good standing.
The Twenty-Sixth Judicial District had a per curiam local rule requiring bonding companies to deposit specified cash amounts (minimum $75,000 for companies approved after Jan. 1, 2015, plus $5,000 per agent) and defined security as cash on deposit.
The trial court denied Lewis’s petition, explaining the district wanted bondsmen who post cash and invest money/time in the business; it allowed retrieval of cash only if the company ceased writing bonds.
Lewis appealed, arguing Tennessee law permits pledging real-property equity as collateral; the State argued the trial court properly exercised its discretion to require cash collateral.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying permission to use unencumbered real property as collateral in lieu of cash	Tenn. law allows bondsmen to pledge equity in real estate as collateral; Lewis should be permitted to substitute the property for the $80,000 cash	Trial court has broad inherent authority to regulate bondsmen in its district and may require cash collateral under local rules	Affirmed — trial court acted within its discretion to require cash and deny substitution of real property

Gilbreath v. Ferguson, 260 S.W.2d 276 (Tenn. 1953) (trial court has authority to determine who may make bonds in its courts)
Taylor v. Waddey, 334 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. 1960) (legislative statutes do not displace trial court’s power to impose conditions on bondsmen)
In re Hitt, 910 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (trial court’s inherent authority to regulate bail bondsmen includes imposing reasonable regulations)
Carver v. Citizen Utils. Co., 954 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1997) (statutes in pari materia should be construed together to avoid conflict)
Graham v. Caples, 325 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2010) (statutes relating to same subject are construed together when needed to clarify meaning)
Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011) (apply plain statutory meaning when text is clear)
Mills v. Fulmarque, 360 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2012) (interpretation principles for statutes and rules)