James A. Long v. Charles D. Ledford
E2016-00451-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- James and Patricia Long sued Charles and Vivian Ledford in Unicoi County General Sessions Court claiming unpaid promissory note (asserted principal ~$2,170.57 originally) and $1,800 for tenant’s rent/security deposit; GS court entered judgment for $3,985.50.
- Appellants appealed de novo to the Circuit Court; bench trial held where only James Long and Charles Ledford testified; Appellees introduced a promissory note for $1,158.74 plus 10% interest and a closing statement and a Mortgage Deed evidencing a separate ~$202,645.47 loan secured by Florida property.
- Long testified the small promissory note covered closing costs for the larger loan; Ledford denied recalling or signing the small note and argued it was deficient (no dates/addresses) and thus unenforceable.
- Trial court found Ledford not credible, concluded signatures matched other documents, awarded judgment for principal plus interest ($2,308.28) but denied the $1,800 rent/security claim and attorney’s fees.
- Appellants appealed, arguing (1) the note’s authenticity (original not introduced), (2) failure to follow Tenn. Code §24-5-107 procedures, (3) variance in amount from GS filing, and (4) statute-of-limitations defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Long) | Defendant's Argument (Ledford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authenticity of promissory note | Note admitted in evidence, signatures match other documents | Note not original; denies signing or recall; note defective | Court credited district judge’s credibility finding, compared signatures, upheld note as signed by Appellants |
| Compliance with Tenn. Code §24-5-107 (sworn account) | N/A — creditor relied on evidence at de novo trial | Failure to file sworn account at GS court deprived them of summary judgment on account | Any GS procedural error was harmless because de novo trial allowed full evidentiary hearing; no reversible error |
| Variance in amount from GS filing | Correct amount proven at de novo trial (note shows $1,158.74) | GS complaint alleged different amount ($2,170.57) — procedural defect | Appeal de novo cured any variance; trial court reduced damages accordingly; no error |
| Statute of limitations | Action timely; note had one‑year term so breach occurred Nov 5, 2009; suit filed June 5, 2015 | Note argued to be demand note or governed by shorter limitations | Even under six‑year rule claim was timely (breach 11/5/2009; filed <6 years later); court rejected SOL defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for bench trial findings of fact)
- Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000) (no presumption for trial court conclusions of law)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 992 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. 1999) (independent review when trial court makes no findings)
- McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995) (trial judge superior for credibility determinations)
- Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729 (Tenn. 2002) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard to overturn credibility-based findings)
- Greene v. THGC, Inc., 915 S.W.2d 809 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (statute of limitations for breach of contract accrues at breach)
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants held to same rules as attorneys)
- Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to cite record/authority may waive an issue)