*1 H3 Thus, a judgment lien survives for ten ROSS,
years Arthur Jack et al. entry from the date of judg- of final attaches, may ment and once lien v. only lost through a failure to exercise the right provided by within the time TOWERS, BROADWAY INC. ATS, 69.07(2); statute. Tenn.R.Civ.P. Tennessee, Appeals Court of Inc., at 27 S.W.3d 926. We find therefore Section, Eastern at Knoxville. perfected because Ms. Andrews FNB, judgment lien prior to and the ten- 7, 2006 Nov. Session. year period has not lapsed, Ms. Andrews’ 14, Dec. 2006. rights junior as a holder lien TCB. Her lien attached the excess Order Petition to Rehear 2007. Jan. ceeds from the foreclosure sale enti- Appeal Denied Permission tled her to full payment before Supreme Court June payments were made to creditors lesser McCord, priority. Third Nat’l Bank v.
also v.Co. Gobble-Fite Co., (Ala.1990).
Lumber
Appellant seeks prejudgment interest. It
appears to this Court that the amount of 20, 2003, proceeds
excess from the October
foreclosure undisputed the amount of
$34,231. It appear from the record
that, least, 5, 2004, January when
FNB first proceeds received the excess master,
from the clerk and Appellant is prejudgment
entitled to interest. In the instance, however,
first such an award and percentage thereof addresses itself to
the discretion of judge. the trial Inter.
Flight Center City Murfreesboro, v.
S.W.3d (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). This may
matter be addressed trial court
on remand. judgment trial court is re-
versed and case is remanded to the
trial proceedings court for further appeal
sistent herewith. The costs against Appellee,
assessed Fifth Third
Bank. *2 Mansur, Knoxville,
Kendra J. Tennes- see, Appellants, for the Arthur Jack Ross Wheeler Ross. and Barbara Knoxville, Vowell, Tennessee, K. Donald Towers, Inc. Appellee for the SWINEY, J., D. delivered MICHAEL court, in opinion of the FRANKS, P.J., P. HERSCHEL LEE, J., joined. SHARON G. OPINION Towers, (“Broadway Inc. Towers”) federally provides elderly Ap- housing for the and disabled. permit plicable Broad- conduct criminal back- way Towers to applicants and their ground checks will be family members caretakers who facility. at the residing applicant residency applied Jack Ross permis- sought Towers and also aid, Barbara Wheel- sion for his live-in Ms. him. er, premises with on the reside an authorization Wheeler a criminal to conduct Broadway Towers “Bar- using the name background check Mr. Ross and Both bara M. Wheeler.” to live on the approved Ms. Wheeler later discov- Broadway Towers premises. felony for- ered that Ms. Wheeler the name “Barbara under gery conviction convic- felony forgery M. Norwood.” attempt Ms. Wheeler’s tion resulted from elderly from her money illegally to obtain using forged mother’s bank account learning of Ms. Upon legal documents. conviction, forgery Wheeler’s a notice of non- served Broadway Towers him and requiring compliance on Mr. to vacate management When Mr. Ross and staff property residing Ms. Wheeler refused premises); to vacate on the premises, this lawsuit was (b) filed. The Trial Court heath, ordered Mr. Ross safety, That threatens the *3 and premises. Ms. Wheeler vacate the their right peaceful enjoyment by persons residing We affirm. residences vicinity immediate Lease, In Background addition to the of the contents acknowledged Mr. Ross that he received Pursuant to a contract with the explained and was contents of a docu- Department of Housing and Urban Devel- regula- ment set forth the rules and (“HUD”) opment and in accordance with property. Among tions of the other Section 202 of the federal Act of Housing things, provides this document that: amended, Broadway Towers directly A resident will be held responsi- elderly vides and ble actions of their household disabled. Mr. currently Jack Ross is members, family members, caretak- old, eighty-five years years and for several ers/attendants, guest visitors and/or has had numerous health issues which re- .... acknowledges Resident and agrees quire a live-in to help daily aid care for his Reg- to inform and all Rules explain and In needs. November of Mr. Ross family members, caretak- ulations Broadway Towers entered into a docu- ers/attendants, guest visitors. and/or ment titled “202 ELDERLY/HANDI- Lease, When he Mr. entered into the (the “Lease”). CAPPED LEASE” Pursu- being living provided was assistance Lease, ant to the monthly Mr. Ross’ Wheeler, currently Ms. Barbara who is payment $475, totaled pay- with Mr. Ross (61) sixty-one years sought old. Mr. Ross ing paying the remaining $259 HUD approval Broadway Towers for Ms. provided The Lease that pursuant $216. Wheeler continue to provide this assis- regulations, HUD Broadway Towers tance live on the could terminate the upon Lease “based signed Ross. Ms. Wlieeler an authorization either material noncompliance with this Broadway Towers to conduct a crimi- Agreement, carry material failure to out background nal records check. Ms. obligations under State landlord or Wheeler full as: her name Barbara act, tenant good or other cause.” After (Bobbie) A Maurine Wheeler. setting procedure forth the to be utilized using records check was conducted party, event termination either name M. Wheeler” which “Barbara showed goes the Lease to provide that Broad- no ac- felony convictions or other criminal way Towers could terminate the lease for tivity under name. eight specific provision per- reasons. The manager Towers, Ms. tinent appeal provides to this Everence, following Barbara described Lease can be terminated for: happened approximately event which five (4) tenant, activity by Criminal and one-half months after Mr. household, member of the tenant’s a Ms. Wheeler moved into Tow- guest person or another under the ten- ers: control: ant’s Mr. Ross appeared to confused (a) health, safety, That threatens the when he was in the common areas of the peaceful enjoyment apartment complex. Several different premises by that, (including other residents residents made a comment pled guilty Wheeler to one E jail was and wasn’t Ms. Class
Mrs. Wheeler taking forgery. care of him. count of Ms. Wheeler was years sentenced two Tennessee then contacted the However, Department of Corrections. Department and that Ms. learned Sheriffs agreed year that Ms. Wheeler’s two jail. Upon further Wheeler indeed was suspended would be upon sentence learned that inquiry, being of court costs and her payment Wheeler had a record under January 23, probation until placed on Among “Barbara the name Norwood.” Ms. Wheeler was declared “infamous” and pled guilty things, other *4 provide biological sample a for ordered felony forged a E she a Class after analysis. DNA attempt document an to withdraw mon- ey elderly from her mother’s bank account. Broadway Towers obtained accurate illegal to withdraw attempt Ms. Wheeler’s history of Ms. copy Wheeler’s money from account her mother’s bank 28, April 30, 2000, place Affi- took on June and the Mr. Ross and Ms. Wheeler were mar- provided by davit of Ms. Wheel- Complaint 5,May 2005.1 ried on provides er’s mother as follows: Upon learning of Ms. Wheeler’s criminal The the offense of Defendant committed background, Broadway Towers issued Friday ... on June Forgery or about thirty a material non- day notice of 30, 2000. The named Defendant above (the “Notice”). Mr. Ross was compliance attempt by did to obtain cash means would be terminat- informed his lease forged a
transferring document 2005, 9, a for material ed effective June Attorney. form The of a Power The No- non-compliance with the Lease. $30,000. The amount the account was provided being tice the Lease attempted Defendant to withdraw mon- terminated because of “[c]riminal ey by pre- from her mother’s account tenant, the tenant’s a member of forged attorney a senting power household, person another un- guest or sig- forged where she had her mother’s The Notice also the tenant’s control.” der then filled out a nature. The Defendant which the rules and referenced Agreement and also Survivorship Joint be held di- that a will provided “resident to it. The forged the Affiant’s name rectly the actions of their responsible for then tried to remove her Defendant members, members, family household money account. This mother’s from her caretakers/attendants, guests visi- and/or at happen did ... Rohm-Haas [the] The Notice also stated: tors.” in Knoxville .... The wit- Credit Union ... and called Af- hereby you ness knew Defendant You are notified Attorney fiant to check on Power of to the lease due your now in default actions(s): Affiant that she did not was informed following Attorney sign give Power of and did not felony ahas Your live-in aide/wife money to get for Defendant permission her from resid- prohibits viction which from her acct. Apartments ing you policy due to our one-strike was indicted four 2004, facility. upon moving in to our February forgery. On counts Wheeler, opposed to Mrs. Ross. consistency, we will contin- sake of 1. For the wife as Ms. ue to refer to Mr. Ross’ now disorderly Although Mr. was informed that had convicted of conduct been 9, 2005, his lease would terminate on June on November 21st of 2000 and that she payment he submitted on June charged had on or about November been explained, just put 2005. As Mr. Ross “I 16th, 2004 with two counts of as- it in the they slot and took it.” After Mr. sault, which had been bound over to the Ross and Ms. Wheeler refused to vacate grand jury apparently and which cases premises, Broadway filed a pending. are still County detainer warrant in the Knox Gen- Moreover, those records indicated eral Court. The Sessions Sessions Court 9th, February that on she judgment possession entered a in favor Criminal Court of convicted [was] Towers. Mr. Ross then filed county underlying forgery. a Petition for Writ of and Su- Certiorari indicated she apparent- records persedeas in the Following Circuit Court. trial, $30,000 ly attempted Circuit Court issued a Memo- to obtain or therea- Opinion stating, part, randum in relevant from a credit belonged bouts union that *5 as follows: mother, attempt to and her her to se- case,
In this it very briefly, appears cure funds those was the device applied that Mr. Ross apartment an forgery. Broadway at ultimately Towers ... and on records further indicated that 2nd, learned on or about November the 11th, 2005, probation March the that 2004 that apartment was available. granted had been to her in connection consequence, And as a a lease was made forgery with her conviction of was re-
with Mr. Ross for the and posses- use voked. And so as a result of this histo- apartment sion at ry, in attempt its to screen appli- Broadway Towers. occupancy cants as it is entitled to do for time, At that Mr. Ross certified with Towers, at Broadway Broadway the appropriate medical evidence that he Towers became somewhat concerned. had the need a live-in and request- aid May 2005, Broadway And on the 9th of Wheeler, ed then Barbara or Barbara be, a Wheeler Norwood as Towers issued notice to Mr. that may the case Ross permitted conviction, live him as his live- forgery because felo- aid, in request and that granted. was Wheeler, ny of Mrs. he would be re- time, At or about that Tow- quired to arrange- terminate his lease ers, following regular its at- practice, apartment ment with on complex that tempted to secure information about June the 9th of 2005 .... history criminal that Barbara Wheeler that Broadway The notice then might have. There was considera- gave Mr. Ross terminate his tenan- delay obtaining ble in information about cy only part referred to one of Mrs. history. Ms. Wheeler’s criminal history. Ross’ It that criminal stated 28th, ultimately, But or April about in notified that he was default 2005, Broadway Towers received infor- lease, “your his in under due live mation from the Criminal Court Clerk’s a felony has conviction which maid/wife county indicating office that Ms. prohibits from residing her at consider, Wheeler had what might one policy Towers due to our one strike rather history considerable criminal or you in signed upon moving criminal to our record. The records furnished to Broadway facility.” Towers indicated that she kinds apply have taken that these of cases.
The defendants issue with And adequacy question notice. cer- There’s no that Mrs. Ross was question tainly a is raised about whether guilty forgery, of the offense of is Incorporated question no that her probation there’s rely parts entitled to on other respect was revoked the Court with history criminal of Mrs. when that 11th, to that conviction March history specified was not given notice Mr. Ross terminate. perhaps The Court should add that However, the Court notes that under regulations provide that the federal apply to these subsi- agreements these these cases must dized cases the landlord provision that the also contain required to state the reasons for termi- if a can be terminated tenant or others “enough specificity nation with so as to had probation affected the lease have prepare enable the tenant to a defense fleeing attempt or in an revoked grounds And for termination.” [to] the criminal court. avoid sanctions of event, it appear ample grounds there are here to So clearly defendants were advised ap- And it would terminate this lease. Towers was least con- is a fair infer- pear to the Court cerned this case Mrs. Ross’ about ence that Mrs. Ross’ conviction for forgery. conviction history threatened appears It to the Court and the Court enjoyment peaceful health *6 operators in that finds these cases tenants the sense premises by other this housing projects kind living there elderly people that these appli- in this case are entitled to screen they concerned if would no doubt be cants, fact, they a matter of are as occupying the learned that someone required place in their lease terms guilty been premises with them had provisions that the certain enable And I this kind of theft crime. submit manager owner or of the subsidized any difference to that it would not make housing property to terminate lease that crime oc- those tenants whether that agreements with tenants have been the during the lease or before curred activity in criminal that engaged would .... lease the or health of other threaten event, find in this case that In I tenants, peaceful enjoyment or the Towers, Incorporated has es- the other tenants. And premises right had termi- they tablished appear would in this case that most lease, the nate the and that notice probably, if Mrs. Ross had disclosed the case, I find appropriate. And gone by fact that had the name of she termi- Norwood, permit that the regulations criminal record that her are for under these circumstances have been made evident nation occupants not have all of the subsi- Towers earlier she would the benefit of occupy project; and that the permitted been dized place duty in the first .... those landlord has a to enforce pro- regulations and enforce those lease Plaintiff, Towers, is [T]he tenants; visions for the benefit of other applicants. so entitled to screen And they to waive they entitled of the people character upon of other to insist right tenants occupancy pertinent admit for regulations. of those enforcement sideration under federal
119 hence, 13(d); And I accep- conclude that the P. v. R.App. Bogan Bogan, 60 (Tenn.2001). tance of rent for the month of June 2005 S.W.3d re- With allegedly, inadvertently, by Broadway spect legal issues, our review is conduct- Towers in this case was not a waiver pure ed “under a novo de standard of contemplated by the Tennessee Residen- review, according no deference to the con- tial Landlord and Tenant Act. of law made the lower clusions courts.” Constructors, Southern Inc. v. Loudon The Trial then entered a final Educ., County Bd. S.W.3d judgment giving Mr. Ross and Ms. Wheel- Of (Tenn.2001). until January er 2006 in which to vacate premises. It was also ordered many In respects, portions the relevant Mr. Ross was pay through pertinent mirror the federal date. regulations. For example, reg- federal appeals, raising following provide ulations that a lease “must” issues, which quote: vide for termination lease for the following:
I. Whether the Trial Court erred granting the detainer (1) warrant Any activity that threatens when regulations require health, safety, right or peaceful Towers to evict enjoyment premises by other resi- the reasons listed on termi- (including property management dents notice, nation and the act for- residing premises); staff on the gery committed Mrs. Wheeler (2) Any that threatens years more than ago five health, safety, peaceful does not constitute criminal activi- enjoyment of by per- their residences ty for which the complex can evict. residing sons the immediate vicinity II. Whether the Trial Court erred in granting the detainer warrant 5.859(a). 24 C.F.R. when Broadway *7 The regulations provide federal also signed Ross, lease Mr. the property owner cannot terminate a there no allegations except specifically lease for several listed lease termination notice of causes, “[cjriminal one which is activity breaches by Mr. either person a covered in accordance with” Ross or Mrs. Wheeler Ross 880.607(b)(iii). § 24 section 5.859. C.F.R. during occurred the lease term. regulations go The provide that while III. Whether the Trial Court erred only the property owner need state the granting the detainer warrant for reasons termination of the lease with Broadway when accepted Towers “enough specificity so as enable the rent without reservation in June defense,” prepare tenant 24 C.F.R. giving after Mr. Ross a lease 247.4(a)(2), § “may rely the owner not termination notice on May any grounds which are different from the reasons forth in set the notice.” C.F.R.
Discussion 880.607(c)(3). § findings The factual of the Trial Court accorded cor presumption of Mr. Ross’ first issue is twofold. Mr. rectness, and we initially will overturn those claims that Tow- factual findings pre unless the only evidence ers can for evict the reasons listed on ponderates against and, them. See Tenn. only the termination notice because on criminal check. The felony conviction is listed records reason
Ms. Wheeler’s notice, con- improperly the Trial Court this is it because authorization states (5) crimi- alleged go years.” Although sidered Ms. Wheeler’s other will “three back Next, Ross claims that activity. nal Mr. will is unclear whether records check “(5)” forgery Ms. conviction for go years, Wheeler’s back “three” or the result years than duct which occurred more five the same Ms. this case is because activity ago does not constitute criminal actually Wheeler was convicted the for- can evict. We for which Towers gery only signed nine months before she two in reverse will discuss these issues that Ms. authorization. We conclude order. forgery more felony Wheeler’s committed years ago than for which Ms. five but is a subsidized Towers than was convicted less one and elderly and disabled housing facility for given years one-half before Notice was legal If forge residents. Ms. Wheeler will signed nine months before she to steal a sub attempt documents an in- history authorization does the criminal from own money stantial amount of her activity criminal which deed constitute elderly mother, then other elderly Broadway Towers could evict. the premises disabled residents and/or potential vic be excluded as future cannot Trial The next is whether issue to the nature of tims of Ms. Wheeler. Due Ms. improperly considered Wheel- conviction, there is forgery Ms. Wheeler’s Mr. Ross was activity. er’s other criminal question engaged no but that she has being Lease was termi- notified health, criminal that threatens the nated Ms. Wheeler’s because safety, peaceful enjoyment “felony specifically conviction activity, residents, other which residing prohibits which unfortunately also includes Ross. to our Apartments due you upon policy one-strike place the forgery The fact took facility.” Broad- moving in to our When years ago not minimize roughly five does copy way obtained accurate threat posed the existence of the clear history, it discover- regulations Wheeler’s authorized Wheeler. in- past that Ms. Wheeler’s criminal the criminal ed Broadway Towers to obtain than the conviction. See volved more history of Ms. C.F.R. Wheeler. regulations Again, note that provide These do not 5.855. “may not property owner provide far any time limitation to how back *8 any grounds which are different rely property may go requesting owner when in the notice.” note, however, from set forth the reasons history. criminal We 880.607(c)(3). Based on the § peri- C.F.R. property “may the owner establish be- the during language regulations, clear the decision od before admission relied Trial should not have not en- lieve the Court applicant must have past in other anything Ms. Wheeler’s that would on gaged” criminal felony In its memo- than conviction. of the other the threaten the health certainly 5.855(b). opinion, the Trial Court § randum 24 C.F.R. residents. other criminal by Ms. Wheeler’s authorization mentioned criminal records in pending was some of which still activity, how-far back Ms. is unclear on system at that time.2 conducting the criminal court goes Brpadway Towers when post-judgment consider facts filed a motion to appeal pending, Ms. Wheeler 2. While this consequences simply What is not clear is Trial her whether the the of misconduct actually gave Court relied she a different name when anything other because felony than her of Broad- ultimately providing purposes the conviction when name conducting a concluding way suf- Towers criminal records Broadway Towers had ficient If grounds provided to terminate check. Ms. Wheeler had the the Lease. Norwood,” portion We vacate that the name “Barbara then she never Trial Court’s judgment in any would have been allowed to live Broad- aspect which discusses Therefore, way Ms. in first history place. Wheeler’s criminal than Towers other However, Mr. and felony conviction. it matters not we affirm engage any the ultimate did not conduct by determination made the Wheeler because, Trial by during Court found the term of the Lease that would the Trial Court, “the ad- be considered violation of that Lease. clearly defendants vised that Trial Broadway sup- was at least As found Court and as record, ported by concerned in this in- regulations case about Mrs. Ross’ forgery,” conviction con- volved this case are for the not felony benefit viction, standing alone, only Mr. also is more than Ross but for all other suffi- occupants housing cient for Towers to terminate subsidized ject. accept position A fair To the Ross’ reading Lease. Trial means a prospective clearly if tenant who Court’s Memorandum Mrs. Opinion shows accepted would have been to live certainly Wheeler’s conviction housing project if her true primary quite formed the possibly history manages was known exclusive basis for the Trial Court’s deter- reason, slip through, for whatever then mination. that tenant must be allowed to remain Mr. next Ross’ issue is his claim that the all occupants the other of the subsidized Trial Court erred in granting the detainer housing project just accept have to warrant when the termination notice being additional risk from her allowed allegation tained no ei- breach living continue on the Such a ther Mr. Ross or oc- Ms. Wheeler that holding contrary would intent to the during curred the term of the We Lease. occupants all regulations protect disagree. The set project. the subsidized clearly forth above entitle Tow- applicants ers to deny screen an appli- The final issue is Mr. Ross’ claim cation based on certain accepted conduct. that because In the Trial Court’s opinion, memorandum June rent payment Ross’ without the Trial correctly rights, Broadway noted that had reservation of Tow effectively alleged Wheeler “disclosed the fact that she ers has condoned the gone Norwood, default and is estopped terminating name of [then] the Lease. Mr. Ross relies on Tenn.Code her criminal record have made been part Ann. 66-28-508 which is of Tennes evident to Towers earlier and *9 see’s Uniform Residential Landlord and permitted she would not have been to oc- Act Tenant and which states: cupy premises place.” the in the first The fully supports record finding. accepts this If the landlord rent without res- escape Wheeler should not be permitted knowledge ervation and with a tenant of issues, showing which contained certified documents resolution of the various this issue is charges brought against the assault moot. Wheeler had been Due to our dismissed. 122
default,
tice to correct
the violation. The
acceptance
landlord
such
D.C.
thereby
Appeals
condones
default and
waives Court of
stated:
right
estopped
such landlord’s
and
Strictly
speaking,
issue is
one
agreement
terminating
rental
action,
of
pre-emption
federal
of state
as to that breach.
whether,
present
but
matters of
“[i]n
sort,
congressional
regula
a
statute [and
outset,
At the
note
at
least some
application prevail[]
of national
tions]
through
have
due
9th
rent would
been
applying only
over a
statute
Dis
June,
if
of
the Lease was terminated
even
In
trict of Columbia.”
re Estate
from the
and
Ross moved
of
Couse,
304,
(D.C.2004),
850 A.2d
305 n. 1
Therefore, Broadway
that date.
quoting District
Columbia v. Wolver
keep at
a
would have been entitled to
least
of
ton,
23,
3,
U.S.App.
112
D.C.
24 n.
298
portion
this
re-
payment.
of
When
(1961).
684,
But,
n. 3
F.2d
685
as no
issue,
jecting Mr. Ross’
argument
this
sug
difference of substance has been
essentially
the Trial
determined that
Court
gested
question
between that
and the
“duty
a
Towers had
enforce
pre-emption,
of
we apply
issue
federal
regulations
[the
and enforce those
federal]
the latter doctrine.
provisions
for the
of other
benefit
tenants;
they
and that
are not entitled
ways in
have identified three
Courts
of
insist
waive
other tenants to
pre-empt
a
statute can
upon
regula-
enforcement of those
by express
law:
pre-emption,
state
short,
tions.” In
the Trial Court deter-
statutory language “reveals an
where
policies
mined that the
behind the federal
explicit
intent
congressional
pre-empt
and
trumped
Landlord
law,” Barnett Bank
Marion
state
regard.
agree.
Tenant Act
We
Nelson,
25, 31,
County v.
517 U.S.
116
1103,
(1996); by
S.Ct.
ough. assuming, deciding, Even without have Towers can said to Applying provision cure 42-3505.01(b) accepted reserving D.C.Code would stand without its as a pronounced rights obstacle to exercise full knowledge and with of the def
124 TO REHEAR ault3, §Ann. ORDER ON PETITION think Tenn.Code 66-28- we given no this case 508 has application Arthur Jack Ross and Bar- Appellants, Specifically, we facts this case. Ross, filed a Petition to Re- bara Wheeler provid in public policy believe the federal pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee hear and ing housing that is safe Procedure. Under Rule Appellate Rules of paramount for all the tenants is crime-free 39(a), granted to rehearing will not be “[a] Ann. any policy at issue Tenn.Code fully ar- reargument of matters permit light present In the facts 66-28-508. raised the Petition gued.” All matters case, if ed in this we conclude that even parties, argued by the fully Rehear were §Ann. provisions 66-28- Court, of Tenn.Code sufficiently considered this application triggered, find, Opinion. in out We addressed preempted regula insistence, is the federal statute trary that our Appellants’ tions because it “stands as obstacle mate- Opinion misapprehend does not accomplishment and execution of propositions rial facts record objectives full of Congress.” purposes law. Scarborough, (quoting 890 A.2d at is DE- to Rehear Appellants’ Petition 833, 844, 117
Boggs Boggs, v. 520 U.S. to this Petition to NIED. related Costs (1997)). 1754, Ac S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 45 Appellants, to the Rehear are assessed correctly deter cordingly, Trial Court and Barbara Wheeler Arthur Jack Ross acceptance mined that Towers’ Ross. held of the June 2005 rent check cannot be of the Lease as waiver its enforcement all the other
provisions the benefit of residing complex.
tenants conclusion, Trial we
In affirm possession judgment awarding Court’s SAMPSON, Shelley et al. Marlene Mr. apartment Towers. v. thirty will have Ms. Wheeler SYSTEM, HEALTH WELLMONT in this days after the mandate is issued Valley Medical Holston dba case in In which to vacate Center, et al. meantime, pay is to of the Lease. accordance with the terms Tennessee, Appeals Court Section, at Knoxville.
Eastern Conclusion Dec. 2006 Session. af- Trial Court is judgment of the Jan. 2007. firmed, to the cause is remanded this Appeal Denied Permission to of the costs be- Trial for collection June Supreme Court appeal low. taxed Costs Barbara Jack Ross and Appellants, Arthur any. Ross, surety, if and their
"Wheeler However, our alleged due to default. Court found 3. We note that the Trial preempted state statute inadvertently accepted the conclusion case, not decide whether through the need placed rent check when was regard was finding conclusion in this suggests a Trial Court’s This slot in door. knowledge accepted correct. with full the rent