T he G ene r al S es s i ons warr ant was st y l ed “ C had R ay v. L oui e Johns t on and Lo ui e John s t on d/ b/ a/ Lay man 1
Les s o ns.” B y O rd er of t he C i r cui t Co ur t , V al l ey V i ew M ob i l e H om e Park s , LLC , was s ubs t i t ut ed as P l ai nt i f f , as L a n d lo rd , a n d L a ym a n L e sso n s, In c ., wa s su b stitute d a s D e fen d a n t, a s T e n a n t. T h e p a rtie s w ill b e re fer re d to he re in

a s “L a n d lo rd ” a n d “T e n a n t.”



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Fe br ua ry 7, 200 8 S es sio n
VA LLEYVIEW MOBIL E HOM E P AR KS, LLC . v. LA YM AN LESS ONS , INC.
Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Su m ner County No. 29509-C C . L. Rogers, Judge

No. M2007- 01291-COA-R 3-CV - F iled May 27, 2008

Tena nt appea ls the Circuit Court’s dismi ssal of its appea l of the J udg ment and Or der of the Gene ral Sessions Court g ranting L andlord possession of lease d premises. The basis of the Circuit Court’s dis mis sa l w a s T e na

nt’ s f a ilure to c omp ly

wi th t he Cou rt ’s se c on d Or de r re qu ir ing Te na nt t o p os t a bond. Findingerr or in the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 18-130, we reve rse the de cision of the Trial Court and r emand this ca se for further proce eding s in acc ordanc e with this opinion.

Te nn R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s R e ve r se d; Ca se Rem anded

R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , P. J ., M. S., and ANDY D. B E NN E TT , J ., joined.

W. G ary B la c kb ur n, Rob e rt T. Ho lma

r, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the a pp e lla nt, L ay man L e sso ns , Inc.
Rus se ll E. Fr e e man, Go od le tts vil le , Te nn e sse e , for the a pp e lle e , Va lle y

Vi e w M ob ile Ho me Park s, L L C.

OP IN ION

This case orig inated with the filingof a de tainer w arr ant in the Gene ral Sessions Court for Sumner County . Tena

nt, a non-pr ofit org anization authoriz ed u n d er §501(c)( 3) of the I nterna l 1 Revenue Code to rec eive tax-deduc tible contributions, entere d into a n ag ree ment with L andlord forA l t ho ug h the O rd er se t t i ng t he b o nd d o es no t st ate the b asis of t his am o un t , T en an t ’ s sub seq ue nt R esp o nse 2
t o L an d l o rd ’ s M o t i o n t o In cre ase B o nd re cit es t ha t this am o un t re p rese nted six m o nths’ u t i l i t y c ha rge s f o r t he p rem i ses.

T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t re flec t t h e b a sis o f t h is fi g u re

. 3

-2- the us e of the g ro un ds and up sta ir s por tio n of a fo rm e r chur c h buil din g

. In co ns ide ra tio n for the us e of the building , Tena

nt cer tified to the Interna l Revenu e S er v i ce t hat the value of the lea se wa s $19,000 annually , which allowe d L andlord to cla im that amount as a cha ritable de duction.

Inth e w arra n t , L an d l o rds o u gh tan un s p ec i fi ed am o un t o f re n t s “f o r unp ai d u t i l i t i es , d am age to property

and mater ial brea ch of le ase.” Followinga hea ring , possession of the pre mises was
awa rded to L andlord. Te nant a p p ea l ed t h e judgment to the Circuit Court and there afte r filed a Motion to S tay

I ssuance of Writ of Possession. The basis of Tenant’s motion was that Tena nt was not obligate d to pay

rent unde r the ter

ms of the lease and, conse quently , the re qui reme nt of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18- 130(b)( 2) that a tenant who ha s been dispossessed of lease d premises post a bond in the amount of one y ear ’s rent in order to remain in possession of the pr emises pendingthe appe al should not be require d for Tenant t o rema in in possession. The trial cour t entere d an Or der a llowing Tena nt to rema in in possession, conditioned on pos ting a bond in the amount of $1,680; the bond 2
wa s ti me ly

po ste d. L and lor d th e re a ft e r f ile d a Mo tio n to Inc re a se B on d, a sk ing that bo nd be se t in the amount of $7,000, a sserted to be the value of the char itable deduction. Followinga hea ring , the appea l bond was incre ased by $4,500, with the additional amount to be posted by 4:30 p.m. on 3 Marc h 2, 2007. Shortly afte r L andlord’s Motion to Incre ase B ond was filed, but be fore it w a s hear d, L andlord filed an A m en d ed Complaint seeking posse ssion of the premises a nd monetary

damag es and alleg ing, inter alia, the dissoluti on of Tena nt’s corpor ate status and re sulting loss of its designation
as a non- profit cor

poration; Tena

nt’s operation of a f

or-pr ofit business from the pre mises in violation of the intende d use of the pr emises; and mater ial mistake of fa ct and mutual mistake of la w re lative to the ability

of L andlord to deduc t the renta l v al u e of the lea sed pre mises. Tenant duly filed an An sw e r t o th e Am e nd e d Co mpl a int

. On Marc h 6, 2 0 0 7 , L an d lord filed a Motion to Dismiss, on the gr ound that the additional bond order ed by

the Court had not been posted and set the m otion for hearing on Marc h 19, 2007. Tena nt filed a re sponse to the motion but failed to appea r at the he aring . The motion was g rante d. Ten ant fi led a

Mo tio n to Se t A sid e the Or de r o f D ism iss a l, a sse rt ingc ouns e l’ s mi sta ke in cale ndaringthe hea

ring on the motion and also asser ting that Tena

nt’s failure to post the bond meant only that Tena nt could not maintain possession of the premises pe nding the appea l. At a hea ringon Tena nt’s motion, the Court set aside its previous dismissal and hea rd the L andlord’s or igina l Motion to D ism iss . T he Court

g ra nte d th e mot ion , s tatin gin p e rt ine nt p art :
The Court fur

ther finds, that the G ener al Sessions J udg ment from which th e D e f

e n d an t a p p e a le d w a s f o r p o s s e s s io no n ly

an d th a t no Counter Complaint has b ee n fi led, and pur suant to T.C.A. § 29-18-N o O rd e r w a s e n te re d o n T e n a n t’s M o tio n to A m e n d the A n sw e r to the A m e n d e d C o m p la int. 4

T h e o the r issu e s ra ise d b y T e n a n t ar e re n d e re d m o o t b y the re so lutio n o f t h is issu e

. 5

-3- 13 0, it i s im

pe rativ e fo r t

he a pp e lla nt t o f ile the bo nd

to r e ma in i n possession of the prope rty , for damag es and f or Court Costs and upon revie w of the r ecor d and as stipulated by the Def endant, ther e has been no bond poste d pursuant to the Or d er en t er ed March 1, 2007.

Tena nt therea fter f

iled a Motion for Alteration or Amendment of J udg ment seeking to have the appe al re instated and supported the m otion with the Affidavit of L ouie J ohnston. Among othe r things, Mr. Johnston attests t hat the cha rter of L ay man L essons , Inc., had be en re instated by the Te nn e sse e Se c re tary of State and that, on Ma rc h 23 , 20 07 , L ay

man L e sso ns va c a te d th e pr e mis e s. Whil e the motion was pe nding, T ena n t al s o filed a Motion to Amend Answe r to Amende d Complaint, l odg ing its Amended Answer a nd Counter-Claim with the motion. Following a hear ing on May 21, 2007, the C ourt denied Tenant’s Moti on for Alteration or Amendment of J udg ment and decla red the prior Or der of

Dismissal a final orde r. This appea l ensued. 4

Tena nt asserts that the tria l court er red in its interpre tation and application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2 9- 18 -1 30 (b )( 2) by re qu ir ingTe na

nt t o p os t a

bo nd as sp eci fi ed in t

he statut e in o rd e r t o prosec ute the appe al despite having r elinquished possession of the pre mises at issue. 5

AN AL YSI S

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 2 9- 18 -1 30 (b )( 2) pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: (2 ) I n c a se s w he re the a c tio n h a s b e e n b ro ug ht by the land lor d to
rec over posse ssion of leased premises fr om a tenant on the grounds that the tenant ha s brea ched the contra ct by failing to pay the re nt, and a judg ment been e n t er ed against the tena nt, the provisions of
s u b d i v i s i o n( b ) ( 1 ) s h a l l n o ta p p l y. In th a tc a s e , i f

th e d e f e n d an tp r ays an a pp e a l, t he de fe nd ant s ha ll e xec ute bond , o r p os t e ith e r a c a sh deposit or irre vocable l ett er of cre dit from a re g ulated fina ncial instit ution, or provide two (2) g ood persona l sureties with g ood and
s u ff i cient security

in the amount of one ( 1) y ear ’s re nt of the premises, c onditioned to pay all costs and dama g es ac cruing from the failure of the a

ppeal, includingrent a

nd interest on the judg ment as provided for here in, and to abide by and per form whatever

judgme nt may b e re n d er ed by

the appe llate cour

t in the final hea

ringof the
c a us e

. Th e pla int if

f sh a ll no t be re qu ir e d to po st bo nd to obta in po sse ssi on

in t he e ve nt t he de fe nd ant a

pp e a ls w ith out c omp lyingwi th-4- this section. The plaintiff shall be e ntitled to int ere st on the judgme nt which shal l a c c r

u e f r o m t h e d a te o f

th e ju d g me n t i nth e e v e n t the de fe nd ant’ s a

pp e a l sh a ll f

a il. The purpose of the bond re quired of te nants who ap p eal a judgme nt in a detainer action g ra nt in g p os se ssi on

to t he land lor d is to a llo w the te na nt t o r e ta in p os se ssi on

wh ile the a

pp e a l is beingprosec uted. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130( a) a llows a landlord to execute upon the judg ment for possession immediately , by issuing a writ of possession. Pursuant to T enn. Code Ann. § 29-18- 130(b)( 1), if the tena

nt appea ls, the landlord must ex ecute a b o n d for double the value of a y ear ’s rent “ to pay

all co s t s an ddamag es ac cruingfrom the wr ong ful enfor ceme nt of such wr it [ of possession] ” in orde r to proce ed with the wr it of possession. Id. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2 9 -1 8- 1 3 0 (b)( 2), howe ver, a llows the tenant who wishes to re tain possession to do so by posting a bond or other spe cified se curity in the amount of one year ’s re nt. I f t he tena nt does not post such bond, then the statute allows the landlord to obta in posse ssion without complying w ith Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130( b)(1) . As noted by the Court in Ma so n v . W y k le , N o

. 0 3 A 0 1

- 9 5 0 8

- CV

- 0 0 2 6 2 , 1 9 9 6 WL 87455, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 1996) :

Clearly t h e b o nd provision of T.C.A. § 29-18-130( b)(2) is intended to protect the la

ndlord or plaintiff a

nd to provide a sour ce f

rom which rents and da

mag es which a ccr

ue duringthe p en dency

of the a ppeal and while the de fenda

nt is sti ll in possession of t he pre mises can be
c oll e c te d. I t ha s no a

pp lic a tio n w he re po sse ssi on of the pr e mis e s is immedi at ely

surre ndere d afte r judg ment in the court fr om which an appea l is taken.

Id.

Both the initial Order r equiringthe $1,680 bond and the subse quent Orde r ra ising the bond by $4,500 stated that the bond wa s to be p o s t ed “f o r t he def endant to maintain possession” of the premises. To the ex tent the Trial Court construed and a pplied Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 18-130(b) (2)
a s r e qu ir ingTe na

nt t o p os t a

bo nd in the amou

nt sp e c if ie d a s a c on dit ion of

pr os e c uti ngthe a

pp e a l, it committ ed er

ror. The statute does not g overn the rig ht to appea l or establish the conditions of such
a pp e a l; the a

pp e a l of the jud g me nt of the Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s Co ur t is pr os e c ute d in

a c c or da nc e wi th Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-128. Thus, there was no nece ssity for the bond specifie d in T enn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130( b)(2) once the premises wa s vacated and L andlord re stored to possession.-5-

IV. Conclusion

Th e Judg me nt of the Tr ia l Court dis mis sin g the Te na nt’ s a pp e a l is re ve rs e d and the c a se is
re mand e d f

or fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s in

a c c or da nc e wi th t his Op ini on

. Cos ts of a

pp e a l ar e a sse sse d to Appellee

.

____________________________________ RI CHARD H. DI

NKI NS, J UDGE