T en n. R

. C t

. A p p . 1 0 st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e . W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

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

AT NAS HVILLE Jul y 15th, 200 5 S es sio n BARBARA MCKEEVE R, ET AL 

### . v. ROY MATLO CK, ET AL 

### .

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 03-C- 3448 Marie tta Shipl ey, Judge

No. M2004- 01846-COA-R 3-CV - F iled October 6, 2005

F orme r le sse e app e a ls g rant of su mma ry jud g me nt dis mis sin g he r wr on g fu l ou ste r l a ws uit a g a ins t fo rm e r l a nd lor d. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.
Th urma n T . M c L e a n, Jr., Ma dis on , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e llant, B arb ara

Mc Ke e ve r, e t a l. Michele E. Coope r, Ke lly

A. Cashman-G

r ams , N a s h v il le , T e n n e s s e e , f o r the a ppellees, Roy

Matlock, e t a l.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
This a ppeal perta ins to an alleg ed wr ong ful ouster of a tenant af ter landlord e victed tena nt pursuant to an ag ree d order betwee n the parties. Tena nt claimed landlord’ s acc eptanc e of r ent during the pende ncy of the a g ree d order preve nted landlord fr om enforc ing the order . The trial c ourt g rante d landlord summary judgme nt. We find that the landlord wa s entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.-2- I. F A C TS Ba rbar a McK eeve r and he r then husband, M i ch ae l McKe ever , rente d their home fr om the Roy Matlock, Sr. and Ma

rtha Matlock J oint Revoca ble L iving Trust, Roy

Matlock, Sr. and Ma

rtha Matlo c k, Tr

us te e s ( “ Matlo c k” ). Th e le a se a g re e me nt d a te d Apr il of 20 00 wa s si g ne d b y

bo th Ba rbar a McK eeve r and he r husband. The lea se provided that the monthly renta l payments wer e due on the 1st of eac h month and that f a ilu re to m ake the pay me nt b y the 10 th r e su lte d inauto ma tic te rm inatio n o f the le a se . T he le a se further provided that upon termination, the McKe ever s were obligated to immediately surre nder the renta l property

to Matlock. The lease also provided in para g raph 14 that acc eptanc e by landlord of rent pa id after

leg al proc eeding s had beg un was with re servation:
I n th e e ve nt any

mon ie s a re pa id a ft e r l e g a l pr oc e e din g s h ave been instig a te d, it i s a g re e d b y LESSE ES andLESSO RS th a t th e se mon ie s a re acc e pte d b y

LESSO RS wi th r e se rv a tio ns . Appar ently unbeknownst to Ms. McKe ever , her husband failed to ma ke renta l pay ments for the m o n th s o f

A p r il a n d M a y

o f 2 0 0 3

. M r . a n d M s . M c K e e v e r s e p ar a te d ab o u t th is ti me . M r. McKe ever

is not a party to this l awsuit. It should be noted that Matlock has ne ver r ece ived re nt for the se tw o ( 2) mon ths

. As a re sult of the unpaid rent, Matlock initiated proce eding s to evict the McKe ever s, and a judgme nt was ente red a g ainst them for possession of the premises on May 19, 2003. Ms. McKee ver app e a le d th e Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s ju dg me nt t o Ci rc uit Court. I n an eff

ort to re so lve the ma tte r, Ms. Mc Ke e ve r andMatlo c k e nte re d in to an A g re e d O rd e r o n Jun e 27 , 2 00 3, a llo wi ng Ms. Mc Ke e ve r t o rema in in possession of the premises if, withi n 7 day s of t he Ag ree d Orde r, she 1) qualified for a loan to purcha se the prope rty

for $141,900 and 2) paid Matlock earnest money of $10,000. Ac cording to the terms of the A g ree d Orde r, fa ilure to meet these conditions would result in another writ being i m m e d i a t e l y i s s u e d t o e v i c th e r f r o mt h e p r o p e r t y. Ms. McKee ver ma de the June rental pay ment on an unspec ified date that Matlock ac cepte d wi th e xpre ss r e se rv a tio n. Th e re a ft e r, Ms. Mc Ke e ve r p a id h e r Jul y re nt o n July

17 a nd he r A ug us t re nt o n A ug us t 15

. Th us , bo th the July a nd Au g us t re nta l pay me nts we rela te a c c or din g to the te rm s of the lease

. Matlock acc epted the J uly and Aug ust rent without specifica lly expressing r eservation. There is no disput e t h at M s . McKe ever was una ble to meet the c onditions of the Ag ree d Orde r, and she was e victed fr om her home pur suant to that order on Aug ust 22, 2003. I t appea rs that no fu rthe r a

pp e a l w a s ta

ke n o f the e vic tio n s uit

. There afte r, in Dec ember of 2003, Ms. McKee ver br oug ht this sui t ag ainst Matlock see king mon e ta r y d a ma g e s c laim in g th e A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 e v ic ti o n c o n s ti tu te d a n u n la w f u l o u s te r , o u tr ag eous co n d u c t, a n d n e g li g e n c e . A c c o r d in g to M s . M c K e e v e r , h e r e v ic ti o n w a s w r o n g f

u l s in c e M atlockM s. M cK eever al so m akes s o m e al l egat i o ns t hat af t er s he was unab l e t o co m p l y wi t h t he A greed O rder, M r. 2 M at l ock s ai d h e wou l d r ev i s e t h e l ea s e. T h er e i s n o a l l eg at i on t h at t h e l ea s e wa s , i n fac t , r ev i s ed. -3- “condone d” her

defaults under Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-508 by acc epting the J uly

and Aug ust rental payments without ex pressing rese rvation. The trial c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt to Matlock, and Ms. McKe ever appea ls.
II. S T ANDARD O F R EVIEW Ou r r e vie w o f a

tr ia l c ou rt ’s su mma

ry judgme nt i s de novo with no presumption of corr ectne ss since t h e trial court’ s decision is a question of law

. Scott v. Ashland Healthcare Ctr., Inc. , 49 S.W .3d 281, 285 (Tenn. 2001) . Summary judgme nt should be g ranted only when the mov ing pa

rty de mon str a te s th a t th e re areno g e nu ine issu e s o f m a te ri a l f a c t a ndthat heor

sh e is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. W ebber v . State Farm Mutual Aut o mo b i l e Insurance Company , 4 9 S .W .3 d 2 65 , 2 69 (T e nn . 2 00 1) . Wemus t c on sid e r the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t favor able to the non- moving pa rty , and we must resolve all infer ence s in t h e non-moving party ’s favor

. Doe v . HCA Health Serv ices, Inc

. , 46 S.W .3d 191, 196 (Tenn. 2001)

. III . A N A L Y SIS The pa rties entered into an Ag ree d Orde r stating that unless Ms. McKee ver me t the c on dit ion s in the or de r, a writ of re sti tut ion to e vic t he r f ro m th e ho us e wo uldbe iss ue d im me diate ly based on the May

19, 2003 g ener al sessions c ourt judgme nt. Ms. Mc Kee ver doe s not dispute that she did not meet the c onditions of this Ag ree d Orde r. The writ that was issued and which r esulted in h e r e vic tio n w a s is su e d p ur su a nt t o th e Ag re e d O rd e r andwa s bas e d on the de fa ult s o c c ur ri ng in Ap ri l and Ma y . She do e s not dis pu te that Mat loc k ne ve r re c e ive d the re nta l pay me nts du e in A pril a ndM a y o f 2 0 0 3

. A s a

p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h o s e c o n c e s s i o n s l e a v e h e r w i t h v e r y

l i t t l e g r o u n d s to c on te st the e vic tio n. He r la ws uit hin g e s on wh e the r the a c c e ptanc e by Matlo c k o f Jul y

a ndAu g us t rent waives her prior brea ch of the lease

. Ms. McKee ver c ontends that para g raph 14 of the l ease g overning rese rvation by the landlord is an u nla wf

ul w aiv er of te na nt’ s rig ht u nd e r the Un if orm Re sid e nti a l L a nd lor d a ndTe na nt A c t, (“U RL TA”) , Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66- 28-201(a ). There fore , acc ording to the arg ument, since the 2 renta l pay ment s were acc epted without express rese rvation and sincethe waive r in the lea se wa s unenfor cea

b l e, t h en p u rsuant to the wa iver provision of URLTA, Matlock waived her brea ch and thus lacked g rounds to terminate he r lea se. Ms. McKee ver a

rg ues that bec ause she made a payment in Aug ust, albeit a late one , she c ou ld n ot b e e vic te d inAu g us t. S he re lie s o n T e nn . Co de An n. § 6 6- 28 -5 08 , w hic h p ro vid e s: I f the landlo rd ac ce p ts rent without reservation and with knowledg e of a tenant default, the landlord by

such ac ceptan ce condones the default and there by waives-4-

such landlord’ s rig ht and is estopped fr om terminating the renta l a g ree ment as to that brea ch. This relianc e is misplaced. We conc lude that the Jul y and Aug ust pay ments were acc epted wi th r e se rv a tio n. Matlo c k’ s ac c e ptanc e of the July a nd Au g us t re nta l payme nts wa s auto ma tic a lly ma de wi th r e se rv a tio n p ur su a nt t o p ara g ra ph 14 of the le a se sin c e lit ig a tio n h a d b e e n in iti a te d. Ms. McKe ever

was on notice of this provision and was a war e that leg al proc eeding s had bee n instit uted, having participated in them. Ms. McKee ver doe s not dispute that if para g raph 14 is oper ative then the J uly and Aug ust pay ments were acc epted with re servation.
Ms. McKee ver a

rg ues, howe ver, that para g raph 14 is an unla wful wa iver of her rig hts under the UR L TA pr oh ibi te d b y Te nn . Co de An n. § 6 6- 28 -2 01 (a ) w hic h p ro vid e s: (a) The landlord and tenant may include in a rental ag ree ment, terms and c onditions not proh i b i t ed b y

this chapter or

other rule of law inc luding r ent, term of the a g re e me nt, a ndoth e r p ro vis ion s g ov e rn ing the ri g hts a nd ob lig a tio ns of

pa rt ie s. A rental agr eem ent cannot provide that the te nant agr ees to wai ve or fore go rights or rem edies und er this chap ter . Th e la nd lor d or the la nd lor d’ s a g e nt s ha ll a dv ise in writing that the landlord is n o t re s p o n s i b le for, and will not provide, fire or casua lty insurance for the te nant’s per sonal property . (empha sis added).
Acc ording to Ms. McKee ver, pa rag raph 14 of

the lease is an unlawful attempt to have her fore g o her rig ht under Te nn. Code Ann. § 66-28- 508, quoted above

. We disa g r e e . We th in k a lan d lo r d a n d te n a n t c a n a g r e e to a te r m s u c h a s th e o n e at issue. T h e o n l y t h i n g a g r e e d t o w a s t h a tm o n i e s p a i d a f t e r l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e i n i t i a t e d w e r e a l w a ys acc epted with re servation. W e find no rig ht give n to a tenant in the URLTA that this provision wa ive s. Th e r e i s n o r i g h t t o p a y r e n t l a t e o r n o t t o p a y . T h e r e i s n o r i g h t t o f o r c e t h e l a n d l o r d to acc ept payments without reservation. Under the UR L TA, a la ndlord retains the rig ht to acce pt payments with reservation, i.e. , without giving up available leg al remedies. The fact that the pa rties ag ree d ahea d of time to the landlord’s a cce ptance with reservation under c erta in circumstanc es does not waive a ny

rig ht the tenant has unde r the Ac t. Matlock neve r wa ived the payments due in A pril or May , but only ag ree d to foreg o eviction based on those br eac hes if Ms. Mc Kee ver perf ormed in ac cordance w ith the Ag ree d Orde r, which wo uldha ve re su lte d ina sa le of the ho us e to h e r. Matlo c k r e ta ine d th e ri g ht t o e vic t f or the Ap ri l and May brea ches if she failed to pe rform. Under the Ag ree d Orde r, the e viction was base d on the g e ne ra l se ssi on s c ou rt

jud g me nt, su pp orte d b y the prior de fa ult s. Ac c e ptanc e of

the July a ndAu g us t rent did not aff

ect the e nforc eability

of the Ag ree d Orde r.-5-

Acc ordi n gl y , t h e trial court is affirme d and costs of a ppeal a re ta x ed to appe llant, Ba

rbar a McKe ever .

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE