WPC) [1 u43jj⋉ѣr|֢ % u{HB)<P6aJڗN-\˜8pO_FFn!@;VL'9P>0Xܤ0_ENqQܣ_'` =̻]~ڞ]%s>̀E.d[/xYZ>)g\n W#CJzK!iC]cR|'a%g7\Q1T|Qw@/I 7^pž+\6 @/紐uw@>B:_1w53n{mKj,qgp?\ɴw~=knx=T@ [ufJ"Ft:%D:ZT&~MT}}Z9%uMb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;= 1E 72 1u 721 0+cc 1 72S 1 72 0wD 1 72Hz 1 72 1A 72 0 0.** 1Xb 72 1 72 1 72k 1 72, 1^ 72 1 724!!! " " "############## 0$$$$ B%% 0% D3& D-& 0K&& ASJ'' 0c( 0D) AK)HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0 ^+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+,ɣ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(I Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      1   7    _ԀAninadvertence,sincePolowastheLessee,nottheowner.(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEMU]emu}AutoList2(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)0CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(CEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) (1) ( CEMU]emu}AutoList5(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)#(a)0CEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(A)(i)(1)(1)(1)(1)%(1)(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (# $ R$      2   7    _ԀTheplaintiffwasdischargedforallegedlyunsatisfactoryperformanceofthecontract.Aportionofthe  considerationhadapparentlybeenpaid.0CEMU]emu}AutoList7(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)- --(A)(&CEMU]emu}AutoList8(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)0(A)(6CEMU]emu}AutoList9(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)2(A)0MEGOW_gowAutoList10(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)4(i)(oMEGOW_gowAutoList11(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)6(i)(MEGOW_gowAutoList12(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)8(i) * R$      3   7    _ԀTheauthorityoftheownerunderTenn.CodeAnn. XOX  7# 7 X XO#Ԁ6611142(b)(1)tofileacopyofthebond,forthe  purposeofdischargingalien,isnotquestioned.Wenotethispointinlightofthelanguageofthestatutewhichmay  authorizeonlythegeneralcontractortofileacopyofthebondintheofficeofthecountyclerk,ascontrastedtothe ` _registers_Ԁoffice.Thestatutewaslateramendedtoeliminatetherequirementthatacopyofthebondmustberegistered $t intheofficeofthecountyclerk.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthestatuterequiresthecopyofthebondtohavethe_owners_ 8 approvalendorsedonit._Gettysvuesapprovaldoesnotappearonthecopy. R$      4   7    _ԀItwastheplaintiffwhobroachedthesubjectoftheinvalidityofthebondabouttwoyearsafteritwasfiled.  R$      5   7    _ԀTenn.CodeAnn. XOX  7# 7 X XO#Ԁ6611142(b)(1)requiresthefilingofavalidbond,thusimplicatingarighttoquestion  itsworth.Neitherdoesthestatuteaddresstheissueofthebondbecomingworthlessduringthependencyoflitigation.  R$      6   7    _ԀTheFirstTennesseeBank,N.A.wasanadditional_obligee_Ԁunderthebond.Itisnotapartytothislitigation.(|G2$ !.8EDd d 8         0  & d(|3$ !.8EDd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8EDd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8_d d8     _   O 89XXdd 8  @   OINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# O  #Ԉ &   October16,2001Session L  XOX O # OX XO#JOHNHOPKINSd/b/aRICHLANDCREEKSODFARMv.POLO J DEVELOPMENT,L.L.C.,etal. XOX O   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  ^ @@No.1281532DarylFansler,Chancellor  J FILEDOCTOBER30,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101331COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      ThesubcontractorplaintifffiledalienagainstpropertyownedbyGettysvuePartners,L.P.,and  leasedtoPoloDevelopment,L.L.C.Kilmers,Inc.,hadcontractedwithPoloDevelopmentto x constructagolfcoursethereon,andsubcontractedwiththeplaintifftosupplysodforthecourse. d TheplaintiffwasdischargedbyKilmersandclaimedabalanceowingof$190,278.41.A P performancebondhadbeenpostedbyKilmersasgeneralcontractor,acopyofwhichwasfiledby < GettysvuePartnerspursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.# OX XO# XOX OԀ6611142(b)(1)forthepurposeofdischarging (x thelien.TheplaintiffconsequentlydidnotsueouttheattachmentrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.# OX XOZ# XOX O d 6611126.Twoyearsafterthecomplaintwasfiledthecourtruledthatthebondwasineffective P becausetheinsurancecompanywasnotlicensedinTennessee.GettysvuePartnersfiledamotion < forsummaryjudgmentbecausetheplaintifffailedtosueoutanattachment.Themotionwas ( granted.Weaffirm.   Tenn.R.App.P.AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed     # O XOE# XOX. OWilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand t  D.MichaelSwiney,J.J.,joined. `!  HaroldE.Bishop,Maryville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JohnHopkinsd/b/aRichlandCreekSod 8#" Farm. $$t# CelesteH.Herbert,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,GettysvuePartners,L.P. %L!% y  OPINION # OX XO # XOX O '$#' # OX XO # XOX O     FactsandPleadings  )$) G   Attimesmaterial,GettysvuePartners,L.P.[Gettysvue],ownedlandwhichitleasedtoPolo +&+  Development,L.L.C.[Polo],# OX XO # XOX OԀforthepurposeofconstructingagolfcoursethereon.Polocontracted p,', withKilmers,Inc.[Kilmers],toconstructthegolfcourse,which,inturn,contractedwiththeplaintiff  tosupplyandinstalltherequiredsodding.# OX XOV# XOX O     TheplaintifffiledaNoticeofLienonAugust15,1995thatpursuanttoacontractwith t Kilmers,heprovidedlaborandmaterialsforsoddingofthevalueof$189,748.00whichwasdueand ` payable. L    OnSeptember20,1995,Gettysvue(theowner)filedadocumententitled FilingofBondto $ t DischargeFiledandUnfiledLiensintheRegistersofficeofKnoxCounty,specificallyreferencing  ` theNoticeofLienfiledbytheplaintiff.  L    OnNovember3,1995,theplaintifffiledacomplaintagainstGettysvue(Owner),Polo $  (Lessee),Kilmers(GeneralContractor)andBerkstonInsurance,A.V.V.,whopostedthe   performance/paymentbondonbehalfofKilmers.HeallegedthatKilmerscontractedwithPoloto   constructagolfcourseondescribedpropertyownedbyPolo #  1      ,andthatKilmersasgeneralcontractor,   contractedwithhim,asasubcontractor,tosupplymaterialsandlaborforsodding.Healleged   nonpayment,+T #  2      ׀andsoughtaforeclosureofthelien.Noattachmentwasissued. p   Polo,Kilmers,andBerkstonfiledajointanswer,admittingtheproformaallegationsbut H denyingthattheplaintiffhadorwasentitledtohavealienonthepropertyofGettysvue. 4   Gettysvuefiledaseparateanswer,crossclaim,andthirdpartycomplaint.Itadmittedthat  \ Berkstonisthesuretyonthepaymentandperformancebond,butdeniedthatthebondwasprocured H byGettysvue,whichaffirmativelypleadedthatthecomplaintfailedtostateacourseofactionagainst 4 it.Bywayofcrossclaim,GettysvueallegedthatitleasedthelandtoPolowhichdevelopedagolf   coursethereon,contractingwithKilmersforthatpurpose,andthatPoloorKilmersprocureda   performance/paymentbondfromBerkston.GettysvueallegedthatwhenitreceivedtheNoticeof  Lien,itrecordedacopyofthebondtodischargethelienandthat [t]hiscourthasfoundheretofore  thatthesebondsdonotmeettherequirementsofTCA6611142andhencethelienremainson  theproperty.Thecrossclaimandthirdpartycomplaintsoughtjudgmentoveragainsttheco l defendantsif alienwasallowedagainsttheGettysvueproperty. X    OnOctober10,1997,Gettysvuesoldandtransferredtheproperty.OnOctober13,1997the 0"  Chancellorheldthatthebondfiledtodischargethelienwasdefectivebecausetheobligorwasnot #l! licensedinTennessee.Gettysvuefiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundthatno $X" attachmenthadissuedwithintheprescribedperiod.OnMay4,1999,theChancellorruledthat the $D # lienoftheplaintiffwasarguablyreinstatedinOctober1997whentheBondwasdeclaredinvalidand %0!$ thattheplaintiffshouldhavehadanattachmentissuedatthattime.Themotionwasgrantedand &"% Gettysvuewasdismissedfromthelitigation.Theplaintiffappealsandpresentsforreviewhis  formulatedissues.Reviewisdenovoontherecordwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Thereare  nocontestedissuesoffact.See Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).    Theissuespropoundedbytheplaintiffarereproducedverbatim: `  (5h83"3"  8  8`   3 25h  I  .3  0 ` x` x  WasHopkins,afterfilinghisNoticeofLien,preventedfrom 8  attachingGettysvuespropertybyGettysvuesfilingofabond $ t todischargelien?3 V ݌ ` x x Ќ  "3"  8  8`   3!25h  II  .3  0 ` x` x  DidthetrialcourterrbyholdingthatHopkinslienwas  8  reinstatedtwo(2)yearsafterthefilingoftheliennoticeand $  alsoerrbygrantingsummaryjudgmentforGettysvuebecause   Hopkinsdidnotattachthepropertytwo(2)yearsafterfiling   hisnoticeoflien?3!"݌  x x Ќ  "3"  8  8`   3$25h  III  .3  0 ` x` x  ShouldGettysvuebepermittedtoprofitbyitsownwrongin p filinganinvalidbondandtherebyleaveHopkinswithno \ securityincontraventionofthemechanicsandmaterialmens H lienlaws?3$T$݌4 x x Ќ    Analysis   \ %  Tenn.CodeAnn.6611115(a)provides: 4  (08"3"  8  8`   3'2(  a  )3  0 ` x` x  Everyjourneymanorotherpersoncontractedwithor   employedtoworkonthebuildings,fixtures,machinery,or  improvements,ortofurnishmaterialsforthesame,whether  suchjourneyman,furnisher,orotherpersonwasemployedor  contractedwithbythepersonwhooriginallycontractedwith l theownerofthepremises,orbyanimmediateorremote X  subcontractoractingundercontractwiththeoriginal D! contractor,oranysubcontractor,shallhavethislienforsuch 0"  workormaterial....3'U'݌#l! x x Ќ  "3"  8  8`   3*2(  b  )3  0 ` x` x  Withinninety(90)daysafterthedemolitionand/orbuilding $D # orimprovementiscompleted,orthecontractofsuchlaborer, %0!$ mechanic,furnisher,orotherpersonshallexpire,orsuch &"% personisdischarged,suchpersonshallnotify,inwriting,the '#& ownerofthepropertyonwhichthebuildingisbeingerected (#' ortheimprovementisbeingmade,ortheownersagentor )$( attorney,iftheownerresidesoutofthecounty,thatthelien |*%) isclaimed.3**݌h+&* x x Ќ  "3"  8  8`   3-2(  c  )3  0 ` x` x  Thelienshallcontinuefortheperiodofninety(90)daysfrom  thedateofthenoticeinfavorofsuchsubcontractor,  journeyman,furnisher,mechanicorlaborer,anduntilthefinal t terminationofanysuitforenforcementbroughtwithinthat ` period.3-.݌L  x x Ќ    Tenn.CodeAnn.6611126providesfortheenforcementoftheliens: $ t 8  8`   Liensunderthispartshallbeenforcedbyattachmentonly,inmanner  L  following: 8 ` x` x 8   ` ...$     (80! !"3"  8  8`   312(  2  )3  0 ` x` x  Wherethereisnosuchcontract,byattachmentinacourtof   laworequityinlikemanner;orbeforeacourtofgeneral   sessions,havingjurisdictionbaseduponlikeaffidavit,the   writofattachmenttobeaccompaniedbyawarrantforthe   sumclaimed,tobeservedupontheownerandmay,within p thediscretionoftheplaintifforcomplainant,beservedupon \ thecontractor,orsubcontractorinanydegree,withwhomthe H complainantisincontractualrelation,buttheownershall 4 havetherighttomakethecontractororsubcontractora  p defendantbycrossactionorcrossbillasisotherwise  \ providedbylaw;...31>2݌H x x Ќ    In1974theLegislatureamelioratedthestatutoryschemewiththeenactmentofaprovision   todischargethepropertylienbythepostingofabond.Tenn.CodeAnn.6611142provides,as   materialhere,that:  ! ! #( 88 "3"  8  8`   372 (  a  )3  0 ` x` x  Ifalien,otherthanaliengrantedinawrittencontract,is  fixedorisattemptedtobefixedbyarecordedinstrument l underthischapter,anypersonmayrecordabondto X  indemnifyagainstthelien.Suchbondshallberecordedwith D! theregisterofdeedsofthecountyinwhichthelienwas 0"  filed.Suchbondshallbefortheamountofthelienclaimed #l! withcorporatesuretyauthorizedandadmittedtodobusiness $X" inthestateofTennesseeandlicensedbythestateof $D # Tennesseetoexecutebondsassurety,andsuchbondshallbe %0!$ conditionedupontheobligorssatisfyinganyjudgmentthat &"% mayberenderedinfavorofthepersonassertingthelien.The '#& bondshallstatethebookandpageorotherreferencesandthe (#' officewherethelienisofrecord.Therecordingbythe )$( registerofabondtoindemnifyagainstalienshalloperateas |*%) adischargeofthelien.Afterrecordingthebond,theregister h+&* shallreturntheoriginalbondtothepersonprovidingthe  bond.Theregistershallindextherecordingofthebondto  indemnifyagainstthelieninthesamemannerasareleaseof  lien.Thepersonassertingthelienmaymaketheobligorson t thebondpartiestoanyactiontoenforcetheclaim,andany ` judgmentrecoveredmaybeagainstalloranyoftheobligors L  onthebond.37"8݌8  x x Ќ  8  8`   (b)(1)0 ` x` xWhenageneralcontractorhasprovidedavalidpaymentbond $ t forthebenefitofpotentiallienclaimants,acopyofthatbond  ` maybefiled,inlieuofthefilingofanotherbond,todischarge  L  alien.Acopyofsuchbondmay,atthecontractorsoption,  8  befiledwiththecountyclerkinlieuofthebondprovidedin $  subsection(a),todischargealien.Uponfilingwiththeclerk,   thecontractorshallnotifythesuretyexecutingthebondand   thelienuponthepropertyshallbedischarged.  x x  %(08#! !"3"  8  8`   3B2(  2  )3  0 ` x` x  Thebondfiledpursuanttothissubsectionshall:3B:C݌  x x Ќ  ! ! -(80%"3"     ` 8 3D2(  A  )3  0    Beinapenalsumatleastequaltothetotalof p theoriginalcontractamount;3DE݌\   Ќ  "3"  8  8`   8 ` x` x3 F2(  B  )3  0    Beinfavoroftheowner;3 FkF݌H   Ќ  "3"  8  8`   8 ` x` x3)G2(  C  )3  0    Havethewrittenapprovaloftheowner 4 endorsedonit;3)GG݌ p   Ќ  "3"  8  8`   8 ` x` x3yH2(  D  )3  0    Beexecutedby:3yHH݌ \   Ќ   4(M88-"'"  8  8`   'J0 ` x` x0 x x2M(  i  )3  0hxx  Theoriginalcontractorasprincipal;and'J\J݌Hhxhx Ќ   8(M884! !"3"  8  8`   8 ` x` x  3K2M(  ii  )3  0h    Acorporatesuretyauthorizedand 4 admittedtodobusinessinthisstate   andlicensedbythisstatetoexecute   bondsassurety;3KaL݌h h  Ќ     `  ....  8        Asstated,acopyofthebondwasfiledbyGettysvuetodischargethelien.Theplaintiff l apparentlyassumedthatthebondwassufficientforthepurposeandmadenoobjection. X    ThebondwasprocuredbyKilmers,thegeneralcontractor,thenknownasPartnersand 0"  Associates,Inc.; #  3      ׀Thebondwasinvalidabinitio,>P #  4      ׀buttheplaintiffassumeditsvalidityand #l! consequentlydidnotseekanattachment.Thedefendantarguesthatitwasthedutyoftheplaintiff $X" toreviewthebondtodeterminewhetheritcompliedwiththestatutoryrequirements.Inlightofthe  factthatthebondprimafaciewasissuedbyacompanysituatedinAruba,witharegisteredoffice  inFlorida,andanagentinMichigan,weagreewiththedefendantthatthesecircumstancesshould  havemotivatedtheplaintifftosueoutanattachment,therebyfocusingjudicialemphasisonthe t effectivenessandworthofthebond.Whiletheplaintiffarguesthathewasconcernedaboutthe ` incurrenceofliabilityforthewrongfulsuingoutofanattachment,thereisnosupportforthis L  argumentintherecord.Weconcludethattheplaintiffwasnotpreventedfromsuingoutthe 8  attachmentasheargues. $ t   II.  L  T  Thestatutoryschememakesnoprovisionfortheproceduretobeemployedintheeventthe $  bondisnotinitiallyvalid.A #  5      ׀InthecaseatBar,thebondwasprimafaciesuspect,thusinvitingnon   relianceonit,or,atleast,timelyenquiry.Whetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthatthelienwas    arguablyreinstatedatthetimeitwasjudiciallydeclaredinvalidisirrelevantbecausetheplaintiff   neverattemptedtoattachGettysvuesproperty.Inourview,thefilingofaninvalidbondis   tantamounttonotfilingabond,andthelienwasnotdischarged.Sincenoattachmentwasissued p within90days,Tenn.CodeAnn.6611115,thelienbecameunenforceable. Brumitv.Garybeal \ GlassCo. ,609S.W.2d521(Tenn.Ct.App.1980); EatherlyConst.Co.v.DeBoerConst.Co. ,543 H S.W.2d333(Tenn.1976); ChristianandSonsv.NashvilleP.S.Hotel ,765S.W.2d754(Tenn.Ct. 4 App.1988); Gen.Elec.SupplyCo.v.ArlenRealtyandDev.Co. ,546S.W.2d210(Tenn.1977);  p  VulcanMaterialsCo.v.GambleConst.Corp. ,2001WL416752(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).  \    `     h      p      x    III.  4 Z  Theplaintiffnextessentiallycomplainsoftheinequitywhichhearguesisinherentif   Gettysvueispermittedtofileaninvalidbondtobringaboutadischargeofthelien.Attheoutset,  itiswelltokeepinmindthatthebondwasprocuredbythegeneralcontractor,andthatGettysvue  merelyfiledacopyofit.Ifthebondisinvalidastotheplaintiff,itwasinvalidastoPoloand  Gettysvue,andforthatmatter,astothegeneralcontractor.Ineffect,allsuffered,orwere l jeopardized,exceptBerkston,whichpresumablyenjoyedasubstantialpremium.Wearecitedtono X  casewhichallowstheinterventionofequitytointrudeuponthelienstatutes,but,evenso,wewould D! behardpressedtoweightherespectiveequities.Itwasthegeneralcontractorwhoprocuredthe 0"  invalidbond,aswehaveseen;buttheatBarcontroversyisbetweenasubcontractorandtheowner, #l! eachofwhomwasinattentiveastothebond.D@ #  6       $X"   Althoughnotpresentedasanissue,theplaintiffinhisbriefarguesthatsinceTenn.Code %0!$ Ann.6611142(a)authorizesanypersontorecordabondtoindemnifyagainstthelien,the &"% ChancellorshouldhaverequiredGettysvuetoposta newbondindefaultofwhichthelienwould  notbedischarged.TheissueofwhethertheChancellorhadtheauthoritytorequirethepostingof  abondbytheowneraside,(sincesuchactionisnotauthorizedbythelienstatutes),itbegsthe  questionbecauseanattachmentmustissuewithin90daysoftheNoticeofLien.Strictcompliance t isrequiredbecause [a]materialmanslienisaltogetherstatutory,andwherethelawmakingbody ` prescribesthetermsuponwhichitmaybeasserted,itisbeyondthepowerofcourtstowaiveits L  provisionsorsubstituteothers. McDonnellv.Amo ,34S.W.2d212(Tenn.1931): Vulcan 8  MaterialsCompanyv.GambleConst.Co. ,2001WL416752(Ct.App.2001). $ t   Thejudgmentgrantingsummaryjudgmentisaffirmed.Costsareassessedtotheappellant  L  andhissureties.Thecaseisremandedforallappropriatepurposes.  8          `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     WILLIAMH.INMAN,SENIORJUDGE      `     h