The second installment in TBA's Indigent Representation Primer is now available. This week's post highlights background and data about Tennessee's Indigent Representation Program, including how courts determine and assign counsel for indigent defendants and vulnerable individuals. The piece also looks at a recent performance audit report of the Tennessee court system conducted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, including an evaluation of the "effectiveness and efficiency" of the current system of indigent representation as well as other court programs. See past primer posts here.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. A police officer stopped Nathaniel Taylor for speeding on an interstate in Knoxville, Tennessee. Based on Taylor’s supposed suspicious activities during the traffic stop, the officer requested a K-9 unit to conduct a dog sniff. The dog sniff suggested the presence of drugs in Taylor’s vehicle. This gave law enforcement probable cause to search Taylor’s vehicle. The search did not uncover drugs. But it did lead to the discovery of a firearm, which presented a problem for Taylor because, as a felon, he could not lawfully possess a firearm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. While incarcerated at the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Michigan, Horace Crump filed this § 1983 action against several prison employees, alleging that they withheld treatment for his multiple sclerosis. At stake at this stage in the case is not whether the prison employees withheld this medical treatment; it is whether Crump’s lawsuit may go forward before he pays the required filing fee. The district court held that it could not. We vacate and remand.

The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Andre Davis, Jr., for one count each of harassment and aggravated stalking. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence. Defendant appeals and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded this case for reconsideration in light of State v. Andre JuJuan Lee Green, --- S.W.3d ---, No. M2022-00899-SC-R11-CD, 2024 WL 3942511 (Tenn. 2024). See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3- CD, 2024 WL 1564346, (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2024) (Bishop I), case remanded (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2024). This court concluded in the previous appeal that the certified question was dispositive of the case and that the officers had probable cause to search the Defendant’s car because an officer smelled the odor of marijuana. Upon further review, we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of the case because our supreme court in Andre JuJuan Lee Green made clear that a trial court must apply a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether an officer has probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a car. --- S.W.3d ---, 2024 WL 3942511, at *6. Upon consideration of the certified question and our supreme court’s holding in Andre JuJuan Lee Green, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider the certified question presented. The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal concerns a motion to set aside a default judgment. Roland Brown (“Plaintiff”) sued HDR Logistics, LLC (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”) alleging that he sustained injuries from an incident in which Defendant’s employee backed his tractor-trailer into Plaintiff’s parked tractor-trailer. Plaintiff served a copy of the complaint and summons on Lisa Blackwell (“Blackwell”), Defendant’s designated agent in Tennessee for service of process. Defendant failed to respond, and Plaintiff obtained a default judgment. Defendant later filed a motion to set aside. Defendant submitted the affidavits of two individuals who said that the company did not receive notice of the lawsuit. Notably, the record contains no affidavit from Blackwell explaining what happened. The Trial Court denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant appeals, arguing that its failure to respond was due to excusable neglect in that it lacked actual notice of the lawsuit even though its agent was served, and that the Trial Court failed to conduct a writ of inquiry on unliquidated damages as required. We hold, inter alia, that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment. We hold further that Defendant failed to meet its burden showing the Trial Court did not conduct an appropriate evidentiary hearing on unliquidated damages. We affirm.

Plaintiff Terry Case did not make his mortgage payments for several years. The real property which secured his loan was subsequently sold at a foreclosure sale following the postponement of a prior sale date. Mr. Case brought a claim for “wrongful foreclosure,” among others, alleging Defendants Wilmington Trust, N.A. and Wilson & Associates, PLLC violated the notice requirements in the applicable deed of trust by failing to provide him with written notice of the postponement. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants, and Mr. Case solely appealed the dismissal of his claim for “wrongful foreclosure.” The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Defendants failed to satisfy their notice obligations under the deed of trust and that summary judgment on the claim for “wrongful foreclosure” was therefore inappropriate. Defendant Wilmington Trust applied for permission to appeal to this Court, and we granted review to determine (1) whether Tennessee recognizes a common law cause of action for “wrongful foreclosure,” and (2) whether the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform Deed of Trust requires written notice of postponement in addition to oral announcement pursuant to section 35-5-101(f) of the Tennessee Code. We further instructed the parties to address whether Mr. Case satisfied the requirements for constitutional standing. We hold that Mr. Case has constitutional standing to bring his claim. However, we also hold that there is no common law cause of action for “wrongful foreclosure” in Tennessee. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

The Office of Gov. Bill Lee is accepting applications to fill an upcoming vacancy in the position of public defender for the First Judicial District. The vacancy is due to the retirement of Jeffery C. Kelly, which will occur on Feb. 28, 2025. To qualify for the office, applicants must be licensed Tennessee attorneys and be residents of the state for at least five years and of the judicial district for at least one year. The district includes Carter, Johnson, Unicoi and Washington counties. Attorneys interested in being considered should submit a resume and cover letter by mail to Erin Merrick, chief counsel to the governor, State Capitol, First Floor, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Nashville, TN 37243, or by email to Katelin.Brown@tn.gov by 5 p.m. CST on Dec. 2. The individual selected will serve until the next biennial election in August 2026.

The Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Office of Conservatorship Management (OCM) will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Dec. 3 from 1:30 to 2 p.m. CST at the Historic Courthouse Courtroom 608. A reception will follow. To RSVP, email ocm@jisnashville.gov. Based on the recommendations of a volunteer task force, former Judge Randy Kennedy and former Nashville Mayor Karl Dean, the Nashville metro council established the OCM in October 2014 as a division of the Metropolitan State Trial Courts Department. View the invitation.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Case v. Wilmington, involving a man who claimed he experienced “wrongful foreclosure” of his property. The court held that state law does not recognize a common law claim of “wrongful foreclosure.” Rather, such claims must be brought as existing breach of contract, tort or statutory causes of action. The plaintiff, Terry Case, filed the underlying action to stop the foreclosure of his property. After the foreclosure was allowed to proceed, Case filed an amended complaint asserting claims for “wrongful foreclosure,” among others. The trial court dismissed the claims. The Court of Appeals reversed on the “wrongful foreclosure” claim but upheld dismissal of the remaining claims. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and sent the case back to the trial court to enter an order of dismissal. To read more about the decision visit the Administrative Office of the Court's website. Chief Justice Holly Kirby issued a separate concurring opinion.