Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Court of Appeals Interprets Tennessee's Current Deficiency Judgment Statute

Publications

February 1, 2013

The ability to recover the full amount of a loan deficiency after foreclosure requires careful attention by lenders. The Tennessee Court of Appeals, in Greenbank v. Sterling Ventures, LLC, (Dec. 7, 2012), recently interpreted Tennessee's statute, adopted in 2010, governing deficiency judgments following a foreclosure sale. The statute provides borrowers a greater chance of minimizing the deficiency judgment than the prior law. The statute directs courts to use the foreclosure sale price in its deficiency determination, unless the borrower proves that the property sold for "materially less" than the property’s actual "fair market value." Prior to the 2010 amendment, borrowers had to prove that the sale price was "grossly inadequate" compared to the fair market value. If a borrower is successful, the court decides the fair market value to credit the indebtedness.

The Court decided there was no intent of the legislature to abandon the presumption that the sale price represents fair market value. Although the new statute is "more consumer friendly," the standard continues to require "a pretty substantial difference" between the foreclosure price and the fair market value. Additionally, "fair market value" under the statute was intended to reflect the property's condition on the sale date and the context of the sale. Thus, the type of appraisal and the conditions and terms of the sale are critical to the fair market value determination.

To maximize deficiency judgments and minimize legal proceedings: (a) appraisals should reflect liquidation value as of the date of foreclosure; (b) a lender should maintain a record of pre-foreclosure information relevant to the property's value, including any efforts to sell or market the property; and (c) a foreclosure/auction sale should be considered for certain properties. In planning its course of action, the terms of the appraisals should be carefully considered, as well as any additional variables that could affect the fair market value.


Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.