Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Court of Appeals Interprets Tennessee's Current Deficiency Judgment Statute


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


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.