










Tennessee Supreme Court provides deep analysis on elements of “novation”

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a new opinion today, which is notable for a few different reasons.

First, it discusses a legal dispute over The Braxton, which was a luxury high-rise condo building in Ashland City, Tennessee, and which is considered by some to be one of the first big development “fails” of Great Recession Nashville.

Second, the case provides a comprehensive analysis of the law on novation.

The case is TWB Architects, Inc. v.  The Braxton, LLC  No. M2017-00423-SC-R11-CV (Tenn., July 22, 2019).

At its most basic, “novation” is when a party substitutes a new obligation for an existing obligation, such that, after the novation, the second obligation is the only legally binding remaining obligation. Continue reading “Tennessee Supreme Court provides deep analysis on elements of “novation””

Property Owners Can Bond Over Mechanic’s Liens under Tennessee Law

A mechanic’s / materialman’s lien on real property in Tennessee is a very powerful tool. When a contractor asserts a lien, that lien, effectively, ties up the property until the contractor’s claims are resolved.

It’s a huge bargaining chip: The property owner can’t sell, transfer, pledge, or, generally, do anything with the property until the contractor’s lien is released.

That’s likely why the Tennessee Legislature passed
Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-21-108,  which imposes harsh penalties on people who file invalid liens on real property.

So, if you’re a property owner who wants to fight a mechanic’s lien, is there anything you can do to get it removed, in lieu of payment or litigation?

Yes, you can record a bond to indemnify against the lien and get it discharged. That bond process is described at Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-142. In essence, the bond replaces the lien and ensures payment to the contractor, in the event the lien is deemed valid.

With a bond in place, the property can be transferred, and the lien claimant proceeds against the bond for cash, which is all they wanted in the first place.














  1. The owner’s reasonable attorney’s fees; AND
  4. Any actual damages incurred by the owner.




General Contractors, Subcontractors, Subs, and All Those Other Terms

Old habits die hard.

Growing up in Memphis, I knew our local college as “Memphis State.” Then, in 1994, the name changed to “University of Memphis.” But, guess what everybody still calls it? Memphis State.

In 2007, Tennessee’s mechanic’s lien statutes were drastically overhauled. Lots of things changed, but one of the most noticeable was in terminology.

Before 2007, everybody made distinctions between “general contractors” (i.e. those contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with the owner of the real property) and “subcontractors” (those contractors who do not have a direct contract with the owner).

After 2007, those terms changed. Now, the terms are “prime contractor” and “remote contractor.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-101 (12) and (14) provide those definitions.

The difference in rights is significant.

A prime contractor has a lien that lasts a one year after the work is finished or materials are furnished and  that lien doesn’t require any special demand or lien to be recorded in order to preserve those rights (warning: this is a drastic oversimplification).

A remote contractor has more hoops to jump through and limitations on its lien rights. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-115 describes those “hoops,” which include a requirement to serve a notice of non-payment to all parties (See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-145) and to record a Notice of Lien (See Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-112).

So, in the end, just because everybody talks about general contractors and their subs, don’t  think that the change in the laws was purely cosmetic.


Not all tenants are agents of their landlords, says Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-102(d)

When a mechanic’s lien claimant sits down with their attorney to file a mechanic’s lien on real property, the attorney generally leads with the same, initial question: Was your contract directly with the owner or did you deal with a general contractor The lien laws can take drastically different paths, based on the answer.

But, what if the contractor says: Neither, I dealt with the tenant.

In that case, it depends.

In the past, I’ve generally included a broad allegation that the tenant acted as the owner’s agent for the improvements, based on a few old common law cases.

In 2007, the legislature enacted Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-102(d), which restricted the lien claimant’s ability to assert a lien “unless the lessee is deemed to be the fee owner’s agent.”

This new statute requires a far more detailed showing from mechanic lien claimants. In determining whether the tenant acted as the owner’s agent, the statute states that “the court shall determine whether the owner has the right to control the conduct of the lessee with respect to the improvement…” Further, the Court “shall consider” the following four factors:

  1. Whether the lease requires the lessee to construct a specific improvement on the fee owner’s property;
  2. Whether the cost of the improvement actually is borne by the fee owner through corresponding offsets in the amount of rent the lessee pays;
  3. Whether the fee owner maintains control over the improvement; and
  4. Whether the improvement becomes the property of the fee owner at the end of the lease.

So, to be clear, it’s no longer of simply alleging that a tenant was the owner’s agent. Instead, there is now a clear(er) statutory framework that must be followed.

Simply having a landlord tenant relationship isn’t enough to impute agency for lien purposes. This statute appears to require that the tenant truly acted at the direction of the landlord.

While there haven’t been any Tennessee cases on this statute, legal commentaries have described this as setting a fairly high burden on parties claiming a lien. This may reflect the fairly conservative nature of the Tennessee legislature, but, given the specific text, I’m betting our courts will enforce it as written.