Blog

The Grant, Konvalinka and Harrison, P.C. law firm is pleased to announce that Kane Shepherd has joined the firm as an associate.

For over a century, the border running between Georgia and Tennessee has been the subject of debate between the two states.Georgia claims that its northern border, which is essentially a straight line that separates Georgia from Tennessee and North Carolina, should be placed approximately one mile further north than it currently stands.

In early January 2018, in case you were not aware, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed the Southside Chattanooga Lead Site to be added to the Superfund Program’s National Priorities List (“NPL”). Superfund, as established by Congress in 1980, investigates and cleans up sites in the United States that have been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because the site poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. When a site is on the NPL, it undergoes a comprehensive evaluation to determine the nature and extent of contamination, an estimation of current and future risks, an analysis of cleanup alternatives, and the design and construction of the selected cleanup plan. Sites placed on the NPL are eligible to receive federal funding for long-term cleanup. EPA deletes sites from the NPL once all response actions are complete and all cleanup goals have been achieved.

On January 26, 2018, the Western Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed what happens when a commercial tenant holds over the term of a lease in Jones v. VCPHCS I, LLC, No. W2016-02142-COA-R3-CV.

In a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, the Court pierced the corporate veil and affirmed an award of damages, including punitive damages, against the corporation's sole shareholder. In Dog House Investments, LLC v. Teal Properties, Inc., et al., Defendant corporation was the Lessor of real property owned by Lessor's sole shareholder to the Plaintiff dog "camp." After the property was damaged in the 2011 Nashville flood, Lessor's sole shareholder refused to fix the building (as was required by the Lease) and pocketed the insurance proceeds that were supposed to be used for such repairs. Defendant corporation apparently had no assets, no purpose, and no operations other than to collect rent and distribute it to its sole shareholder.

A federal District Court in New York recently determined that an executor of an estate was personally liable for an IRS levy when he distributed funds to a beneficiary after being notified of the levy. U.S. v. Michel, (2012 D.C.N.Y.) 110 AFTR 2d 2012-5117. Liability attached even though the executor's attorney advised him that the levy had been satisfied. The court determined that the attorney was not a necessary party in order to determine whether the IRS could prevail against the executor. The court determined that even if the executor had acted in good faith, the absence of intentional or negligent conduct was not relevant to his liability under Internal Revenue Code Section 6332 for failing to satisfy the levy.

The Marshes' claims against the mortgagee were based on the theory that, because the property had been sold at a tax sale prior to the mortgagee's foreclosure, the mortgagee had no interest in the property that could have been sold; thus, the Marshes were "flim-flammed" when they paid the mortagee $26,000 for the property.