The Tennessee Supreme Court has unanimously held that courts may not retroactively correct — or “reform” — deeds when doing so would harm parties with valid recorded liens on the property and would benefit others who bought the property with notice of the liens. In Tennessee, courts have the authority to correct an error in a written agreement if it was caused by the mutual mistake of the parties. To correct such a mistake, the parties must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the document does not accurately reflect their agreement and the error was not caused by the gross negligence of the party seeking to correct it. But in the case at hand, the court found that two banks would be deprived of their property liens if an unintended error was corrected.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today vacated a decision from Judge Lee V. Coffee in a post-conviction relief case due to comments he made during proceedings. Coffee denied the post-conviction relief claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and in his oral ruling from the bench, compared the post-conviction process in Tennessee to a football game, called the petitioner’s claims “almost absolutely laughable,” expressed a preference for Texas law and expressed doubt that the petitioner’s trial attorneys could ever be ineffective. The high court ruled that Coffee’s comments would indicate to a reasonable person that the decision to deny relief was based as much on the judge’s disdain for, and disagreement with, Tennessee law regarding post-conviction procedures and his belief that trial counsel were so preeminent, skilled, and knowledgeable that they could never be ineffective in any case as on the evidence presented at the hearing. The court also reviewed whether Coffee’s comments called into question his impartiality for future post-conviction relief cases, but “stopped inches short” of drawing that conclusion since the comments appeared to be isolated and not habitual. Read the full story from the Tennessee State Courts website.

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to four new cases this past Monday. Issues to be considered include termination of parental rights, negative reciprocal easements, res judicata and the gang enhancement statute. Read more about these cases in the latest Raybin Supreme Court Hot List.

The Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday adopted amendments to Rule 7, which governs the admission and licensing of attorneys in the state. The changes, requested by the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners, relate to the standard for character and fitness in Section 6.01, conditional admission in Section 10.05 and various technical changes and corrections. The deadline to accept comments closed on June 22. The court reports that three comments were received.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Wednesday vacated a temporary injunction that gave all registered voters in the state the option of casting a ballot by mail, the Tennessean reports. Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle had ruled to expand absentee voting in June, ordering the state to accept fear of catching or transmitting COVID-19 as a valid reason to vote by mail. During oral argument last week, lawyers for the state changed their stance on who qualified to vote by mail, telling the high court that those with a “special vulnerability” to the virus and their caretakers would be allowed to vote by absentee ballot. Based on the state’s new interpretation of the statute, the justices concluded that the injunction was not necessary since those especially vulnerable to the virus already qualified for absentee voting. They also ruled that fear of COVID-19 among individuals who aren’t especially vulnerable to the virus does not qualify them to vote by mail. Absentee ballots mailed for today’s primary election will still be counted, but state election officials have told counties to “sit tight” before making a game plan for the November election. Read more on the 4-1 ruling at the Tennessee State Courts website.

Faith leaders, judges, attorneys and other members of Tennessee’s religious and legal communities gathered online recently to discuss ways to work together and expand access to justice in the state. During the summit, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Connie Clark discussed the history of the Access to Justice Commission and its faith and justice initiative. Attendees also heard from speakers on the front lines of efforts to expand access to justice through faith-based partnerships as well as judges who are coordinating programs such as safe baby courts. Read more about the summit and access video recordings of several of the sessions.

The Tennessee Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission today released its 2020 Strategic Plan, which outlines the group’s goals for the next two years, specifies the actions necessary to meet those goals and describes how successes and impact will be measured. The 2020 plan explores the Commission’s role in addressing racism in the justice system and follows the Supreme Court’s statement addressing the racism and injustice that remain a mortal threat to the lives of Black people. According to the plan, action items needed to eliminate barriers to racial fairness include the creation of live virtual training sessions on implicit bias, racial injustice, poverty and related topics developed for all judicial and legal system participants. The Commission will also host one large scale virtual training event each quarter and will work with its faith-based initiatives to develop ongoing virtual town halls. Read the full strategic plan on the Tennessee State Courts website.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on the expansion of absentee voting, the Tennessean reports. The high court heard arguments on whether concerns over the spread of the COVID-19 virus is a valid excuse to receive an absentee ballot. A lower court ruled last month that it was, but the state has appealed that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. Janet Kleinfelter, the attorney for the state, was questioned by all five justices, with Justice Sharon Lee reportedly becoming frustrated when asking Kleinfelter about the state’s position on voters with underlying health risks. Kleinfelter told the court that voters with health issues, or those living with them, would be able to request an absentee ballot. That position contradicts previous statements from Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who was quoted in mid-May as saying, “fear of getting ill does not fall under the definition of ill.” Kleinfelter argued that the lower court erred in its ruling, which she said was open ended with "no limitation" on how long the state is mandated to apply the lower court's interpretation of the statute. It’s unclear when the justices will rule on the issue, with Chief Justice Jeff Bivins calling the decision an “incredibly important case for all Tennesseans.” You can watch the full recording of oral arguments on the TNCourts YouTube page. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in two lawsuits seeking to make absentee voting available to all eligible Tennesseans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hearing will be live streamed starting at 10:30 a.m. CDT on the court’s YouTube page. On June 4, a lower court ruled the state must make absentee voting available to every eligible voter for all elections in 2020, including the Aug. 6 primary and Nov. 3 general election. The state has appealed. Learn more about the cases: Earle J. Fisher et al v. Tre Hargett et al., and Benjamin Lay et al. v. Mark Goins et al.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear one part of Graceland’s appeal of a December 2019 ruling upholding the dismissal of its case against the City of Memphis, the Daily Memphian reports. Graceland is arguing that it should be allowed to seek public financing for a 6,200-seat arena in Whitehaven. Plans were announced for that arena in 2017, with the first phase including a tax increment financing incentive involving the use of property taxes and approved by the Economic Development Growth Engine board. But, the part of the Memphis Grizzlies organization that operates the FedEx Forum objected to that financing, arguing it violated a noncompete clause they have with Memphis and Shelby County. Specifically, that clause forbids local government from providing economic or tax incentives to any new indoor arena with seating capacity of more than 5,000 or fewer than 50,000. Graceland has since filed two lawsuits that were both dismissed for lack of standing. The appeals court upheld the dismissal and that dismissal is what will go before the Supreme Court. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.