Day on Torts

No wrongful foreclosure cause of action in Tennessee.

Tennessee does not recognize a common law cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.

In Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., No. E2021-00378-SC-R11-CV, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2024), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that there is no tort for wrongful foreclosure in Tennessee. In the underlying case, plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to give required written notice when the foreclosure sale for plaintiff’s home was postponed. Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting several causes of action, but only appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the tort claim of wrongful foreclosure.

The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff that notice was required, and it reversed summary judgment on the wrongful foreclosure claim. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that no such claim exists in Tennessee.

Discoverability of Surveillance Films

On Wednesday, December 4, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard an oral argument about the ability of a plaintiff to discover surveillance films a defendant took.  Here is how the Court described the background of the case:

Plaintiffs/Appellants Teresa and Randy Locke filed a health care liability action alleging that Defendants/Appellees negligently performed a surgery on Ms. Locke’s colon.  While the case was pending, Defendants hired a private investigator to take surveillance videos of the Plaintiffs in an attempt to show that Ms. Locke was exaggerating her injuries.  Thereafter, the Defendants expressed their intention to use some of the surveillance footage at trial.  The Plaintiffs sought to obtain all the private investigator’s surveillance videos, including those that the Defendants did not intend to use at trial.  The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ request under the work-product doctrine, requiring the Defendants to produce only the videos they intend to use at trial.  The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shielding the surveillance videos from discovery and affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit production to the videos that the Defendants intended to use at trial.  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether a litigant has a “substantial need” under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(3) to obtain surveillance footage collected in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial when the party who conducted the surveillance designates some, but not all, of the surveillance footage for use at trial.

The oral argument is being conducted at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, as part of the Court’s SCALES program.  It begins at 9:00 a.m. and will be live-streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel.

Recent Articles: