Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion

DecidedMarch 20, 2014

DocketW2013-00367-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion (Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 20, 2014 Session

TONIE V. PETERSON v. GLENN E. LEPARD ET AL.

Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT002421

No. W2013-00367-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 20, 2014

SEPARATE CONCURRENCE

______________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J.,W.S., concurring separately

Because the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103 were clearly not met in this case, I concur fully in the result reached in this case. However, I write separately again to express my disagreement with this Court’s holding in Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, L.L.C., No. W2012-00803-COA-R3, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013) namely, that the statutory requirement of giving “bond with good security” for “the cost of the cause on appeal” is not satisfied by paying an initial filing fee. I find the statute unambiguous, and therefore, there is no need to attempt to discern legislative intent based upon the less than compelling legislative history of various statutory schemes relied upon by the majority in Bernatsky.

_________________________________ ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 20, 2014 Session

TONIE V. PETERSON v. GLENN E. LEPARD ET AL.

Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT002421

No. W2013-00367-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 20, 2014

SEPARATE CONCURRENCE

______________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J.,W.S., concurring separately

Because the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103 were clearly not met in this case, I concur fully in the result reached in this case. However, I write separately again to express my disagreement with this Court’s holding in Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, L.L.C., No. W2012-00803-COA-R3, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013) namely, that the statutory requirement of giving “bond with good security” for “the cost of the cause on appeal” is not satisfied by paying an initial filing fee. I find the statute unambiguous, and therefore, there is no need to attempt to discern legislative intent based upon the less than compelling legislative history of various statutory schemes relied upon by the majority in Bernatsky.

_________________________________ ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tonie v. Peterson v. Glenn E. Lepard - Concurring Opinion, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tonie-v-peterson-v-glenn-e-lepard-concurring-opini-tennctapp-2014.