Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Gregory Ringenberg filed lawsuits in April 2021 in Tennessee Chancery Court against neighboring property owners regarding boundary line disputes and access road use. In August 2023, Plaintiff initiated federal court action against the United States. In August 2024, Plaintiff amended his complaint to join 20 neighbors as defendants. Plaintiff now seeks a Writ of Attachment for Monroe County Tax Parcel 139-006.00 to seize unknown tracts of land from unidentified neighbors who have evaded notice and litigation. The Court DENIED the motion because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for attachment exist under Tennessee law, provided no evidence that unknown defendants exist, and could not identify anyone for whom attachment would apply. Service by publication had already been granted to satisfy notice requirements.
Issues
Whether Plaintiff can establish grounds for attachment under Tennessee law for unknown property owners who cannot be served by ordinary means, and whether the plaintiff has met their burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that grounds for attachment exist under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-6-101
Holdings
The court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Attachment (Doc. 90) seeking attachment of real property within Monroe County Tax Parcel 139-006.00. The court found that Plaintiff could not meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that any grounds for attachment exist under Tennessee law, as Plaintiff failed to identify any potential defendants with an interest in the property or show concealment of any defendant.
Legal Principles
- Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more grounds for attachment exist. Allegations in support of attachment must be based on something more than mere speculation. The enumerated causes for attachment are strictly construed.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 gives federal courts jurisdiction to impose remedies available under state law to secure satisfaction of a potential judgment. To attach property under Tennessee law, a plaintiff must state under oath the nature and amount of the debt or demand, and show that one or more grounds enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-6-101 exist. Plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more grounds for attachment exist, and allegations must be based on something more than mere speculation. Grounds for attachment are strictly construed.
Precedent Name
- BWI, Inc. v. Dobson-Hicks Co.
- Commerce Union Bank v. Kephart
- Pigrum v. Jordan
- Orlowski v. Bates
- Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Masters
- Eberhard v. Physicians Choice Lab. Servs., LLC
Cited Statute
- Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-6-101
- Tennessee Code Ann. § 21-1-204
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64
- Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-6-113
Judge Name
Clifton L. Corker
Passage Text
- Plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more grounds for attachment exist. Allegations in support of attachment must be based on something more than mere speculation.
- Because Plaintiff cannot identify anyone for whom a writ of attachment may apply, at best his basis for issuance of a writ is purely speculative.
- Because Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that any grounds for attachment exist under Tennessee law, this motion [Doc. 90] is DENIED.