Commercial Real Estate at Thompson Burton
Thompson Burton PLLC provides effective commercial real estate solutions for business and property owners in the Nashville area. Our
commercial real estate lawyers are available to serve as your real estate transaction coordinator, land use attorney, or advisor on all other commercial real estate matters, such as:
- Commercial real estate closing costs
- Commercial real estate transactions
- Commercial real estate loans
- Types of commercial leases
- Contractual agreements
- Zoning laws
- Intellectual property laws
- Commercial real estate taxes
- Commercial litigation
- Bankruptcy and creditors’ rights
Our attorneys in Nashville, TN. have extensive experience representing commercial real estate clients from entrepreneurs to landlords to multi-location business owners.
Nashville Commercial Litigation Attorney
At Thompson Burton PLLC, we ensure that our clients and their properties stay protected. As a commercial real estate owner, you may experience disputes regarding incorrect zoning laws, leasing disagreements, tenant complications, loans, or property taxes at some point. If you require legal assistance in any of these areas and are searching for a commercial real estate attorney in Nashville, TN., don’t hesitate to contact our local law firm.
Our dedicated team of commercial litigation attorneys includes
Walt Burton, a founding partner of Thompson Burton PLLC. Walt Burton is a
highly acclaimed attorney known for his impeccable approach to detail when representing clients in real estate transactions, leasing, real estate finance, acquisition, and disposition.
Commercial Real Estate Lawyer Near Me
Thompson Burton’s commercial real estate attorneys are available to serve you throughout the Nashville area. To learn more about our commercial real estate attorneys and how we can assist you, give us a call or
contact us to schedule an initial consultation with our practice. We look forward to working with you.
In December, I wrote an article about the FDIC’s fervent pursuit of lawsuits against former directors and officers of failed banks in Georgia. At the time, the FDIC had elected to sue directors and officers at 11 of the approximately 85 banks that have failed in Georgia during this economic downturn. Since I published that article, the FDIC has continued its onslaught against the directors and officers of failed banks in Georgia by filing 2 additional lawsuits last month. Both lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Georgia against former directors and officers of First Security National Bank, which was based in Norcross, Georgia, and Rockbridge Commercial Bank, which was based in Atlanta, Georgia. The complaints against the directors and officers of these banks are substantially similar to the complaint against the directors and officers of Buckhead Community Bank that I discussed previously. In the case against First Security […]
Continue Reading
I’m currently advising a bank client regarding the purchase of a loan secured by distressed retail commercial real estate. There are numerous reasons lenders decide to buy and sale loans. Often, sellers are facing liquidity demands, regulatory pressure, lack of experience working out a specific type of distressed asset, or simple portfolio realignment. Buyers often have excess capital to lend or invest, possess the experience to work out a distressed loan, or simply want to try and get control of the note to attempt to foreclose on the underlying commercial real estate. Recently, it seems like most sales that I see are regulatory related, as banks are pressured to move underperforming or disfavored industry-specific loans (i.e. homebuilder, retail, leisure) out of their portfolios, sometimes at significant discounts. Many loan sales occur after the FDIC has seized a lending institution and placed it into receivership. Loan sales can include pools of […]
Continue Reading
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen commercial real estate construction projects come in under budget. It never fails that last minute changes, upgrades, or “surprises” cause costs to be higher than expected. Most of the time, one’s construction budget has been pre-approved by the lender and all draw requests are made as one progresses from beginning to end of the project. So what happens if the lender isn’t really paying attention, funds all draw requests, and construction funds run out while the project is only partially completed? Whose fault is it? A question raised by this perpetual problem is what obligation, if any, does your lender have to make sure that your project is progressing appropriately and that the money that the lender has provided for the project is being used appropriately or prudently. Recently, the Tennessee Court of Appeals decided a case involving […]
Continue Reading
In response to the thousands of foreclosures of commercial and residential real estate that have taken place across Tennessee over the last few years, the legislature overhauled the Tennessee Deficiency Statute, which governs a lender’s collection of the balance owed by a borrower after foreclosure occurs. The Tennessee deficiency law, which is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. Section 35-5-118, provides generally as follows: Subsection (a) confirms that Lenders are entitled to deficiency judgments in Tennessee. Sub-section (b) defines a deficiency judgment as “the total amount of indebtedness prior to the sale plus the costs of the foreclosure and sale, less the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale” and codifies the principle that a sale at public auction creates a rebuttable presumption that the sale price of the property is equal to the fair market value of the property at the time of sale. Subsection […]
Continue Reading
The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently decided an important case addressing whether lenders are required to notify property insurers regarding commencement of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against residential or commercial real estate. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., No. W2012-00053-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2012). In the US Bank case, the owner of the residence failed to make timely mortgage payments, and the bank commenced foreclosure proceedings. Soon thereafter, the owner filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the foreclosure proceedings. After the foreclosure proceedings were stayed, the residence was destroyed in a fire, apparently as a result of methamphetamine production in the home. After the fire, the bank made a claim to recover insurance proceeds, and the insurance company refused to pay the claim. The insurance company’s refusal to pay the claim was based on the bank’s failure to notify the insurance company regarding commencement of foreclosure. The […]
Continue Reading
