To appeal a Tennessee general sessions court ruling to circuit court, do I have to post a surety bond, or will a cash bond work?

Plain-English summary

This opinion is a clarification of an earlier opinion of the AG's Office (Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-23, Feb. 23, 2013) addressing the bond required to perfect an appeal from a Tennessee General Sessions Court to a Circuit Court. The earlier opinion answered the specific question put to it in terms of a "surety bond," and stated that the appealing party had to provide a surety bond. The current opinion is asked whether the Tennessee Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. 2014), changed that.

The AG says the conclusion of Op. 12-23 is correct as far as it went: paying costs to the General Sessions Court Clerk under § 8-21-401(a) does not relieve a party from posting "bond with security" under § 27-5-103. But Op. 12-23 used "surety bond" and "bond with security" interchangeably, and that conflation is what Griffin disturbed. In Griffin, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the bond requirement under § 27-5-103 does not necessarily require an unlimited surety bond; a cash bond is sufficient. A surety bond is one form of "bond with security," but not the only one.

The clarified bottom line: a party must post a bond with security to perfect an appeal from General Sessions to Circuit Court. Any bond with security, including a surety bond or a cash bond, satisfies § 27-5-103, and the bond may be limited in amount as determined by the court reviewing it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can I post a cash bond on appeal from General Sessions Court?
A: Under the opinion's reading of Griffin, yes. A cash bond satisfies the § 27-5-103 "bond with security" requirement.

Q: What is a "bond with security"?
A: A bond backed by some form of security to ensure the appellant pays the costs of the appeal. A surety bond is one familiar form (a surety company guarantees payment). A cash bond is another (cash deposited with the court). Other forms can qualify if they actually secure the costs.

Q: Does paying court costs to the General Sessions Court Clerk count as the bond?
A: No. Op. 12-23 answered that question, and this opinion reaffirms: paying clerk costs under § 8-21-401(a) is separate from posting the bond required by § 27-5-103. The bond requirement is jurisdictional in the sense that the appeal is not perfected without it (City of Red Boiling Springs v. Whitley).

Q: Can the appellant be exempted from posting bond?
A: Yes. Section 27-5-103 itself allows a "pauper's oath" in lieu of bond for parties who cannot afford one.

Q: What if I posted a cash bond before Griffin and someone challenged it?
A: Griffin is binding precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court, and it applies to appeals decided after it was handed down. The opinion confirms that conclusion in the AG's view.

Background and statutory framework

Section 27-5-103 has long required a "bond with security" to perfect an appeal from an inferior court (general sessions, city court) to circuit court. The statute's text refers generically to "bond with security" and authorizes a pauper's oath as an alternative. Older Tennessee Court of Appeals authority (Whitley) treated the bond as a jurisdictional precondition.

The lingering question, prior to Griffin, was whether "bond with security" meant a traditional surety bond or whether other forms (cash, real-property pledge) sufficed. The Tennessee Supreme Court in Griffin read the statutory language literally, concluded a cash bond is sufficient, and held that the bond can be limited in amount. The current opinion adopts that reading and clarifies the AG's earlier opinion to align with it.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 (appeal bond from general sessions court)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-21-401(a) (payment of costs to general sessions clerk)

Cases:

• Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. 2014) (Tennessee Supreme Court; cash bond suffices)
• City of Red Boiling Springs v. Whitley, 777 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (Tennessee Court of Appeals; bond is a jurisdictional precondition)

Earlier AG opinion clarified:

• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-23 (Feb. 23, 2013)

Subject

Opinion No. 15-05, Bonds with Security Posted for Appeals from General Sessions Court, January 16, 2015

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2015/op15-05.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
January 16, 2015
Opinion No. 15-05
Bonds with Security Posted for Appeals from General Sessions Court

QUESTION

Does the recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. 2014), alter the conclusion reached on Question 1 in Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-23 (Feb. 23, 2013) regarding the need to post a surety bond to perfect an appeal from a General Sessions Court to a Circuit Court?

OPINION

No. However, the Griffin opinion does require a clarification of the prior opinion of this Office. Opinion 12-23 correctly states that Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 generally requires a "security bond" to perfect an appeal from a General Sessions Court to a Circuit Court. It also opines specifically that "a party must provide a surety bond to perfect an appeal from General Sessions to Circuit Court." While that opinion is correct, it requires clarification to the extent that it implies that a surety bond is the only "security bond" that meets the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103.

We therefore now revise Opinion 12-23 to clarify that a party must post a bond with security to perfect an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court and that any "bond with security," including but not limited to a surety bond and a cash bond, will satisfy the "bond with security" requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103.

ANALYSIS

Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-5-103 governs the bond-posting requirements for appealing from a decision of a General Sessions Court. It provides in relevant part:

(a) Before the appeal is granted, the person appealing shall give bond with security, as hereinafter provided, for the costs of the appeal, or take the oath for poor persons.

(b) An appeal bond filed by a plaintiff or defendant pursuant to this chapter shall be considered sufficient if it secures the cost of the cause on appeal.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103.

The first question (Question 1) addressed by this Office in Opinion 12-23 was whether an appealing party who pays costs to the General Sessions Court Clerk under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-21-401(a) "must . . . also submit a surety bond under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 to perfect the appeal?" In response to that specific question about a "surety bond," this Office answered in the affirmative, opining that the party "must provide a surety bond" to perfect the appeal. Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-23 at p. 1 (Feb. 23, 2013). This Office also explained that the payment of costs in the General Sessions Court did not in and of itself relieve an appealing party from posting "bond with security" as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103. Id. at pp. 1-2. See also City of Red Boiling Springs v. Whitley, 777 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (stating that "[t]he requirement of a bond in order to perfect an appeal from an inferior court to the circuit court is not a formality" and "[t]he appeal is not perfected without it.").

This opinion request now asks whether the 2014 decision in Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d 899 (Tenn. 2014) alters the opinion we rendered on Question 1 in Opinion 12-23. Although the conclusions reached in Opinion 12-23 are correct, clarification is required, particularly in light of Griffin, to the extent that Opinion 12-23 suggests that only a surety bond can satisfy the "bond with security" requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103.

Griffin v. Campbell Clinic dealt with the bond requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 in a slightly different context than did Opinion 12-23. The Tennessee Supreme Court in Griffin addressed the type and amount of the bond required under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103. Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d at 903-05. Finding the language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 to be unambiguous, the Court held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 does require a "bond with security" to perfect an appeal, but found that the bond need not necessarily be "a surety bond in an unlimited amount" and that "a cash bond is sufficient to satisfy the appeal bond requirement" of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103. Id. at 905.

The Griffin decision thus does not conflict with—and indeed supports—the conclusion of this Office in Opinion 12-23 that the payment of costs to the General Sessions Court Clerk under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-21-401(a) does not relieve a party appealing a decision of the General Sessions Court from posting "bond with security" as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103. Nonetheless, Opinion 12-23 does need to be clarified to the extent that it used the terms "bond with security" and "surety bond" interchangeably, Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 12-23 at pp. 1-2, when, in fact, "surety bond" is a subset of "bond with security."

As the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized in Griffin, the "bond with security" requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103 can be met by a cash bond rather than a surety bond and the amount of the bond may be limited in amount as determined by the court reviewing the type and amount of bond posted. Thus, Griffin reinforces the general understanding that a surety bond is one type of "bond with security," but that it is not the only type of "bond with security."

HERBERT H. SLATERY III
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

WILLIAM E. YOUNG
Associate Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Karen D. Camper
State Representative
32 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243-0187