That seems kind of pedantic. From what the original commenter said, my immediate interpretation of it was that the obligation to procure the money and pay up is on his side, not that the $200k must be 'his' in some other way. It doesn't matter what source he gets it from, but the bill is on him to pay.
For what its worth I thought the same thing -- that he had to get it himself -- as I already assumed to get a bail bond you still had to pay a percent first. I guess I have been desensitized enough towards absurd laws being from Texas that the idea of TN (or other southern/red states) passing something like that would not be shocking. I do appreciate the clarification/explanation.
> my immediate interpretation of it was that the obligation to procure the money and pay up is on his side, not that the $200k must be 'his' in some other way
I suppose. I honestly read it as suggesting he, personally, had to come up with that money. The law is cruel. But as positioned, it seems like you'd just have an industry of secondary lenders.
