Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Court reviews whether homeowner's fence violates restrictive covenants of their subdivision

MICHAEL D. HERSHEY ET AL. v. WALLACE CATHEY ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010)

This is an action to enforce a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a subdivision. The trial court found the defendant homeowners erected a fence without having obtained proper approval from the Architectural Control Committee, that the fence was in violation of restrictive covenants, and that the fence must be removed. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that defendants failed to obtain the necessary approval to construct the fence and that the fence is in violation of restrictive covenants; thus, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hersheym_072710.pdf

Court reviews whether a city is estopped from refusing to re-zone property based on a verbal commitment

STONEYBROOK GOLF COURSE, LLC v. CITY OF COLUMBIA (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010)

Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC, purchased approximately 190 acres of land ("the Property") - on part of which was located a golf course - with plans to develop the vacant land surrounding the course. Before purchasing the Property, Stoneybrook met with the mayor and other officials of the City of Columbia and received their verbal assurances of strong support for the annexation of the 190 acres into the City and the re-zoning of the area to permit the building of condominiums.

After Stoneybrook purchased the Property, the city council of Columbia refused to go forward with the annexation and re-zoning until a comprehensive land use plan could be completed against which to evaluate the proposed re-zoning. Stoneybrook filed this action against the City, claiming, in essence, that the City's refusal to act promptly in accord with the verbal "commitment" constitutes an unconstitutional moratorium and, alternatively, that the City is estopped from refusing to re-zone the Property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings. Stoneybrook appeals. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stoneybrook_072710.pdf

Monday, July 19, 2010

Court reviews case involving an easement claim

MARY LOU GAMMO v. RICHARD ROLEN, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2010)

The parties were previously before this Court in an appeal by reason of an easement claim by the plaintiff. This Court ruled that plaintiff had an easement, and we remanded the case to the Trial Court and defendants filed a motion to determine the extent of the easement. A trial ensued and the Trial Judge ordered defendants to remove a gate and a fence which impaired plaintiff"s use of her easement. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court, as modified.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rolenr_071910.pdf

Monday, July 12, 2010

Court reviews whether trial court properly found for Plaintiff in an eviction action

DICKSON HOUSING AUTHORITY v. IDA PEARL GRIMES, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2010)

The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Dickson Housing Authority in this eviction action. Finding the trial court admitted no evidence which would support the Housing Authority's allegations of amounts earned by Defendant tenant, we reverse.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/grimesi_071210.pdf

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Court reviews case regarding ownership of a portion of road that crosses landowners' property

JOANN BUTLER ET AL. v. MARION COUNTY, TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2010)

Landowners filed suit to determine ownership of that portion of Ann Wilson Road that crosses their property. Defendants sought and were granted summary judgment based on the running of several statutes of limitations. Landowners appealed. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/butlerj_070110.pdf