Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Court reviews whether a home owners' association properly amended its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues

GRAND VALLEY LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. DENNIS BURROW (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)

Appellant, the owner of several lots in a subdivision managed and maintained by the Appellee home owners association, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the question of whether Appellant owed an increase in dues and fees on his lots, and the denial of his counter-claims for fraud, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, outrageous conduct, and invalidity of the restrictive covenants on grounds that these causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or the doctrine of laches.

We conclude that the Appellee followed the correct procedure in amending its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues. However, because the trial court did not make findings, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04, concerning the grounds for its application of laches, we cannot review the question of whether Appellant's counter-claims were properly dismissed. Vacated and remanded.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grandvalley_122811.pdf

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Court reviews a case involving the alleged fraudulent concealment of flooding in a house that was sold by defendants

G. KENNETH CAMPBELL ET AL. v. JAMES E. HUDDLESTON ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 27, 2011)

James E. Huddleston and his wife, Patricia M. Huddleston ("the Sellers"), sold their house to G. Kenneth Campbell and his wife, Teresa J. Campbell ("the Buyers"). The Buyers inquired of the Sellers as to whether there had been flooding in the house. The Sellers disclosed that there had been one flood in the basement to a depth of six inches.

During the course of some later renovations, the Buyers became aware the Sellers had indicated, on a wall stud, that there had been a 1998 flood in the basement to a depth of 38 inches. They also learned the Sellers had made an insurance claim for another flood in 2003 that was nearly one-foot deep.

The Buyers filed this tort action sounding in fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation. The Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, since the Buyers were made aware of the one "six inch" flood, they could not have relied on the misrepresentations with respect to the full extent of the two flooding events. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The Buyers appeal. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings before a different trial judge.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/campbellg_122711.pdf

Monday, December 26, 2011

Court determines the existence of an easement

CHARLIE LEE INGRAM v. REBECCA AND RANDY WASSON (Tenn. Ct. App. December 22, 2011)

This appeal concerns the existence of an easement. The dispute between the two adjoining landowners began after the defendant landowners blocked the plaintiff neighboring landowner's access to a roadway crossing over the defendants' property. The plaintiff landowner filed this action seeking condemnation or a finding of an implied easement for access to the roadway over the defendants' property, arguing that his property was landlocked. Upon the admission into evidence of several affidavits, the trial court found both an easement implied from prior use and, in the alternative, an easement created by necessity. The defendant landowners now appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/ingramc_112211.pdf

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Court reviews whether plantiff properly exercised its right to terminate a contract for the sale of real property

CAMERON GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. KINGSTON PIKE, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. December 21, 2011)

Cameron General Contractors, Inc., a Nebraska corporation ("Cameron"), sued Kingston Pike, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Kingston Pike"), for breach of a contract concerning the sale of real property located in Knoxville, Tennessee. Prior to trial, Cameron elected to exercise its contractual right to terminate the contract, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the contract did not limit Cameron to the return of its earnest money, and granting Cameron a judgment against Kingston Pike for damages in the amount of $872,418.22, plus attorney's fees of $137,656.56. Kingston Pike appeals to this Court. We find and hold that the contract at issue clearly and unambiguously provides that once Cameron chose to terminate the contract, Cameron's sole remedy for Kingston Pike's breach was a return of Cameron's earnest money deposit. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court's October 28, 2010 order.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cameron_122111.pdf

Court reviews whether plaintiffs were fraudulently induced to sign a sewer easement agreement with the City of Memphis

FRANCES SEWARD BENNETT and DON SEWARD v. CITY OF MEMPHIS (Tenn. Ct. App. December 21, 2011)

Plaintiffs sued the City of Memphis, claiming that they were fraudulently induced to sign a sewer easement agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Memphis. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bennettf_122111.pdf

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Court reviews a breach of contract claim against a landlord

JOHN RUFF v. REDDOCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 1, 2011)

Tenant filed suit against his former landlord and the current owner of premises that tenant leased alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and violations of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Trial court dismissed tenant's claim against the former landlord holding that the landlord was exempt from suit pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 66-28-305. The court dismissed the claim against the current owner because tenant failed to comply with the fourteen day pre-suit notice requirement at Tenn. Code Ann. section 66-28-501(a). Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/ruffj_120111.pdf