Thursday, May 19, 2011

Court Reviews a Ruling to Prohibit Homeowners from Using their Property for Nonresidential Purposes

LONNIE E. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. CLAUDE RUSSELL BRIDGES a/k/a LEON RUSSELL, ET UX. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2011)

This appeal involves the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. A group of neighbors filed suit seeking permanently to enjoin a musician and his wife from using their property for nonresidential purposes. The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbors after a bench trial, prohibiting the homeowners from parking a tour bus, two panel trucks, and several employee vehicles on their property and ordering the homeowners to remove a portion of a parking lot and driveway built to accommodate the vehicles. The court later awarded discretionary costs to the neighbors. We reverse the grant of injunctive relief requiring the homeowners to remove a portion of the parking lot and driveway but affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/robertsl_051811.pdf

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Foreclosure publication requirements diminished

Legislation brought on behalf of the Tennessee Banker's Association--that would cut the number of times a notice of foreclosure would have to run in the newspaper from three to two--cleared what may be its last major hurdle when the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of five to four recommended for passage SB1299/HB 1920. The action has preempted efforts by the Tennessee Bar Association to enact more comprehensive reforms in the foreclosure process.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff was Barred from Bringing Suit because Defendant was Presumptive Owner of Property at Issue

ELMER ELLIOTT, JR. v. PEARL ELLIOTT, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 4, 2011)


The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that plaintiff was ousted from the property at issue, that defendant Pearl Elliott was the presumptive owner of the property due to recordation and payment of property taxes, and that plaintiff's suit was statutorily barred. We affirm.


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/elliote_050411.pdf

Monday, May 2, 2011

Court Reviews the Use of Real Property in a Common Interest Community

R. DOUGLAS HUGHES ET AL. v. NEW LIFE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2011)


In this dispute concerning the use of real property located in a common interest community, we have concluded that summary judgment based on the amendments to the restrictive covenants was not appropriate. We also find that the new owner has the authority to act as developer.


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hughesr_050211.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Reliance on Plaintiffs’ Survey Expert was Proper in a Case Involving a Boundary Dispute

GARRETT RITTENBERRY ET AL. v. KEVIN PENNELL ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2011)

In this boundary dispute, the defendant property owners argue that the trial court erred in its reliance on the survey of the plaintiffs' expert and in concluding that the road in front of the plaintiffs' property is a public county road. We have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision to credit the survey, but that the trial court erred in concluding that the disputed part of the road was a public county road. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/rittenberryg_050211.pdf

Court Reviews Whether Defendant Undertook a Reasonable Effort to Obtain a Loan

ELIZABETH C. WRIGHT, v. FREDERICO A. DIXON, III (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2011)

In this action to enforce a contract for the sale of real estate against defendant buyer, the Trial Court held that defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain a loan in accordance with the requirement to obtain a mortgage for 100% financing, and awarded damages to plaintiff for breach of the contract since the plaintiff had sold the property before trial.

On appeal, we hold that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Judge's finding that the defendant failed to put forth reasonable efforts to obtain a loan which was a condition in the contract for purchase of the property, and remand. 


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wrighte_050211.pdf