Monday, January 30, 2012

Court reviews a case involving real property subject to foreclosures and tax sales

TODD MARSH, ET AL. v. LARRY A. STORIE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 26, 2012)

Todd Marsh and Kari Marsh ("Plaintiffs") sued Larry A. Storie ("Storie") and First Tennessee Bank National Association ("First TN Bank") with regard to, among other things, ownership of real property which had been the subject of both a tax sale and a foreclosure sale. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order on January 4, 2011 granting partial summary judgment dismissing First TN Bank from the case, and certifying the judgment as final as to First TN Bank pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claims against First TN Bank. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/marsht_012612.pdf

Friday, January 20, 2012

Court reviews a boundary line dispute between parties who hired their own surveyors

MARY LEE MARTIN v. S. DALE COPELAND (Tenn. Ct. App. January 20, 2012)

In this boundary line dispute, plaintiff sued defendant, the adjoining property owner, and defendant countersued. Each of the parties employed their own surveyors who testified at the trial, and the Trial Court ultimately established a boundary line between the parties. Defendant appealed to this Court. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/martinn_013012.pdf

Monday, January 9, 2012

Court reviews a case involving the approval of a planned unit development

CK DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. TOWN OF NOLENSVILLE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 9, 2012)

The Developer of a Planned Unit Development in Nolensville sought final approval from the planning commission of phase 7 of the development. The planning commission conditioned its approval of the plan on the developer's agreement to construct the roads in phase 7 in accordance with more recent road standards that were adopted in 2007. The developer filed a petition for writ of certiorari claiming it had vested rights in the earlier road standards and that complying with the more rigorous standards would require it to spend more money than it had originally planned.

The trial court agreed with the developer and concluded that it had vested rights in the earlier road standards. The town appealed.

We reverse the trial court's decision because the developer did not rely on any final governmental approval, the application of the improved road standards was not a zoning change, and the developer has neither engaged in substantial construction of phase 7 nor incurred substantial liabilities with respect to phase 7. We also reject the developer's argument that the planning commission exceeded its jurisdiction by acting in a legislative rather than an administrative capacity when it determined the developer was required to comply with the 2007 road standards.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/ckdevelopment_010912.pdf

Friday, January 6, 2012

Court reviews whether the terms of a sublease makes the sublessee liable for paying property taxes

2850 PARKWAY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, v. C. DAN SCOTT, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 5, 2012)

Plaintiff brought an action for declaratory judgment, asking the Court to declare that while plaintiff's sublease required it to pay the property taxes, the master lease required the lessor to pay the property taxes, and asked the Court to declare the lessor liable for the property taxes. Following trial, the Trial Court declared that the sublessee was liable for the property taxes, as it agreed to pay under the sublease. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court on the grounds that under the fact of this case, plaintiff is equitably estopped to avoid paying property taxes, as agreed to in the sublease.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/2850parkway_010512.pdf

Thursday, January 5, 2012

TN Supreme Court determines the proper procedure for obtaining judicial review of a local legislative body's land use decision under the Jackson Law

DAVE BRUNDAGE ET AL. v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY ET AL. (Tenn. December 19, 2011)

This appeal calls into question the proper procedure for obtaining judicial review of a local legislative body's land use decision under the "Jackson Law," Tenn. Code Ann. sections 68-211-701 to -707 (2011). The opponents of a coal ash landfill, approved by the Cumberland County Commission, filed a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not verified as required by Tenn. Code Ann. sections 27-8-106 (2000). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Brundage v. Cumberland Cnty., No. E2010- 00089-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3025538, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2010).

We granted the petitioners' application for permission to appeal because the Jackson Law does not specifically define the procedure for seeking judicial review of a local legislative body's decisions. We have determined (1) that a local legislative body's decision under the Jackson Law may be challenged either by a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari or by a complaint for declaratory judgment and (2) that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred by failing to treat the statutory petition for writ of certiorari as a complaint for declaratory judgment.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2011/brundaged_121911.pdf