Friday, February 24, 2012

Court reviews whether a re-zoned are was improperly classified due to "spot zoning"

ADELAIDA FIELDING ET AL. v. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF LYNCHBURG, MOORE COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 1, 2012)

The plaintiffs filed this declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a re-zoning ordinance on the grounds that it constitutes illegal "spot zoning," and that the re-zoned area was improperly classified in violation of the local general zoning ordinance. The trial court upheld the re-zoning ordinance, finding it was enacted in furtherance of public safety goals and that the re-zoning classification was reasonable and rational. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/fieldinga_020112.pdf

Tennessee Joins Agreement with Major Financial Institutions

Tennessee will participate in the $25 billion agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers, according to Attorney General Bob Cooper. The agreement arises from an investigation into unacceptable nationwide mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. The servicers participating in this agreement, which was announced today, are Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citi, GMAC/Ally Financial, and Wells Fargo.

Once approved by the court, the agreement will provide an estimated $146 million in relief to Tennessee homeowners and addresses future mortgage loan servicing practices.

“This agreement avoids protracted and costly litigation while providing significant and tangible relief to distressed homeowners,” said Cooper. “The benefits of this agreement today far outweigh the possible benefits that might be obtained after several years in court. Homeowners need the help now and an orderly resolution of these claims is in everyone’s interests.”

Read the full article at:
http://www.tba2.org/tbatoday/news/2012/mortgageagreement_020912.pdf

Friday, February 17, 2012

Court reviews a malicious prosecution case that arose out of a dispute between neighbors

JAMES COLEMAN v. LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. STEVE SANDERS, SHERIFF OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY; AND HARRY R. HOPKINS, JR., DEPUTY SHERIFF OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY (Tenn. Ct. App. February 15, 2012)

This is a malicious prosecution case arising out of a dispute between neighbors. A dispute arose when the plaintiff neighbor hired a tree service to trim the branches of a tree near the border between the two neighbors' properties. After a confrontation, the police were called. After they arrived, the police cited both neighbors on charges of disorderly conduct. After the charges against the plaintiff neighbor were dismissed, he filed this malicious prosecution action against the defendant county and two of the police officers involved. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff neighbor now appeals. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/colemanj_021512.pdf

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Lance Coleman: Hilton loses property tax exemption, ordered to pay $60,000 in back taxes (KNS)

Land the Airport Hilton sits on is exempt from property taxes, but a state judge has ruled the building out of which the business operates is not exempt, and that translates into about $30,000 a year the hotel now will be required to pay in property taxes.

Blount County Property Assessor Mike Morton announced the recent ruling affecting the Alcoa Highway hotel on Wednesday.

Administrative Law Judge Brook Thompson handed down the ruling resulting in Blount County receiving at least $30,000 in property taxes annually from the Hilton. Morton said he made the ruling public Wednesday because of the upcoming budget decisions for fiscal 2012-2013.

Full article located at: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/feb/08/hilton-loses-property-tax-exemption-ordered-to/

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Court reviews the award of an easement in a boundary line dispute

MICHAEL HONG v. LEROY FOUST, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 8, 2012)

In this boundary line dispute, the defendants sought to claim property beyond a road known as "Creek Road." The trial court concluded that the road constituted the defendants' southern boundary.

However, because the plaintiff's complaint sought the adoption of a survey that conceded a small strip of land south of Creek Road to the defendants, along with the fact that the plaintiff testified that he believed that the defendants owned some property south of Creek Road, the trial court granted the defendants a strip alongside the road about four feet deep.

After the defendants moved to conform their pleading to the proof and sought relief under the doctrine of adverse possession, the trial court reopened the proof to consider adverse use. Another opinion was issued awarding the defendants a strip extending approximately ten feet from the southern edge of Creek Road. The defendants appeal. We affirm the findings of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/hongm_020812.pdf