EDWARD LEE CARRUTH v. CITY OF ETOWAH (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2012)
The City of Etowah appeals a decision of the trial court leaving in place an injunction prohibiting the City from demolishing a house owned by the plaintiff, Edward Lee Carruth. The City’s Building Inspector, on behalf of the City, directed that the house be demolished. He acted pursuant to a city ordinance governing the clearing of unsafe structures.
Carruth filed a complaint seeking (1) judicial review of the administrative ruling or, in the alternative, (2) review by writ of certiorari. The trial court issued the writ and entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City from demolishing or otherwise destroying the house. Following a bench trial, the court found that (1) there was inadequate proof to sustain the City’s action; (2) Carruth did not receive a hearing from the City prior to the City’s action; (3) the City failed to make findings of fact, as required by statute, in support of its decision; and (4) the cost of repairing the house was less than fifty percent of its value. The City challenges each of the trial court’s determinations and it further challenges the trial court’s conduct of a hearing on a common-law writ of certiorari. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/carruthe_072512.pdf
Showing posts with label Injunction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injunction. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Court reviews a case involving the foreclosure of real property
ROSHEAY RAGLAND and wife, THERESA RAGLAND v. OAKLAND DEPOSIT BANK (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2012)
This appeal involves the foreclosure of real property owned by the Appellants. The Appellants filed a request for a temporary and permanent injunction, alleging that the Appellee bank that held the mortgage on the property had violated the Appellants’ rights.
After the Appellants testified at the temporary injunction hearing, the Bank moved for involuntary dismissal and the trial court dismissed the case. Both parties filed post-trial motions regarding possession of the subject property. The appellate record contains no record that either of these motions was adjudicated by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is not final, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Dismissed and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/raglandr_071212.pdf
This appeal involves the foreclosure of real property owned by the Appellants. The Appellants filed a request for a temporary and permanent injunction, alleging that the Appellee bank that held the mortgage on the property had violated the Appellants’ rights.
After the Appellants testified at the temporary injunction hearing, the Bank moved for involuntary dismissal and the trial court dismissed the case. Both parties filed post-trial motions regarding possession of the subject property. The appellate record contains no record that either of these motions was adjudicated by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is not final, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Dismissed and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/raglandr_071212.pdf
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Court reviews whether homeowners violated a previous court order that enjoined them from using sulfurous water to water their lawn
JEFFREY R. SMITH, ET AL. v. RICHARD GARVIN AND SERENA GARVIN (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2012)
Homeowners in a subdivision used water from a sulfur well to water their lawn. Neighbors complained about the noxious odor, and when the Homeowners continued to use the sulfurous water, the neighbors sought and obtained an order permanently enjoining them from using their well for irrigation purposes.
Three years later the Homeowners began using the sulfur well to water their lawn again, and the neighbors filed a petition seeking to hold the Homeowners in contempt for violating the court’s order. The Homeowners filed a retaliatory complaint against the neighbors, and the neighbors sought Rule 11 sanctions for having to defend that action.
The trial court consolidated the hearing of the two motions, and following a hearing where testimony and documentary evidence were introduced, the court found the Homeowners had willfully violated the court’s order on at least nine occasions. The court also found the Homeowners’ action was filed in violation of Rule 11 and fined the Homeowners $1,000. The Homeowners appealed, claiming the two motions should not have been heard together and that the evidence did not support the court’s finding of willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.
We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in hearing the two motions in the same proceeding, and that the evidence was not insufficient for the court to have found the Homeowners guilty of willfully violating its earlier order beyond a reasonable doubt. We thus affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/smithj_062012.pdf
Homeowners in a subdivision used water from a sulfur well to water their lawn. Neighbors complained about the noxious odor, and when the Homeowners continued to use the sulfurous water, the neighbors sought and obtained an order permanently enjoining them from using their well for irrigation purposes.
Three years later the Homeowners began using the sulfur well to water their lawn again, and the neighbors filed a petition seeking to hold the Homeowners in contempt for violating the court’s order. The Homeowners filed a retaliatory complaint against the neighbors, and the neighbors sought Rule 11 sanctions for having to defend that action.
The trial court consolidated the hearing of the two motions, and following a hearing where testimony and documentary evidence were introduced, the court found the Homeowners had willfully violated the court’s order on at least nine occasions. The court also found the Homeowners’ action was filed in violation of Rule 11 and fined the Homeowners $1,000. The Homeowners appealed, claiming the two motions should not have been heard together and that the evidence did not support the court’s finding of willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.
We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in hearing the two motions in the same proceeding, and that the evidence was not insufficient for the court to have found the Homeowners guilty of willfully violating its earlier order beyond a reasonable doubt. We thus affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/smithj_062012.pdf
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Court reviews the termination of an injunction in a case involving secured parties
SENIOR HOUSING ALTERNATIVES, INC. v. BERNARD GLOBAL LOAN INVESTORS, LTD. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2011)
Senior Housing Alternatives, Inc. ("the Borrower") filed this action against Bernard Global Loan Investors, Ltd. ("the Secured Party") asking the trial court to enjoin the Secured Party from foreclosing on a deed of trust that secured several notes on which the Borrower had defaulted. In essence, the Borrower's complaint alleges that its original lender had defrauded the Borrower and inflated the balance owed on the notes and that the Secured Party had knowledge of the fraud when it took ownership of the notes and deed of trust. The complaint alleges that the merits of the case are at issue in a federal district court in Georgia.
Despite expressing reservations about the Borrower's ability to prevail on the merits, the trial court granted it a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo in an order entered February 15, 2010. The court noted that developments in the federal court action could affect the equities and set a hearing for August 13, 2010, to "review the entire matter." Two days before the hearing date, the Secured Party filed a brief, with supporting affidavits, asking the court to dissolve the injunction. The court heard proof at a status conference and thereafter issued a memorandum opinion explaining that it was dissolving the injunction because, among other things, the court did not believe the Borrower could prevail on the merits. The Borrower appeals from the order dissolving the injunction and dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/seniorhousing_062811.pdf
Senior Housing Alternatives, Inc. ("the Borrower") filed this action against Bernard Global Loan Investors, Ltd. ("the Secured Party") asking the trial court to enjoin the Secured Party from foreclosing on a deed of trust that secured several notes on which the Borrower had defaulted. In essence, the Borrower's complaint alleges that its original lender had defrauded the Borrower and inflated the balance owed on the notes and that the Secured Party had knowledge of the fraud when it took ownership of the notes and deed of trust. The complaint alleges that the merits of the case are at issue in a federal district court in Georgia.
Despite expressing reservations about the Borrower's ability to prevail on the merits, the trial court granted it a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo in an order entered February 15, 2010. The court noted that developments in the federal court action could affect the equities and set a hearing for August 13, 2010, to "review the entire matter." Two days before the hearing date, the Secured Party filed a brief, with supporting affidavits, asking the court to dissolve the injunction. The court heard proof at a status conference and thereafter issued a memorandum opinion explaining that it was dissolving the injunction because, among other things, the court did not believe the Borrower could prevail on the merits. The Borrower appeals from the order dissolving the injunction and dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/seniorhousing_062811.pdf
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)