Court reviews whether plaintiff sufficiently established a cause of action to entitle it to a mechanic's lien on the property.

HEFFERLIN + KRONENBERG ARCHITECTS, PLLC, v. CLP DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 9, 2012)

Plaintiff brought this action claiming, inter alia, that it was entitled to a mechanics' lien on the subject property. Defendant filed Motions to Dismiss, one ground being that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Trial Court subsequently ruled that the Complaint did not establish a cause of action to entitle plaintiff to a lien on the property. Plaintiff has appealed and we hold that upon review of the Complaint, and applying the rules governing the test of the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint, that the Complaint states a cause of action. We vacate the Trial Court's Judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hefferlinpllc_040912.pdf

Court reviews whether purchaser provided an adequate reason for terminating a contract

BOURLAND, HEFLIN, ALVAREZ, MINOR & MATTHEWS, PLC v. RODNEY HEATON and MARGARET HEATON and LOEB PROPERTIES (Tenn. Ct. App. April 9, 2012)

The parties entered into a Contract for the sale and purchase of commercial real estate, and the purchaser deposited $50,000.00 earnest money. The purchaser terminated the Contract, citing the economic downturn and the purchaser’s resulting inability to secure retail tenants for its planned development. The parties disputed whether such termination was appropriate under the Contract, and thus, whether the purchaser was entitled to a return of its earnest money.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchaser and further awarded the purchaser its attorney fees and expenses. We find the economic downturn did not provide an appropriate basis for termination of the Contract. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the purchaser, and we enter summary judgment in favor of the sellers. The sellers shall be awarded the $44,362.57 remaining in the escrow account, and the purchaser shall pay the sellers an additional $5,637.43, for a total of $50,000.00. Additionally, pursuant to the Contract, the sellers are awarded attorney fees and expenses incurred in both the trial court and in this Court, and we remand for a determination of such award.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/bourlandheflin_040912.pdf

Tennessee Supreme Court determines whether a city's ordinance substantially interferes with a firework dealer's use of land

SNPCO, INC. v. CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY ET AL. (Tenn. March 26, 2012)

This appeal involves the question of whether a city’s ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within its city limits implicates Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b) (Supp. 2008) which permits pre-existing nonconforming businesses to continue to operate despite a “zoning change.”

After the City of Jefferson City annexed the property on which a fireworks retailer’s business was located, the retailer filed suit in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County seeking compensation for a regulatory taking or, in the alternative, for a declaration that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b) permitted it to continue to sell fireworks.

The trial court dismissed the retailer’s complaint in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, No. E2009-02355-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272744, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2010). We granted the retailer’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to clarify the application of the “substantial interference” test in Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004) to ordinances such as the one involved in this case.

We have determined that our decision in Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville requires consideration of both the terms and effects of the challenged ordinance. Thus, the courts must first determine whether the challenged ordinance relates to the city’s “general plan of zoning.” If the courts determine that the challenged ordinance relates to the city’s general plan of zoning, then, and only then, may the courts ascertain whether the ordinance results in a “substantial interference” with the use of land.

Based on this record, we have determined that Jefferson City’s challenged ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within its city limits is not related to the city’s general plan of zoning. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the courts below.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/snpcoinc_032612.pdf

Court reviews whether members of a planning commission had conflicts of interest in a rezoning application

FRED H. GILLHAM v. CITY OF MT. PLEASANT, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2012)

A residential property owner challenged the procedures used by a planning commission and city commission in granting a rezoning application submitted by two industrial companies. The companies asked that the zoning for 95.2 acres of land be changed from agricultural to special impact industrial for the purpose of developing a landfill to dispose of salt cake produced as a byproduct of their smelting businesses. The property owner also asserted that two of the commissioners had a conflict of interest and that their participation granting the application invalidated the procedure. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court granted the defendants’ motions after concluding the planning commission and city commission complied with the procedural requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §§13-7-203(a) and 6-20-215 and that the two commissioners had no conflict of interest since they had no ownership interest in the rezoning applicants. We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the property owner’s complaint.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/gillhamf_033012.pdf

Court Sides with Property Owners over EPA

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that property owners have a right to prompt review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance orders that block activities on lands determined to be protected.

In the case, an Idaho couple contested the EPA’s determination that their lot contained wetlands regulated by the Clean Water Act. They also complained there was no reasonable way to challenge that determination without risking fines that could mount quickly.

The court rejected EPA's argument that allowing judicial review would compromise the agency's ability to deal with water pollution, allowing the couple to contest the EPA’s determination in federal court.

Read the full story at the Knoxville News Sentinel website.

Court reviews a claim to set aside a quitclaim deed

KATHRYN M. CLAIBORNE V. LARRY W. GOLDSTON (Tenn. Ct. App. March 28, 2012)

In this case, Kathryn M. Claiborne sought to set aside a quitclaim deed relating to property given to Larry W. Goldston. The trial court set aside the deed but awarded damages to Larry W. Goldston based upon his counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Kathryn M. Claiborne appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/claibornek_032812.pdf