BEVERLY C. SMITH v. RONNIE R. SMITH ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. February 22, 2008).
Buyers of commercial property, who were denied possession of that property for a period of two years, appeal from the trial court's determination that they failed to carry their burden of proving a fair rental value for one of the three units of the property. Finding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination, we reverse.
Opinion available at the Tennessee Bar Association website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/smithb_022208.pdf
"The unrebutted testimony of Ronnie Smith established a fair rental value of $600 per month for C Building. Moreover, the cancelled checks of Mr. Buckner supported Mr. Smith’s testimony concerning his current rental agreement with Mr. Buckner, which includes $600 in rent for C Building. The amount Ronnie Smith and Mr. Bucker agreed to in an arms-length transaction is at least some evidence of the rental value at the time of the breach. See BanccorpSouth, 223 S.W.2d at 231; Myer v. Whitacre, No. 01-A-01-9701-CH00014, 1997 WL 367483, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 1997). ... In this context, the $600 rental value for C Building does not seem disproportionate, speculative, or unfair." Id.
February 21, 2008
Court takes the plain meaning of a homeowner's association declaration to find that developer's obligation to pay fees had not commenced
CORDOVA THE TOWN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GILL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 21, 2008).
This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cordovat_091208.pdf
"Resolution of this dispute requires interpretation of the terms of the Declaration. At the outset, we note that our construction of the Declaration must proceed as would construction of any other written agreement. [] Accordingly, our first concern is the contracting parties’ mutual intent. [] If we find the Declaration to be unambiguous as it is written, the intention of the parties will be determined by the Declaration’s plain meaning. [] If a material part of the Declaration appears to be ambiguous, we look to extrinsic evidence. The ambiguity may be resolved against the party who drafted the Declaration." Id. (citations omitted).
"It is undisputed that the lots for which the assessments are sought are owned by Gill Development or were owned by Gill Development at one time. It is also undisputed that the improvements on those lots were incomplete at the time when the assessments were allegedly due. Accordingly, Gill Development’s obligation to pay assessments had not yet commenced." Id.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cordovat_091208.pdf
"Resolution of this dispute requires interpretation of the terms of the Declaration. At the outset, we note that our construction of the Declaration must proceed as would construction of any other written agreement. [] Accordingly, our first concern is the contracting parties’ mutual intent. [] If we find the Declaration to be unambiguous as it is written, the intention of the parties will be determined by the Declaration’s plain meaning. [] If a material part of the Declaration appears to be ambiguous, we look to extrinsic evidence. The ambiguity may be resolved against the party who drafted the Declaration." Id. (citations omitted).
"It is undisputed that the lots for which the assessments are sought are owned by Gill Development or were owned by Gill Development at one time. It is also undisputed that the improvements on those lots were incomplete at the time when the assessments were allegedly due. Accordingly, Gill Development’s obligation to pay assessments had not yet commenced." Id.
Court looked to understandings between parties to a real estate transaction and awarded a prescriptive easement for access
WILLARD D. GORE, ET AL. v. TONY STOUT, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 20, 2008)
This appeal involves a dispute between two landowners over use of a route across the defendants' land that the plaintiffs use for access to their nearby land. Plaintiffs filed suit contending they had a right to use the disputed route. The trial court determined that the route had been dedicated and accepted as a public road, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants' land, and that the plaintiffs had a right to use the road by adverse possession. We have determined that the contested section of the route is not a public road, that adverse possession does not apply, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants' land.
Opinion available at the Tennessee Bar Association website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/gorew_022008.pdf
"To establish a public road by implication, the proponent must satisfy two requirements. First, the landowner must intend to dedicate the road to the public. McCord v. Hays, 302 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tenn. 1957). Second, the public must expressly or impliedly accept the road. Id. The burden of proof is heavy. In short, the proponent must present 'proof of facts from which it positively and unequivocally appears that the owner intended to permanently part with his property and vest it in the public, and that there can be no other reasonable explanation of his conduct. In other words, dedication is a question of intention, and the intent must be clearly and satisfactorily proven.' ... Mr. Stout asked the county to gravel the entire length of the track. But this was just an attempt to get a little free work, to “gouge” the county as Mr. Stout put it. His intent was to save money, not to donate a road to the county. The county declined his request." Id. (quoting McKinney v. Duncan, 118 S.W. 683, 684 (Tenn. 1909)).
"An easement is an interest in another's real property that confers on the easement holder an enforceable right to use that real property for a specific use. Brew v. Van Deman, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 433, 436 (1871)). The most common form of an easement is a right of passage across another's property. Shew v. Bawgus, 227 S.W.3d 569, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). In Tennessee, easements can be created in several ways: (1) express grant, (2) reservation, (3) implication, (4) prescription, (5) estoppel, and (6) eminent domain. Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114, 115-16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). A prescriptive easement is an implied easement that is premised on the use of the property rather than language in a deed. Shew, 227 S.W.3d at 578. To create a prescriptive easement, the use and enjoyment of the property must be adverse, under a claim of right, continuous, uninterrupted, open, visible, exclusive, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient tenement, and must continue for the full prescriptive period. Pevear, 924 S.W.2d at 116 (citing Keebler v. Street, 673 S.W.2d 154 (Tenn. Ct, App. 1984). The proponent must prove each of the elements by “clear and convincing evidence.” Stone v. Buckley, 70 S.W.3d 82, 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). In Tennessee the prescriptive period is twenty years. Nashville Trust Co. v. Evans, 206 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947). ... All of this evidence – Johnson and Mr. Gore’s discussions, the fact that there is no other feasible access to Gore’s land, and their use of the route both before and after the sale – can only lead to one conclusion: Johnson and Gore had a parol understanding that Johnson was transferring the right to use the route." Id.
This appeal involves a dispute between two landowners over use of a route across the defendants' land that the plaintiffs use for access to their nearby land. Plaintiffs filed suit contending they had a right to use the disputed route. The trial court determined that the route had been dedicated and accepted as a public road, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants' land, and that the plaintiffs had a right to use the road by adverse possession. We have determined that the contested section of the route is not a public road, that adverse possession does not apply, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants' land.
Opinion available at the Tennessee Bar Association website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/gorew_022008.pdf
"To establish a public road by implication, the proponent must satisfy two requirements. First, the landowner must intend to dedicate the road to the public. McCord v. Hays, 302 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tenn. 1957). Second, the public must expressly or impliedly accept the road. Id. The burden of proof is heavy. In short, the proponent must present 'proof of facts from which it positively and unequivocally appears that the owner intended to permanently part with his property and vest it in the public, and that there can be no other reasonable explanation of his conduct. In other words, dedication is a question of intention, and the intent must be clearly and satisfactorily proven.' ... Mr. Stout asked the county to gravel the entire length of the track. But this was just an attempt to get a little free work, to “gouge” the county as Mr. Stout put it. His intent was to save money, not to donate a road to the county. The county declined his request." Id. (quoting McKinney v. Duncan, 118 S.W. 683, 684 (Tenn. 1909)).
"An easement is an interest in another's real property that confers on the easement holder an enforceable right to use that real property for a specific use. Brew v. Van Deman, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 433, 436 (1871)). The most common form of an easement is a right of passage across another's property. Shew v. Bawgus, 227 S.W.3d 569, 578 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). In Tennessee, easements can be created in several ways: (1) express grant, (2) reservation, (3) implication, (4) prescription, (5) estoppel, and (6) eminent domain. Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114, 115-16 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). A prescriptive easement is an implied easement that is premised on the use of the property rather than language in a deed. Shew, 227 S.W.3d at 578. To create a prescriptive easement, the use and enjoyment of the property must be adverse, under a claim of right, continuous, uninterrupted, open, visible, exclusive, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient tenement, and must continue for the full prescriptive period. Pevear, 924 S.W.2d at 116 (citing Keebler v. Street, 673 S.W.2d 154 (Tenn. Ct, App. 1984). The proponent must prove each of the elements by “clear and convincing evidence.” Stone v. Buckley, 70 S.W.3d 82, 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). In Tennessee the prescriptive period is twenty years. Nashville Trust Co. v. Evans, 206 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947). ... All of this evidence – Johnson and Mr. Gore’s discussions, the fact that there is no other feasible access to Gore’s land, and their use of the route both before and after the sale – can only lead to one conclusion: Johnson and Gore had a parol understanding that Johnson was transferring the right to use the route." Id.
February 02, 2008
Tennessee statute mandates that local governments contracting with "pure" construction managers must use competitive bidding and licensed contractors
Local Government Contracts With "Pure" Construction Managers
TN Attorney General Opinions
Date: 2008-02-01
Opinion Number: 08-16
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2008/ag_08_16.pdf
"Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-4-106(a)(1) does not prohibit local government contracts for 'pure' construction managers from being awarded based on competitive bids. ... Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(1), any corporation engaged in contracting in Tennessee must be licensed as provided in the Contractors Licensing Act of 1994, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-101, et seq. ... Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-107 does not authorize counties to contract with 'pure' construction managers without competitive bidding. Rather, that statute permits local governments to contract with construction managers to superintend construction projects." Id.
TN Attorney General Opinions
Date: 2008-02-01
Opinion Number: 08-16
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2008/ag_08_16.pdf
"Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-4-106(a)(1) does not prohibit local government contracts for 'pure' construction managers from being awarded based on competitive bids. ... Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(1), any corporation engaged in contracting in Tennessee must be licensed as provided in the Contractors Licensing Act of 1994, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-101, et seq. ... Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-7-107 does not authorize counties to contract with 'pure' construction managers without competitive bidding. Rather, that statute permits local governments to contract with construction managers to superintend construction projects." Id.
January 28, 2008
Get it in writing: a ledger entry plus testimony provides evidentiary basis to defeat claim of amendment of JV agreement to construct a home for sale
STINSON, INC. v. JOHNATHAN ANDREW COOK (Tenn.Ct.App. January 25, 2008).
The two parties to this appeal entered into a joint venture based upon an oral agreement, the purpose of which was to construct a house with the intent to sell the house on the open market. Unfortunately, no one agreed to purchase the house, and thus, pursuant to the venturers' oral agreement, the defendant purchased the house "at cost." The plaintiff sued the defendant contending it was entitled to an additional $30,000 based upon an alleged subsequent agreement by the defendant to purchase the lot upon which the house was constructed for $50,000 even though the plaintiff's cost to purchase the lot was $20,000. The trial court found the parties' agreement provided that the defendant would purchase the house and lot at cost, that the cost of the lot was $20,000, and that the defendant had paid the plaintiff all it was entitled to receive. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cookj_012508.pdf
"And two times in this matter, the lot in question, 157, was shown of an actual cost of $20,000. It was shown on the oath of Mr. Stinson upon the transfer from Plantation Properties to Stinson, Incorporated, and it was shown on the Stinson job ledger sheet. And by a preponderance of the evidence, the cost of the lot was $20,000. ... As the foregoing reveals, the trial court found that the parties’ agreement provided that Cook would purchase the lot “at cost,” that the lot cost Stinson $20,000, and that Cook paid Stinson all of its costs, including $20,000 it was entitled to receive for the cost of the lot. Moreover, the court did not find that the parties had entered into a subsequent agreement or that they had amended their joint venture agreement." Id.
The two parties to this appeal entered into a joint venture based upon an oral agreement, the purpose of which was to construct a house with the intent to sell the house on the open market. Unfortunately, no one agreed to purchase the house, and thus, pursuant to the venturers' oral agreement, the defendant purchased the house "at cost." The plaintiff sued the defendant contending it was entitled to an additional $30,000 based upon an alleged subsequent agreement by the defendant to purchase the lot upon which the house was constructed for $50,000 even though the plaintiff's cost to purchase the lot was $20,000. The trial court found the parties' agreement provided that the defendant would purchase the house and lot at cost, that the cost of the lot was $20,000, and that the defendant had paid the plaintiff all it was entitled to receive. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cookj_012508.pdf
"And two times in this matter, the lot in question, 157, was shown of an actual cost of $20,000. It was shown on the oath of Mr. Stinson upon the transfer from Plantation Properties to Stinson, Incorporated, and it was shown on the Stinson job ledger sheet. And by a preponderance of the evidence, the cost of the lot was $20,000. ... As the foregoing reveals, the trial court found that the parties’ agreement provided that Cook would purchase the lot “at cost,” that the lot cost Stinson $20,000, and that Cook paid Stinson all of its costs, including $20,000 it was entitled to receive for the cost of the lot. Moreover, the court did not find that the parties had entered into a subsequent agreement or that they had amended their joint venture agreement." Id.
January 21, 2008
The law of adverse possession and related legal doctrines are thoroughly examined in this court opinion
ROGER BALL and CARROL E. ROSE, LLC., v. BRUCE MCDOWELL, Individually and as Next Friend for D.B., C.B., B.B., Children under the age of Eighteen (18) years, PENNY CAYLOR, GARY ESTES, BRYAN KEITH BROCK, WARREN YONTS and PAULINE YONTS and JAMES D. YONTS (Tenn.Ct.App. January 18, 2008).
In this action, plaintiffs ask the Court to declare their easement across defendants' lands be cleared of all encroachments and that defendants be barred from interfering with their use. The Trial Court ruled for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal on the grounds they proved adverse possession of the easement for more than seven years, and plaintiffs are barred from interfering with their use by Tenn. Code Ann. section 28-2-103. We reverse the Trial Court's Judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/ballr_011808.pdf
"At trial, plaintiffs did not offer any evidence to rebut the testimony regarding the use of the 50 ft. easement. The Trial Court incorrectly applied the law, when it refused to find that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28 - 2 - 103 barred plaintiffs’ cause of action. The Trial Court further erred when it found that there was no adverse possession because “the owner had no actual notice of the claim of adverse possession.” A showing of actual knowledge is not necessary if the possession is so open and notorious that there is an implied presumption of that fact. Kirkman v. Brown, 93 Tenn. 476, 27 S.W. 709, 710 (Tenn.1894). The evidence establishes defendants’ possession was open and notorious. Moreover, plaintiffs offered no testimony as to whether they were aware of the defendants’ activities or not." Id.
In this action, plaintiffs ask the Court to declare their easement across defendants' lands be cleared of all encroachments and that defendants be barred from interfering with their use. The Trial Court ruled for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal on the grounds they proved adverse possession of the easement for more than seven years, and plaintiffs are barred from interfering with their use by Tenn. Code Ann. section 28-2-103. We reverse the Trial Court's Judgment.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/ballr_011808.pdf
"At trial, plaintiffs did not offer any evidence to rebut the testimony regarding the use of the 50 ft. easement. The Trial Court incorrectly applied the law, when it refused to find that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28 - 2 - 103 barred plaintiffs’ cause of action. The Trial Court further erred when it found that there was no adverse possession because “the owner had no actual notice of the claim of adverse possession.” A showing of actual knowledge is not necessary if the possession is so open and notorious that there is an implied presumption of that fact. Kirkman v. Brown, 93 Tenn. 476, 27 S.W. 709, 710 (Tenn.1894). The evidence establishes defendants’ possession was open and notorious. Moreover, plaintiffs offered no testimony as to whether they were aware of the defendants’ activities or not." Id.
January 17, 2008
Simple tool doctrine is abolished because it is essentially a variation of the assumption of risk defense
CHARLES ROBERT BAGGETT v. BEDFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE (Tenn.Ct.App. January 16, 2008).
This is a comparative negligence case. The plaintiff prisoner was incarcerated at the defendant county's jail. The inmates were given an opportunity to earn a reduction in their sentences by performing construction work to expand the jail's workhouse facility. The plaintiff volunteered for this program and was assigned the task of hanging cement board on the walls of the workhouse; the jail provided the plaintiff with a scaffold and a step ladder. The plaintiff was told to hang one of the boards at a height that could not be reached by standing on the scaffold alone. To perform the task, the plaintiff put the ladder on top of the scaffold and climbed the ladder. In doing so, he lost his balance, the scaffold collapsed, and he fell to the floor, sustaining serious injuries.
The plaintiff prisoner sued the county under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, seeking damages for his injuries. The county moved for summary judgment, asserting the simple tool doctrine and comparative negligence. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse, finding, inter alia, that the simple tool doctrine is a form of assumption of the risk and, as such, has been abolished in favor of comparative negligence.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/baggettc_011608.pdf
"The simple tool doctrine is clearly grounded in the principle of implied assumption of risk, unequivocally abolished in Perez. Because the simple tool doctrine is a variation of assumption of risk, we hold that it too must be considered abolished in favor of comparative negligence." Id.
This is a comparative negligence case. The plaintiff prisoner was incarcerated at the defendant county's jail. The inmates were given an opportunity to earn a reduction in their sentences by performing construction work to expand the jail's workhouse facility. The plaintiff volunteered for this program and was assigned the task of hanging cement board on the walls of the workhouse; the jail provided the plaintiff with a scaffold and a step ladder. The plaintiff was told to hang one of the boards at a height that could not be reached by standing on the scaffold alone. To perform the task, the plaintiff put the ladder on top of the scaffold and climbed the ladder. In doing so, he lost his balance, the scaffold collapsed, and he fell to the floor, sustaining serious injuries.
The plaintiff prisoner sued the county under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, seeking damages for his injuries. The county moved for summary judgment, asserting the simple tool doctrine and comparative negligence. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse, finding, inter alia, that the simple tool doctrine is a form of assumption of the risk and, as such, has been abolished in favor of comparative negligence.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/baggettc_011608.pdf
"The simple tool doctrine is clearly grounded in the principle of implied assumption of risk, unequivocally abolished in Perez. Because the simple tool doctrine is a variation of assumption of risk, we hold that it too must be considered abolished in favor of comparative negligence." Id.
December 27, 2007
Trial court believes construction company's testimony over homeowner; Reasonable opportunity to cure violated by prohibiting contractor from entering
DAVID LAVY d/b/a DL CONSTRUCTION v. JOAN CARROLL (Tenn.Ct.App. December 27, 2007).
This is a home construction case in which the homeowner appeals the trial court's decision finding her liable to the contractor for the amount remaining due under their original agreement as well as for subsequently authorized modifications. The homeowner contended below that the contractor's work was defective, but the trial court ruled that she was required to have given the contractor notice of any defects in his work and then afforded him a reasonable opportunity to cure these alleged deficiencies. On appeal, the homeowner argues that the trial court erred both in finding that she had not done this and in holding that these actions were required of her as a matter of law. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/lavyd_122707.pdf
"Mr. Lavy testified that he was prohibited from ever returning to Ms. Carroll’s property after the incident on January 22, 2005. Testimony from Mr. Underhill corroborated Mr. Lavy’s account of these events. Thus, there was certainly evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Mr. Lavy had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to cure. Put simply, the trial court believed Messrs. Lavy and Underhill rather than Ms. Waite. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), we conclude that Ms. Carroll’s argument here is without merit." Id
"The trial court did not find that Mr. Lavy had been previously notified of any problems with his work, nor did it find that Mr. Lavy had ever refused to address any issues that had been brought to his attention. It did find, however, that, soon after he made his request for final payment, Ms. Carroll’s agents prohibited him from reentering the property. While Ms. Carroll contends that Mr. Lavy’s requesting payment and making filings with the Register of Deeds relieved her of the obligations imposed by McClain and Carter, she has failed to cite any law which would support this proposition. Likewise, the Court is unaware of any such authority. Filings under the lien law would have no effect on her duty to first give the contractor notice of the claimed defects and then allow him a reasonable opportunity to cure." Id
This is a home construction case in which the homeowner appeals the trial court's decision finding her liable to the contractor for the amount remaining due under their original agreement as well as for subsequently authorized modifications. The homeowner contended below that the contractor's work was defective, but the trial court ruled that she was required to have given the contractor notice of any defects in his work and then afforded him a reasonable opportunity to cure these alleged deficiencies. On appeal, the homeowner argues that the trial court erred both in finding that she had not done this and in holding that these actions were required of her as a matter of law. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/lavyd_122707.pdf
"Mr. Lavy testified that he was prohibited from ever returning to Ms. Carroll’s property after the incident on January 22, 2005. Testimony from Mr. Underhill corroborated Mr. Lavy’s account of these events. Thus, there was certainly evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Mr. Lavy had not been provided a reasonable opportunity to cure. Put simply, the trial court believed Messrs. Lavy and Underhill rather than Ms. Waite. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), we conclude that Ms. Carroll’s argument here is without merit." Id
"The trial court did not find that Mr. Lavy had been previously notified of any problems with his work, nor did it find that Mr. Lavy had ever refused to address any issues that had been brought to his attention. It did find, however, that, soon after he made his request for final payment, Ms. Carroll’s agents prohibited him from reentering the property. While Ms. Carroll contends that Mr. Lavy’s requesting payment and making filings with the Register of Deeds relieved her of the obligations imposed by McClain and Carter, she has failed to cite any law which would support this proposition. Likewise, the Court is unaware of any such authority. Filings under the lien law would have no effect on her duty to first give the contractor notice of the claimed defects and then allow him a reasonable opportunity to cure." Id
"Virgin" land surveys may trump multiple prior surveys based on the same inaccuracy
RALPH DAVIS, ET AL. v. DANIEL CUEL, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 27, 2007).
In this boundary line dispute, Ralph Davis and his wife Jackie Davis ("the Davises") sued Daniel Cuel and Francine Cuel ("the Cuels"), alleging that the Cuels had improperly claimed a portion of the Davises' property as their own. Existing surveys supported the Cuels' claim, but the Davises asserted that a prior agreement gave them the right to an additional 0.42-acre tract ("the southern disputed area") on the Cuels' side of the survey boundary. The Cuels, meanwhile, believed that they were entitled to more land than the existing surveys indicated, so they hired a surveyor, Dave Bruce, to conduct a new survey ("the Bruce survey"). The Bruce survey indicated that the Cuels are entitled not only to the southern disputed area, but also to an additional area north of it ("the northern disputed area"), on what the earlier surveys had regarded as the Davises' side. The Bruce survey further indicated that an additional tract claimed by the Davises, immediately north of the northern disputed area, is actually a county right-of-way.
The trial court adopted the Bruce survey and awarded both the northern and southern disputed areas to the Cuels. As a consequence of this ruling, the Davises, the plaintiffs in this case, actually end up with less land than they started with. They appeal, claiming that the evidence preponderates against the court's factual findings, and also that they should have prevailed on a theory of estoppel or acquiescence. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the court's findings, and, even assuming that the Davises did not waive their alternative theories of recovery at trial, the evidence does not support those theories. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/davisr_122707.pdf
"Disregarding the deposition, we find no merit in the Davises’ claim that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The Davises note that the Bruce survey contradicts four earlier surveys, including Mr. Crutchfield’s, which all showed the boundary line at the same place. However, as noted earlier, Mr. Bruce testified that his was a “virgin” survey, and the court was entitled to credit it over the prior, non-virgin surveys; the number of previous surveys reaching a contrary conclusion certainly does not create a preponderance where those earlier surveys were, according to testimony that the court was entitled to accept, all built upon one another. Similarly, it is not dispositive that the parties’ own deeds lack any reference to the right-of-way that the Bruce survey defines as the boundary. The testimony indicated that Mr. Bruce relied on documents which pre-dated those deeds, including deeds that preceded them in the chains of title. The court was entitled to believe that the “virgin” Bruce survey, based in part on early deeds and tax maps that Mr. Crutchfield did not consider, more accurately describes the boundary in question than the Crutchfield “retracing” survey does." Id.
In this boundary line dispute, Ralph Davis and his wife Jackie Davis ("the Davises") sued Daniel Cuel and Francine Cuel ("the Cuels"), alleging that the Cuels had improperly claimed a portion of the Davises' property as their own. Existing surveys supported the Cuels' claim, but the Davises asserted that a prior agreement gave them the right to an additional 0.42-acre tract ("the southern disputed area") on the Cuels' side of the survey boundary. The Cuels, meanwhile, believed that they were entitled to more land than the existing surveys indicated, so they hired a surveyor, Dave Bruce, to conduct a new survey ("the Bruce survey"). The Bruce survey indicated that the Cuels are entitled not only to the southern disputed area, but also to an additional area north of it ("the northern disputed area"), on what the earlier surveys had regarded as the Davises' side. The Bruce survey further indicated that an additional tract claimed by the Davises, immediately north of the northern disputed area, is actually a county right-of-way.
The trial court adopted the Bruce survey and awarded both the northern and southern disputed areas to the Cuels. As a consequence of this ruling, the Davises, the plaintiffs in this case, actually end up with less land than they started with. They appeal, claiming that the evidence preponderates against the court's factual findings, and also that they should have prevailed on a theory of estoppel or acquiescence. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the court's findings, and, even assuming that the Davises did not waive their alternative theories of recovery at trial, the evidence does not support those theories. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/davisr_122707.pdf
"Disregarding the deposition, we find no merit in the Davises’ claim that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The Davises note that the Bruce survey contradicts four earlier surveys, including Mr. Crutchfield’s, which all showed the boundary line at the same place. However, as noted earlier, Mr. Bruce testified that his was a “virgin” survey, and the court was entitled to credit it over the prior, non-virgin surveys; the number of previous surveys reaching a contrary conclusion certainly does not create a preponderance where those earlier surveys were, according to testimony that the court was entitled to accept, all built upon one another. Similarly, it is not dispositive that the parties’ own deeds lack any reference to the right-of-way that the Bruce survey defines as the boundary. The testimony indicated that Mr. Bruce relied on documents which pre-dated those deeds, including deeds that preceded them in the chains of title. The court was entitled to believe that the “virgin” Bruce survey, based in part on early deeds and tax maps that Mr. Crutchfield did not consider, more accurately describes the boundary in question than the Crutchfield “retracing” survey does." Id.
Use of a product manufacturer's literature in a contract does not establish agency; Employee's use of "we" and "us" may not be used to pierce the veil
CHARLES BURNETTE, ET AL. v. THE ESTATE OF RICHARD GUIDER, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 27, 2007).
Charles Burnette and Imogene Burnette ("Homeowners") allege that their driveway was damaged as a result of the faulty repair work of Concrete Maintenance Specialists ("CMS"), a company that employed, among others, Brian Cupp ("Cupp"). The repairs by CMS made use of a product sold by Fischl Enterprises, Inc., aka Lone Star Epoxies ("Lone Star"). Art Fischl is the principal of this corporation. No defect in the product is alleged, only a faulty installation by employees of CMS. Homeowners sued CMS, Cupp, Lone Star and several others (collectively "Defendants") seeking damages, claiming that CMS is directly liable, Lone Star is liable because CMS was its agent, and Cupp is liable because CMS's corporate veil should be pierced and Cupp is a principal of CMS. Cupp and Lone Star each filed a motion for summary judgment. Cupp argues that he was only an employee of CMS, not a principal, and thus could not be liable even if CMS's corporate veil were pierced. Lone Star argues that CMS was not its agent. The trial court granted both motions. Homeowners appeal, arguing that they successfully demonstrated the existence of material factual disputes regarding the issues pertaining to Cupp and Lone Star, and also that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment before ruling on Homeowners' motion to compel. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/burnettec_122707.pdf
"King states that “[m]uch of the technical information and some of the marketing information utilized by CMS were actually Lone Star documents which CMS used replacing the name ‘Lone Star Epoxies’ with the name ‘Concrete Maintenance Specialists’ which gave the impression that the products were actually CMS products.” This statement fails to help Homeowners because it does not allege that Lone Star played any role in altering the documents, which would be necessary to establish that they were representations or conduct of the purported principal rather than of the purported agent. In addition, the foundation of King’s statement is unclear, and she does not allege that the documents were actually used to make representations to Homeowners, only that the documents existed. This is clearly inadequate to create a disputed issue of material fact on the issue of apparent agency." Id.
"The affidavit of Burnette, one of the homeowner plaintiffs, states that he “was informed by Brian Cupp that he managed employees and supervised work such that he gave orders to perform certain work on my driveway[.]” Burnette further quotes Cupp as making various statements about CMS using words like “we” and “our.” To bolster this argument, Homeowners point to a lengthy transcript of a recorded telephone conversation between Burnette and Cupp. Homeowners argue in their brief that Cupp’s statements to Burnette are evidence that Cupp “held himself out as a person with management authority.” This they may be, but they are not evidence that he is a principal of the company. A mere employee may exercise “management authority,” and certainly may refer to his employer as “we” or “us.” An employee may also promise that his employer company will get work done by a date certain, and he may order subordinate employees to do the work. None of these actions suggest principal status. To hold Cupp liable on a veil-piercing theory, Homeowners needed to provide evidence that he is not merely a “person with management authority” of an alleged “joint family venture,” but that he is a principal, shareholder, officer or director of the company, whatever its corporate status. This they have failed to do." Id.
Charles Burnette and Imogene Burnette ("Homeowners") allege that their driveway was damaged as a result of the faulty repair work of Concrete Maintenance Specialists ("CMS"), a company that employed, among others, Brian Cupp ("Cupp"). The repairs by CMS made use of a product sold by Fischl Enterprises, Inc., aka Lone Star Epoxies ("Lone Star"). Art Fischl is the principal of this corporation. No defect in the product is alleged, only a faulty installation by employees of CMS. Homeowners sued CMS, Cupp, Lone Star and several others (collectively "Defendants") seeking damages, claiming that CMS is directly liable, Lone Star is liable because CMS was its agent, and Cupp is liable because CMS's corporate veil should be pierced and Cupp is a principal of CMS. Cupp and Lone Star each filed a motion for summary judgment. Cupp argues that he was only an employee of CMS, not a principal, and thus could not be liable even if CMS's corporate veil were pierced. Lone Star argues that CMS was not its agent. The trial court granted both motions. Homeowners appeal, arguing that they successfully demonstrated the existence of material factual disputes regarding the issues pertaining to Cupp and Lone Star, and also that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment before ruling on Homeowners' motion to compel. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/burnettec_122707.pdf
"King states that “[m]uch of the technical information and some of the marketing information utilized by CMS were actually Lone Star documents which CMS used replacing the name ‘Lone Star Epoxies’ with the name ‘Concrete Maintenance Specialists’ which gave the impression that the products were actually CMS products.” This statement fails to help Homeowners because it does not allege that Lone Star played any role in altering the documents, which would be necessary to establish that they were representations or conduct of the purported principal rather than of the purported agent. In addition, the foundation of King’s statement is unclear, and she does not allege that the documents were actually used to make representations to Homeowners, only that the documents existed. This is clearly inadequate to create a disputed issue of material fact on the issue of apparent agency." Id.
"The affidavit of Burnette, one of the homeowner plaintiffs, states that he “was informed by Brian Cupp that he managed employees and supervised work such that he gave orders to perform certain work on my driveway[.]” Burnette further quotes Cupp as making various statements about CMS using words like “we” and “our.” To bolster this argument, Homeowners point to a lengthy transcript of a recorded telephone conversation between Burnette and Cupp. Homeowners argue in their brief that Cupp’s statements to Burnette are evidence that Cupp “held himself out as a person with management authority.” This they may be, but they are not evidence that he is a principal of the company. A mere employee may exercise “management authority,” and certainly may refer to his employer as “we” or “us.” An employee may also promise that his employer company will get work done by a date certain, and he may order subordinate employees to do the work. None of these actions suggest principal status. To hold Cupp liable on a veil-piercing theory, Homeowners needed to provide evidence that he is not merely a “person with management authority” of an alleged “joint family venture,” but that he is a principal, shareholder, officer or director of the company, whatever its corporate status. This they have failed to do." Id.
Final plat approval and commitment letter conditions precedent clauses keep new home construction delays from constituting breach of contract
ASHRAF KHALIL, ET AL. v. CARCAR DEVELOPMENT, INC. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 26, 2007).
This appeal arises from two consolidated breach of contract actions involving two separate but nearly identical residential real estate transactions. The buyers brought suit alleging that the seller breached its contracts by failing to complete construction of their homes by the closing date set out in the contracts. After the close of the plaintiffs' proof, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the seller's obligation to sell the homes never arose due to the buyers' failure to satisfy several conditions in the contracts. The Chancellor granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' motions to alter or amend. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/khalila_122607.pdf
"At the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, Seller moved for involuntary dismissal on the grounds that the evidence did not show that a lender commitment letter was received within 30 days of the execution of the contract or that final plat approval had been obtained. Seller argued that, because Buyers had not performed their obligations under the contracts, Seller had no obligation to sell them the homes. The Chancellor granted Seller’s motion for involuntary dismissal. The Chancellor concluded that, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as required under Rule 41, 'there is no evidence upon which the Court can reasonably infer that the Plaintiffs have sustained their burden of demonstrating that the Defendant failed to perform in accordance with the terms of the contracts.'" Id.
This appeal arises from two consolidated breach of contract actions involving two separate but nearly identical residential real estate transactions. The buyers brought suit alleging that the seller breached its contracts by failing to complete construction of their homes by the closing date set out in the contracts. After the close of the plaintiffs' proof, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the seller's obligation to sell the homes never arose due to the buyers' failure to satisfy several conditions in the contracts. The Chancellor granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' motions to alter or amend. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/khalila_122607.pdf
"At the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, Seller moved for involuntary dismissal on the grounds that the evidence did not show that a lender commitment letter was received within 30 days of the execution of the contract or that final plat approval had been obtained. Seller argued that, because Buyers had not performed their obligations under the contracts, Seller had no obligation to sell them the homes. The Chancellor granted Seller’s motion for involuntary dismissal. The Chancellor concluded that, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as required under Rule 41, 'there is no evidence upon which the Court can reasonably infer that the Plaintiffs have sustained their burden of demonstrating that the Defendant failed to perform in accordance with the terms of the contracts.'" Id.
December 18, 2007
Fraudulent statements made by home builder to first purchaser suspend 4-year SOR, but do not constitute common law fraud against remote purchasers
ROBERT JENKINS ET AL. v. CHASE BROWN ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 17, 2007).
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners' real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector.
Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house's structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners' Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims.
On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners' claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/jenkinsr_121707.pdf
"Based on our review of the record, we have concluded that it contains sufficient material evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Mr. Wright had committed 'fraud' with regard to his dealings with the Browns by concealing the extent to which fill material had been used on the lot and by asserting that the house had been constructed on 'original dirt.' This conduct amounts to 'fraud ... in performing the ... construction of' the house for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b). Therefore, Mr. Wright was not entitled to assert the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 in this case." Id.
"It is important to note at the outset of this discussion that the 'fraud' that is relevant with regard to the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b) is different from the Jenkinses’ commonlaw fraud claim. In the context of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b), the fraud necessary to prevent a defendant from invoking the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 need not be made directly to the plaintiff. The same is not necessarily the case with regard to common-law fraud claims." Id.
"The Jenkinses concede that they never talked with Mr. Wright about the house. Likewise, there is no evidence in the record that the Jenkinses were privy to any of the misrepresentations that Mr. Wright may have made to the Browns regarding the structural stability of the house. Accordingly, there is no evidence upon which the jury could have concluded that the Jenkinses relied on any misrepresentations that Mr. Wright may have made. There is likewise no evidence that when Mr. Wright represented to Mr. Brown that the house was constructed on “original dirt” that he intended or understood that anyone other than Mr. Brown would rely on the statement. Thus, in light of the essentially undisputed evidence that Mr. Wright had no role in the Browns sale of the house to the Jenkinses, the Jenkinses cannot recover from Mr. Wright for fraud." Id.
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners' real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector.
Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house's structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners' Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims.
On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners' claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/jenkinsr_121707.pdf
"Based on our review of the record, we have concluded that it contains sufficient material evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Mr. Wright had committed 'fraud' with regard to his dealings with the Browns by concealing the extent to which fill material had been used on the lot and by asserting that the house had been constructed on 'original dirt.' This conduct amounts to 'fraud ... in performing the ... construction of' the house for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b). Therefore, Mr. Wright was not entitled to assert the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 in this case." Id.
"It is important to note at the outset of this discussion that the 'fraud' that is relevant with regard to the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b) is different from the Jenkinses’ commonlaw fraud claim. In the context of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205(b), the fraud necessary to prevent a defendant from invoking the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 need not be made directly to the plaintiff. The same is not necessarily the case with regard to common-law fraud claims." Id.
"The Jenkinses concede that they never talked with Mr. Wright about the house. Likewise, there is no evidence in the record that the Jenkinses were privy to any of the misrepresentations that Mr. Wright may have made to the Browns regarding the structural stability of the house. Accordingly, there is no evidence upon which the jury could have concluded that the Jenkinses relied on any misrepresentations that Mr. Wright may have made. There is likewise no evidence that when Mr. Wright represented to Mr. Brown that the house was constructed on “original dirt” that he intended or understood that anyone other than Mr. Brown would rely on the statement. Thus, in light of the essentially undisputed evidence that Mr. Wright had no role in the Browns sale of the house to the Jenkinses, the Jenkinses cannot recover from Mr. Wright for fraud." Id.
December 14, 2007
County Powers Relief Act does not prevent cities from requiring residential developers to build or pay for sidewalks
Effect of County Powers Relief Act on City's Authority to Require Developers of Certain Real Property to Construct Sidewalks or Pay a Fee in Lieu of Construction (TN Attorney General Opinion 07-161, December 13, 2007).
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2007/ag_07_161.pdf
"The Act restricts the enactment of impact fees and adequate facilities taxes after its June 20, 2006, effective date by providing that:
no county shall be authorized to enact an impact fee on development or a local real estate transfer tax by private or public act. In addition, this part shall be the exclusive authority for local governments to adopt any new or additional adequate facilities taxes on development. Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2913 (2007)." Id.
"The Proposed Ordinance is not an adequate facilities tax. First, and most importantly, it is not a privilege tax on development. The Proposed Ordinance does not declare the development of property to be a taxable privilege. Also, unlike the taxes described above, it is not the intent of the Proposed Ordinance to ensure that developers pay their fair share of new or expanded public facilities caused by a substantial increase in property development. The City wants to create a network of sidewalks as part of its desire to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public. This desire exists outside of any residential development boom that might create the need for new or expanded sanitary sewers, roads, waterworks, and other facilities. Furthermore, the fee in lieu of construction is based on the actual cost of constructing the required sidewalk, not a calculation of the gross square footage or number of lots or units being developed. Finally, it must be noted that the default position of the Proposed Ordinance is for the developer to build the sidewalk, not for the City to impose a tax and collect revenue. Under the Proposed Ordinance, the City collects funds from the developer only when the developer requests a waiver of the construction requirement and the waiver is approved by the City’s Director of Engineering." Id.
"The General Assembly’s use of these particular terms demonstrates its desire to limit counties from enacting impact fees while allowing cities to do so. If the General Assembly had intended to limit cities, it could have used the term “local governments” as it did in the second sentence with regard to the restriction on adequate facilities taxes or the term “municipality” as it did in the third sentence." Id.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2007/ag_07_161.pdf
"The Act restricts the enactment of impact fees and adequate facilities taxes after its June 20, 2006, effective date by providing that:
no county shall be authorized to enact an impact fee on development or a local real estate transfer tax by private or public act. In addition, this part shall be the exclusive authority for local governments to adopt any new or additional adequate facilities taxes on development. Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2913 (2007)." Id.
"The Proposed Ordinance is not an adequate facilities tax. First, and most importantly, it is not a privilege tax on development. The Proposed Ordinance does not declare the development of property to be a taxable privilege. Also, unlike the taxes described above, it is not the intent of the Proposed Ordinance to ensure that developers pay their fair share of new or expanded public facilities caused by a substantial increase in property development. The City wants to create a network of sidewalks as part of its desire to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public. This desire exists outside of any residential development boom that might create the need for new or expanded sanitary sewers, roads, waterworks, and other facilities. Furthermore, the fee in lieu of construction is based on the actual cost of constructing the required sidewalk, not a calculation of the gross square footage or number of lots or units being developed. Finally, it must be noted that the default position of the Proposed Ordinance is for the developer to build the sidewalk, not for the City to impose a tax and collect revenue. Under the Proposed Ordinance, the City collects funds from the developer only when the developer requests a waiver of the construction requirement and the waiver is approved by the City’s Director of Engineering." Id.
"The General Assembly’s use of these particular terms demonstrates its desire to limit counties from enacting impact fees while allowing cities to do so. If the General Assembly had intended to limit cities, it could have used the term “local governments” as it did in the second sentence with regard to the restriction on adequate facilities taxes or the term “municipality” as it did in the third sentence." Id.
December 10, 2007
Partners in construction ventures must offer substantive evidence to back up allegations of fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, duress
RICKY HOLLOWAY ET AL. v. CYRIL EVERS, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. December 7, 2007).
A contractor who was a partner in a subdivision development venture sold his interest to the other partners for $175,000. He subsequently filed a complaint against them alleging that they had deliberately taken advantage of his weak financial and physical condition to force him out the partnership. His complaint included claims for violation of fiduciary duty, duress and fraud. The trial court dismissed the contractor's claim on summary judgment. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/hollowayr_120707.pdf
"We note that the Rules of Civil Procedure require that averments of fraud be stated with particularity. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 9.02; Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tenn. 2005). However,Mr. Holloway does not indicate in his pleadings nor in his argument on appeal exactly what material existing fact the defendants misrepresented at the time the partnership was formed that he reasonably relied upon to his injury, and we have not found any evidence in the record of any such misrepresentation." Id.
"We note that Mr. Holloway does not allege that Mr. Evers or Mr. Golden failed to account to the partnership for any property, profit, or benefit derived from the partnership, or that they dealt with the partnership on behalf of any party having an adverse interest to it, or that they competed with the partnership in the conduct of the partnership business. He also does not allege that either defendant engaged in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law. He does claim that Evers and Golden acted in their own interest, but that is specifically permitted by Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-404(e)." Id.
"Mr. Holloway argues that the defendants took advantage of his relatively
weak financial situation and some health problems he was experiencing to coerce him into selling his partnership interest, and that this likewise constituted duress of property. His allegations, in and of themselves, do not address the required elements of duress. Further, he has presented no evidence of any wrongful or illegal act by Mr. Evers or Mr. Golden or even improper external pressure. The financial and health problems he was facing were unfortunate and undoubtedly caused him stress. However, they were not caused by the defendants, and many people are required to make business and other decisions while facing such problems. There is simply no evidence that some action by the defendants deprived Mr. Holloway of his free will to make the best decision he could in the circumstances." Id.
A contractor who was a partner in a subdivision development venture sold his interest to the other partners for $175,000. He subsequently filed a complaint against them alleging that they had deliberately taken advantage of his weak financial and physical condition to force him out the partnership. His complaint included claims for violation of fiduciary duty, duress and fraud. The trial court dismissed the contractor's claim on summary judgment. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/hollowayr_120707.pdf
"We note that the Rules of Civil Procedure require that averments of fraud be stated with particularity. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 9.02; Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tenn. 2005). However,Mr. Holloway does not indicate in his pleadings nor in his argument on appeal exactly what material existing fact the defendants misrepresented at the time the partnership was formed that he reasonably relied upon to his injury, and we have not found any evidence in the record of any such misrepresentation." Id.
"We note that Mr. Holloway does not allege that Mr. Evers or Mr. Golden failed to account to the partnership for any property, profit, or benefit derived from the partnership, or that they dealt with the partnership on behalf of any party having an adverse interest to it, or that they competed with the partnership in the conduct of the partnership business. He also does not allege that either defendant engaged in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law. He does claim that Evers and Golden acted in their own interest, but that is specifically permitted by Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-404(e)." Id.
"Mr. Holloway argues that the defendants took advantage of his relatively
weak financial situation and some health problems he was experiencing to coerce him into selling his partnership interest, and that this likewise constituted duress of property. His allegations, in and of themselves, do not address the required elements of duress. Further, he has presented no evidence of any wrongful or illegal act by Mr. Evers or Mr. Golden or even improper external pressure. The financial and health problems he was facing were unfortunate and undoubtedly caused him stress. However, they were not caused by the defendants, and many people are required to make business and other decisions while facing such problems. There is simply no evidence that some action by the defendants deprived Mr. Holloway of his free will to make the best decision he could in the circumstances." Id.
December 04, 2007
Government need only cure constitutional defects to preclude development of landfill with zoning ordinances
CONSOLIDATED WASTE SYSTEMS, L.L.C. v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY (Tenn.Ct.App. November 30, 2007).
The developer of a "construction and demolition" landfill appeals the denial of its application for a permit to construct the landfill. When the developer first applied for a permit in 1999 to develop the landfill, the Metropolitan Government denied the application based upon two zoning ordinances. In the lawsuit that ensued, the trial court found the ordinances unconstitutional.
In the appeal that followed, this Court affirmed the trial court and issued a stay of 150 days to afford the Metropolitan Government the opportunity to cure the constitutional infirmities. The Metropolitan Government timely amended one of the ordinances in 2003, but not the other ordinance, believing the amendment to that ordinance cured the constitutional infirmities identified in the first appeal.
Following the post-remand amendments to the ordinance, the developer renewed its request for a permit to construct the landfill. The Metropolitan Government again denied the permit, this time stating the landfill would violate Section 17.16.110(A)(2) of the Metro Code because the property was zoned in a district that permitted construction and demolition landfills with "conditions" and the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for two reasons. The landfill was within 100 feet of a property line for a residential area, and it was within 2000 feet of a park. Believing the Metropolitan Government had not cured the constitutional infirmities, the developer filed a motion to compel the Metropolitan Government to issue the twice-requested permit. After analyzing the two relevant ordinances and this court's opinion in the first appeal, the trial court concluded that the Metropolitan Government had cured all constitutional infirmities. It also concluded that the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for the reasons stated by the Metropolitan Government, and thus, affirmed the denial of the permit.
We have determined, as the trial court did, that the Metropolitan Government cured the constitutional infirmities and find no error with the determination that the plaintiff did not meet the requisite conditions for a construction and demolition landfill. Accordingly, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/consolidatedw_113007.pdf
"The trial court went on to conclude that the Metropolitan Government had corrected the constitutional infirmities in the buffer ordinance and, therefore, was in compliance with the declaratory judgment issued in this case and the mandate of this Court. Moreover, and significant to the second issue, is that the trial court found that '[n]o evidence has been presented that the ‘new’ buffer ordinance, which sets the current conditions that construction and demolition landfills must comply with, has any constitutional defects.' Finally, the trial court found Consolidated’s argument that the Metropolitan Government was out of compliance with its ruling in this case because it is still using the 'table ordinance,' to be without merit because, as the trial court determined, the table ordinance 'did not contain any constitutional defects.'" Id.
The developer of a "construction and demolition" landfill appeals the denial of its application for a permit to construct the landfill. When the developer first applied for a permit in 1999 to develop the landfill, the Metropolitan Government denied the application based upon two zoning ordinances. In the lawsuit that ensued, the trial court found the ordinances unconstitutional.
In the appeal that followed, this Court affirmed the trial court and issued a stay of 150 days to afford the Metropolitan Government the opportunity to cure the constitutional infirmities. The Metropolitan Government timely amended one of the ordinances in 2003, but not the other ordinance, believing the amendment to that ordinance cured the constitutional infirmities identified in the first appeal.
Following the post-remand amendments to the ordinance, the developer renewed its request for a permit to construct the landfill. The Metropolitan Government again denied the permit, this time stating the landfill would violate Section 17.16.110(A)(2) of the Metro Code because the property was zoned in a district that permitted construction and demolition landfills with "conditions" and the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for two reasons. The landfill was within 100 feet of a property line for a residential area, and it was within 2000 feet of a park. Believing the Metropolitan Government had not cured the constitutional infirmities, the developer filed a motion to compel the Metropolitan Government to issue the twice-requested permit. After analyzing the two relevant ordinances and this court's opinion in the first appeal, the trial court concluded that the Metropolitan Government had cured all constitutional infirmities. It also concluded that the proposed landfill did not meet the requisite conditions for the reasons stated by the Metropolitan Government, and thus, affirmed the denial of the permit.
We have determined, as the trial court did, that the Metropolitan Government cured the constitutional infirmities and find no error with the determination that the plaintiff did not meet the requisite conditions for a construction and demolition landfill. Accordingly, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/consolidatedw_113007.pdf
"The trial court went on to conclude that the Metropolitan Government had corrected the constitutional infirmities in the buffer ordinance and, therefore, was in compliance with the declaratory judgment issued in this case and the mandate of this Court. Moreover, and significant to the second issue, is that the trial court found that '[n]o evidence has been presented that the ‘new’ buffer ordinance, which sets the current conditions that construction and demolition landfills must comply with, has any constitutional defects.' Finally, the trial court found Consolidated’s argument that the Metropolitan Government was out of compliance with its ruling in this case because it is still using the 'table ordinance,' to be without merit because, as the trial court determined, the table ordinance 'did not contain any constitutional defects.'" Id.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)