STONEYBROOK GOLF COURSE, LLC v. CITY OF COLUMBIA (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010)
Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC, purchased approximately 190 acres of land ("the Property") - on part of which was located a golf course - with plans to develop the vacant land surrounding the course. Before purchasing the Property, Stoneybrook met with the mayor and other officials of the City of Columbia and received their verbal assurances of strong support for the annexation of the 190 acres into the City and the re-zoning of the area to permit the building of condominiums.
After Stoneybrook purchased the Property, the city council of Columbia refused to go forward with the annexation and re-zoning until a comprehensive land use plan could be completed against which to evaluate the proposed re-zoning. Stoneybrook filed this action against the City, claiming, in essence, that the City's refusal to act promptly in accord with the verbal "commitment" constitutes an unconstitutional moratorium and, alternatively, that the City is estopped from refusing to re-zone the Property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings. Stoneybrook appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stoneybrook_072710.pdf
July 27, 2010
July 23, 2010
Court reviews contract between consumer and utility board
GARY COOPER v. CLINTON UTILITIES BOARD (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2010)
Plaintiff brought this action, charging defendant utility breached its contract with plaintiff to construct a line and deliver electricity to his property. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Trial Judge held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and defendant was not obligated to construct a line to deliver electricity to plaintiff's dwelling. On appeal, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/cooperg_072310.pdf
Plaintiff brought this action, charging defendant utility breached its contract with plaintiff to construct a line and deliver electricity to his property. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Trial Judge held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and defendant was not obligated to construct a line to deliver electricity to plaintiff's dwelling. On appeal, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/cooperg_072310.pdf
July 21, 2010
Court reviews fairness of mediation agreement between parties
ROB MATLOCK d/b/a ROB MATLOCK CONSTRUCTION v. REGINA M. ROURK (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2010)
A homeowner and a contractor agreed to use mediation to resolve their disagreement over the contractor's bill for home renovations. The mediation resulted in an agreement, signed by both parties and their attorneys, which provided that the homeowner would pay the contractor $14,000 and that the parties would release each other from any and all claims. The homeowner paid $11,000, but refused to pay the rest. The contractor sued for the deficiency and filed a motion for summary judgment. The homeowner argued that she did not owe the money because the mediation procedure was unfair and because it did not comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 31. The trial court granted summary judgment to the contractor and ordered the homeowner to pay him $3,000. We affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/matlockr_072110.pdf
A homeowner and a contractor agreed to use mediation to resolve their disagreement over the contractor's bill for home renovations. The mediation resulted in an agreement, signed by both parties and their attorneys, which provided that the homeowner would pay the contractor $14,000 and that the parties would release each other from any and all claims. The homeowner paid $11,000, but refused to pay the rest. The contractor sued for the deficiency and filed a motion for summary judgment. The homeowner argued that she did not owe the money because the mediation procedure was unfair and because it did not comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 31. The trial court granted summary judgment to the contractor and ordered the homeowner to pay him $3,000. We affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/matlockr_072110.pdf
July 20, 2010
Court reviews whether construction company violated the terms of a settlement agreement
BERKELEY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. JOHN TABOR, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2010)
Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc., and Southern Traditions Partners, LLC (collectively referred to as "Berkeley Park") filed a motion for contempt against John Tabor and Tabor Construction, Inc. (collectively called "Tabor"), seeking to enforce a 20061 mediated settlement agreement governing the construction of a house being built by Tabor in Southern Traditions' development known as Berkeley Park Subdivision. Berkeley Park alleged that Tabor was in violation of numerous provisions of the mediated agreement, while Tabor contended that the parties had reached another agreement in 2007 that superseded the earlier agreement.
Following a bench trial, the court held that there was no superseding agreement and that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed Tabor had violated the provisions of the mediated agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of Berkeley Park, awarding it damages of $34,042.11, including attorney's fees. Tabor appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/taborj_072010.pdf
Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc., and Southern Traditions Partners, LLC (collectively referred to as "Berkeley Park") filed a motion for contempt against John Tabor and Tabor Construction, Inc. (collectively called "Tabor"), seeking to enforce a 20061 mediated settlement agreement governing the construction of a house being built by Tabor in Southern Traditions' development known as Berkeley Park Subdivision. Berkeley Park alleged that Tabor was in violation of numerous provisions of the mediated agreement, while Tabor contended that the parties had reached another agreement in 2007 that superseded the earlier agreement.
Following a bench trial, the court held that there was no superseding agreement and that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed Tabor had violated the provisions of the mediated agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of Berkeley Park, awarding it damages of $34,042.11, including attorney's fees. Tabor appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/taborj_072010.pdf
July 06, 2010
Attorney General reviews proposed contracts for home stabilization.
Contracts for home stabilization following damage from vertical settlement
The Attorney General reviews whether these proposed contracts constitute contracts of insurance under Tennessee law. Using a hypothetical fact pattern and contract proposal, the Attorney General analyzes the service-indemnity test and contingency issues and determines that yes, certain contracts for home stabilization are indeed contracts of insurance under Tennessee law.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_85
The Attorney General reviews whether these proposed contracts constitute contracts of insurance under Tennessee law. Using a hypothetical fact pattern and contract proposal, the Attorney General analyzes the service-indemnity test and contingency issues and determines that yes, certain contracts for home stabilization are indeed contracts of insurance under Tennessee law.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_85
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)