Court reviews TCPA damages awards and breach of warranty and contract claims

SCOTT CAMPBELL, ET AL. v. WILLIAM H. TEAGUE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 31, 2010)

This is a construction case. Appellants/Builders appeal the trial court's award of damages to Appellees/Homeowners pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and arising from Appellants/Builders' breach of warranty and contract. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/campbells_033110.pdf

Court reviews whether trial court properly awarded damages pursuant to the TN Consumer Protection Act

SCOTT CAMPBELL, ET AL. v. WILLIAM H. TEAGUE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 31, 2010)

This is a construction case. Appellants/Builders appeal the trial court's award of damages to Appellees/Homeowners pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and arising from Appellants/Builders' breach of warranty and contract. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/campbells_033110.pdf

Attorney General Reviews Fees and Regulations for Construction of Schools in Special School Districts

Fees and regulations for construction of schools in special school districts (TN Attorney General Opinion 10-27, March 9, 2010)

The attorney general reviews two questions:
1. Can a city require a special school district to pay building permit and plan review fees for construction and/or renovation of a school located within the city limits?
2. Does a special school district have to conform to planning and zoning regulations of the city for school district-owned property located within the city limits?

He concludes that the answers to both questions depend on the provisions of the private act creating the special school district and the local planning and zoning regulations, because special school districts are created by the Tennessee General Assembly.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_27.pdf

Court reviews validity of materialman's lien

BOLON CUSTOM KITCHENS v. ROBERT AND NORMA PARMAN (Tenn. Ct. App. March 8, 2010)

Materials supplier filed suit to enforce a lien upon property for unpaid costs of improvement to the residence; the trial court granted supplier's motion for summary judgment. The property owners appeal, asserting that supplier's lien was barred by the filing of the Notice of Completion or, in the alternative, that supplier's Notice of Lien was not properly filed with the Register's Office. Finding that supplier had a valid lien, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/parmanr_030810.pdf

TSC holds collecting additional privilege taxes based on additional square footage is prohibited

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, ET AL. (Tenn.Ct.App. February 25, 2010)

This appeal involves a question of law concerning the interpretation of the Williamson County Adequate Facilities Tax Act, which imposes a privilege tax based upon the gross square footage of new construction in Williamson County. In 2005, the County notified certain builders of new residential construction that a review for the period from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2003, indicated that the builders owed an additional amount of privilege tax because the actual square footage of the completed construction was greater than the projected square footage at the time the privilege tax was paid. The builders objected to payment of the additional privilege tax and filed an action for declaratory judgment, contending that the County's belated collection attempts were in derogation of the Act.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We accepted this case for review to determine whether, after the privilege tax is paid based upon the projected square footage of new development before construction, the County is authorized to collect an additional privilege tax after construction based upon the actual completed square footage. We hold that after the County collects the privilege tax based upon the projected square footage, the language of the Act prohibits the County from later collecting additional privilege taxes based upon the actual square footage of the completed project. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County, grant summary judgment in favor of the builders, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings as necessary.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/homebuilders_022510.pdf

A dissenting opinion may be found here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/homebuilders_diss_022510.pdf

Court reviews trial court's decision in a case about a disfunctional partnership

BEVERLY MORAN v. ELLIOT WILLENSKY (Tenn. Ct. App. February 3, 2010)

This case arises from a partnership gone bad. The trial court found that the Appellant wrongfully dissociated from the partnership. Pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 61-1-101 et seq., the trial court awarded Appellee project costs, and winding up costs, including attorney's fees. Appellant appeals. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/moranb_020310.pdf

Court reviews whether trial court properly dismissed materialman's lien

E. W. STEWART LUMBER CO. v. MEREDITH CLARK & ASSOCIATES, LLC AND LEROY DODD (Tenn. Ct. App. January 29, 2010)

Supplier of building materials filed materialman's lien on property after contractor failed to pay for materials provided for building a house on the property. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court struck down liens the supplier had filed against the subject property and dismissed the supplier's action; supplier appeals. Finding error, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stewart_012910.pdf

Can a municipality charge a fee for a building permit on agricultural land

Ability of Municipalities to Charge a Fee for Building Permits for Agricultural (AG January 28, 2010)

Tenn. Code Ann. 6-54-126 does not prohibit a municipality from charging a fee for building permits on agricultural land. It is only concerned with a municipality's power to regulate use of the land and not with it's ability to require a building permit.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
 http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_12.pdf

Court reviews whether property owner is protected against a remote material supplier's lien

E. W. STEWART LUMBER CO., D/B/A STEWART BUILDER SUPPLY v. MEREDITH CLARK & ASSOCIATES, LLC AND LEROY Tenn.Ct.App. January 28, 2010)

Supplier of building materials filed materialman's lien on property after contractor failed to pay for materials provided for building a house on the property. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court struck down liens the supplier had filed against the subject property and dismissed the supplier's action; supplier appeals. Finding error, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/stewart_012910.pdf

Appeals court affirms trial court ruling of failure to state a claim

LEONARD PORTER, JR. ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 25, 2010)

This action arises from the issuance of stop work orders that prevented the plaintiffs from completing the construction of their new residence. The plaintiffs brought this action against the City of Clarksville and the Clarksville Building and Codes Department under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) asserting numerous and varied claims, including claims for false statements, fraud, deception, conspiracy, discrimination, malicious harassment, coercion, and violation of due process, and requested financial damages, emotional damages, and punitive damages. The defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the action was a de facto appeal of the administrative hearing on the stop work orders and that the defendants were immune under the GTLA. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/porterl_012610.pdf

TCA overturns trial court ruling regarding TCPA

CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. CLIFFORD COLL (Tenn. Ct. App. January 19,2010)

A finance company that owned a security interest in a Hyundai excavator appeals the award of a judgment against it in favor of a consumer for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The consumer alleged in his complaint that the creditor and the equipment company that sold the excavator to the consumer had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, because the excavator was defective when it was delivered, it never worked properly, and the defendants failed to make repairs and refused to permit him to trade for another excavator. The financing company denied any wrongdoing and asserted the one-year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. The equipment company that sold the excavator went out of business and dissolved prior to trial. The only claim tried was the consumer's TCPA claim against the finance company.

The trial court denied the finance company's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 motion for a directed verdict on the statute of limitations defense, finding that the TCPA claim was timely filed within the five-year statute of repose. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the consumer prevailed on his TCPA claim and the trial court awarded treble damages and attorneys' fees based on a finding the finance company "willfully and knowingly" violated the TCPA. We have determined the TCPA claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations; therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/citicapital_012010.pdf

Tennessee Legislature suspends Workers' Compensation regulations. Sources indicate either until March 28, 2010 or 2011.

From the Knoxville Bar Association's legislative update: "Worker's Compensation -- The General Assembly approved legislation calling for immediate suspension of a new law to require sole proprietors and partners engaged in the construction industry to carry workers' compensation coverage on themselves due to unintended effects of the act. The law will be suspended until March 28, 2010. In the meantime, the legislature will discuss alternative ways to address gaps in coverage for workers in companies of all sizes in the various construction fields in order to address the problem without harming small business owners."

However, other independent sources say the regulations are suspended until March 28, 2011.

Humphrey on the Hill
Examiner.com

Court reviews whether statute of limitations had expired on inverse condemnation and nuisance claims

H.P. LARGE, and TERRANCE R. CRAIG, d/b/a GREENFIELD LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, v. GREENE COUNTY, TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2009)

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had constructed a bridge over Lick Creek which was adjacent to their property, and the bridge had caused their property to repeatedly flood. They further alleged that they were entitled to recover damages under the theory that the County maintained a temporary nuisance which damaged their property. Defendant filed a Motion for judgment on the pleadings which characterized plaintiffs' cause of action as an inverse condemnation action.

Affidavits and other documents were filed in the record and the Trial Court agreed with the defendant that plaintiffs' action was based on inverse condemnation and the statute had run on that action. The Trial Judge also ruled that the statute had run on the nuisance claim. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's holding that plaintiffs' action was a nuisance type taking and was governed by the inverse condemnation statute, and we agree that the record demonstrates that the statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs' claims.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hplarge_122809.pdf

Susano’s dissenting opinion is available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hplarge_DIS_122809.pdf

Appelate Court affirms trial court ruling that statute of limitaions had run

H.P. LARGE, and TERRANCE R. CRAIG, d/b/a GREENFIELD LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, v. GREENE COUNTY, TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2009)

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had constructed a bridge over Lick Creek which was adjacent to their property, and the bridge had caused their property to repeatedly flood. They further alleged that they were entitled to recover damages under the theory that the County maintained a temporary nuisance which damaged their property.

Defendant filed a Motion for judgment on the pleadings which characterized plaintiffs' cause of action as an inverse condemnation action. Affidavits and other documents were filed in the record and the Trial Court agreed with the defendant that plaintiffs' action was based on inverse condemnation and the statute had run on that action. The Trial Judge also ruled that the statute had run on the nuisance claim.

On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's holding that plaintiffs' action was a nuisance type taking and was governed by the inverse condemnation statute, and we agree that the record demonstrates that the statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs' claims.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hplarge_122809.pdf

A dissenting opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/hplarge_DIS_122809.pdf

TCA upholds judgment for homebuyer

TIMOTHY BOWEN, ET AL. v. SAMUEL E. RASNAKE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2009)

Timothy Bowen and his wife Leanne Bowen ("the Buyers") contracted to purchase a house from Samuel E. Rasnake ("the Seller") that was still under construction. The Buyers experienced numerous problems with the house and filed their complaint against the Seller for defective construction, breach of warranty and misrepresentation. After a bench trial, the court awarded the Buyers judgment against the Seller in the amount of $42,300. The Seller appeals. We affirm.

The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/bowent_122809.pdf