Boyd v. Town of Morrison

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: M2021-01542-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: CAROLE J. BOYD ET AL. v. TOWN OF MORRISON
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

CAROLE J. BOYD ET AL.
v.
TOWN OF MORRISON

No. M2021-01542-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

December 29, 2022

Session August 2, 2022

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Warren County No. 15066 Don R. Ash, Senior Judge

The issues in this appeal arise from protracted litigation in three courts involving several property owners ("Plaintiffs") who contend the Town of Morrison, Tennessee, ("the Town") is estopped, for various reasons, from collecting property taxes on their properties. Although the dispute initially involved a challenge to whether the Town lawfully annexed Plaintiffs' properties, it is no longer disputed that the Town annexed the properties with the passage of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02 on second and final reading on November 5, 2001. The genesis of the dispute occurred in 2017 when Plaintiffs were cited to the Municipal Court for violating the Town's zoning ordinances. During the hearing, the Town was required to establish that Plaintiffs' properties had been annexed. To prove it had annexed the properties, the Town erroneously relied upon Ordinance 01-03, instead of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. The Municipal Court found that the Town had not lawfully enacted Ordinance 01-03 to annex Plaintiffs' properties; therefore, the court dismissed the citations. The Town did not appeal that decision. Two years later, the Town filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court, arguing that it had properly annexed the subject properties. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition concluding that the Town was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue because "the relevant issue was litigated and determined by the Municipal Court . . ., [which] was a court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore, this Chancery Court will not disturb that Court's findings." The Town appealed the Chancery Court decision; however, it voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Nevertheless, the Town continued to send delinquent tax notices to Plaintiffs. As a consequence, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaration that their properties had not been properly annexed by the Town. In its Answer, the Town asserted, for the first time, that it had annexed Plaintiffs' properties in 2001 pursuant to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. Although Plaintiffs argued that the Town was collaterally estopped from relying on these ordnances, the chancellor ruled otherwise. Specifically, the chancellor held that Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02 were not at issue in the Municipal Court proceedings and because the issues raised in that proceeding were not identical to those raised in the prior court proceedings, collateral estoppel did not apply. Further, the chancellor ruled that the Town had lawfully annexed the properties in November 2001 pursuant to Ordinances 01-

1

01 and 01-02. However, the chancellor also ruled that the Town was equitably estopped from collecting delinquent taxes owed prior to 2022. This appeal followed. We have determined that the Municipal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the Town had lawfully annexed Plaintiffs' properties; therefore, the judgment of the Municipal Court is a null and void judgment that may not constitute a basis for collateral estoppel. For this and other reasons, we affirm the chancellor's decision to deny Plaintiffs' Petition for Injunctive Relief. However, we reverse the chancellor's ruling that the Town is equitably estopped from collecting delinquent property taxes from Plaintiffs.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part

M. Trevor Galligan, Bailey D. Barnes, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Carole J. Boyd, Susan Greene, F. Campbell Boyd, III, Mary Jane McGiboney, Bruce J. McGiboney, Ann F. Boyd Deal, Jack W. Odom, Diane W. Odom, and Odom Revocable Living Trust.

Nathan S. Luna, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellee, Town of Morrison, Tennessee.

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS R. FRIERSON II, and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.

OPINION

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We begin our recitation of the facts and procedural history by discussing the three ordinances voted on by the Board of Aldermen for the Town in 2001 that are at issue in this appeal.

At a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Town's Board of Aldermen on April 24, 2001, the Board passed on first reading Ordinance 01-01 and Ordinance 01-02 with the intent to annex approximately 396 acres, which included properties owned by Plaintiffs: Carole J. Boyd, Susan Greene, F. Campbell Boyd, III, Mary Jane McGiboney, Bruce J. McGiboney, Ann F. Boyd Deal, Jack W. Odom, Diane W. Odom, and Odom Revocable Living Trust. Later, on May 10, 2001, the Board held a meeting to receive public comment concerning the same two ordinances. Another regularly scheduled public meeting took place on November 5, 2001, at which time the Board voted on and passed on second and final reading Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. Although it was previously contested, it is now undisputed that Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02 were lawfully enacted by the Town, and the 396 acres that included Plaintiffs' properties were lawfully annexed by the Town.

2

In the interim, and for reasons unexplained by the record, on September 4, 2001, the Board of Aldermen voted to approve Ordinance 01-03, the purpose of which was to annex approximately 185 acres, which also included Plaintiffs' properties. Then, on October 1, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to discuss Ordinance 01-03, during which the Board also voted to pass the ordinance. Significantly, however, the procedure the Board followed was not in compliance with the Town's charter, and it is now undisputed that Ordinance 01-03 was never lawfully enacted.

Beginning in 2002, the Town sent property tax notices annually to Plaintiffs, who paid their respective property taxes to the Town until 2017, when Plaintiffs were cited to appear in the Municipal Court of the Town of Morrison, Tennessee, for allegedly violating the Town's zoning ordinances. (Plaintiffs have not paid any property taxes since 2017.) At that hearing, the Town only relied on Ordinance 01-03 to establish that it had annexed Plaintiffs' properties. After the hearing, the Municipal Court determined that Ordinance 01-03 had not been lawfully enacted pursuant to the Town's charter. More specifically, the Municipal Court held that "[p]ursuant to Morrison Charter Section 4 (a)(2), every ordinance shall be passed on two (2) different days, at regular, special, or adjourned meetings" and that "[t]here is no provision in [the Town's] charter which allows passage of an ordinance at a public hearing." The court went on, however, to find that the Town had erroneously voted on Ordinance 01-03 at a "regular meeting," rather than at a public hearing, stating:

3. [The Town] held a public hearing on October 1, 2001, as required by Tennessee law to hear or discuss any arguments concerning Ordinance No. 01-03

4. [The Town] attempted to pass Ordinance No. 01-03 during the public hearing

5. [The Town] adjourned the public hearing and called the regular meeting of the board to order.

6. [The Town] did not pass Ordinance No. 01-03 during the regular meeting on October 1, 2001.

7. [The Town] did not pass Ordinance No. 01-03 at any time after October 1, 2001, as required by its Charter.

8. The vote taken during the public hearing on October 1, 2001, was not effective to pass Ordinance No. 01-03.

For the foregoing reasons, the Municipal Court held that the Town had not annexed Plaintiffs' properties. As a consequence, the Municipal Court dismissed the citations pursuant to an order entered on February 24, 2017. The Town did not appeal the judgment of the Municipal...