Hart v. City of Johnson City

• Decision Date: 03 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 47,47
• Citation: 801 S.W.2d 512
• Parties: Edna Ruth HART, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, Tennessee, Defendant/Appellee. 801 S.W.2d 512
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 512

801 S.W.2d 512

Edna Ruth HART, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, Tennessee, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 47.

801 S.W.2d 512

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Knoxville.

Dec. 3, 1990.

Charlton R. DeVault, Jr., John S. McLellan, III, Michael May, Kingsport, for plaintiffs/appellants.

James H. Epps, III, City Atty., James D. Culp, Staff Atty., Johnson City, David H. Hornik, Evans, Jones & Reynolds, Nashville J. Wesley Edens, Bristol, for defendant/appellee.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

This case requires this Court to determine the constitutionality of the 1984 amendment to Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 6-51-103--the statute authorizing suits to contest municipal annexations. The amendment permits property owners adjacent to property annexed by municipal ordinance to bring a quo warranto action contesting the reasonableness of the annexation. However, by population classification it excludes adjacent property owners in 81 of 95 Tennessee counties from the amendment's provisions.

The plaintiffs insist that the population classifications set out in the 1984 amendment are unconstitutional because they violate Article XI, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution ¹, which provides that the Legislature shall by general law provide the exclusive method by which municipal boundaries may be altered.

The trial judge upheld the constitutionality of the 1984 amendment and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs, as adjoining property owners, lacked standing to file a quo warranto action because the annexation took place in Sullivan County, one of the counties excluded by the classification provisions of the 1984 amendment.

We conclude that the entire 1984 amendment violates Article XI, Section 9, the Municipal Boundaries Clause of the Tennessee Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional for the reasons that follow.

FACTS

The defendant, City of Johnson City, passed an ordinance annexing a portion of the Piney Flats community lying along Highway 11E in Sullivan County, Tennessee, in response to a petition initiated by property owners and residents of the Piney Flats community requesting the annexation. Johnson City is a municipal corporation maintaining its city offices in Washington County.

On May 20, 1988, plaintiffs, Sullivan County and certain individuals who own property bordering but not within the annexation area, filed a quo warranto suit in Washington County Chancery Court to challenge the reasonableness of the annexation ordinance. Prior to 1984, only aggrieved owners of property within the territory to be annexed could contest by quo warranto action an annexation ordinance. In 1984 the Legislature enacted Chapter 642, Public Acts of Tennessee, 1984, which amended Tenn.Code Ann. Sec. 6-51-103 to allow adjoining property owners to contest annexation by ordinance as well, but excluded certain counties by population classifications. Sullivan County property owners are excluded from the standing conferred upon adjacent property owners by the express population classifications of the 1984 amendment. ²

The pertinent parts of the challenged statute are set out below. The 1984 amendment language added by Chapter 642 of the Public Acts is underlined for clarity.

6-51-103. Quo warranto to contest annexation ordinance--Appellate review.--(a)(1)(A) Any aggrieved owner of property which borders or lies within territory which is the subject of an annexation ordinance prior to the operative date thereof, may file a suit in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding in accordance with this part, Sec. 6-51-301 and title 29, chapter 35 to contest the validity thereof on the ground that it reasonably may not be deemed necessary for the welfare of the residents and property owners of the affected territory and the municipality as a whole and so constitutes an exercise of power not conferred by law....

(B) The provisions of this subdivision (a)(1) shall not apply to the counties covered by subdivision (a)(2).

(2)(A) Any aggrieved owner of property lying within territory which is the subject of an annexation ordinance prior to the operative date thereof, may file a suit in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding in accordance with this part and Sec. 6-51-301 and chapter 35 of title 29, to contest the validity thereof on the ground that it reasonably may not be deemed necessary for the welfare of the residents and property owners of the affected territory and the municipality as a whole and so constitutes an exercise of power not conferred by law.

(B) The provisions of this subdivision (a)(2) shall apply only in counties having a metropolitan form of government and in counties having populations of:

not less than nor more than

4,000 43,000

14,940 15,000

43,700 44,700

49,400 49,500

58,000 59,000

67,300 67,400

74,500 74,600

100,000 250,000

475,000 480,000

700,000

according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census, and in any county with a population of not less than two hundred eight-five thousand (285,000) and not more than two-hundred ninety thousand (290,000) based upon the 1980 federal census.

(b) The municipality shall have the burden of proving that an annexation ordinance is reasonable for the overall well-being of the communities involved.

(Emphasis added.) The 1984 amendment also contained a severability clause ³ which was not reprinted in the statute as codified.

The defendant, City of Johnson City, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file an action contesting the annexation because they resided in Sullivan County, a county excluded from the 1984 amendment's provisions by population classification. The trial judge sustained the motion to dismiss, finding the 1984 amendment constitutional. From this judgment plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

ARGUMENT

The plaintiffs argue that the population classifications of the 1984 amendment unconstitutionally restrict the general right of adjoining property owners in certain counties from contesting an annexation. They insist Article XI, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that the exclusive method of altering municipal boundaries is by general law, and that population classifications depriving Sullivan County property owners of a right granted to other county property owners cannot be constitutional and are irrational.

Johnson City argues that under the terms of the 1984 amendment, Sullivan County has no standing to file a quo warranto action contesting the annexation; that as a matter of law, an adjoining property owner cannot be aggrieved and therefore no population classification would be unconstitutional; and that the amendment is constitutional because the classification was reasonable.

HISTORY

This Court has upheld the use of population classifications in legislation which has rendered general statutes applicable in several, but not all, counties in which the Court found a rational basis for the classification. See, e.g., Bates v. Alexander, 749 S.W.2d 742 (Tenn.1988) (upholding a statute requiring county registers to collect increased fees, except in the five most populous counties in the state); Baker v. State, 191 Tenn. 559, 235 S.W.2d 435 (1950) (upholding an Act prescribing a special method of selecting juries in certain counties); Reasonover v. City of Memphis, 162 Tenn. 633, 39 S.W.2d 1029 (1931) (upholding Acts authorizing assessment of costs of street improvements in cities of more than stated populations); Darnall v. Shapard, 156 Tenn. 544, 3 S.W.2d 661 (1928) (upholding an Act relating to the licensing of dogs in certain counties).

We have also upheld legislation which has rendered general statutes applicable in only one county, where we found a rational basis for the classification. See, e.g., Shelby County Civil Service Merit Bd. v. Lively, 692 S.W.2d 15 (Tenn.1985) (upholding an act eliminating authority of county officials to terminate deputies, applicable solely in Shelby County); Harwell v. Leech, 672 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn.1984) (upholding a statute prohibiting the sale of fireworks, applicable only in Knox County); Peterson v. Grissom, 194 Tenn. 26, 250 S.W.2d 3 (1952) (upholding a "road law," applicable to only one county by virtue of population classification); Elliott v. Fuqua, 185 Tenn. 200, 204 S.W.2d 1016 (1947) (upholding a statute prohibiting the sale of pyrotechnics, applicable only in Davidson County); Knox County v. State ex rel. Nighbert, 177 Tenn. 171, 147 S.W.2d 100 (1940) (upholding the Teacher Tenure Act, applicable to Knox County alone); cf. Canale v. Steveson, 224 Tenn. 578, 458 S.W.2d 797 (1970) (invalidating for absence of rational basis, a statute forbidding "fortune telling," applicable only in Shelby County).

In each of the foregoing cases, the relevant statutes were challenged as violative of Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, which provides that the legislature has no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of a particular individual inconsistent with the general laws of the land. Article XI, Section 8 has been interpreted as prohibiting passage of laws to benefit specific counties or cities as well as individuals, White v. Davidson County, 210 Tenn. 456, 360 S.W.2d 15 (1962), unless the special classification rests on a reasonable basis. City of Chattanooga v. Harris, 223 Tenn. 51, 58, 442 S.W.2d 602, 605 (1969). See also Stalcup v. City of Gatlinburg, 577 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn.1978); State ex rel. Brown v. Bates, 553 S.W.2d 746 (Tenn.1977); Estrin v. Moss, 221 Tenn. 657, 430 S.W.2d 345 (1968).

However, we have never upheld class legislation in annexation statutes. Such statutes are subject to an entirely different constitutional prohibition, the Municipal Boundaries Clause found in art. XI, Sec. 9. See footnote 1, supra. The Municipal Boundaries Clause is couched in "unambiguous mandatory language," and was adopted to remedy "the great evils that had...