Roberts v. Russell

• Decision Date: 17 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. M2010-01356-COA-R3-CV,M2010-01356-COA-R3-CV
• Citation: Roberts v. Bridges, No. M2010-01356-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. May 17, 2011)
• Parties: LONNIE E. ROBERTS, et al. v. CLAUDE RUSSELL BRIDGES a/k/a LEON RUSSELL, et ux.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

LONNIE E. ROBERTS, et al. v.CLAUDE RUSSELL BRIDGES a/k/a LEON RUSSELL, et ux.

No. M2010-01356-COA-R3-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

February 15, 2011 Session

Filed May 17, 2011

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Maury County

No. 08-654

Robert L. Jones, Judge

This appeal involves the enforcement of a restrictive covenant.A group of neighbors filed suit seeking permanently to enjoin a musician and his wife from using their property for non-residential purposes.The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbors after a bench trial, prohibiting the homeowners from parking a tour bus, two panel trucks, and several employee vehicles on their property and ordering the homeowners to remove a portion of a parking lot and driveway built to accommodate the vehicles.The court later awarded discretionary costs to the neighbors.We reverse the grant of injunctive relief requiring the homeowners to remove a portion of the parking lot and driveway but affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in part, Reversed in part & Remanded

DAVID R. FARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., joined.

Kristin Fecteau and John A. Beam, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Claude Russell Bridges and Jan Bridges.

William S. Fleming and Jennifer F. Franks, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellees, Lonnie E. Roberts, Renae B. Roberts, Judy Wood, John Wood, Barbara Herklotz, Robert Herklotz, Charles E. Coggins, Kathy Coggins, John Lewis and Tennessee Rural Health Improvement Association.

OPINION

I.Background and Procedural History

Claude Russell Bridges is a musician who performs under the stage name of "Leon Russell."Mr. Bridges, a sole proprietor, spends approximately fifty to sixty percent of his time touring and performing at music venues throughout the country.While on tour, Mr. Bridges travels and resides in a large tour bus.The tour bus, however, does not house the music equipment and merchandise Mr. Bridges uses on tour such as keyboards, monitors, microphones, compact discs, and t-shirts; Mr. Bridges owns two panel trucks that serve this purpose.One panel truck is towed behind the tour bus and stores all of Mr. Bridges's commercial merchandise and equipment, while a second panel truck serves as a backup vehicle and remains parked at his residence during periods of non-use.

In March 2007, the defendants/appellants("Homeowners"), Mr. Bridges and his wife Jan Bridges, purchased Lot 18 of the Steelebrook Acres subdivision in Maury County, Tennessee subject to the following restrictive covenants:

3.All lots shall be for residential purposes only except that such restrictions shall not prevent farming operations except no swine will be allowed.

....

6.No home shall be built on any tract where any part of said home is less than 45 feet from the right-of-way of any dedicated street, nor shall any home be built on any tract where any part of said home is nearer than 25 feet to the side boundary line of said tract.

After purchasing the property, Homeowners constructed a large metal outbuilding to store extra furniture and old music equipment.Homeowners also constructed a large driveway and parking lot to accommodate the tour bus and two panel trucks used in Mr. Bridges's entertainment business.

In addition to parking the tour bus and panel trucks on the property, Mr. Bridges and his employees used the Steelebrook Acres property as a gathering place prior to and after tours.Five of Mr. Bridges's employees typically joined him on tour including two guitarists, a drummer, a stage manager, and a bus driver.These and other employees boarded the tour bus at Homeowners' property, parking anywhere from four to nine additional vehicles on the property for the duration of their trips.These vehicles remained parked on the Steelebrook Acres property for days or weeks depending on the length of the tour.A West-Coast tour,for example, might last for six weeks.The gathering of employees, the parking of their vehicles for extended periods, and the parking of the large tour bus and panel trucks on the Steelebrook Acres property eventually drew the ire of Homeowners' neighbors.

The plaintiffs/appellees("Neighbors"), Lonnie Roberts, Renae Roberts, Judy Wood, John Wood, Barbara Herklotz, Robert Herklotz, Charles Coggins, Kathy Coggins, John Lewis, and Tennessee Rural Health Improvement Association, instituted this action seeking to enjoin the use of Homeowners' property in connection with Mr. Bridges's music business.¹Neighbors alleged several violations of the restrictive covenants governing Steelebrook Acres including: (1) the construction of a large outbuilding less than twenty-five feet from the side boundary line of Lot 18, (2) the use of the outbuilding for commercial purposes, (3) the operation of a music business on the property, and (4) the construction of a parking lot with concrete curbs to accommodate business and employee vehicles.Neighbors asserted Homeowners' use of Lot 18 as a "staging area" damaged the value of their properties, disrupted the neighborhood, and created an "unsightly atmosphere."Their complaint accordingly sought permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the use of Homeowners' property for commercial purposes, ordering Homeowners to remove the large outbuilding recently constructed on their property, requiring Homeowners to remove the "commercial" parking lot and driveway, and directing Homeowners to restore their property to its residential character.In their answer, Homeowners admitted parking several vehicles and a bus on the property but denied violating any of the restrictive covenants.Litigation ensued.

Homeowners eventually filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a memorandum of law, a statement of undisputed facts, and other evidentiary filings.Homeowners admitted parking a tour bus and other vehicles on their property but argued neither the existence of the parking lot nor the parking of vehicles used in a commercial enterprise violated the restrictive covenants.Homeowners further asserted the undisputed facts showed the construction and use of the outbuilding did not violate the restrictive covenants because the outbuilding was being used to store non-commercial items, Homeowners could not convert the outbuilding to an office or studio without major alterations, and the outbuilding was not a part of the home.Neighbors countered with a memorandum of law, a response to Homeowners' statement of undisputed facts, a statement of additional undisputed facts, and other evidentiary filings.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Homeowners.The court concluded the undisputed facts demonstrated Homeowners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to all violations relating to the construction of the outbuilding.The court explained the outbuilding was not "part of a home;" rather, the undisputed factsshowed the outbuilding was a freestanding accessory building.Homeowners therefore did not violate the restrictive covenant prohibiting the construction of "any home... on any tract where any part of said home is nearer than 25 feet to the side boundary line of said tract."The trial court, however, denied Homeowners' motion for summary judgment on the remaining allegations.

The parties proceeded to a bench trial in March 2010, focusing their arguments on the construction of the expanded parking lot and driveway, the use of the parking lot and driveway, and the use of the outbuilding.The trial court ruled in favor of Neighbors in part, holding that Homeowners impermissibly used the Steelebrook Acres property for several non-residential purposes.The court's written order stated, in pertinent part:

3.The Court finds that the defendant's property was already serviced by a driveway adequate for residential purposes prior to the addition of the wide driveway and parking lot addition by the defendants.The Court finds that it is appropriate to remove the newer driveway and the portion of the parking lot that extends southward of the Bridges' house and back towards Roseland Drive.What makes it look far less residential is the extreme width of the driveway and it being bordered by the high commercial curbing.The Court has never observed such curbing in a residential area, especially in a rural residential area.But the wide entrance and the parking lot in the second driveway sticks out like a sore thumb in the aerial photograph [included in the trial exhibits].

....

5.The Court finds that the parking of the two white trucks with touring equipment and merchandise on the property is a commercial use prohibited by the restrictions and both of them are prohibited from being parked on Defendants' property located in Steelebrook Acres, Section 1, Lot 18.The parking of the same vehicles would be permitted for purely residential and family purposes.

6.The Court finds that the bus is not used for family recreation or vacation purposes, so the greater weight of the evidence favors it being a commercial vehicle, and the parking and servicing of it on this property is a commercial use of the property in violation of the property restrictions and is prohibited by this Order.

8.The Court finds that the storage of musical equipment owned by the family, but not now being used in the business, is not a commercial use that violates the restrictions.

9.The Court finds any assembling of persons and parking [of] employee vehicles for the departing or ending of a tour on the Bridges' property is a commercial endeavor prohibited by the restrictions.

10.The Court finds that there is nothing offensive about the storage building.The Court has already found that it does not violate the side lot requirements.As long as it is not used for some purpose, such as a recording studio or to store a large volume of merchandise being

...