Robinson v. City of Clarksville

• Decision Date: 31 January 2023
• Docket Number: M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: JEFFREY ROBINSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

JEFFREY ROBINSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE

No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

January 31, 2023

Session September 7, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No CC-16-CV-1410 Joseph P. Binkley, Jr., Judge

The owners of a restaurant in downtown Clarksville sued the City of Clarksville for breach of contract, promissory estoppel interference with business relationship, diminution of value of land, and a takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the City's failure to construct an alleyway on property Plaintiffs sold the City. Plaintiffs also filed a claim for inverse condemnation alleging that the City's construction of a sewer line encroached on their land. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, interference with business relationship, diminution of value of land, and section 1983 claim for failure to state a claim under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) and dismissed Plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim on summary judgment. After a jury trial on the inverse condemnation claim, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $8,335 for the value of land on which the sewer was built, and the trial court awarded Plaintiffs $30,000 in attorneys' and paralegals' fees. Plaintiffs appeal each of the dismissals, the measure of damages from the jury trial, and the award of attorneys' and paralegals' fees, among other things. We affirm the decisions of the trial court and decline to award Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees on appeal.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

Mark Robert Olson, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Jeffrey Robinson, Sherri Robinson, and Franklin Street Corporation.

Edmund Scott Sauer, James L. Murphy, III, and Michael Jacob Stephens, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Clarksville, Tennessee.

Andy D. Bennett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kristi M. Davis and Jeffrey Usman, JJ., joined.

OPINION

ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE

Factual and Procedural Background

Franklin Street Corporation ("FSC") is owned by Jeffrey and Sherri Robinson ("the Robinsons"), who are residents of Clarksville, Tennessee. FSC owns Blackhorse Pub and Brewery ("Blackhorse Pub"), a restaurant in downtown Clarksville. In August 2002, FSC purchased two vacant lots behind Blackhorse Pub. FSC alleges that it purchased the lots because then-mayor of Clarksville, John Piper (the "former mayor"), proposed that if FSC purchased the property and sold a portion to the City, the City would install utilities and construct a public alley on the conveyed parcel. Meeting Minutes from the Clarksville City Council Meeting on August 1, 2002 show that the Council voted to authorize the "purchase of property on North Second Street from [FSC^[1] for public alley[,]" and a motion was made to approve the purchase "not to exceed $60,000."

FSC sold the City a portion of the two vacant lots behind Blackhorse Pub on August 30, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "City Property") for $55,000 and retained the remainder of the vacant lots (hereinafter referred to as "FSC Property"). FSC executed a General Warranty Deed conveying the property to the City which stated, in relevant part:

[FSC], a Tennessee business corporation (herein referred to as the ["]Grantor"), has bargained and sold, and by these presents does transfer and convey unto [the City], a Tennessee municipal corporation (herein referred to as the "Grantee"), to be held by the Grantee, Grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns, all of the Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to certain land in the Twelfth Civil District to Montgomery County, Tennessee, being more particularly described as follows:

[legal description of the property omitted]

This is unimproved property known as the Blackhorse Alley and located on South Second Street, Clarksville, Tennessee 37040.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of land, with its appurtenances, estate, title and interest thereto, belonging to the Grantee, their successors and assigns, forever; and Grantor does covenant with said Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of said land in fee simply, has a good right to convey it, and the same is unencumbered, except for (1) 2002 taxes associated with this property which have been prorated; and (2) existing restrictive covenants, recorded plats, and/or zoning ordinances. Grantor does further covenant and bind itself, its successors and assigns, to warrant and forever defend the title to said land to said Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.

Over twelve years later, the Robinsons decided to construct a brewery on the FSC Property and submitted a site plan to the City for the proposed brewery in December 2015. The City determined that a downtown sewer improvement project was required before construction of the brewery could begin, and the City requested the Robinsons to delay construction of the brewery so the sewer line could be installed on City Property. The Robinsons then requested the City to perform on the former mayor's alleged 2002 oral promise to build an alley on the City Property. The City declined to construct an alley, and while constructing the sewer line, the City inadvertently built a portion of the sewer on FSC Property.

On July 14, 2016, the Robinsons and FSC (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this action against the City based upon the City's refusal to build the alley, as it had allegedly promised to do. Plaintiffs advanced the following theories of recovery: promissory estoppel, breach of contract, diminution of value of land, and interference with business relationship. Plaintiffs also filed claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and inverse condemnation, based on allegations that the placement of the sewer line across a portion of the FSC property constituted a taking without due process which diminished the value of the remainder of the FSC Property. By order entered December 1, 2016, the trial court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, interference with business relationship, diminution of value of land, promissory estoppel, and violation of section 1983 claim for failure to state a claim under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The court denied the City's motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim. On July 27, 2017, the court sua sponte reinstated Plaintiffs' previously dismissed claim for promissory estoppel, finding that promissory estoppel had been adequately pled as an alternative to the contract claim. Plaintiffs were permitted to file an Amended Complaint asserting claims of promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance and inverse condemnation. Both parties assert that the other side then engaged in abusive discovery practices and obstructionist behavior throughout the litigation.

The parties eventually filed cross motions for summary judgment on the promissory estoppel and inverse condemnation claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City on the promissory estoppel claim finding that the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and ten-year statute of repose, both of which began to run no later than January 1, 2003 when the former mayor's term ended. The court held that those statutes of limitation expired, respectively, on December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2012, well before the case was filed in July 2016. The court held that the doctrine of laches also applied to bar the claim and that the former mayor no longer had the authority to bind the City to build an alley when his term ended on December 31, 2002, if he ever had the authority to begin with.

The inverse condemnation claim regarding the sewer-line extension proceeded to a jury trial in October 2019. The proof at trial showed that the City of Clarksville installed a sewer pipe 1 foot and 9 inches within the boundary of Plaintiffs' property. The jury awarded Plaintiffs $8,335 for the City's encroachment onto the FSC property. Plaintiffs then moved the court to award them attorneys' fees incurred on the inverse condemnation claim. In its order on Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, the court stated:

the documentation of Plaintiff s attorneys' fees first of all is not sufficiently detailed for the Court to determine the attorney time which addresses counsel's work on the inverse condemnation claim as opposed to counsel's work on the promissory estoppel claim and/or Plaintiff's other claims for relief. Secondly, most all of the Plaintiff's time entries are not sufficiently detailed for the Court to determine even the general bases for the attorney time requests.

Nevertheless, the court awarded Plaintiffs $30,000 in attorneys' fees and determined that "a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Olson's attorney time is $350; a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Dahl's attorney time is $200, and a reasonable hourly rate for their paralegals' time is $75" and "a reasonable amount of time to prepare and to try this inverse condemnation case to a jury verdict is approximately 100 hours." Plaintiffs appeal, raising thirteen issues which we will address in turn below.

Analysis

I. Motion to Dismiss

A. Standard of Review

Plaintiffs challenge the trial court's order dismissing five of their claims pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). As an initial matter, we note that the trial court considered matters outside the complaint in ruling on the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court relied upon the general warranty deed, the official minutes from the Clarksville City Council, and pertinent provisions of the Clarksville City Charter. Generally, "[i]f matters outside the pleadings are presented in conjunction . . . with a [Rule 12 motion] . . and the trial court does...