Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedDecember 6, 1995
Docket03A01-9505-BC-00157
StatusPublished

This text of Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee (Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED December 6, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk ARDI S MOBI LE HOM PARK, E ) TENNESSEE CLAI M COM I SSI ON S M ) 1 C. A. NO. 03A01- 9505- BC- 0015 7 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. M CHAEL S. LACY I ) COM I SSI ONER M ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) REVERSED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e )

HARRY BERKE, Be r ke , Be r ke & Be r ke , Cha t t a nooga , f or a ppe l l a nt .

CHARLES W BURSON, At t or ne y Ge ne r a l a n d Re p or t e r . a nd DAVI D T. W TFI ELD, Se ni or Couns e l , Na s hvi l l e , f or a ppe l l e e . HI

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s i s a n a ppe a l f r om a de c i s i on of t he Te nne s s e e Cl a i ms

Co mmi s s i on whe r e i n t he c ommi s s i one r de t e r mi ne d t ha t t he oc c ur r e nc e s

a t i s s u e c ons t i t ut e d a t a ki ng of pr ope r t y by t he St a t e of Te nne s s e e

r a t he r t ha n a nui s a nc e . The c ommi s s i one r c on c l ude d t ha t t he

e xc l u s i v e r e me dy f or a t a ki ng i s a n i nve r s e c onde mna t i on a c t i o n

pur s ua nt to T. C. A. § 29- 16- 123. Si nc e a c t i ons pr e di c a t e d on

i n v e r s e c onde mna t i on a r e out s i de t he s c ope of t he j ur i s di c t i on o f

t he Cl a i ms Commi s s i on, t he c ommi s s i one r di s mi s s e d t he c l a i m. Thi s

a p p e a l r e s ul t e d. W r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he c ommi s s i one r . e

The s a l i e nt f a c t s c a s e a r e not i n di s put e . Ar di s Mobi l e Ho me

Pa r k i s l oc a t e d on pr ope r t y a dj a c e nt t o St a t e Hi ghwa y 29. As t h e

St a t e b e ga n ne a r i ng c ompl e t i on of t hi s hi ghwa y pr oj e c t i n 1988, M . r

Ve r n o n Ar di s , t he owne r of t he pr ope r t y, not i c e d t ha t dur i n g 1 p e r i o d s of r a i nf a l l , por t i ons of hi s pr ope r t y woul d f l ood. As

s o o n a s h e be c a me a wa r e of t he pr obl e m, he c ont a c t e d t he a ppr op r i -

a t e s t a t e of f i c i a l s . M . Ar di s a nd t he hi ghwa y of f i c i a l s c oop e r - r

a t e d i n a n a t t e mpt t o a l l e v i a t e t he pr obl e m but we r e uns uc c e s s f u l .

I t a ppe a r e d t ha t t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he hi ghwa y ha d c ha n g e d

t h e na t ur a l d r a i na ge pa t t e r n of t he a r e a s o t ha t whi l e l e s s wa t e r

d r a i n e d ont o M . Ar di s ' r l a nd, t he ve l oc i t y wa s i nc r e a s e d.

1 Mr. Ardis died during the pendency of this action. His widow, Mrs. Ethel Ardis, is maintaining the action.

2 The ar ea of M. r Ar di s ' pr ope r t y s ubj e c t e d to f l oodi n g

c o n t a i n e d a s e pt i c s ys t e m ope r a t i ng f or t he be ne f i t of a n a dj a c e nt

mo b i l e home pa r k a nd a s e r vi c e s t a t i on. W n t he f l oodi ng be g a n , he

M . Ar d i s be ga n e xpe r i e nc i ng pr obl e ms wi t h t he s e pt i c s ys t e m. r M. r

Ar d i s , i n c oope r a t i on wi t h t he He a l t h De pa r t me nt , k e pt t he s e pt i c

s ys t e m pr obl e ms unde r c ont r ol unt i l a pe r ma ne nt r e me dy c oul d b e

f o u n d . M . Ar di s a nd t wo ot he r l a ndowne r s i n t he a r e a pool e d f u n d s r

t o h a ve c ount y s e we r s e r vi c e s e xt e nde d t o t he a r e a .

W e n t he hi ghwa y pe r s onne l we r e una bl e t o s ol ve t he f l oodi n g h

p r o b l e m, M . Ar di s t i me l y f i l e d a c l a i m wi t h t he Di vi s i on of Cl a i ms r

Ad mi ni s t r a t i on of Te nne s s e e pur s ua nt t o T. C. A. §9- 8- 4 0 1 , e t s e q.

The c l a i m wa s r e f e r r e d t o t he c l a i ms c ommi s s i one r . I n Apr i l , 19 9 3 ,

a h e a r i ng wa s he l d a nd e xt e ns i ve t e s t i mony wa s t a ke n.

In M y, a 1995, t he c ommi s s i one r f i l ed hi s opi ni on. Th e

c o mmi s s i one r f ound, unde r t he a ut hor i t y of Bur c hf i e l d v. St a t e , 7 7 4

S. W 2 d 178 ( Te nn. . App. 1988) , t ha t t he p r o b l e ms c ompl a i ne d o f

a mo u n t t o a t a ki ng, t ha t t he pr ope r a ve nue of r e l i e f woul d be a n

a c t i o n i n i nve r s e c onde mna t i on, a nd t ha t t he c l a i ms c ommi s s i on h a d

n o j u r i s di c t i on ove r i nve r s e c onde mna t i on a c t i ons . The c ommi s s i o n -

e r t he n d i s mi s s e d t he c l a i m. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d.

3 M s . Ar di s ha s pr e s e nt e d s e ve r a l i s s ue s on a ppe a l , howe ve r , we r

f e e l t h a t t he y c a n be c ombi ne d a nd mor e s uc c i nc t l y s t a t e d: Di d t h e

c o mmi s s i one r er r i n de t e r mi ni ng t ha t t he e xc l us i ve r e me dy un d e r

t h e s e f a c t s wa s a n a c t i on i n i nve r s e c onde mna t i on?

Our r e vi e w of t hi s c a s e i s de novo upon t he r e c or d wi t h a

p r e s u mp t i on of c or r e c t ne s s of t he f i ndi ngs of f a c t by t he c ommi s -

s i one r . Unl e s s t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s a ga i ns t t he f i ndi ngs , we

mus t a f f i r m, a bs e nt e r r or of l a w. Sa nde r s v. St a t e , 783 S. W 2d 9 4 8 .

( Te n n . App. 1989) ; Rul e 13( d) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e

Pr o c e d u r e . No s uc h pr e s ump t i on a t t a c he s t o c onc l us i ons of l a w. Se e

Ad a ms v . De a n Roof i ng Co. , 715 S. W 2d 341, 343 ( Te nn. App. 198 6 ) . .

The c ommi s s i one r a n d t he s t a t e r e l y upon Bur c hf i e l d, s upr a .

I n Bu r c hf i e l d, J udge Godda r d, s pe a ki ng f or t he c our t , di s c us s e d a

mu l t i t ude of c a s e s be a r i n g on t he s ubj e c t at ha nd, bot h p r o a n d

c o n , a n d i n c onc l us i on s t a t e d a s f ol l ows :

Upon c ons i de r a t i on of a l l t he c a s e s , we c onc l ude t h a t whe t he r a t a ki ng ha s oc c ur r e d de pe nds on t he f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e , s pe c i f i c a l l y, t he na t ur e , e x t e nt a nd d u r a t i on of t he i nt r us i on.

As a l r e a dy not e d, we be l i e ve t he f a c t s of t hi s c a s e mo r e n e a r l y p a r a l l e l t he c a s e s whe r e a t a ki ng ha s b e e n h e l d t o oc c ur t ha n t hos e whe r e i t ha s not , a nd c on- s e que nt l y f i nd a s t o t hi s i s s ue i n f a vor of t he St a t e .

Bu r c h f i e l d, a t pa ge 183.

4 As poi nt e d out i n Bur c hf i e l d, howe ve r , Th e Te nne s s e e Cl a i ms

Co mmi s s i on Ac t , c odi f i e d a t T. C. A. § 9- 8- 101, e t s e q. , wa s e na c t e d

i n 1 9 8 4 a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y i nc l ude d t he wo r d “ nui s a nc e ” a s f a l l i n g

wi t hi n t he j ur i s di c t i on o f t he c l a i ms c ommi s s i on. The c ondi t i on s

c o mp l a i ne d of i n Bur c hf i e l d pr e da t e d t he e na c t me nt of The Te nne s s e e

Cl a i ms Commi s s i on Ac t , t he r e f or e , t he act ha d no ef f ect on

Bu r c h f i e l d .

T. C. A. § 9- 8- 307 pr ovi de s i n pe r t i ne nt pa r t a s f ol l ows :

9- 8- 307. Jur i s di c t i on — Cl ai m — W ve r of ac t i ons s ai — St andar d f or t or t l i abi l i t y — Dam age s — m uni t i e s — I m De f i ni t i ons — Tr ans f e r of c l ai m . — ( a ) ( 1) s The c om- mi s s i on or e a c h c ommi s s i one r s i t t i ng i ndi vi dua l l y ha s e x c l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on t o de t e r mi ne a l l mone t a r y c l a i ms a g a i ns t t he s t a t e f a l l i ng wi t hi n one ( 1) or mor e of t he f o l l owi ng c a t e gor i e s

( A) . . . ;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adams v. Dean Roofing Co., Inc.
715 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1986)
Dixon v. City of Nashville
203 S.W.2d 178 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1946)
Slatten v. Mitchell
124 S.W.2d 310 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1938)
Steptoe v. State
783 S.W.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Zollinger v. Carter
837 S.W.2d 613 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardis-mobile-home-park-v-state-of-tennessee-tennctapp-1995.