Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Ardis Mobile Home Park v. State of Tennessee

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided December 6, 1995·No. 03A01-9505-BC-00157·Published

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) . . . ;

( B) Nui s a nc e s c r e a t e d or ma i nt a i ne d;

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