IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE
KENNETH CULBERT ) CARTER COUNTY ) 03A01-9801-CV-00018 Plaintiff-Appellant )
v. ) ) ) FILED HON. G. RICHARD JOHNSON, ) CHANCELLOR Dec. 31, 1998 ) (Sitting by Interchange) Cecil Crowson, Jr. CARTER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al. ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
LOIS B. SHULTS OF ERWIN FOR APPELLANT
GEORGE F. DUGGER, JR., OF ELIZABETHTON; JAMES H. EPPS, III, OF JOHNSON CITY; ROBERT L. ARRINGTON and ANGELA R. KELLEY OF KINGSPORT FOR APPELLEES
OPINION
Goddard, P.J.
The appellant, Mr. Kenneth Culbert, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of
Carter County granting Carter County’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment of Mr.
Culbert’s appeal of a decision of the Carter County Planning Commission by a writ of certiorari.
Mr. Culbert is one of several owners of a tract of land in Carter County,
Tennessee. Mr. Culbert’s application to build the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park upon this
land was denied by the Planning Commission. Prior to June 20, 1994, Mr. Culbert submitted a preliminary plan for Roland Acres
Mobile Home Park to the Planning Staff for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Consideration of the plan for the this mobile home park first appeared on the Planning
Commission’s agenda on June 20, 1994. At this meeting, the Commission noted Mr. Culbert’s
use of this property would not be permitted by the proposed zoning ordinance for Carter County.
The original draft for this zoning ordinance was submitted by the Planning Commission to the
Carter County Board of Commissioners in October of 1993. A map displaying the proposed
zoning districts was posted, and thereafter amended as necessary, in the County Planning Office.
The property at issue in this case was consistently zoned for single family residences, excluding
mobile homes. At the time of Mr. Culbert’s application, the proposed ordinance was nearing its
final form. The Planning Commission certified the ordinance in its final form on July 14, 1994,
and submitted the ordinance to the Carter County Board of Commissioners. This proposed
ordinance was adopted on September 29, 1994.
The Planning Commission took no action on Mr. Culbert’s proposal in the
meeting of June 20, 1994. On July 18, 1994, the Commission established a subcommittee to
study Mr. Culbert’s proposal and report its findings at the next commission meeting. On August
15, the Commission stated several defects in the plan submitted by Mr. Culbert, and once again
noted that the use of the land sought by Mr. Culbert was inconsistent with the pending ordinance.
The Commission postponed consideration of Plat approval until August 22, 1994, in order to
obtain an opinion from the county attorney on whether approval could be denied based on the
“pending ordinance” doctrine. On August 22, 1994, the Commission denied approval of the plan
for the following reasons:
There is pending before the Carter County Commission a zoning resolution or ordinance, which resolution for zoning has been recommended by the planning commission. If this zoning resolution is passed by the county commission of Carter County, the 91-lot mobile home park will be in violation thereof.
2 The approval of the proposed 91-lot mobile home park would not promote the public health, safety, moral and general welfare of Carter County.
Also, approval of the proposal of the proposed 91-lot mobile home is denied because the developer, Kenneth Culbert, has failed to comply with other rules and regulations of this planning commission.
On March 23, 1995, after the Committee denied approval of the mobile home
park, Mr. Culbert filed suit in the Circuit Court for Carter County in Elizabethton against Carter
County, members of the Carter County Planning Commission, and members of the Carter County
Board of Commissioners. In his complaint, Mr. Culbert sought the issuance of a common law
writ of certiorari by the Trial Court. Carter County answered the complaint, and filed a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment as to all of Mr. Culbert’s claims alleging that he had failed to
state a claim for which relief could be granted or had not raised a genuine issue of material fact
for trial.
On October 28, 1995, the Circuit Court issued the writ of certiorari. On
November 12, 1996, the Circuit Court heard Carter County’s motion. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Chancellor granted the motion on all grounds asserted. The Court entered a
judgment dismissing all claims on December 18, 1996.
On January 16, 1997, Mr. Culbert filed a motion for a new trial, amendment of
order, rehearing or issuance of the permit sought. In this motion, Mr. Culbert asked only that the
Circuit Court change its ruling on the dismissal of his petition to overturn the Commission’s
denial of approval for the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park pursuant to the writ of certiorari.
The Chancellor heard, and denied Mr. Culbert’s motion on June 18, 1997. An order denying this
motion was entered on August 6, 1997. Mr. Culbert filed his notice of appeal on September 4,
1997.
3 Even though we question the timeliness of the plaintiff’s application for certiorari
to the Carter County Circuit Court, we find it necessary to only address the following issue
presented by Mr. Culbert:
Whether the Planning Commission’s denial of Mr. Culbert’s plan for the Roland
Acres Mobile Home Park was supported by material evidence.
Under the record developed in this case, our scope of review under common law
writ of certiorari is limited to determining whether the administrative commission has acted
without material evidence to support its decision. See Watts v. Civil Serv. Bd. for Columbia,
606 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn.1980); Houston v. Memphis and Shelby County Bd. of Adjustments, 488
S.W.2d 387 (Tenn.Ct.App.1972); Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Railroad and Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 195 Tenn. 593, 261 S.W.2d 233 (1953). Where there is material evidence to support
the administrative board or commission’s determination and it has not exceeded its jurisdiction,
then the result must be affirmed. Houston, 488 S.W.2d at 388.
Furthermore, summary judgment is appropriate only when it is shown that "there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." T.R.C.P. 56.03 (1984). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all the
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion and all
legitimate conclusions of fact must be drawn in favor of the opponent. See Graves v. Anchor
Wire Corp. of Tennessee, 692 S.W.2d 420, (Tenn.App.1985); Bennett v. Mid-South Terminals
Corp., 660 S.W.2d 799, (Tenn.App.1983). Further, if reasonable minds can differ on the
inferences which can be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Neither party disputes that Mr. Culbert was the sole applicant to appear before the
Planning Commission when seeking to establish the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park. It is also
undisputed that Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE
KENNETH CULBERT ) CARTER COUNTY ) 03A01-9801-CV-00018 Plaintiff-Appellant )
v. ) ) ) FILED HON. G. RICHARD JOHNSON, ) CHANCELLOR Dec. 31, 1998 ) (Sitting by Interchange) Cecil Crowson, Jr. CARTER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al. ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
LOIS B. SHULTS OF ERWIN FOR APPELLANT
GEORGE F. DUGGER, JR., OF ELIZABETHTON; JAMES H. EPPS, III, OF JOHNSON CITY; ROBERT L. ARRINGTON and ANGELA R. KELLEY OF KINGSPORT FOR APPELLEES
OPINION
Goddard, P.J.
The appellant, Mr. Kenneth Culbert, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of
Carter County granting Carter County’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment of Mr.
Culbert’s appeal of a decision of the Carter County Planning Commission by a writ of certiorari.
Mr. Culbert is one of several owners of a tract of land in Carter County,
Tennessee. Mr. Culbert’s application to build the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park upon this
land was denied by the Planning Commission. Prior to June 20, 1994, Mr. Culbert submitted a preliminary plan for Roland Acres
Mobile Home Park to the Planning Staff for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Consideration of the plan for the this mobile home park first appeared on the Planning
Commission’s agenda on June 20, 1994. At this meeting, the Commission noted Mr. Culbert’s
use of this property would not be permitted by the proposed zoning ordinance for Carter County.
The original draft for this zoning ordinance was submitted by the Planning Commission to the
Carter County Board of Commissioners in October of 1993. A map displaying the proposed
zoning districts was posted, and thereafter amended as necessary, in the County Planning Office.
The property at issue in this case was consistently zoned for single family residences, excluding
mobile homes. At the time of Mr. Culbert’s application, the proposed ordinance was nearing its
final form. The Planning Commission certified the ordinance in its final form on July 14, 1994,
and submitted the ordinance to the Carter County Board of Commissioners. This proposed
ordinance was adopted on September 29, 1994.
The Planning Commission took no action on Mr. Culbert’s proposal in the
meeting of June 20, 1994. On July 18, 1994, the Commission established a subcommittee to
study Mr. Culbert’s proposal and report its findings at the next commission meeting. On August
15, the Commission stated several defects in the plan submitted by Mr. Culbert, and once again
noted that the use of the land sought by Mr. Culbert was inconsistent with the pending ordinance.
The Commission postponed consideration of Plat approval until August 22, 1994, in order to
obtain an opinion from the county attorney on whether approval could be denied based on the
“pending ordinance” doctrine. On August 22, 1994, the Commission denied approval of the plan
for the following reasons:
There is pending before the Carter County Commission a zoning resolution or ordinance, which resolution for zoning has been recommended by the planning commission. If this zoning resolution is passed by the county commission of Carter County, the 91-lot mobile home park will be in violation thereof.
2 The approval of the proposed 91-lot mobile home park would not promote the public health, safety, moral and general welfare of Carter County.
Also, approval of the proposal of the proposed 91-lot mobile home is denied because the developer, Kenneth Culbert, has failed to comply with other rules and regulations of this planning commission.
On March 23, 1995, after the Committee denied approval of the mobile home
park, Mr. Culbert filed suit in the Circuit Court for Carter County in Elizabethton against Carter
County, members of the Carter County Planning Commission, and members of the Carter County
Board of Commissioners. In his complaint, Mr. Culbert sought the issuance of a common law
writ of certiorari by the Trial Court. Carter County answered the complaint, and filed a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment as to all of Mr. Culbert’s claims alleging that he had failed to
state a claim for which relief could be granted or had not raised a genuine issue of material fact
for trial.
On October 28, 1995, the Circuit Court issued the writ of certiorari. On
November 12, 1996, the Circuit Court heard Carter County’s motion. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Chancellor granted the motion on all grounds asserted. The Court entered a
judgment dismissing all claims on December 18, 1996.
On January 16, 1997, Mr. Culbert filed a motion for a new trial, amendment of
order, rehearing or issuance of the permit sought. In this motion, Mr. Culbert asked only that the
Circuit Court change its ruling on the dismissal of his petition to overturn the Commission’s
denial of approval for the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park pursuant to the writ of certiorari.
The Chancellor heard, and denied Mr. Culbert’s motion on June 18, 1997. An order denying this
motion was entered on August 6, 1997. Mr. Culbert filed his notice of appeal on September 4,
1997.
3 Even though we question the timeliness of the plaintiff’s application for certiorari
to the Carter County Circuit Court, we find it necessary to only address the following issue
presented by Mr. Culbert:
Whether the Planning Commission’s denial of Mr. Culbert’s plan for the Roland
Acres Mobile Home Park was supported by material evidence.
Under the record developed in this case, our scope of review under common law
writ of certiorari is limited to determining whether the administrative commission has acted
without material evidence to support its decision. See Watts v. Civil Serv. Bd. for Columbia,
606 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn.1980); Houston v. Memphis and Shelby County Bd. of Adjustments, 488
S.W.2d 387 (Tenn.Ct.App.1972); Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Railroad and Pub. Util.
Comm’n, 195 Tenn. 593, 261 S.W.2d 233 (1953). Where there is material evidence to support
the administrative board or commission’s determination and it has not exceeded its jurisdiction,
then the result must be affirmed. Houston, 488 S.W.2d at 388.
Furthermore, summary judgment is appropriate only when it is shown that "there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." T.R.C.P. 56.03 (1984). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all the
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion and all
legitimate conclusions of fact must be drawn in favor of the opponent. See Graves v. Anchor
Wire Corp. of Tennessee, 692 S.W.2d 420, (Tenn.App.1985); Bennett v. Mid-South Terminals
Corp., 660 S.W.2d 799, (Tenn.App.1983). Further, if reasonable minds can differ on the
inferences which can be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Neither party disputes that Mr. Culbert was the sole applicant to appear before the
Planning Commission when seeking to establish the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park. It is also
undisputed that Mr. Culbert pursued the application for the park in his own name. Upon
4 examination of the record, Mr. Culbert was clearly not the sole owner of the property on which
the Roland Acres Mobile Home Park was to be built. Cora Culbert, Mr. Culbert’s wife, and
Brian Culbert, his son, also possessed interests in this property. Section 4(a) of Chapter 198 of
the Private Acts of the State of Tennessee of 1992 requires that “[t]he owner of the land parcel
proposed for a mobile home park shall submit a plan for development to the Carter County
Planning Commission. . . .” Section 9 of the same Private Act states “[t]he provisions of this act
shall supersede any less stringent provisions of any ordinance of Carter County.” While the
subdivision regulations for Carter County included in Chapter 360 of the Tennessee Private Acts
of 1972 allows any owner of a plat to submit a proposal for the establishment of a subdivision,
Mr. Culbert’s proposal for the establishment of a mobile home park must meet the stricter
guidelines of Chapter 198 of the Private Acts of Tennessee of 1992.
Mr. Culbert asked the trial court to allow any owner of a tract submit a plan for a
mobile home park even though the act required submission by “the owner.” The Trial Court
responded by stating:
I can’t -- I have no authority to add something to the act or to read something into it that isn’t there. It’s my obligation to read the words of the act in their common, everyday meaning and not to add or detract from anything that the act says from it’s plain, obvious meaning.
For this reason, the Trial Court properly found that, under the undisputed facts, there was
evidence presented to support the Commission’s denial of the proposal of the Roland Acres
Mobile Home Park for failure to comply with rules and regulations of the planning commission.
We agree that the undisputed facts support the Commission’s denial of Mr.
Culbert’s application. The undisputed facts show that Mr. Culbert’s application to the
Commission was facially improper according to Section 4(a) of Chapter 198 of the Private Acts
of the State of Tennessee of 1992 for failure to include Cora Culbert and Brian Culbert, both of
whom have an interest in the property in question. We believe that material evidence existed
5 enabling the Commission to find the plaintiff’s application facially improper. As a result of the
facially improper application, the Commission had no duty to act upon or even consider Mr.
Culbert’s application.
From the facts presented in the record, we find that the Commission had ample
material evidence to support its decision to reject Mr. Culbert’s facially improper application for
failure to comply with the rules and regulations of the planning commission.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the
cause remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Culbert.
_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
CONCUR:
________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.
________________________________ William H. Inman, Sr.J.