WPC %# U:! %[ 0aw@\4  0? 0DH 0JP 0T 0^ 0hL 0r 0|& 0 0( 1u 0d-  U*Vv~v BHP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 ,  AZ"Arial RegularX($  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX7.XXdXXd7 DDD}X!3|xHR((3$ !  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TX*XXX7*XXdXXd7   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X  !#d#    H \RA'\#d#       Theremainingannexations(5)hadbeenfoundreasonablebythejury.Thetrialjudgeapprovedtheverdictastothemandfinal,unappealedjudgmentwasentered.<  9p`(ArialPtPtHHHV,(hh hd'0F Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d ! .     H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#  ݛ   Ӝ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   STATEOFTENNESSEEexrel.  )ROBERTJ.EARHART,etal.  )      ) SULLIVANCHANCERY Plaintiffs/Appellants  )       )v.      )      ) NO.03A019608CH00263CITYOFBRISTOL,TENNESSEE )       ) Defendant/Appellee  ) AFFIRMEDDavidH.Hornick,Nashville,FortheAppellants.JackW.Hyder,Bristol,FortheAppellee.̀   OPINION           INMAN,SeniorJudge   I    OnJanuary11,1995,theBristolCityCouncilenacted24ordinancesannexingvariousparcelsofpropertyabuttingU.S.11EinSullivanCounty. NineteenoftheseordinanceswerechallengedbyanactionquowarrantoasprovidedbyT.C.A.651102. Thejuryreturnedaverdictthatfourteenoftheseordinanceswerereasonableandfivewereunreasonable.Anewtrialwasorderedastonine(9)oftheordinances,    ׀andasecondjuryfoundallnineannexationsreasonable.Thus,allannexationswerefoundtobereasonable. Thesenineordinancesencompassed13parcelsofpropertyabuttingU.S.11E,whichhighwayhadbeenannexedbyBristolin1989. Theappellantsinsistthatthereisnomaterialevidencetojustifyafindingofreasonablenessofthesenineannexations.Theyalsoquestionthevalidityofthe1989annexationofthehighway,absentwhichthenineannexationswouldallegedlyfailbecausetheencompassedpropertywouldnotadjoinexistingcorporatelimitsasrequiredbyT.C.A.651102(a)(1).Thetrialjudgedeclinedtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentsassought. Theissuesforresolutionare:8 (1)Whethertheverdictissupportedbymaterialevidence;(2)Whetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretionindecliningtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentthatthe1989annexationwasinvalid;(3)Whetherevidenceoftheannexationofpropertyadjacenttotheplaintiffspropertieswasproperlyadmitted;and(4)whetherawitnesswasproperlyqualifiedasanexpert.   II    Ourreviewislimitedtoadeterminationofwhetherthereisanymaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict.Rule13(d),Tenn.R.App.P.;Poolev.KrogerCompany,604S.W.2d52,54(Tenn.1980).Materialevidenceisevidencefromwhichatrieroffacts,ifinclinedtobelieveit,couldreachthestatedconclusion.HohenbergBros.Co.v.MissouriPac.R.R.Co.,586S.W.2d117,11920(Tenn.Ct.App.1979). ItwasthefunctionofthejurytodeterminefromalloftheevidenceandtheguidanceoftheCourtwithrespecttomattersoflawandprocedurewhethertheannexationswerereasonableorunreasonable.Mortonv.JohnsonCity,333S.W.2d924(Tenn.1960). Weagreewiththeargumentoftheappelleethatthisrecordisrepletewithmaterialevidencewhichsupportstheverdict.Muchoftheevidenceistypicalofthatusuallypresentedinannexationcases.WecannotfailtonotetheuniquenessofthegeographicallocationofBristol. Theplanningstaffofthecityidentifiedareasandpropertysuitableforannexation.Amultiphaseannexationwasrecommendedbyconsultants;thefirst  ќphasewouldincludepropertieswhoseownersrequestedannexationandcommercialpropertiesalreadytherecipientsofcityservicesandvacantpropertiessuitablefordevelopment.ThepropertiesoftheappellantswereencompassedinPhaseOne. TherewasevidencethatthepeopleresidingorworkingintheannexedpropertieswouldreceivebetterlawenforcementfromtheCityofBristolthanfromtheSullivanCountySheriffsDepartment;betterfireprotection,cheaperfireinsurancerates,moreefficientemergencydispatchservice,sewerservice,watermains,codesenforcementandthatthepropertieswouldbeeconomicallyenhanced.Theseconceptswerepresentedwithconsiderableexplanation,unnecessaryheretoberecited.EvidencewasalsopresentedthatBristolmustexpanditslimitsifitistoremainaviablemunicipalityandthatgeographicandpoliticalconsiderationsposedifficulthandicapstoexpansion.YearspreviouslythegovernmentrecognizedthatmunicipalgrowthwouldnecesssarilyocccurinthedevelopingareasouthwardlyalongU.S.Highway11E,andtheplanningcommissionadoptedlongrangestrategiestoaccommodateboththecityandtheaffectedproperties.   III    Theplaintiffscollaterallyattackedthe1989ordinancewhichannexedU.S.Highway11Ebyseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheordinancewasinvokedbecauseahighway,withoutmore,cannotbeannexedunderpriororexistinglaw.Bristolcountersthatitpassedtheassailedordinancefiveyearsagoandthatadeclaratoryjudgmentprocedureisnotavailabletochallengeit.Onthefaceofit,ϜthisargumentismeritoriousbecauseofsettledlawthatanannexationordinancemaybechallengedonlybyquowarrantoprescribedbyT.C.A.651103.ButasstatedbyJudgeMcMurrayofthisCourtinWhitev.CityofTownsend,No.03A019410CV00392(filedatKnoxvilleonMay19,1995),thestatutepresupposesavalidordinance,which,ifvoid,canbechallengedasanyothervoidactofamunicipality. Thetrialjudge,aswestated,declinedtherequesteddeclaratoryjudgment.Appellantsarguethatsuchdeclinationwasanabuseofdiscretion.Wecannotagree. Itiswellsettledinthisjurisdictionthatdeclaratoryjudgmentsarediscretionary,Hillv.Beeler,286S.W.2d868(Tenn.1956),andthatcourtshavea widediscretionwhichshouldbeexercisedwiththe utmostcaution,𛀜Tenn.FarmersMut.Ins.Co.v.Hammond,290S.W.2d860,862(Tenn.1956),andthattheexerciseofthatdiscretionwillnotbedisturbedonappealunlesstherefusalisarbitrary.StandardAccid.Ins.Co.v.Carvin,400S.W.2d235(Tenn.1966);seealsoEastSevierCountyUtilityDist.v.WachoviaBank&TrustCo.,570S.W.2d850(Tenn.1978).Uponaconsiderationofalltheevidenceinthiscase,includingtheunusualfeaturethattheassailedordinancewasenactedin1989,wefindnoabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthetrialjudgeinrefusingadeclaratoryjudgment.   IV    Appellantscomplainoftheadmissionofevidencethatpropertyadjacenttothepropertiesoftheplaintiffswasannexed.Inlimine,thetrialcourtruledthatsuchevidencewasnotadmissible;butoneoftheplaintiffs,Mr.Kirk,testifiedondirectexaminationthatannexationofhispropertywasunreasonablebecausethecityhadsingledouthisparcelwhileskippingoverothernearbyproperties. Thistestimonywasincorrectandmisleading,andthetrialjudgequiteproperlyrevisedhisearlierrulingtoallowthecityaproperrebuttal,i.e.,thatnopropertyhadbeen skippedover. Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   V    AppellantscomplainoftheactionofthetrialcourtwithrespecttotheallowanceofMarkSudheimerasanexpertwitness.Hetestifiedthat,inhisopinion,theannexationswerereasonablefromaneconomicdevelopmentview. Thiswitnesshadmanyyearsofexperienceintheeconomicdevelopmentofmunicipalareas,andtheadmissionofhistestimonywaswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Statev.Brooks,909S.W.2d854,86162(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). ThejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheAppellants.      __________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:______%  ________________________DonT.McMurray,Judge______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge