ÿWPC)$ …#†VUNÜ %* 00U:L 4† š 0é 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1uU, 0d¹U,U>IU*‡ B±U*ÎB)øDC! AMd×±ˆv~ˆvÓ D3Ù 0@ AOL Æ› 08a! 0D™# D/Ý# B $˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ÙP ï:–÷M·^8Ÿp8 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularU_A øð ÿÿ!3|xL (s(2͵$¤¤Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XèûXXXÔÓÓÑ7€U+XXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ò·¬òXXèûÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌò òFebruaryÏ26,Ï1996ÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓIt€is€clear€from€the€chancellor's€memorandum€opinion€that€Appellants'€suit€was€dismissed€forÏfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€The€chancellor's€treatment€of€Appellees'€motionÏto€dismiss€for€failure€to€join€indispensable€parties€is€not€clear€from€the€record.€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò!!!!'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3L£$¢¢Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑXÑÑXÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XèûXXXÔÓÓÑ7€U+XXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ X ÑÑ X ÑÓÓÑ7€U+XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&$;+'h|Y®` 81 `€€LßDEBBRA€MATTHEWS,à àà àà à)ÌQUENSTON€COLEMAN,à àà àà à)ÌNAACP,€CHATTANOOGA€CHAPTER,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€HamiltonÏChancery€No.€94„75144Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.Ï03A01„9505„CH„00141Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTEVE€CONRAD,à àà àà àà à)ÌGENE€ROBERTS,€MAYORà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€CHATTANOOGA,à àà à)ÌCITY€COUNCIL€MEMBERS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERYÏCOURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€R.€VANN€OWENS,ÏCHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMYRON€BERNARD€MCCLARYÌó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òRANDALL€L.€NELSONÌWM.€SHELLEY€PARKER,€JR.Ìó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÓÓó óà àÌÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,€Debbra€Matthews,€Quenston€Coleman,€and€the€NAACP,ÏÑ7€U+XXdìXXdì7ÑChattanooga€Chapter,€filed€suit€alleging€that€Ordinance€#10079,€which€amended€theÏChattanooga€City€Charter,€is€void.€€Defendants„Appellees,€Steve€Conrad,€Mayor€GeneÏRoberts,€and€the€City€Council€Members,€moved€to€dismiss€the€Appellants'€suit€forÏfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefò ò€ó ócan€be€granted€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï12.02(6)€and€for€failure€to€join€indispensable€parties€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€19.€ÏThe€chancellor€granted€the€Appellees'€motion× ƒ' ××  ×ò ò€ó óand€Appellants€perfected€the€presentÏappeal.ò òÌÌó óà àIn€the€general€election€held€in€the€City€of€Chattanooga€on€November€8,€1994,€aÏmajority€of€the€electorate€voted€for€Ordinance€#10079,€which€amended€theÏChattanooga€City€Charter€("Charter").€€Before€the€amendment,€the€Charter€€providedÏfor€the€maintenance€of€two€school€systems€in€Hamilton€County;€one€by€the€City€ofÍChattanooga€and€one€by€Hamilton€County.€€The€Ordinance€amended€the€€Charter,Ïprohibiting€the€city's€operation€of€a€school€system€separate€from€that€of€HamiltonÏCounty€after€June€30,€1997.€€ÌÌà àAppellants€allege€that€the€November€8,€1994€amendment€to€the€Charter€is€€voidÏbecause€of€the€city's€failure€to€comply€with€T.C.A.€ðð€2„5„208€(1994€&€Supp.€1995).€ÏThat€statute€requires€that€a€proposed€Ordinance€be€printed€on€the€ballot€in€a€questionÏformat€which€calls€for€the€voter€to€respond€"yes"€or€"no":ÌÓÓò òà8 àArrangement€of€material€on€ballotsÌó óÌà8 à(a)€€The€requirements€of€this€section€apply€to€all€ballots.Ìà8 à.€.€.€.€Ìà8 à(f)(1)€€Whenever€a€question€is€submitted€to€the€vote€of€the€people,€it€shallÏbe€printed€upon€the€ballot€before€or€at€the€top€right€of€the€list€ofÏcandidates,€followed€by€the€words€"yes"€and€"no,"€so€that€the€voter€canÏvote€a€preference€by€making€a€cross€mark€(x)€opposite€the€proper€word€.€.Ï.€.€Any€question€submitted€to€the€people€shall€be€worded€in€such€aÏmanner€that€a€"yes"€vote€would€indicate€support€for€the€measure€and€aÏ"no"€vote€would€indicate€opposition.ÌÌÌà àAppellees€contend€that€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€(1992€&€Supp.€1995),€rather€thanÏT.C.A.€ðð€2„5„208,€controls€elections€in€which€residents€in€a€home€rule€municipality€voteÏto€amend€the€city€charter.€€Appellees€argue,€and€Appellants€do€not€disagree,€that€theÏNovember€8,€1994€ballot€fully€complied€with€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105,€which€provides:€€ÌÌò òà8 àHome€rule€municipalities„„Elections€on€questions€requiringÏlocal€approval€and€on€amendments€to€charter.ó óÌÌà8 à(c)€€On€any€ballot€on€which€an€amendment€to€the€charter€of€a€home€ruleÏmunicipality€appears€for€approval€or€disapproval€by€the€electorate,€aÏstatement€certified€by€the€chief€financial€officer€of€the€municipality€shallÏappear€immediately€after€the€language€describing€the€amendment,€butÏbefore€the€questions€"For€the€amendment"€and€"Against€the€amendment."€ÏThe€statement€shall€indicate€the€chief€financial€officer's€estimate€of€theÏnet€cost€savings,€net€cost€increase,€or€net€increase€or€decrease€inÏrevenues,€on€a€yearly€basis,€if€any,€that€will€be€effected€if€the€amendmentÏis€approved.€€The€statement€by€the€financial€officer€shall€be€made€readilyÏdistinguishable€from€the€language€describing€the€amendment€itself.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€lower€court€granted€the€Appellees'€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€aÏclaim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€A€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€12.02(6)€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€and€material€averments€contained€in€theÏcomplaint€but€asserts€that€such€facts€do€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action.€€òòCornpropst€v.ÏSloanóó,€528€S.W.2d€188,€190€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€considering€whether€to€dismiss€aÏcomplaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted,€the€€court€shouldÏconstrue€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€taking€all€of€the€allegations€ofÏfact€therein€as€true.€€òòHuckeby€v.€Spangleróó,€521€S.W.2d€568,€571€(Tenn.€1975).€€AÏcomplaint€should€not€be€dismissed€upon€such€a€motion€"unless€it€appears€beyondÏdoubt€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€claim€that€would€entitleÏhim€to€relief."€€òòFuerst€v.€Methodist€€Hosp.€S.óó,€566€S.W.2d€847,€848€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àIt€is€well€established€that€a€statute€that€is€specific€in€nature€controls€over€aÏstatute€that€is€general€in€nature.€€òòMatter€of€Harrisóó,€849€S.W.2d€334,€337€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòWatts€v.€Putnam€Countyóó,€525€S.W.2d€488,€492€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€òòValley€Fidelity€Bank€&ÏTrust€Co.,€v.€Ayersóó,€861€S.W.2d€366,€369€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€this€€Court€stated:€€"AÏspecific€statute€or€a€special€provision€of€a€particular€statute€controls€a€generalÏprovision€in€another€statute€or€a€general€provision€in€the€same€statute."€€€€Moreover,€theÏLegislature€amended€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€in€1993,€adding€subsection€(c),€the€portion€ofÏthe€statue€relevant€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€language€to€which€Appellant€cites€in€T.C.A.Ïðð€2„5„208(f)(1),€which€conflicts€with€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105(c),€was€codified€in€1972.€€òòSeeóóÏ1972€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€Ch.€740,€ðð5.€€It€is€well€settled€that€a€statute€adopted€later€in€timeÏcontrols€over€a€conflicting€statute€adopted€earlier€in€time.€€òòSteinhouse€v.€Nealóó,€723ÏS.W.2d€625,€627€(Tenn.€1987);€òòStewart€Title€Guar.€Co.€v.€McReynoldsóó,€886€S.W.2dÏ233,€236€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€€à àÌà àThe€present€case€involves€a€home€rule€municipality's€amendment€of€its€charter,Íprecisely€the€subject€matter€with€which€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€is€concerned.€€€T.C.A.€ðð€2„5„208,€on€the€other€hand,€is€a€general€election€statute.€€We€disagree€with€Appellants'Ïargument€that€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€applies€only€to€proposed€amendments€concerningÏproperty€taxes.€€Although€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105(b)€concerns€property€taxes,€a€plainÏreading€of€€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105(c)€indicates€that€the€statute€applies€to€a€broad€range€ofÏproposed€amendments.€€That€subsection€begins€"On€òòany€ballotóó€on€which€anÏamendment€to€the€charter€of€a€home€rule€municipality€appears€for€approval€orÏdisapproval€by€the€electorate€.€.€.€."€(emphasis€added).€€€Because€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€isÏmore€specific€than€T.C.A.€ðð€2„5„208,€and€because€it€was€adopted€later€in€time,€we€holdÏthat€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€is€controlling€in€the€present€case.€€That€statute€establishes€that€aÏproposed€amendment€to€a€home€rule€municipality's€charter€requiring€the€voter€toÏselect€"For€the€amendment"€or€"Against€the€amendment,"€rather€than€"Yes"€or€"No,"€isÏnot€invalid.€€€€€ÌÌà àAppellants€further€contend€that€the€amendment€is€void€because€the€OrdinanceÏwas€not€printed€verbatim€on€the€election€ballot.€€€Although€T.C.A.€ðð€6„53„105€does€notÏaddress€this€issue,€T.C.A.€ðð€2„€5„208(f)(2)€clearly€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€the€full€statement€of€a€question€is€more€than€three€hundred€(300)€wordsÏin€length,€the€question€shall€be€preceded€by€a€brief€summary€of€theÏproposal€written€in€a€clear€and€coherent€manner€using€words€withÏcommon€everyday€meanings.€€Such€summary€shall€not€exceed€twoÏhundred€(200)€words€in€length.€ÓÓ€€ÌòòSee€alsoóó€òòRogers€v.€Whiteóó,€528€S.W.2d€810,€813€(Tenn.€1975)€(finding€no€legislativeÏsupport€for€the€requirement€that€every€proposal€placed€on€a€ballot€be€copied€thereÏverbatim€and,€if€greater€that€300€words,€preceded€by€a€200€word€summary).€€AlthoughÏa€copy€of€Ordinance€#10079€is€not€a€part€of€this€record,€Appellants€do€not€dispute€theÏfact€that€the€proposed€amendment€exceeded€300€words.€€T.C.A.€ðð€2„5„208(f)(2)Íòòrequiresóó€summarization€of€proposed€amendments€where€the€amendment€exceeds€300Ïwords.€€Thus,€it€was€not€only€proper€that€a€summary€of€the€proposed€amendmentÏappeared€on€the€ballot,€it€was€mandatory.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€portion€ofÏAppellants'€argument.€ÌÌà àAppellants'€second€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€amendment€to€the€Charter€isÏvoid€because€it€was€not€read€three€times,€on€three€separate€days.€€The€relevant€Ïprovision€of€the€Chattanooga€City€Charter€provides:ÌÓÓò òà8 àSec.11.2€€Required€readings;€subject€matteró óÌà8 àNo€ordinance€shall€be€valid€unless€passed€on€three€(3)€separateÏreadings€after€an€opportunity€for€free€discussion€thereof;€however,€thisÏprohibition€shall€not€apply€to€a€motion,€a€motion€in€a€nature€of€aÏresolution€or€a€resolution€not€having€the€force€and€effect€of€an€ordinance,Ïand€such€motions€and€resolutions€shall€be€effective€upon€passage€by€theÏboard€of€commissioners.€€No€ordinance€shall€be€valid€if€passed€on€theÏfirst€and€final€reading€on€the€same€day.€€This€section€shall€not€apply€to€aÏfranchise€ordinance.€€No€ordinance€of€any€kind€shall€be€invalid€if€it€shouldÏembrace€more€that€one€(1)€subject.€€All€resolutions€heretofore€passed€byÏthe€city€which€were€motions€in€the€nature€of€a€resolution,€or€wereÏresolutions€not€having€the€force€and€effect€of€an€ordinance,€are€herebyÏvalidated€notwithstanding€they€were€passed€and€executed€after€one€(1)Ïreading.€€(Priv.€Acts€1901,€Ch.€432,€ðð€9;€Priv.€Acts€1911,€Ch.€10€ðððð13,€15;ÏPriv.€Acts€1969,€Ch.€82,€ðð€3)ÌÓÓ€€ò òÌó óà àThe€Charter€clearly€states€that€no€ordinance€shall€be€valid€òòif€passed€on€the€firstÏand€final€reading€on€the€same€day.óó€€The€effect€of€this€provision€is€to€assure€that€allÏordinances€are€read€on€at€least€two€separate€occasions.€€The€Charter€does€notÏrequire,€as€Appellants€contend,€that€an€ordinance€be€read€both€three€times€and€onÏthree€separate€days;€rather,€it€makes€invalid€any€ordinance€that€is€read€three€times,Ïand€passed,€on€a€single€day.€€€We€find€no€error€in€the€chancellor's€dismissal€of€thisÏclaim.€ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€the€chancellor€did€not€err€in€granting€Appellees'Ímotion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€on€which€relief€may€be€granted.€€ÏAppellees'€additional€issues€are€pretermitted.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€appellants.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ