ÿWPC¦ }Rç •§«‘ƒJ iÚìTšYPQO¤µ>5F 9é•EÂ;Hp躭Îj›$P†“v5WrdÌŽZgu·Fa4ïÞáœ:xÈw/K[˜1¤è,c”. 0‰§BkÕC‹Â“7o*MÕëÉÖ±£ á(ø~•ûn‡!ÄSêï@T©ÍYOì8ÀµÃ\ê€É‹Íç‰mZ€ˆ¾Æú6#–E@µöûÜà›ó—\^kÆýWú'úÖuÈb R’r€ã3ó“q$ÿAuÙ!0‡9»ãý³‡d” ×P-K×y˜€Žy,2¥'6öÓ±ô÷ CvôöEw û‘;2“ÞÍ4Ú¼”"^„ÍsFÁ“ƒ|Ç-)<îÒžÁÝ%ÿ ‚I[º¥ZÜÇnz Å,Æ-AœnñS±¢²¤Øí÷ˆ9V¶ž¯©ž4»áneϰ2rˆ¿2€p6X1T=Òëó“¥q â•Õ"ãs¢Ø™éu¸!­’‡ªxßH ¸0ØkÃèáq ïn6ËüÕ¡¦¦£yŽ˜:÷b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;T=‘E™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™b›››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››› 0룣££ BŽŽ 0¤« D3O D-‚ 0K¯¯ ASúÆM 0¤ 0D· A«û»+dõ(L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜L-(bk2üo«3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular JÝ ƒR&2$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô‚\ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€section€29„16„124€states:Ð ° ÐÌà  àò òLimitation€of€ownersðð€actions.ó ó€ð!ð€The€owners€of€land€shall,€in€such€cases,€commence€proceedings€withinÐ @  Ðtwelve€(12)€months€after€the€land€has€been€actually€taken€possession€of,€and€the€work€of€the€proposed€internalÐ ° Ðimprovement€begun;€saving,€however,€to€unknown€owners€and€nonresidents,€twelve€(12)€months€after€actual€knowledgeÐ xÈ Ðof€such€occupation,€not€exceeding€three€(3)€years,€and€saving€to€persons€under€the€disabilities€of€infancy€andÐ @ Ðunsoundness€of€mind,€twelve€(12)€months€after€such€disability€is€removed,€but€not€exceeding€ten€(10)€years. - ù-(|G2&2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€æ\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô’„ò»»Ô d(|39$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€æ\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€æ\»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ê4»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ê4»»»ÔÑ8€úXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î®î»¼ê4ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ê4»îî® #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓMarch€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XúX»¼ê4ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ê4»XXúí#ÔVOWELL€VENTURESòòóó€v.€CITY€OF€MARTINòòóóÔ‡XúX»¼ê4Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Weakley€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2815€€€€€€William€B.€Acree,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01445„COA„R3„CV€„€Decided€July€21,€2000€Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XêXXXúÔÔ_ÔVowellÔ_Ô€Ventures,€a€partnership,€sued€the€City€of€Martin€alleging€that€the€City€denied€VowellÐ ¶ ÐVenturesðð€application€for€a€building€permit€due€to€the€fact€that€there€was€a€sewer€line€and€storm€drainÐ ¢ò Ðcrossing€the€property.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€denial€of€the€application€for€the€buildingÐ ŽÞ Ðpermit€constituted€a€taking€of€property€without€just€compensation€and€sought€judgment€against€theÐ zÊ ÐCity€for€the€taking.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€City€of€Martinððs€Motion€To€Dismiss€Or€For€SummaryÐ f¶ ÐJudgment€and€we€affirm.Ð R¢ ÐÌò òÔ#†XúXXXêo#ÔÔ#†¼ê4»XXú`#ÔÔ‡XúX»¼ê4ÔÓcÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ *z ÐRemandedó óÐ j ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ê4»àXú{#ÔÔ‡XúX.¼ê4ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,Ð úJ Ðand€òòHolly€K.€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ê: ÐÌH.€Max€Speight,€Martin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Vowell€Ventures.Ð Ê ÐÌMark€F.€Gallien,€Martin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€City€of€Martin.Ð ª ú ÐÓ5ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ê4»XXúd#ÔÔ‡XúX»¼ê4ÔÐ Š"Ú! ÐÌÔ#†¼ê4»XXú5 #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XúX»¼ê4ÔÔ‡XêXXXúÔò òó óà  àVowell€Ventures,€a€partnership,€appeals€from€the€order€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€WeakleyÐ j$º# ÐCounty€granting€City€of€Martinððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€This€marks€the€second€appearanceÐ V%¦ $ Ðby€these€parties€before€this€Court.€€The€genesis€of€this€case€was€the€denial€by€the€City€of€Martin€toÐ B&’!% Ðissue€a€building€permit€applied€for€by€Vowell€Ventures€in€February,€1990.€€Vowell€Ventures€filedÐ .'~"& Ðsuit€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Weakley€County€against€the€City€in€what€was€treated€as€a€petition€forÐ (j#' Ða€writ€of€certiorari€seeking€an€order€from€the€court€directing€City€to€issue€Vowell€Ventures€€aÐ )V$( Ðbuilding€permit€to€erect€an€office€building€on€a€parcel€of€land€owned€by€Vowell€Ventures.€€The€trialÐ ò)B%) Ðcourt€denied€the€petition€and€Vowell€Ventures€appealed€to€this€Court,€which€affirmed€the€trial€courtÐ Þ*.&* Ðby€an€opinion€filed€May€16,€1997.€€Vowell€Venturesðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ Ê+'+ Ðsupreme€court€was€denied€December€8,€1997.€€The€City€denied€the€permit€because€the€buildingÐ ¶,(, Ðwhich€Vowell€Ventures€proposed€to€build€on€its€lot€was€to€be€constructed€over€an€existing€sanitaryÐ ¢-ò(-ý Ðsewer€line€and€storm€drain.€€ò òòòVowell€Ventures€v.€City€of€Martinóóó ó,€No.€02A01„9604„CH„00090,€1997Ð ° ÐWL€254236€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€16,€1997)€òòò òperm.€app.€deniedó óóó.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€basic€facts€as€set€forth€in€this€Courtððs€May€16,€1997€opinion€are€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àMorris€Vowell€and€others€acquired€title€to€the€property€in€question€byÐ L œ Ðwarranty€deed€in€1983.€€The€property,€a€rectangular€vacant€lot,€fronts€on€U.S.€45€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€city.€€The€frontage,€the€width€of€the€property,€is€94€feet.€€The€property€extendsÐ $ t Ðback€east€from€the€highway€slightly€over€250€feet€in€length.€€Vowell€proposed€toÐ  ` Ðconstruct€a€40'€x€80'€shell€for€an€office€building,€rectangular€in€shape,€to€be€set€backÐ ü L  Ð50€feet€from€the€east€margin€of€Highway€45.€€The€minimum€set€back€requirement€inÐ è 8  Ðthis€area€is€25€feet.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhile€the€warranty€deed€from€Vowellððs€grantor€to€Vowell€makes€no€mentionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€any€underground€utility€easement€running€through€the€property,€it€isÐ ˜è  Ðuncontradicted€that€two€separate€underground€utility€lines€ð!ð€one€a€sanitary€sewer€lineÐ „Ô  Ðand€the€other€a€storm€sewer€line€ð!ð€run€in€a€general€north„south€direction€through€theÐ pÀ Ðproperty€and€based€upon€the€planned€location€of€the€building€would€pass€directlyÐ \¬ Ðunderneath€portions€of€the€proposed€structure.€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAt€the€hearing€below,€the€only€witness€to€testify€for€plaintiff€was€MorrisÐ øH ÐVowell,€one€of€the€partners.€€He€testified€that€there€were€no€recorded€easements€orÐ ä4 Ðgrants€for€either€of€the€underground€sewer€lines€on€his€property.€€This€is€notÐ Ð  Ðcontested.€€He€also€testified€that€as€we€have€already€noted,€there€was€no€reference€toÐ ¼  Ðeither€sewer€line€in€the€deed€to€Vowell.€€This€is€also€not€contested.€€He€furtherÐ ¨ø Ðtestified€that€City€had€permitted€others€to€construct€buildings€over€underground€sewerÐ ”ä Ðlines.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àCity€did€provide€Vowell€a€compromise€plan€that€would€place€VowellððsÐ X ¨ Ðproposed€building€an€additional€seventeen€feet€back€from€the€highway€right„of„way,Ð D!” Ðwhich€would€clear€Vowellððs€structure€from€lying€above€the€underground€lines.€Ð 0"€  ÐVowell€rejected€the€offer,€stating€that€such€a€relocation€of€the€building€would€makeÐ #l! Ðthe€site€ð ðunattractiveðð€for€a€future€sale.€€Vowell€conceded€that€Cityððs€compromiseÐ $X" Ðplan€would€allow€him€to€still€pave€and/or€otherwise€make€use€of€the€property€overÐ ô$D # Ðthe€lines€and€that€he€had€a€deep€lot€with€ð ðplenty€of€room€to€build€on.ððÐà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€cross€examination€Vowell€readily€admitted€that€potential€problems€existÐ ¸'#& Ðin€placing€a€building€over€a€sewer€line€or€a€storm€drain€and€that€the€likelihood€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproblems€increases€if€a€building€is€placed€over€both€a€sewer€line€and€a€storm€drain.€Ð )à$( ÐHe€described€potential€problems€to€include€a€line€collapse,€a€line€becoming€stoppedÐ |*Ì%) Ðup,€and€a€line€generally€needing€repairs€or€replacement.€€He€stated€that€structuralÐ h+¸&* Ðdamage€to€a€building€could€occur€if€a€sewer€line€under€it€should€collapse.€€He€furtherÐ ° Ðtestified€that€a€portion€of€a€building€over€an€underground€sewer€line€would€have€toÐ œì Ðbe€removed€if€the€line€under€it€needed€repairs€or€replacement.€€As€a€licensedÐ ˆØ Ðcontractor,€he€voiced€the€opinion€that€if€a€person€had€a€choice€it€would€be€better€notÐ tÄ Ðto€build€over€a€utility€line.€€He€further€stated€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€theÐ `° Ðcondition€or€age€of€the€utility€lines€crossing€this€property€over€which€he€desired€toÐ L œ Ðconstruct€his€new€building.€€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€January€31,€1996,€Vowell€Ventures€sued€City€of€Martin€in€the€present€action€alleging€thatÐ  ` ÐCity€denied€Vowell€Venturesðð€application€for€a€building€permit€due€to€the€fact€that€there€was€a€sewerÐ ü L  Ðline€and€storm€drain€crossing€the€property.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€the€denial€of€the€applicationÐ è 8  Ðfor€the€building€permit€constituted€a€taking€of€property€without€just€compensation€as€prohibited€byÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States€and€Article€I,€SectionsÐ À  Ð8€and€21€of€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Vowell€Ventures€sought€compensation€fromÐ ¬ü  ÐCity€for€the€taking€of€its€property.€€The€City€responded€by€a€pleading€styled€Motion€to€Dismiss€orÐ ˜è  Ðfor€Summary€Judgment€contending€that€the€complaint€was€an€action€of€inverse€condemnation€andÐ „Ô  Ðwas€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€29„16„124;€that€the€action€is€barred€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€suits€against€governmental€entities€under€the€GovernmentalÐ \¬ ÐTort€Liability€Act€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„303(b);€that€as€a€matter€of€law€the€denial€of€a€building€permit€byÐ H˜ Ða€municipality€does€not€constitute€a€ð ðtaking€of€propertyðð€as€alleged€in€the€complaint€and€that€theÐ 4„ Ðdisposition€of€the€previous€lawsuit€is€òòò òres€judicataóóó ó€and/or€collateral€estoppel.€€Following€a€hearingÐ  p Ðon€the€motion,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendantÐ  \ ÐCity€and€Vowell€Ventures€appeals€to€this€court.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€issues€as€presented€by€the€appellant€on€appeal€are€as€follows:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI.€€The€City€of€Martin€cannot€take€private€property€and€appropriate€such€forÐ ¨ø Ðthe€use€of€the€public€without€compensation€to€the€landowner.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àII.€€Summary€Judgment€was€not€appropriate€where€there€is€a€genuine€issue€ofÐ l¼ Ðdisputed€facts.€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àGovernmental€entities€are€empowered€to€take€private€property€for€the€use€and€benefit€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðpublic€good,€but€are€constitutionally€prohibited€from€doing€so€without€just€compensation€beingÐ #l! Ðmade.€€When€such€a€taking€occurs,€an€action€may€be€initiated€by€the€landowner€in€an€action€referredÐ $X" Ðto€as€inverse€condemnation.€€Such€an€action€must€generally€be€brought€within€12€months€after€theÐ ô$D # Ðland€has€been€actually€taken€possession€of€and€the€work€on€the€proposed€improvements€begun.€Ð à%0!$ ÐT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„124.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ì&"% Їà  àWe€are€unable€to€determine€from€the€record€before€us€when€the€sewer€line€and€storm€drainÐ ° Ðwere€installed€on€the€property€of€Vowell€Ventures€or€whether€Vowell€Ventures€was€the€owner€of€theÐ œì Ðproperty€at€the€time€of€the€installation.€€Vowell€Ventures€included€allegations€in€its€complaint€filedÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€previous€lawsuit€against€the€City€of€Martin€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€or€about€February€9,€1990,€Morris€Vowell,€one€of€the€partners€of€Plaintiff,Ð L œ Ðrequested€a€building€permit€from€the€City€of€Martin€to€construct€on€the€aboveÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperty€a€40€feet€by€80€feet€ð ðshellðð€office€building.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àBy€letter€dated€March€9,€1990,€Johnny€Tuck,€the€then€City€of€Martin€BuildingÐ ü L  ÐInspector,€denied€the€application€for€a€building€permit€stating€that€upon€checking€theÐ è 8  Ðproperty,€he€discovered€that€there€is€a€sewer€line€and€a€storm€drain€crossing€theÐ Ô$  Ðproperty,€and€that€he€could€not€grant€the€application.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àMorris€A.€Vowell€then€requested€to€the€Defendant€that€it€remove€the€sewerÐ ˜è  Ðand€storm€drain€from€property,€as€such€were€prohibiting€the€issuance€of€a€buildingÐ „Ô  Ðpermit.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€record€in€the€previous€case,€that€complaint€was€filed€on€October€16,€1991.€Ð H˜ ÐTherefore,€Vowell€Ventures€had€knowledge€at€that€time€that€there€was€a€sewer€line€and€storm€drainÐ 4„ Ðacross€its€property.€€The€present€action€was€filed€January€31,€1996.€€Therefore,€the€plaintiffððs€actionÐ  p Ðfor€inverse€condemnation€is€barred€by€the€aforementioned€statute€of€limitations.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€denial€of€the€building€permit€constitutes€a€taking€of€its€property.€Ð ä4 ÐIt€was€determined€in€the€prior€suit€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Vowell€VenturesððÐ Ð  Ðpetition.€òòò òóóó ó€Just€as€the€application€of€valid€zoning€regulations€is€not€considered€to€amount€to€a€takingÐ ¼  Ðunder€the€power€of€eminent€domain€(òòò òsee€Draper€v.€Haynesóóó ó,€567€S.W.2d€462,€465€(Tenn.€1978)€andÐ ¨ø Ðòòò òRagan€v.€Hallóóó ó,€No.€02A01„9501„CH„00007,€1995€WL€769269€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€29,€1995)€òòò òperm.Ð ”ä Ðapp.€deniedó óóó);€it€would€appear€that€the€denial€of€a€building€permit,€previously€adjudicated€to€haveÐ €Ð Ðbeen€proper,€likewise€does€not€constitute€a€taking€of€property€without€just€compensation.€€However,Ð l¼ Ðassuming€Appellant€is€correct,€its€cause€of€action€would€still€be€barred€by€the€twelve€month€statuteÐ X ¨ Ðof€limitations€set€forth€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€29„16„124.Ð D!” ÐÌÌÌâ âÐ ô$D # Ðà  àIn€view€of€our€decision,€the€appellantððs€second€issue€is€pretermitted.€€The€judgment€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âtrial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Vowell€Ventures€and€its€Ð œì Ðsurety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô#†XúXXXê¸ #ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D ” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE