ÿWPCü Öd¨¡†Æ ƒ|Çæ×þ E%_+JÆøäÛÁ›kHÌNÕ ƒœši,_ŸNçðK>?I;±¼Äêjè ¬ôà-eÐ5—ïé;¦+Ñ;gn¯Þk]îÏ€c„êsNȧUáð‰©‹uÁ ]Bgº6¦iÚ'âái ?hèBERDÉoâ;;cy¥î§û\õ@aÄœÊYþZ_©*ñèÃU:®tU 4Û2úe>lC3Cç' ÿÄ!{oÆ ·Wÿ³ LÑ1‹¦Q(`èM#ÿõÅFÅAjל¿ò³×Š˜F’Þ2FÞ êK$Æ‹´±lâÛôSLKrŠî¸ Ü›ÓiwË2ÕkÏ[‘"éSõñáŸtÑŸ-Bð”Ú?µ¤Òé'¹ór§&ØÝGìÁ>aceç–k}—çì¹ñr¸°IašØq ù™&MP°n i®ê÷gá¦ÂÍðm@¡š~ d# °DÐÇ«4½Çß"¦•‚‰^nRYÎÉÈ{,;B*€” §šûî K˜MdëI-Öæ…AÒ%ŸƒB×QçNO6W„¥í@g²cï;”à öÓêšÃ¥g韾6æ>fvnW÷ÝK);1Šb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy U N 0DO E“ zØÒR.$wR4bvÆ…ÆKÆÆ×^ N©« m­EÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄbÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ÎÎÎÎ Bää 0¤ D3¥ D-Ø 0K ASPÆ£ 0¤i 0D  A«Q˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ;Ý ƒR„8$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô¨lò»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨lòòô¨lÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThough€the€record€does€not€explicitly€state€that€the€new€building€was€constructed€on€the€land€purchasedÐ ° Ðby€Ô_ÔConleeÔ_Ô€in€1989,€the€complaint€states€that€the€City€of€Memphis€advised€Ô_ÔConleeÔ_Ô,€after€allowing€Ô_ÔConleeÔ_Ô€to€finishÐ qÁ Ðconstruction,€that€ð ðno€òòfurtheróó€expansion€will€be€allowed€on€the€parcel€of€ground€acquired€in€1989€.€.€.€.ðð€€(emphasisÐ 2‚ Ðadded).€€Such€statement€suggests€that€the€new€building€was€constructed€on€the€land€purchased€by€Ô_ÔConleeÔ_Ô€in€1989. ˜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.wpt $Ý ƒR„8$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô¨lò»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨lòòô¨lÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô‡ôTe òòô¨lÔRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€allÐ ° Ðjudges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€or€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinionÐ qÁ Ðwhen€a€formal€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€beÐ 2‚ Ðdesignated€ð ðMEMORANDUM€OPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€inÐ óC Ða€subsequent€unrelated€case.Ô#†ô¨lò òôTeµ#ÔD6hö0ê:i¢Ø+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 {q1Ï ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(§G2„8$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€†©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ô¨lò»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨lòòô¨lÔ d(|3¿$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€†©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€†©»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€†©»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼†©»»»ÔÑ8€ÉoXXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îzÊ†©ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼†©»îîzÊ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓASSIGNED€ON€BRIEFS€JULY€23,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÉoX»¼†©ÔÌò òÔ#†¼†©»XXÉoû#ÔCONLEE€ENGINE€REBUILDERS,€INC.òòóó€v.€CITY€OF€MEMPHISòòóóÔ‡XÉoX»¼†©Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CT„002435„02€€€€€€Karen€R.€Williams,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02ññ9ññ16„COA„R3„CVññ€„€Filed€November€17,€2004ññÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X&Î XXXÉoÔThis€appeal€arises€out€of€an€inverse€condemnation€action€brought€by€Appellant€against€Appellee.€Ð V¦  ÐAppellee€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted,Ð ? Ðcontending€that€Appellantððs€claim€was€time€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitation.€€The€trialÐ (x Ðcourt€granted€Appelleeððs€motion,€and€Appellant€now€seeks€review€by€this€Court.€€For€the€followingÐ a Ðreasons,€we€reverse.Ð úJ ÐÔ#†XÉoX XX&·#ÔÔ#†¼†©»XXÉo~#ÔÔ‡XÉoX»¼†©ÔÌÓ{ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversedó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼†©»àXÉoö#ÔÔ‡XÉoX.¼†©ÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòHollyÐ ˆØ ÐM.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð qÁ ÐÌLeonard€E.€Van€Eaton,€Memphis,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ C“ ÐÌNorman€P.€Hagemeyer,€Memphis,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ e ÐÓ”ÓÌò òMEMORANDUM€OPINIONó óÔ#†¼†©»XXÉoÃ#ÔÔ‡XÉoX»¼†©Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ç 7  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼†©»XXÉof #ÔÔ‡XÉoX»¼†©ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X&Î XXXÉoÔà@ûûìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ º" " ÐÌà  àConlee€Engine€Rebuilders,€Inc.€(ð ðConleeðð€or€ð ðAppellantðð)€is€a€Tennessee€corporation€ownedÐ $Ý$ Ðby€Ray€Conlee,€his€wife,€Fannie€Conlee,€and€their€son,€Andy€Conlee.€€In€September€1977,€ConleeÐ v%Æ % Ðpurchased€property€located€at€1091€North€Sixth€Street€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€At€that€time,€theÐ _&¯!& Ðproperty€was€zoned€as€light€industrial,€permitting€Conlee€to€use€the€property€for€its€businessÐ H'˜"' Ðpurposes€of€rebuilding€and€installing€automobile€engines.€Ð 1(#(ý Їà  àOn€December€13,€1988,€the€City€of€Memphis€(ð ðCityðð€or€ð ðAppelleeðð),€through€its€cityÐ ° Ðcouncil,€passed€City€Ordinance€3828.€€This€ordinance€amended€City€Ordinance€3064€and€rezonedÐ ™é ÐConleeððs€property€from€light€industrial€to€residential€duplex.€€€It€is€disputed€whether€Conlee€wasÐ ‚Ò Ðaware€of€the€rezoning€by€the€City€or€if€Conlee€received€actual€notice€of€the€zoning€change.€Ð k» ÐHowever,€Conlee€admits€in€its€brief€that€public€notice€had€been€published€prior€to€the€passage€ofÐ T¤ ÐCity€Ordinance€3828.€€Ð =  Ðà  àOn€August€24,€1989,€Conlee€purchased€approximately€1.0631€acres€of€real€propertyÐ & v Ðimmediately€north€of€1091€North€Sixth€Street.€€Again,€the€parties€dispute€whether€Conlee€was€awareÐ  _ Ðof€the€zoning€change€when€it€purchased€the€additional€lots€in€August€1989.€€Subsequently,€onÐ ø H ÐDecember€21,€1992,€Conlee€applied€for€and€was€issued€a€building€permit€from€the€Memphis€andÐ á 1  ÐShelby€County€Office€of€Building€Code€Enforcement,€allowing€Conlee€to€construct€a€storage€facilityÐ Ê   Ðfor€the€machine€shop.€€After€beginning€and€substantially€completing€work€on€the€new€facility€locatedÐ ³  Ðon€the€land€purchased€in€1989,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€ð ðstop€workðð€order€was€issued€by€the€Memphis€and€Shelby€CountyÐ œì  ÐOffice€of€Construction€Code€Enforcement,€stating€that€such€construction€was€in€violation€of€CityÐ …Õ  ÐOrdinance€3828€which€rezoned€the€property€from€light€industrial€to€residential€duplex.€€Though€theÐ n¾  Ðð ðstop€workðð€order€was€lifted€and€Conlee€completed€construction€of€the€building,€the€City€advisedÐ W§  ÐConlee€that€the€new€building€could€only€be€used€for€storage€purposes€and€no€expansion€would€beÐ @ Ðpermitted€on€the€original€parcel€purchased€in€1977.€Ð )y ÐÌà  àAfter€exhausting€its€administrative€remedies,€Conlee€filed€a€complaint€for€inverseÐ ûK Ðcondemnation€on€April€20,€1994,€in€the€Shelby€County€Chancery€Court.€€On€June€2,€1994,€the€CityÐ ä4 Ðfiled€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€complaint€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02.€€For€reasons€which€areÐ Í Ðnot€clear€from€the€record,€on€May€30,€1997,€the€City€filed€an€answer€to€Conleeððs€complaint€settingÐ ¶ Ðforth€numerous€affirmative€defenses,€including€the€defense€that€Conleeððs€claim€was€time€barred.€Ð Ÿï ÐIn€April€2002,€the€parties€entered€into€a€consent€order€to€transfer€the€action€to€the€Shelby€CountyÐ ˆØ ÐCircuit€Court.€€After€the€City€filed€another€motion€to€dismiss€in€the€circuit€court,€the€lower€courtÐ qÁ Ðgranted€this€motion.€€The€court€reasoned€that€the€statute€of€limitation€for€an€inverse€condemnationÐ Zª Ðaction€began€to€run€on€the€day€City€Ordinance€3828€was€passed,€and€Conleeððs€complaint€was€filedÐ C“ Ðmore€than€a€year€after€the€enactment€of€this€ordinance.€€€Conlee€appeals€to€this€Court€and€presentsÐ ,| Ðthe€following€issue,€as€we€perceive€it,€for€our€review:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÐ e Ðdetermined€that€Conleeððs€complaint€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted€givenÐ þN Ðthe€one„year€statute€of€limitation€for€inverse€condemnation€actions.€€For€the€following€reasons,€weÐ ç 7 Ðreverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ Ð!   Ðopinion.Ð ¹" ! ÐÌÓ  Óò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ ‹$Û# ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€articulated€an€appellate€courtððs€standard€of€reviewÐ ^&®!% Ðwhen€a€party€appeals€the€grant€of€a€motion€to€dismiss:Ð G'—"& Ð‡Ó XÓÓ  Óà0  àà ` àA€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€only€seeks€to€determine€whether€theÐ ° Ðpleadings€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Such€a€motion€challengesÐ ™é Ðthe€legal€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof,€and,Ð ‚Ò Ðtherefore,€matters€outside€the€pleadings€should€not€be€considered€in€deciding€whetherÐ k» Ðto€grant€the€motion.€€òòSee€Bell€ex€rel.€Snyder€v.€Icard,€Merrill,€Cullis,€Timm,€FurenÐ T¤ Ð&€Ginsburg,€P.A.óó,€986€S.W.2d€550,€554€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€reviewing€a€motion€toÐ =  Ðdismiss,€the€appellate€court€must€construe€the€complaint€liberally,€presuming€allÐ & v Ðfactual€allegations€to€be€true€and€giving€the€plaintiff€the€benefit€of€all€reasonableÐ  _ Ðinferences.€€òòSee€Pursell€v.€First€Am.€Natððl€Bankóó,€937€S.W.2d€838,€840€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð ø H ÐIt€is€well„settled€that€a€complaint€should€not€be€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claimÐ á 1  Ðunless€it€appears€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€or€herÐ Ê   Ðclaim€that€would€warrant€relief.€€òòSee€Doe€v.€Sundquistóó,€2€S.W.3d€919,€922€(Tenn.Ð ³  Ð1999);€òòFuerst€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€S.óó,€566€S.W.2d€847,€848€(Tenn.€1978).€€GreatÐ œì  Ðspecificity€in€the€pleadings€is€ordinarily€not€required€to€survive€a€motion€to€dismiss;Ð …Õ  Ðit€is€enough€that€the€complaint€set€forth€ð ða€short€and€plain€statement€of€the€claimÐ n¾  Ðshowing€that€the€pleader€is€entitled€to€relief.ðð€€òòWhite€v.€Revco€Disc.€Drugs€Ctrs.,€Inc.óó,Ð W§  Ð33€S.W.3d€713,€718€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01).€€We€review€the€trialÐ @ Ðcourtððs€legal€conclusions€òòde€novoóó€without€giving€any€presumption€of€correctness€toÐ )y Ðthose€conclusions.€€òòIdóó.ÐbÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓòòTrau„Med€of€Am.,€Inc.€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€71€S.W.3d€691,€696„97€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð ä4 ÐÓ  Óò òLaw€and€Analysisó óÐ Í ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€crux€of€this€appeal€does€not€question€whether€City€Ordinance€3828€was€validly€enactedÐ · Ðby€the€city€council€of€Memphis.€€The€focus€of€this€appeal€is€the€restriction€placed€on€Conlee€by€CityÐ  ð ÐOrdinance€3828€and€whether€Conlee€filed€its€complaint€within€the€one„year€statute€of€limitation€forÐ ‰Ù Ðinverse€condemnation€actions.€€We€begin€by€noting€that€ð ð[i]nverse€condemnation€is€the€popularÐ r Ðdescription€of€a€cause€of€action€against€a€governmental€defendant€to€recover€the€value€of€theÐ [« Ðproperty€which€has€been€taken€in€fact€by€a€governmental€defendant€even€though€no€final€exerciseÐ D” Ðof€the€power€of€eminent€domain€has€been€attempted€by€the€government.ðð€€òòJohnson€v.€City€ofÐ -} ÐGreenevilleóó,€435€S.W.2d€476,€478€(Tenn.€1968).€€It€is€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„123€asÐ f Ðfollows:Ð ÿO ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àIf,€however,€such€person€or€company€has€actually€taken€possession€of€such€land,Ð Ñ!!  Ðoccupying€it€for€the€purposes€of€internal€improvement,€the€owner€of€such€land€mayÐ º" ! Ðpetition€for€a€jury€of€inquest,€in€which€case€the€same€proceedings€may€be€had,€as€nearÐ £#ó" Ðas€may€be,€as€hereinbefore€provided;€or€the€owner€may€sue€for€damages€in€theÐ Œ$Ü# Ðordinary€way,€in€which€case€the€jury€shall€lay€off€the€land€by€metes€and€bounds€andÐ u%Å $ Ðassess€the€damages,€as€upon€the€trial€of€an€appeal€from€the€return€of€a€jury€of€inquest.Ð^&®!%Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ X.)ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„123(a)€(2000).€€Further,€with€regard€to€zoning€and€land„use€ordinances,Ð 0(€#' Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated:Ð )i$( ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àà ` àOrdinances€regulating€the€use€and€development€of€property€are€generally€heldÐ ë*;&* Ðto€lie€within€the€police€power€of€municipal€corporations,€and€their€adoption,€whileÐ Ô+$'+ Ðfrequently€affecting€property€values€and€restricting€use€of€property,€has€generally€notÐ ° Ðbeen€considered€to€amount€to€a€taking€under€the€power€of€eminent€domain€or€toÐ ™é Ðconstitute€retrospective€legislation€within€the€meaning€of€the€state€constitution.€€Ð‚ÒÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ X„,ÓòòDraper€v.€Haynesóó,€567€S.W.2d€462,€465€(Tenn.€1978)€(citing€òòHouck€v.€Mintonóó,€212€S.W.2d€891Ð T¤ Ð(Tenn.€1948);€òòSpencer„Sturla€Co.€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€290€S.W.€608€(Tenn.€1927);€òòJones€v.Ð =  ÐNashvilleóó,€72€S.W.€985€(Tenn.€1902)).€€However,€to€constitute€a€ð ðtaking,ðð€ð ðððit€is€not€necessary€forÐ & v Ðthe€owner€to€be€entirely€deprived€of€the€use€of€the€property.€€Any€destruction,€òòrestrictionóó€orÐ  _ Ðinterruption€of€the€common€and€necessary€use€may€constitute€a€taking.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€165€(quoting€òòJonesÐ ø H Ðv.€Cocke€Countyóó,€420€S.W.2d€587,€589€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1967))€(emphasis€added).€€Indeed,€thisÐ á 1  ÐCourt,€adopting€the€findings€of€a€lower€court€and€quoting€them€with€approval,€enunciated€that€ð ðwhenÐ Ê   Ðregulation€goes€so€far€as€to€deprive€an€owner€of€the€beneficial€use€of€his€property,€it€becomesÐ ³  Ðconfiscatory€and€constitutes€a€taking€of€property€without€due€process€of€law.ðð€€òòBayside€WarehouseÐ œì  ÐCo.€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€470€S.W.2d€375,€378€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1971)€(citing€òòPa.€Coal€Co.€v.€Mahonóó,Ð …Õ  Ð260€U.S.€393,€415€(1922);€òòArverne€Bay€Constr.€Co.€v.€Thatcheróó,€15€N.E.2d€587€(N.Y.€1938)).€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àSection€29„16„124€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€articulates€the€statute€of€limitation€forÐ @ Ðclaims€of€inverse€condemnation:Ð )y ÐÌÓ XÓà0  àThe€owners€of€land€shall,€in€such€cases,€commence€proceedings€within€twelve€(12)Ð ûK Ðmonths€after€the€land€has€been€actually€taken€possession€of,€and€the€work€of€theÐ ä4 Ðproposed€internal€improvement€has€begun;€saving,€however,€to€unknown€owners€andÐ Í Ðnonresidents,€twelve€(12)€months€after€actual€knowledge€of€such€occupation,€notÐ ¶ Ðexceeding€three€(3)€years,€and€saving€to€persons€under€the€disabilities€of€infancy€andÐ Ÿï Ðunsoundness€of€mind,€twelve€(12)€months€after€such€disability€is€removed,€but€notÐ ˆØ Ðexceeding€ten€(10)€years.ÐqÁÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ XÂ4ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„124€(2000).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€further€elaborated€onÐ C“ Ðwhen€an€inverse€condemnation€action€begins€to€accrue€stating€ð ðthe€onus€is€on€the€property€ownerÐ ,| Ðto€institute€his€suit€within€one€year€after€he€realizes€or€should€reasonably€realize€that€his€propertyÐ e Ðhas€sustained€an€injury€which€is€permanent€in€nature.ðð€€òòKnox€County€v.€Moncieróó,€455€S.W.2d€153,Ð þN Ð156€(Tenn.€1970).€€The€time€of€the€accrual€of€an€inverse€condemnation€cause€of€action€is€frequentlyÐ ç 7 Ða€question€of€fact€and€not€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSee€Osborne€Enters.,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€561Ð Ð!   ÐS.W.2d€160,€165€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€determined€that€the€statute€of€limitationÐ ‹$Û# Ðfor€Appellantððs€inverse€condemnation€action€began€to€run€when€City€Ordinance€3828€was€enactedÐ t%Ä $ Ðin€December€1988.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€agree.€€In€this€case,€AppellantÐ ]&­!% Ðcomplains€that€the€Appellee€committed€a€ð ðtakingðð€in€the€form€of€a€restrictive€zoning€ordinance€forÐ F'–"& Ðproperty€acquired€by€Appellant€in€December€1977€but€also€in€August€1989.€€As€an€initial€matter,€itÐ /(#' Ðseems€illogical€to€this€Court€that€a€ð ðtakingðð€occurred,€and€the€statute€of€limitation€for€inverseÐ )h$( Ðcondemnation€began€to€run,€in€December€1988€for€the€parcel€of€land€Appellant€acquired€in€AugustÐ *Q%) Ð1989.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àNext,€we€note€that,€given€this€Courtððs€holding€in€òòOsborne€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€Chattanoogaóó,Ð ° Ðit€was€inappropriate€for€the€lower€court€to€hold,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€statute€of€limitation€forÐ ™é Ðinverse€condemnation€actions€codified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„124€began€to€run€at€the€time€CityÐ ‚Ò ÐOrdinance€3828€was€enacted€on€December€13,€1988.€€òòOsborne€Enters.,€Inc.óó,€561€S.W.2d€at€165.€Ð k» ÐInstead,€the€statute€of€limitation€begins€to€run€when€the€complainant€ð ðrealizes€or€should€reasonablyÐ T¤ Ðrealize€that€his€property€has€sustained€an€injury€which€is€permanent€in€nature.ðð€€òòMoncieróó,€455Ð =  ÐS.W.2d€at€156.€€In€this€case,€it€appears€from€the€complaint€that€Appellant€had€no€knowledge€of€CityÐ & v ÐOrdinance€3828€when€it€was€passed,€did€not€realize€that€the€property€was€rezoned€when€heÐ  _ Ðpurchased€additional,€adjacent€lots€in€August€1989,€continued€to€have€no€knowledge€of€suchÐ ø H Ðrezoning€when€he€obtained€a€building€permit€from€the€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€Office€ofÐ á 1  ÐBuilding€Code€Enforcement€on€December€21,€1992,€for€expansion€of€his€business,€and€only€learnedÐ Ê   Ðof€the€rezoning€when€Appellee€issued€a€ð ðstop€workðð€order€while€Appellant€was€amidst€constructionÐ ³  Ðof€a€new€facility€on€the€rezoned€property.€€Though€Appellee€disputes€in€its€answer€the€point€in€timeÐ œì  ÐAppellant€knew,€or€should€have€known,€of€the€rezoning,€such€statement€is€insufficient€to€sustain€aÐ …Õ  Ðmotion€to€dismiss€and€renders€the€grant€of€such€motion€inappropriate.€€For€these€reasons,€we€reverseÐ n¾  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€Appelleeððs€motion€to€dismiss€and€remand€for€further€proceedingsÐ W§  Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.Ð @ ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionó óÐ b ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€motion€to€dismiss€inÐ å5 Ðfavor€of€Appellee.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellee,€the€City€of€Memphis,€for€whichÐ Î Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð · ÐÌà  à€Ð ‰Ù ÐÔ#†XÉoX XX&Î; #ÔÔ#†¼†©»XXÉo #ÔÔ€XÉoX»¼†©ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð f Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE