WPC~ z="bQ{JPXڕ `rXj#_'"ds&cgPN7!69X,ˊYr'jܛ<3&#'heb; bh@&w֑9%Aefwծ'bLv{?I)Lh7Flc(:Ghx_xTr [ʸ^PċmArk`yjd+n)u&&63xɈ#L `gu5Tu0)``]U-VLb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m . #   K UNN%5' 0D\E~,bt[U@1111111111111111bqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 0yyyy Bdd 0 D5% D-Z 0K AS% 0 0D AZ-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU JesseeDrinnonHP LaserJet 40500Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular + RA9$      3  Q  _Wewillusethewords permitand licensetomeanthesamething,i.e.,arighttosellbeerasauthorized  byagovernmentalentity.(#$  0    RA9$      4  Q  _OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonNovember15,2002,atKnoxvilleFultonHighSchool,aspartofthe  Courts_C.A.S.E._Ԁ( C ourtofAppeals A ffecting S tudent E ducation)project. t RA9$      2  Q  _QQSuitwasfiledagainsttheCityofBeanStationandtheBeanStationBeerBoard.Foreaseofreference,we  willrefertothemcollectivelyas theCity.#QQ~#  RA9$      1  Q  _QQThereareactuallytwoplaintiffs.BecausetheplaintiffJoeHarperisthe99%majorityowner,generalmanager,  andCEOoftheplaintiffHarperEnterprises,LLC,wewillrefertotheplaintiffsinthesingularas theapplicant.#QQ~# X RA9$      5  Q  _QQAtoneplaceintherecord,thedateofdenialisreflectedasApril24,2001,whileatanotherplace,itisstated  tobeMay3,2001.Theexactdateisnotmaterial. Q RA9$      6  Q  _QQInadditiontodenyingthesubjectapplication,theCity,onOctober27,1997,deniedtheapplicationofBiLo  MarketNo.26.#QQ~#(v# Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2A9$ !.8dd8         0  Q d(|3u$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8_XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#+#Ԉ &   November15,2002Session L X_X #XX_#HARPERENTERPRISES,LLC,etal.v. J CITYOFBEANSTATION,TENNESSEE,etal.X_X   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Grainger_ԀCounty  ^ @@No.7240RichardR.Vance,Judge  J FILEDDECEMBER30,_2002_ "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201734_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      TheCityofBeanStation( theCity)deniedtheapplicationoftheplaintiff( theapplicant) #  1      #XX_#X_XԀfora  permittosellbeerforoffpremisesconsumption.Theapplicantfiledapetitionforcertiorari,naming x theCity #  2      ׀andseekingawritofmandamustocompelittoissuetherequestedpermit.h #  3      ׀Oncross d motionsforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtgrantedtheCitysummaryjudgment.Theapplicant P appeals.ItcontendsthattheCity, byactionsand/orinaction,hascauseditsbeerordinance,which < limitsbeerpermitswithinthemunicipalitytotwo,tobeinvalid.Inthealternative,itcontendsthat (x theCity hasengagedindiscriminatory,arbitraryandcapriciousapplicationoftheordinance.We d vacatethetrialcourtsjudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedings._ #  4      _ P #XX_%#X_X8 Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt ( Vacated;CaseRemanded     #X_ #X_X.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_,  _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined.  RichardC.JesseeandLoriL.Jessee,_Morristown_,Tennessee,fortheappellants,HarperEnterprises, `!  LLC,andJoeHarper. L"!  8#" NathanD._Rowell_,Knoxville,Tennessee,andStevenDouglasDrinnon,_Dandridge_,Tennessee,for  theappellees,theCityofBeanStationandtheBeanStationBeerBoard.    OPINION #XX_ #X_X t I. L  #XX_.#  X_XX_XXX_  TheCitywasincorporatedonNovember4,1996.OnMarch24,1997,itenactedabeer $ t ordinancelimitingthenumberofpermitsthatcouldbeissuedtotwo:  `   8 ` LimitationonNumberofPermits.Thenumberoflicensesforthe  8  saleofbeershallbelimitedto2.Providedthatallrequirementsof $  thischapterarecompliedwith,allexistingpermitsforthesaleofbeer   withinthe[city]limitsof[BeanStation]atthedateofthe_passage_Ԁof   thisordinanceshallcontinuetoberenewed.Anewpermitmaybe   issuedtoaqualifiedpurchaserofanexistingestablishmentinwhich   apermitisnowheldforthesaleofbeer,andthepermitusedonly p withintheestablishmentorbuildingpurchased.\` x` x #X_XXX_#X_XXX_#XX_#X_XBeanStation,Tennessee,OrdinanceNo.001972110(1997).Whentheordinancewasenacted, 4 thereweretwolocationswithinthenewcitylimitssellingbeerforoffpremisesconsumption.These  p twolocationswereissuedthetwopermitsauthorizedbytheordinance.  \ #XX_#X_X#X_XXX_#X_XXX_  II. 4   TheStop&GoTexacoGasStationandFoodMart( theStop&GoTexaco)islocatedat   524Highway25EintheCity.Apparently,theownerofthatestablishmentfailedtopaythe  privilegetaxduetheCityfor2001andtheCityconsideredtheestablishmentsCityissuedpermit  tosellbeerforoffpremisesconsumption void/expiredFebruary2001forfailuretopaytaxes.    TheapplicantpurchasedtheStop&GoTexacoataforeclosuresaleonFebruary23,2001. X  Onthenextday!February24,2001!theapplicantappliedtotheCityfortheissuanceofabeer D! permit.TheCitydeniedtheapplicationinthespringof2001. #  5       0"    Atanearliertime,inMay,1998,theCityhadannexedanareaofpropertyadjacenttoits $X" boundaries.Thereislittleintherecordabouttheannexation.Aspertinenttothematternowbefore $D # theCourt,theCitysanswertooneoftheapplicantsinterrogatoriesismaterial: %0!$   8 ` InMay1998,theCityannexedpropertywhichcontainedfour(4) '#& entitiesorpersonsholdingbeerlicenses,whichhadbeenissuedby (#' _Grainger_ԀCounty.Sincethesefourentities/personsheldvalid  _Grainger_ԀCountybeerlicensesuponannexation,theCitytreatedthe  four(4)entities/personswithadditionallicensesas _grandfathered_.` x` x Thereisproofintherecordthatthepermitsissuedtothefournewlyannexedlocationswereissued ` bytheBeanStationCityClerkatthedirectionoftheMayorwithouttheinvolvementoftheCitys L  BeerBoard.Interestinglyenough,oneoftheannexedpropertieswastheStop&GoTexacosite, 8  whichwaslatertobepurchasedbytheapplicantatforeclosure. $ t   Afterthepermitswereissuedforthefourannexedproperties,thereweresixlocationsinthe  L  Citywithpermitstosellbeerforoffpremisesconsumption.Whentheapplicantsoughtitspermit,  8  therewerefivepermitsoutstanding,sincethepermitfortheStop&GoTexacobythattimehadbeen $  declared void/expiredbytheCity.     TheapplicantarguesthattheCity,byissuingthefourpermitstotheannexedpropertiesat   atimewhenthereweretwoexistingpermitsinthe_City,_Ԁrendereditsordinancevoid.Inthe   alternative,theapplicantarguesthatitshouldbeissuedapermitbecauseoftheCitysdiscriminatory p applicationofitsbeerordinance. \   TheCityarguesthatthenewlyannexedpropertieswere _grandfathered_.Inthealternative, 4 itarguesthat eveniftheBeanStationordinanceisfoundtobe_discriminatorily_Ԁenforced,theCity  p hastherighttorestorethevalidityoftheordinancethroughattrition.TheCitypointsoutthatall  \ applicationsforbeerpermitsfiledsincethebeerordinancewasenactedhavebeendenied. #  6       H   Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheapplicantwasnotentitledtoapermittosellbeerforoff   premisesconsumptionand,consequently,grantedtheCitysummaryjudgment.   @vv(III.    Theapplicantraisestwoissuesonappeal: l   8 ` 1.DidtheCityrenderthetwopermitlimitationinitsbeerordinance D! invalidbyissuingpermitstofourbusinessesthathad_Grainger_ 0"  CountybeerlicenseswhentheywereannexedintotheCity?#l!` x` x   8 ` 2.Ifthetwopermitlimitationhasnotbeenrenderedinvalid,hasthe $D # ordinance,nevertheless,beenappliedinadiscriminatoryfashionso %0!$ astoprecludetheCityfromenforcingthelimitationagainstthe &"% applicant?'#&` x` x  (#' #X_XXX_##XX_#X_X  IV.  )  ThetrialcourtdeterminedthattheCitysactionwithrespecttotheannexedbusinessesdid  notrenderthetwopermitlimitationinvalid.Italsoheldthattherewasnoevidenceof t discriminatoryapplicationofthesubjectordinance.Itreachedtheseconclusionsoflawbasedupon ` whatbothsidesacknowledgeareundisputedmaterialfacts.Hence,wemustdecideanewifthese L  materialfactsconclusivelyshowthattheCityisentitledtosummaryjudgment.SeeTenn.R.Civ. 8  R.56.04. $ t @)V.  L    Itisclearbeyondanydoubtthatacityhasthepower toplaceanabsolutelimituponthe $  numberoflicensesorpermitsissued[forthesaleofbeer]. Watkinsv._Naifeh_ ,635S.W.2d104,   107(Tenn.1982).Apermittosellbeerdoesnotcreateapropertyrightinthe_permittee_. Needham   v.BeerBd.of_Blount_ԀCounty ,647S.W.2d226,231(Tenn.1983). Alicensetosellliquor[or   beer]isnotacontractbyrightofpropertybutismerelyatemporarypermittodothatwhichwould   otherwisebeunlawful. Needham ,647S.W.2dat230(quoting McClellanv.State ,199Tenn.60, p 64,282S.W.2d631,633(1955)(bracketingin Needham ). \   TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasrecognizedinseveralcasesthepowerofcitiestocontrol 4 thesaleofbeerwithintheirboundaries.However,itisclearthatthispowermustbeexercisedby  p wayofavalidlyenactedordinance.In Brooksv.Garner ,566S.W.2d531(Tenn.1978),theCity  \ of_Pulaski_Ԁdeniedtheappellantsrequestforapermittosellbeerforoffpremisesconsumption. Id.  H The solebasisfordenialofthepermitwastheopinionofthemembersoftheBeerBoardthat 8 _Pulaski_Ԁalreadyhadasufficientnumberofoutletsforthesaleofbeer. Id. TheSupremeCourt $ notedthat_Pulaski_Ԁ [had]notenactedanordinancelimitingthenumberofbeerpermitswhichmay  beoutstandingintheCity. Id. Intheabsenceofanordinancesettingthenumberofbeerpermits  tobeissuedin_Pulaski_,theSupremeCourtconcludedthattheBeerBoardactedinanarbitraryand  capriciousmannerwhenitdeniedtheappellantsapplicationforabeerpermit. Id. at532.The  SupremeCourtsaidthatifacitywasgoingtolimitthenumberofbeerpermits,ithadtodosoby | ordinance,notingthat h    8 ` [_i]t_Ԁisafundamentalgoalofoursystemofgovernmentthat,tothe @"  extentpossible,webegovernedbylawsratherthanbymen.,#|!` x` x  Id.  %T #   TheSupremeCourthasaddressedacitysresponsetoannexedpropertiesthatheldvalidly &,"% issuedcountybeerpermitsatthetimeoftheannexation.In Thompsonv.CityofHarriman ,568 '#& S.W.2d92(Tenn.1978),theSupremeCourtwasfacedwithanordinancethatprohibitedthesaleof ($' beerwithinthecitylimitsoftheCityofHarriman. Id. Inthatcase,theSupremeCourtheldthat )$( therewasnodiscriminatoryenforcementoftheCitysordinanceprohibitingthesaleofbeerwithin *%) thecitylimitsofHarrimanwhen,insettlinglitigationcontestingtheannexationbytheCity, x+&* Ї  8 ` thecityenteredintoacompromisesettlement,approvedbythecourt,  allowingthoseestablishmentssellingbeer[underacountypermit]at  thetimeofannexationtocontinuetodosoundertheoutstanding  permits.t` x` x  Id. at92(emphasisadded).TheSupremeCourtpointedoutthat L    8 ` [t]heCityofHarrimanitselfhasneverissuedtoanyoneapermit ( x allowingthesaleofbeerwithinitsboundaries. d` x` x  Id. (emphasisinoriginal).  <    Thecasesmakeitclearthatacitycanpassanordinancecarvingoutanexceptiontothe   generalprovisionsofitsbeerordinanceinordertoaccommodatepreexistingnonconforminguses.   See,e.g., Watkins ,635S.W.2ddat109( Consideringthebroaderpowersofacitytoregulatethe   saleofbeertherein,eventothepointofprohibition,...,theCityofMasoncertainlyhadtheauthority   toincludesuchanexceptioninitsOrdinance.). x   In Neecev.CityofJohnsonCity ,767S.W.2d638(Tenn.1989),theSupremeCourt,ina P caseinvolvinganannexationofpropertyintotheCityofJohnsonCity,heldthatacity,byordinance, < coulddeny theholdersofcountybeerlicenses,uponannexation,therighttotransfer...fromone (x locationtoanothereventhoughthatrightwasaccordedthelicenseholderswithinthecity. Id. At d thetimeoftheannexation,theplaintiff/propertyownerwastheholderofalicenseissuedby T WashingtonCountytosellbeerforoffpremisesconsumption. Id. Whilethecourtreferredtothe @ Citysissuanceofa grandfatheredlicense, id. at639,theissueofwhethertheCitywaslegally , requiredtopermitthesaleofbeeronthenewlyannexedpropertydoesnotappeartohavebeen  raisedinthatcase. Neece isalsodifferentfromtheinstantcaseinanotherimportantrespect.In   Neece ,priortotheannexation,JohnsonCityhadamendeditsbeerordinancetospecificallyaddress  licensesforbusinessesthatthereafterwouldbeannexedintotheCity. Id. at638.Nosuch  amendmentwasenactedinthecaseatbar. | @ll)VI. T!   Intheinstantcase,theCitydidnotpassanordinanceexcludingthenewlyannexedproperties ,#|! fromitstwopermitlimit.Haditdoneso,thecaseauthorityseemstoindicatethatsuchanordinance $h" wouldhavebeenvalid.See Watkins ,635S.W.2dat109; Neece ,767S.W.2dat639.Instead,inthe %T # faceofanordinancelimitingbeerpermitstotwo,theCitychosetoignorethelimitandauthorize %@!$ newlyannexedproperties,undertheauspicesoftheCity,tosellbeerwithinthelimitsoftheCity. &,"% Thisraisesanissuethatapparentlywasnotraisedbelow;or,ifraised,wasnotfullydevelopedatthe '#& triallevel:WhentheCityannexedpropertiesthathadvalidlyissuedGraingerCountylicensestosell ($' beer,wastheCitylegallycompelledtoissueBeanStationpermitstotheselocationsinviewofthe )$( factthetwopermitsauthorizedbytheCitysbeerordinancewerethenoutstanding?Thisserious *%) issuewasnotarguedinthepartiesbriefsanddoesnotseemtohavebeenpresentedtothetrialcourt. x+&* Ї@MM(VII.    Oneissuethatwasraisedanddiscussedbythepartiesmeritsourattentionatthisjuncture.  TheCityassertsinitsbriefthat eveniftheBeanStationordinanceisfoundtobe_discriminatorily_ t enforced,theCityhastherighttorestorethevalidityoftheordinancethroughattrition.Itthen ` assertsthatithasshownitsintenttodosobydenyingbothapplicationsfiledwithitsincethe L  ordinancewaspassed. 8    ThepropositionstatedbytheCity,butinasomewhatdifferentfactualscenario,isfoundin  ` theSupremeCourtcaseof CityofMurfreesborov.Davis ,569S.W.2d805(1978):  L    8 ` Restorationofthevalidityofadistanceordinancecanonlybe $  achievedbyrevocationorotherelimination,suchasattrition,ofthe   _discriminatorily_Ԅissuedpermitsandlicenses. ` x` x  Id. at808(emphasisadded).Seealso Needham, 647S.W.2dat231 .Itisclear,however,that    [d]iscriminatoryenforcementofabeerpermitdistanceordinancecannotberectifiedbypostfacto t amendments. CityofMurfreesboro ,569S.W.2dat808. `   TheCityreadstheseauthoritiestoobroadly.Theydonotmeanthatadiscriminatorily 8 enforcedordinanceisvalidsolongasamunicipalityistyingtorectifythewrongsthatithas $t committedinthepast.Thecitedcasessimplymeanthatthevalidityofanordinancecanberestored ` byattritionandothermeans.Theword restoreinthiscontextmeanstobringbackthevalidity L and/orenforceabilityofanordinance,wherethoseattributeshavebeenlostbyillegalapplicationof 8 theordinancesprovisions.Assuming,withoutdeciding,thattheCitysordinanceisnowinvalid $ orcannotbeenforcedagainsttheapplicantbecauseofpastdiscriminatoryapplication,these  consequencescannotbeavoidedbypossibleattrition,i.e.,areductioninthenumberofoutstanding  beerpermits,atsomepointinthefuture.Ofcourse,onceadiscriminatoryenforcementisrectified  byrevocationorattrition,theonceinvalidordinance,assumingithasnotbeenrepealedbyaction  ofthemunicipalityandisstillotherwise onthebooks,isonceagainvalidandenforceable;butin p theinterim,itisnot. \  @..(VIII. 4"    WehaveconcludedthattherecordbeforeusdoesnotconclusivelyshowthattheCityis  $\" entitledtosummaryjudgment.Whilethefactsintherecord,suchastheyare,areundisputed,there $H # arenodetailedfactsregardingtheannexationoftheGraingerCountypropertiesorthecircumstances %4!$ underwhichtheywerebroughtintotheCity.Weholdthatthefactssurroundingtheannexation & "% shouldbefullydevelopedinordertoaddressthequestionposedabove.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.27 ' #& 3128(2000).Thiscaseappearstoraiseanissueoffirstimpressioninthisstate.Sincewearean (#' appellatecourt,webelievethisissueshouldbedevelopedandaddressedatthetriallevelfirst,based )$( uponrelevantstatutoryandcaseauthorityandsuchotherauthorityasmayhaveabearingonthe *%) statedissue. l+&* Ї@ll)IX.    Y  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellees,City  ofBeanStationandBeanStationBeerBoard.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurther t proceedings,consistentwiththisopinion. `    `     h     _______________________________  `      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE#XX_k)#X_X