WPC  > }{~kgGqQvHcߵhߒr&J"VsdžbǺ\d=LoT>O &\i m&wZBd|c3 ҭ")MYJ( pnc&&Ji&ȧl7 ,C"঩ɛ7&y TtrQ_Zi~PT78iTpaZA|45'dC=7MG#)b;;mdjMԫ9 &gkSm܎#X=^8h?]AAa|%,RB觇ѧp&stc6z9bkWԻS!^H_#b"V$ֽN"whh1qSrsa"m*Q*=zRqds?;ML$^6 JA*# LUNW % 0(w@4'6UN>  0l 0DU:\ 0D AQ / B 0D 0DV V D/ B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ dDefgDhijkDlӀvu[%3|xv(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular   $    1    WenotethatTennesseeCodeAnnotated671901and671912weredeletedas  obsoletebytheCodeCommissionin1998afterthepartiesinthiscasesubmittedtheirappellatebriefs.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !   "   Xz XXX DX Xz    Ad FILED Xz X D  December15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh !#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd""""'dxd !  ll  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X=bXXX7XXdXXd7vlr )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  rlvvvvllvvv@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE    vv@$ATNASHVILLE  vt )>.*jx:` `@Ed` 8ttxP : tߛv   `  򀀀  HOMEBUILDERSASSOCIATION  )   p  L  OFMIDDLETENNESSEE, h   )  8     `     h   )  Plaintiff/Appellee,   h   )  MauryChanceryNo.96487  `     `     h   )    p   P   v.   `     h   )    <     `     h   )  AppealNo.01A019706CH00259  (  MAURYCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,  )        `     h   )  Defendant/Appellee,   h   )      `     h   )CHARLESW.BURSON,Stateof  ) | TennesseeAttorneyGeneral, h   ) h    `     h   )  Defendant/Appellant.    h   ) @    @ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFMAURYCOUNTY 0 @ATCOLUMBIA,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEJIMT.HAMILTON,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee,   h   FortheDefendant/Appellant: @"  HomeBuildersAssociationofMiddleTennessee:L.BrucePeden    h   JohnKnoxWalkup %@!$ Columbia,Tennessee    h   CharlesL.Lewis &,"%    `     h   ForrestB.Bigham   `     h   Nashville,Tennessee    `     h   REVERSEDANDREMANDED   `     h   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. 1<-1 CONCURS:ALANE.HIGHERS,J. t727 ̜DAVIDR.FARMER,J.#XXX X=b#  L949 7XXdXXd7  @55' OPINION     Thiscaseisachallengetotheconstitutionalityofacountytax.Afterauthorizingthetax,thecountyadoptedaresolutionthatthetaxwouldnotbeimposed,andnosuchtaxeshavebeencollected.ThetrialcourtdeniedtheStatesmotiontodismiss.Wereverse,findingthatthereisnojusticiablecontroversy.  OnMay30,1991,theMauryCountyAdequateFacilitiesTaxwaspassedbytheGeneralAssembly,andenrolledasChapterNo.118ofthe1991PrivateActs.ThisActauthorizestheMauryCountyBoardofCommissioners( theCommission)toimposeataxonnewdevelopmentinMauryCounty.  PursuanttotheActtheMauryCountyCommissionratifiedandsetthetax.However,itlateradoptedaresolutiondeclaringthatthetaxwouldnotbeimposed atthistime.InJuly1991,theCommissionformallysetthetaxrateat$0.00forbothresidentialandnonresidentialdevelopment,andalsoresolvedtorefundanytaxespreviouslycollected.Thetaxhasnotbeenreinstatedsince1991,andtheevidenceintherecordestablishesthatnotaxwascollectedundertheActduringtheshortperiodinwhichtheCommissionhadsetarate.  Plaintiff/AppelleeHomebuildersAssociationofMiddleTennessee( Homebuilders)filedthisactionagainstMauryCountyundertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedϜ2914101to113,seekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthatthetaxisunconstitutional,andseekinganinjunctionprohibitingMauryCountyfromimplementingorcollectingtaxesundertheAct.ThesuitalsonamestheStateAttorneyGeneralasadefendant,becausethesuitchallengestheconstitutionalityofanactoftheGeneralAssembly.  TheDefendantsfiledamotiontodismiss.Inthemotion,DefendantsnotethattheDeclaratoryJudgmentActappliestoanactualcaseorcontroversy.Theymaintainthatthechallengedtaxhasneverbeenimposed,andthatthereisnorealthreatthatitwillbeimposed.Therefore,theyarguethatthecasedoesnotinvolveajusticiablecontroversyandshouldbedismissed.Defendantsalsoarguedthatthesuitshouldbedismissedbecausetheexclusivestatutoryremedyforchallengingacountytaxisbypayingunderprotestandbringingsuitwithinsixmonthsforarefund,andthatHomebuildersfailedtodothis. See Tenn.CodeAnn.671901;671912.   #  1      כ P726 ThetrialcourtdeniedDefendantsmotion,butgrantedtheirrequestforinterlocutoryappealtothisϜCourt. aa     Becausethisissueinvolvesaquestionoflaw,ourreviewisdenovo,withnopresumption p ofcorrectness. SeeCarvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). P    TheTennesseeDeclaratoryJudgmentActgrantscourtsbroadpowerstoconstruelegislatijon:jkveacts:k8  Anypersoninterestedunderadeed,will,writtencontract,orotherwritingsconstitutingacontract,orwhoserights,status,orotherlegalrelationsareaffectedbyastatute,municipalordinance,contract,orfranchise,mayhavedeterminedanyquestionofconstructionorvalidityarisingundertheinstrument,statute,ordinance,contract,orfranchiseandobtainadeclarationofrights,statusorotherlegalrelationsthereunder.    Tenn.CodeAnn.2914103(1980).However,thesepowersmaybeexercisedonlyincasesinwhichthepartiescanestablishtheexistenceofajusticiablecontroversy. See , e.g. , Oldhamv.  ACLU ,910S.W.2d431,435(Tenn.App.1995); Parksv.Alexander ,608S.W.2d881,89192 ` (Tenn.App.1980); Storyv.Walker ,218Tenn.605,607-08,404S.W.2d803,804(1966); Miller @ v.Miller ,149Tenn.463,474,261S.W.965,972(1924)kk.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthas  p describedajusticiablecontroversyasfollows: [T]hequestionmustberealandnottheoretical;thepersonraisingitmusthavearealinterest,andtheremustbesomeone[sic]havingarealinterestinthequestionwhomayopposethedeclarationsought. Cummingsv.Beeler ,189Tenn.151,223 ! S.W.2d913,915(1949)(quoting Millerv.Miller ,149Tenn.463,261S.W.965,972(1924)); see  #!  Oldhamv.ACLU ,910S.W.2d431,435(Tenn.App.1995). % #   In Cummingsv.Beeler ,189Tenn.151,223S.W.2d913(1949),theCourtconsidered `'"% anactofthelegislaturethatrequiredastateofficial,theSecretaryofState,tospendpublicfundstoholdaspecialelection.BecausetheActhadbeenpassedandwouldotherwisebeenforced,thecourtheldthattheActsconstitutionalitywasnotmerelyatheoreticalquestion. b񛀀bdccdeeSeeid. at915.ffgTghThhe -P(+  Cummings Courtfoundthatajusticiablecontroversyexisted.Inthatcase,thecourtfoundthatthe .0*- SecretaryofState:8  musteitherobeythemandatoryprovisionsofthislawwhichtheAttorneyGeneralhaspreviouslypubliclydeclaredasunconstitutionalorhemustdisregardthelawentirely.IftheSecretaryofStatedecidestofollowthemandatesofthestatuteandspendthepublicfundsandthenitdevelopsthattheAttorneyGeneralwascorrectinhisopinioninholdingthatthelawwasinvalidandunconstitutional,theSecretaryofStatewouldhavespentpublicfundsundertheauthorityofalawwhichwasillegalandwithouteffect.     ӜId.bb at91516.Asinthiscase,theplaintiffin Cummings challengedastatutethathadnotyetbeen  :p59 enforced.However,in Cummings ,therewasnodoubtthatthechallengedstatutewouldhavebeen  enforced.Therefore,thethreatofenforcementwasgenuine,nottheoretical,creatingajusticiablecontroversy. ` Inthiscase,beforethetaxcanbecollected,itmustfirstbesetabovearateofzero p bytheCommission.ThereisnoindicationintherecordthattheCommissionwillchoosetoraisetherateabovezeroandenforcethetaxstatute.  In Parksv.Alexander ,608S.W.2d881,892(Tenn.App.1980),thecourtstatedthat [i]f `  thecontroversydependsuponafutureorcontingenteventorinvolvesatheoreticalorhypotheticalstateoffacts,thecontroversyisnotjusticiableundertheTennesseeDeclaratoryJudgmentsAct.(citing Storyv.Walker ,218Tenn.605,607-08,404S.W.2d803,804(1966); UnitedStatesFidelity  &GuarantyCo.v.Askew ,183Tenn.209,212-13,191S.W.2d533,534-35(1946)). The  DeclaratoryJudgmentisiActdoesnotgivethecourtsjurisdictiontorenderadvisoryopinionstoassistthepartiesortoallaytheirfearsastowhatmayoccurinthefuture. Id.  P   Inthiscase,thechallengedtaxhasnotbeenimposed,andthereisnoindicationintherecordthatitwillbeimposed.Therefore,atthistime,acontroversyexistsonlyinatheoreticalsense.Consequently,thereisnojusticiablecontroversyundertheTennesseeDeclaratoryJudgmentAct.ThetrialcourterredindenyingtheDefendantsmotiontodismiss,andthisdecisionisreversed.  Theremainingissuesonappealarepretermittedbythisholding.ThecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforentryofanordergrantingDefendantsmotiontodismiss.  Thedecisionofthetrialcourtandisreversedandremandedassetforthabove.CostsareassessedagainsttheAppellee,forwhichexecutionissue,ifnecessary. X-hXXXL   `     h 򀀀 ,`'*    `     h HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. ,L(+    CONCUR:򀀀 2-1 ALANE.HIGHERS,J.  p3.2 򀀀 4615  DAVIDR.FARMER,J. #XLXX X-hn.#