ÿWPCN0 ôÚ® F™¿a™¿a *w<ÑÉ‘¬’lhèöã[:²ÇÎyÌíÓüÜ®Ù?悯c8CŃŽz4ŽÃÕ÷žz UtŸÝÑØBÒÍ’ú#%)µloÃÜ›`®Œ¹ÇI+à7žžHãò„©HÛFN„ ¥¼ª JËRb1‹ãkìö^èl•æ{¢øPÞi!3/ÚÙÔ.Û /Ù;Šà,‹Õðï]ZÚ‡ÈKþ;³v‡×I`ÔûoÜ$¹AMÄ%òŽd|pÂü([Ðo]%ºôä>þ™æ˜º,´:7 ‰7ÄQù<º_dû×u]ŠMÁ¯ð?Ë‹âöe{,Iw¬n) EÁnR>¶ú!€ý§F" y“µWß|¯…Áュ%P6lu,±­‚}5yÕìÚ®5O÷œ–áuýãEA‚p¡áå@+'cw±¼?!9å !^)8Y CÞ¿n$2ðÕùxÙJ<„ç*Çpé'56‡nüûJb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U)N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'Æí 0D³N÷Øù\ÑE-UN/Ê}ôGñ;;%,TQQ¥ÛöðÑÑKÁ"ü %'' !*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*bA+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+A+ 0ëI+I+I+I+ B4,4, 0¤Q, D5õ, D-*- 0KW-W- AS¢-Æõ- 0¤». 0D_/ A«£/˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»r1 (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular„‚–0˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  COAJanneyunplattedVradenburgoverbroadestoppedSevierdispositive STSHallsdale RÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€City€Managerððs€affidavit€stated€that€his€letter€referred€only€to€the€Wilson€County€òòzoningóó€regulations,€notÐ ° Ðto€all€of€Wilson€Countyððs€land€use€regulations.€Ð tÄ Ð(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÀÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Mt.€Juliet€Planning€Commission€was€later€added€as€a€defendant. êÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€members€of€the€joint€venture€are€the€Nashville€Corporation,€Inc.€and€an€individual€named€Brent€Campbell. çÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔGovernment€action€that€denies€a€landowner€all€use€of€his€property€for€a€period€of€time,€if€such€action€isÐ ° Ðdetermined€to€be€a€taking,€is€compensable.€òòFirst€English€Evangelical€Church€of€Glendale€v.€Co.€Los€Angeles,€óó482€U.S.Ð tÄ Ð304,€304,€107€S.€Ct.€2378,€2388€(1987)€(holding€ð ðwhere€the€governmentððs€actions€have€already€worked€a€taking€of€allÐ 8ˆ Ðuse€of€property,€no€subsequent€action€by€the€government€can€relieve€it€of€the€duty€to€provide€compensation€for€the€periodÐ üL Ðduring€which€the€taking€was€effective.ðð)Ð À Ð Ý ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€relevant€facts€are€taken€from€filings€made€in€support€of€and€opposition€to€dispositive€motions€filed€by€allÐ ° Ðparties€at€various€times. JÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently€Ô_ÔSTSÔ_Ô/BAC€initially€took€the€position€it€had€only€purchased€lots,€not€the€development,€which€wasÐ ° Ðrelevant€to€responsibility€for€infrastructure. GÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€a€consequence,€some€of€the€claims€and€requests€for€relief€included€in€the€complaint€were€rendered€moot,Ð ° Ðleaving€only€the€takings€claim€at€issue.€€òòÔ_ ÔSCAÔ_ Ô€Chemical€Waste€Services,€Inc.€v.€Konigsbergóó,€636€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1982)Ð tÄ Ð(holding€that€where€clean€air€permit€was€issued€after€appeal€perfected,€the€action€was€moot€as€to€request€for€order€to€issueÐ 8ˆ Ðpermit). ÑÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€addition€to€the€provision€discussed€earlier,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„124€also€provides€exceptionsÐ ° Ðindicating€knowledge€or€at€least€attributable€knowledge€is€the€key:€ð ðsaving,€however,€to€unknown€owners€andÐ tÄ Ðnonresidents,€twelve€(12)€months€after€actual€knowledge€of€such€occupation,€not€exceeding€three€(3)€years,€and€savingÐ 8ˆ Ðto€persons€under€the€disabilities€of€infancy€and€unsoundness€of€mind,€twelve€(12)€months€after€such€disability€is€removed,Ð üL Ðbut€not€exceeding€ten€(10)€years.ððÐ À Ð æÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Constitution€in€Article€I,€Section€8€provides€that€ð ðno€man€shall€be€.€.€.€€deprived€of€his€life,Ð ° Ðliberty,€or€property,€but€by€the€judgment€of€his€peers€or€the€law€of€the€land.ðð€€Article€I,€Section€21€provides€that€ð ðnoÐ tÄ Ðmanððs€particular€services€shall€be€demanded,€or€property€taken,€or€applied€to€public€use,€without€the€consent€of€hisÐ 8ˆ Ðrepresentatives€or€without€just€compensation€being€made€therefor.ðð€€These€provisions€apply€to€governmental€taking€ofÐ üL Ðproperty.€€òòBarge€v.€Ô_ ÔSadlerÔ_ Ôóó,€70€S.W.3d€683,€687€n.4€(Tenn.€2002);€òòFaróó€òòTower€Sites,€LLC€v.€Knox€Co.óó,€126€S.W.3d€52,Ð À Ð62„63€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003);€òòCross€v.€Ô_ ÔMcCurryÔ_ Ôóó,€859€S.W.2d€349,€353€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993). AÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€developerððs€action€in€July€1998€in€appearing€before€the€Commission€to€reiterate€its€argument€that€no€newÐ ° Ðpreliminary€plat€was€required€did€not€re„start€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€Commission€had€previouslyÐ tÄ Ðmade€a€final€ruling€on€the€issue,€and€the€landowner€could€not€extend€its€time€for€bringing€a€takings€action€by€making€aÐ 8ˆ Ðrenewed€argument€against€that€ruling. òÝ ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€same€view€is€taken€of€the€Takings€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution:€it€affirms€the€governmentððsÐ ° Ðauthority€to€confiscate€private€property,€but€imposes€two€conditions:€the€taking€must€be€for€a€public€use,€and€justÐ tÄ Ðcompensation€must€be€paid.€€òòLegal€Foundation€of€Washingtonóó,€538€U.S.€at€231„32,€123€S.€Ct.€at€1417. Ý ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôæõòòôæõÔAlthough€the€developer€made€some€assertions€below€that€the€Commission€sought€to€require€it€to€comply€withÐ ° Ðnew€subdivision€regulations,€no€specific€examples€have€been€given.€€We€interpret€the€assertions€as€referring€to€theÐ tÄ Ðrequirement€that€the€developer€submit€a€new€plat€for€preliminary€approval€that€complied€with€Mt.€Juliet€subdivisionÐ 8ˆ Ðregulations.€€Ô#†ôæõòòôæõ#ÔAny€difference€between€Mt€Juliet€regulations€and€Wilson€County€regulations€existing€at€the€time€of€theÐ üL Ðoriginal€preliminary€approval€has€not€been€pointed€out. Ý ƒR…œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€merits€of€the€partiesðð€respective€interpretations€of€the€regulations€and€their€application€to€these€facts€isÐ ° Ðnot€before€us.€- ù-(|G2…œ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ce»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæõò»»Ô d(|3‡}$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ce»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡}$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ce»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ce»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ce»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îBŒî»¼CeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ce»îîBŒ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€9,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XáX»¼CeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ce»XXáô#ÔÔ_ÔSTSÔ_Ô/BAC€JOINT€VENTURE€v.€THE€CITY€OF€MT.€JULIET,€Ð úJ ÐTENNESSEE€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XáX»¼CeÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99205€€€€€€Charles€K.€Smith,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00171„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€1,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€developer€of€a€planned€Wilson€County€subdivision€sought€damages€for€a€temporary€taking,Ð ŒÜ Ðclaiming€that€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€interfered€with€the€completion€of€the€project€by€arbitrarilyÐ xÈ Ðrefusing€to€grant€necessary€permits.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€Mt.€Juliet,€in€partÐ d´ Ðon€the€ground€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€passed€on€the€developerððs€claim€for€relief.€€WeÐ P  Ðaffirm.Ô#†¼Ce»XXá¶#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼CeÔÐ <Œ ÐÓùÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€AffirmedÐ d Ðó óòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ce»àXá#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼CeÔÌÌPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó,€and€òòFrankÐ Ø( ÐG.€Clement€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌGeorge€A.€Dean,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔSTSÔ_Ô/BAC€Joint€Venture.Ð œì ÐÌJohn€E.€Quinn,€Douglas€B.€Janney€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€The€City€of€Mt.€Juliet,Ð t Ä ÐTennessee€and€the€Mt.€Juliet€Planning€Commission.Ð `!°  ÐÓ¹ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ce»XXáè#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼CeÔÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XáXXXáÔà  àThis€case€began€when€the€developer€of€a€subdivision€filed€a€complaint€on€May€26,€1999,Ð %` $ Ðagainst€the€city€of€Mt.€Juliet׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€city,€through€its€planning€commission,€hadÐ ü%L!% Ðarbitrarily€and€illegally€denied€approvals€for€further€development€of€the€project,€thereby€deprivingÐ è&8"& Ðthe€developer€of€beneficial€use€of€his€property€in€violation€of€the€takings€clauses€of€both€the€UnitedÐ Ô'$#' ÐStates€Constitution€and€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€developer€alleged€that€from€late€1995€orÐ À($( Ðearly€1996,€the€city€either€denied€applications€for€permits€or€delayed€action€on€such€applications.€€Ð ¬)ü$) Ðâ âÐ ˜*è%*ýÈ ÐÔ_ Ôà  àThe€case€was€eventually€dismissed€by€final€order€granting€the€cityððs€motion€for€summaryÐ ° Ðâ âjudgment€and€the€commissionððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€In€that€order€the€trial€court€held,€ð ðSpecifically,Ð œì Ðthe€Court€finds€that€Plaintiffððs€claims€against€Defendants€are€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€andÐ ˆØ Ðapplicable€law.ððÔ#†XáXXXሠ#ÔÔ#†¼Ce»XXáG #ÔÔ€XáX»¼CeÔÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àà@``ìàò òI.€€òòA€Planned€Subdivisionó óóóˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€property€in€dispute€is€a€240„250€acre€tract€of€land€in€Wilson€County€which€NashvilleÐ $ t ÐLand€Partners€acquired€for€the€purpose€of€creating€a€large€residential€development€to€be€completedÐ  ` Ðin€phases.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€plan€was€to€divide€the€property,€called€the€Park€Glen€subdivision,€into€740€separateÐ ü L  Ðlots,€to€be€serviced€by€a€new€infrastructure€of€roads€and€utilities.€€A€preliminary€subdivision€plan€wasÐ è 8  Ðpresented€to€the€Wilson€County€Planning€Commission€and€approved€on€May€14,€1987.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€approval€and€thereafter,€Wilson€County€had€a€subdivision€regulation€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðstated,€ð ðapproval€of€the€preliminary€plat€shall€lapse€unless€a€final€plat€based€thereon€is€submittedÐ ˜è  Ðwithin€one„year€from€the€date€of€such€approval.€.€.€.ðð€€Another€regulation€in€effect€made€it€clear€thatÐ „Ô  Ðð ðapproval€of€the€preliminary€plat€by€the€Planning€Commission€shall€not€constitute€acceptance€of€theÐ pÀ Ðfinal€plat.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àNashville€Land€Partners€asked€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€to€extend€its€sanitary€sewer€system€toÐ 4„ ÐPark€Glen.€€On€July€13,€1987,€Nashville€Land€Partners€and€the€Mt.€Juliet€Sewer€Board€signed€anÐ  p Ðagreement€allocating€the€costs€and€obligations€of€the€sewer€extensions€between€the€parties.€€TheÐ  \ Ðowner€also€urged€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet€to€annex€the€subdivision€property.€€On€November€10,€1987,Ð øH ÐDanny€Farmer,€Mt€Julietððs€City€Manager€wrote€a€brief€letter€to€Nashville€Land€Partners€that€read:€Ð ä4 ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒThe€policy€of€the€City€of€Mt.€Juliet,€in€regard€to€the€annexation€of€the€aboveÐ ¼  Ðreferenced€subdivision€into€the€city,€is€that€it€will€be€allowed€to€conform€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðcurrent€Wilson€County€zoning€since€the€preliminary€plot€(sic)€has€been€approved€byÐ ”ä Ðthe€Wilson€County€Planning€Commission€and€work€has€commenced€on€the€project.Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àThe€legal€effect€of€that€letter€became€a€point€of€contention€between€the€parties.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€NovemberÐ X ¨ Ðof€1987,€the€subdivision€property€was€annexed€by€the€city,€transferring€authority€over€the€subdivisionÐ D!” Ðto€the€Mt.€Juliet€Planning€Commission.€€At€the€time€of€the€annexation,€Mt.€Juliet,€like€WilsonÐ 0"€  ÐCounty,€had€a€subdivision€regulation€providing€that€if€a€final€plat€for€a€subdivision€that€has€receivedÐ #l! Ðpreliminary€approval€is€not€submitted€within€twelve€months€of€the€preliminary€plat€approval,€thenÐ $X" Ðthe€preliminary€plat€is€null€and€void€and€must€be€resubmitted€for€preliminary€approval€again.€€A€finalÐ ô$D # Ðplat€was€submitted€to€the€Wilson€County€Planning€Commission,€but€was€denied€by€that€commissionÐ à%0!$ Ðon€November€12,€1987.€€Within€one€year€of€the€May€1987€approval€of€Park€Glenððs€preliminary€plat,Ð ° ÐNashville€Land€Partners€submitted€a€final€plat€for€some€phases€or€sections€of€the€subdivision,€andÐ œì Ðapproval€for€those€plats€was€granted€by€the€Mt.€Juliet€Planning€Commission€since€annexation€hadÐ ˆØ Ðoccurred.€€Much€of€the€subdivision€was€not€covered€by€these€final€plats.€€No€final€plat€for€theÐ tÄ Ðremainder€of€the€subdivision€was€ever€submitted€to€the€Mt.€Juliet€Planning€Commission€by€NashvilleÐ `° ÐLand€Partners.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àNashville€Land€Partners€defaulted€on€its€obligations,€and€its€lender€was€placed€intoÐ $ t Ðreceivership,€with€the€Federal€Deposit€Insurance€Corporation€seizing€its€assets€in€1991.€€A€jointÐ  ` Ðventure€called€STS/BAC€(ð ðdeveloperðð)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€purchased€the€disputed€property€in€a€December€1993Ð ü L  Ðforeclosure€sale.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€that€time,€the€property€consisted€of€47€platted€and€developed€lots€in€SectionsÐ è 8  Ð1,€2,€and€3€of€the€subdivision,€and€additional€unplatted€acreage.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAt€some€point€after€the€purchase,€STS/BAC€began€efforts€to€develop€more€of€Park€Glen.€€ByÐ ¬ü  Ðletter€dated€March€31,€1995,€the€city€informed€STS/BAC€that€the€commission€had€not€approved€aÐ ˜è  Ðpreliminary€plan€for€Phase€II,€Sections€1€and€2€of€Park€Glen€Subdivision.€€The€letter€continued,Ð „Ô  Ðð ðBased€on€your€discussion€with€the€Commission€on€March€16,€1995,€a€new€preliminary€plan€mustÐ pÀ Ðbe€submitted€and€approved€by€the€Planning€Commission.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€developer€placed€on€the€agenda€for€the€April€1995€commission€meeting€the€original€1987Ð 4„ Ðpreliminary€plat€for€Park€Glen€subdivision€for€preliminary€approval,€but€withdrew€it€after€staffÐ  p Ðindicated€it€would€recommend€against€approval€because€of€noncompliance€with€commissionÐ  \ Ðrequirements€regarding€a€concept€plan.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€May€of€1995,€STS/BAC€submitted€for€preliminary€approval€a€section€of€the€Park€GlenÐ Ð  Ðsubdivision€(Lots€82„132€in€Section€3).€€Preliminary€approval€was€granted€by€the€commission€andÐ ¼  Ðon€November€30,€1995,€final€approval€for€specified€lots€covered€by€that€preliminary€plat€was€granted.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€commissionððs€June€27,€1996,€meeting,€the€developer€requested€approval€of€aÐ €Ð Ðconcept€plan,€but€did€not€submit€a€preliminary€plat€for€the€subdivision.€€The€next€activity€reflectedÐ l¼ Ðin€the€record€was€a€commission€meeting€on€January€15,€1998,€wherein€the€developer€told€theÐ X ¨ Ðcommission€it€was€the€developerððs€position€that€no€new€preliminary€subdivision€plat€had€to€beÐ D!” Ðsubmitted€for€approval€because€of€the€1987€approval€by€the€Wilson€County€Planning€Commission.€Ð 0"€  ÐBased€upon€an€opinion€from€counsel,€the€city€engineer€again€took€the€position€that€the€approvalÐ #l! Ðgranted€by€the€Wilson€County€Planning€Commission€had€lapsed€one€year€later.€€The€commissionÐ $X" Ðcontinued€to€adhere€to€its€interpretation€of€the€regulation,€to€conclude€there€was€no€valid€preliminaryÐ ô$D # Ðplat,€and€to€require€that€the€developer€submit€a€new€preliminary€plat€for€the€subdivision€as€a€whole.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àThe€minutes€of€the€July€16,€1998€meeting€of€the€Commission€reflect€that€the€developerÐ ° Ðappeared€and€stated€he€had€submitted€a€preliminary€plat€for€another€section€of€Park€Glen€andÐ œì Ðrequested€it€be€placed€on€the€agenda.€€Again,€Commission€staff€reiterated€its€position€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðdeveloper€must€submit€an€preliminary€plat€for€the€subdivision€as€a€whole€as€a€prerequisite€to€anyÐ tÄ Ðfurther€development€of€Park€Glen.€€The€developer€again€argued€that€the€1987€approval€of€theÐ `° Ðpreliminary€plat€was€still€effective€and€no€new€preliminary€plat€was€required.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€affidavits€dated€August€of€2000,€at€that€point€there€had€been€no€other€effortsÐ $ t Ðby€the€developer€to€obtain€commission€approval€for€further€development€of€the€subdivision.€€NoÐ  ` Ðpreliminary€plat€for€the€subdivision€as€a€whole€had€been€submitted.€€The€subdivision€had€beenÐ ü L  Ðdeveloped€to€the€extent€permitted€by€approved€and€recorded€plats.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWhen€the€developer€filed€this€action€in€May€of€1999,€it€alleged€that€after€late€1995€or€earlyÐ À  Ð1996,€construction€on€the€development€came€to€a€halt€because€the€developer€was€unable€to€obtainÐ ¬ü  Ðnecessary€approval€for€additional€plans€and€permits€from€the€Mt.€Juliet€Regional€PlanningÐ ˜è  ÐCommission.€€While€the€litigation€was€pending,€approvals€for€further€development€were€given€inÐ „Ô  Ð2001.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€time€of€the€final€judgment,€the€only€issue€before€the€trial€court€was€whether€theÐ pÀ Ðdeveloperððs€claims€to€compensatory€damages€for€a€temporary€taking׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€its€property€prior€to€2001Ð \¬ Ðshould€be€dismissed€on€substantive€or€statute€of€limitations€grounds.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@Ð Ð ìàò òII.€òòThe€Law€Of€Governmental€Takingsóóó óˆÐ  p ÐÒ4°ÒÒ°4ÒÌÒ4°4ÒÒ°4Òà  àThe€developerððs€complaint€was€brought€pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€and€characterized€Mt.Ð øH ÐJulietððs€refusal€to€grant€the€requested€permits€as€arbitrary€and€capricious€actions€that€worked€a€takingÐ ä4 Ð(a€temporary€taking€in€view€of€eventual€approval)€of€the€developerððs€property€without€justÐ Ð  Ðcompensation,€in€violation€of€the€both€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðcomplaint€sought€$€2€million€in€compensatory€damages€and€attorneysðð€fees€in€accordance€with€42Ð ¨ø ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1988.€€Because€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€under€either,€or€both,€applicableÐ ”ä Ðsubstantive€law€and€statute€of€limitations€grounds,€some€discussion€of€the€law€of€regulatory€takingsÐ €Ð Ðis€necessary.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àÔ‡XáXXXáÔThe€second€clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€called€theÐ D!” ÐTakings€Clause€or€the€Just€Compensation€Clause,€provides€ð ðnor€shall€private€property€be€taken€forÐ 0"€  Ðpublic€use,€without€just€compensation.ðð€€This€clause€is€predicated€on€the€proposition€that€theÐ ° Ðgovernment€should€pay€for€private€property€it€has€taken€for€its€own€use.€€Its€purpose€is€to€prevent€theÐ œì Ðgovernment€from€forcing€an€individual€or€group€of€individuals€alone€to€bear€burdens€ð ðwhich,€in€allÐ ˆØ Ðfairness€and€justice,€should€be€borne€by€the€public€as€a€whole.ðð€€€òòPalazzolo€v.€Rhode€Islandóó,€533€U.S.Ð tÄ Ð606,€618,€121€S.€Ct.€2448,€2457„58€(2001);òò€Dolan€v.€City€of€Tigardóó,€512€U.S.€374,€384€(1994);Ð `° ÐòòArmstrong€v.€United€Statesóó,€364€U.S.€40,€49,€80€S.€Ct.€1563€(1960).€òòóóÐ L œ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XáXXXá´7#ÔThe€Takings€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€was€generally€understood€to€apply€onlyÐ $ t Ðto€physical€takings€until€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòPennsylvania€Coal€Co.€v.€Mahonóó,Ð  ` Ð260€U.S.€393,€415,€43€S.€Ct.€158€(1922)€that€ð ðwhile€property€may€be€regulated€to€a€certain€extent,Ð ü L  Ðif€regulation€goes€too€far€it€will€be€recognized€as€a€taking.ðð€€The€Court€did€not€then,€and€has€notÐ è 8  Ðsince,€established€a€formula€for€determining€when€regulation€ð ðgoes€too€far.ððòò€€Tahoe„SierraÐ Ô$  ÐPreservation€Council,€Inc.€v.€Tahoe€Regional€Planning€Agencyóó,€535€U.S.€302,€326„37,€122€S.€Ct.Ð À  Ð1465,€1481€(2002).€€Instead,€the€Court€has€consistently€held€that€in€cases€involving€regulatoryÐ ¬ü  Ðtakings,€examination€of€multiple€factors€is€necessary.€€òòId.óó€€Where€the€allegation€is€one€of€regulatoryÐ ˜è  Ðtaking,€neither€public€use€nor€physical€appropriation€of€the€land€is€required.€òòId.óó,€535€U.S.€at€326,€122Ð „Ô  ÐS.€Ct.€at€1481.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€one€exception€to€the€general€balancing€of€factors€approach€is€where€a€governmentalÐ H˜ Ðregulatory€action€permanently€eliminates€all€economic€value€from€an€entire€piece€of€property€byÐ 4„ Ðprohibiting€all€economically€beneficial€use.€€In€that€situation,€a€ð ðper€seðð€taking€has€occurred,€andÐ  p Ðð ðtotal€regulatory€takingsðð€must€be€compensated€unless€the€government€€can€show€that€the€proscribedÐ  \ Ðuses€were€not€part€of€the€ownerððs€interests€under€state€property€and€nuisance€law.€òò€Tahoe„SierraÐ øH ÐPreservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€324€n.19,€332,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1479€n.19,€1484;€€òòLucas€v.€SouthÐ ä4 ÐCarolina€Coastal€Councilóó,€505€U.S.€1003,€1019,€112€S.€Ct.€2886,€2895€(1992)€(holding€ð ðwhen€theÐ Ð  Ðowner€of€real€property€has€been€called€upon€to€sacrifice€òòallóó€economically€beneficial€uses€in€the€nameÐ ¼  Ðof€the€common€good,€that€is,€to€leave€his€property€economically€idle,€he€has€suffered€a€taking.ðð)€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAbsent€a€total€taking,€the€analysis€established€in€òòPenn€Cent.€Transp.€Co.€v.€New€York€Cityóó,Ð €Ð Ð438€U.€S.€104,€98€S.€Ct.€2646€(1978),€òòóówill€be€applied€in€a€fact€specific€inquiry.€€òòTahoe„SierraÐ l¼ ÐPreservation€Council,€óó535€U.S.€at€332,€342,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1484,€1489€(holding€that€the€question€ofÐ X ¨ Ðwhether€a€32„month€moratorium€on€development€while€mandated€land„use€policies€were€adoptedÐ D!” Ðconstituted€a€taking€was€not€to€be€answered€by€any€categorical€rule,€but,€instead,€by€reliance€on€theÐ 0"€  Ðfamiliar€òòPenn€Central€óóapproach);€òòPalazzoloóó,€533€U.S.€at€617,€121€S.€Ct.€at€2457.€€Where€governmentÐ #l! Ðregulation€does€not€represent€a€total€taking,€such€a€case€ð ðnecessarily€entails€complex€factualÐ $X" Ðassessments€of€the€purposes€and€economic€effects€of€government€action.ððòòóó€€òòBrown€v.€LegalÐ ô$D # ÐFoundation€of€Washingtonóó,€538€U.S.€216,€234,€123€S.€Ct.€1406,€1418€(2003);€òòTahoe„SierraÐ à%0!$ ÐPreservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€323,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1465;€òòYee€v.€Escondidoóó,€503€U.S.€519,€523,€112Ð Ì&"% ÐS.€Ct.€1522€(1992).€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àòòóóUnder€òòPenn€Centralóó,€regulatory€takings€claims€require€ð ðad€hoc,€factual€inquiriesðð€òòóóinvolvingÐ )à$( Ða€balancing€of€the€public€and€private€interests€involved€in€the€particular€case.€€òòóóThe€factors€to€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsidered€include€(1)€the€economic€impact€of€the€regulation,€(2)€the€degree€to€which€the€regulationÐ h+¸&* Ðhas€interfered€with€the€ownerððs€reasonable€ð ðdistinct€investment„backedðð€expectations€concerning€theÐ ° Ðproperty,€and€(3)€the€character€of€the€regulatory€action.€òò€Penn€Centralóó,€438€U.S.€at€124„25;€98€S.€Ct.Ð œì Ð2646.€€Other€relevant€factors€may€also€be€considered.€€The€analysis,€however,€must€focus€on€ð ðtheÐ ˆØ Ðparcel€as€a€whole.ðð€€òòTahoe„Sierra€Preservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€326„27,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1481;Ð tÄ ÐòòPenn€Centralóó,€438€U.S.€at€130„131,€98€S.€Ct.€2646.€€ð ð[W]here€an€owner€possesses€a€full€ððbundleðð€ofÐ `° Ðrights,€the€destruction€of€one€ððstrandðð€of€the€bundle€is€not€a€taking.ðð€€òòTahoe„Sierra€PreservationÐ L œ ÐCouncilóó,€535€U.S.€at€327,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1481,€quoting€òòAndrus€v.€Allardóó,€444€U.S.€51,€65„66,€100€S.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€318€(1979).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThus,€the€Supreme€Courtððs€òòóóregulatory€takings€jurisprudence€ð ðis€characterized€by€ððessentiallyÐ ü L  Ðad€hoc,€factual€inquiries,ðð€designed€to€allow€ððcareful€examination€and€weighing€of€all€the€relevantÐ è 8  Ðcircumstances.ðððð€€òòLegal€Foundation€of€Washingtonóó,€538€U.S.€at€233,€123€S.€Ct.€at€1417„18;€òòTahoe„Ð Ô$  ÐSierra€Preservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€323,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1465,€òòóó€quoting€òòPalazzoloóó,€533€U.S.€atÐ À  Ð636,€121€S.€Ct.€at€2467€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€even€when€something€less€than€all€economically€viable€use€has€been€destroyed,Ð „Ô  Ðor€when€the€owner€has€not€been€denied€all€economically€viable€use€of€his€land,€governmentÐ pÀ Ðregulation€may€still€constitute€a€taking€if€such€regulation€ð ðdoes€not€substantially€advance€legitimateÐ \¬ Ðstate€interests.ðð€€òòCity€of€Monterey€v.€Del€Monte€Dunes€at€Monterey,€Ltd.óó,€526€U.S.€687,€704,€119€S.Ð H˜ ÐCt.€1624,€1636€(1999);€òòAgins€v.€Tiburonóó,€447€U.S.€255,€260€(1980);€òòDodd€v.€Hood€River€Countyóó,€136Ð 4„ ÐF.3d€1219,€1228€(9th€Cir.€1998).€€Thus,€land€use€regulation€can€effect€a€taking€if€such€regulation€doesÐ  p Ðnot€substantially€advance€legitimate€state€interests€or€denies€an€owner€economically€viable€use€of€hisÐ  \ Ðland.€€òòKeystone€Bituminous€Coal€Assoc.€v.€De€Benedictisóó,€480€U.S.€470,€485,€107€S.€Ct.€1232€(1987)Ð øH Ð(reaffirming€the€òòAginsóó€test).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAlmost€all€of€the€Supreme€Courtððs€holdings€on€regulatory€takings€involve€the€adoption€ofÐ ¼  Ðordinances,€regulations,€or€other€legislation€that€limit€development€or€regulate€land€use.€€However,Ð ¨ø Ðin€at€least€one€case€the€Court€has€found€that€other€governmental€regulatory€activity€constituted€aÐ ”ä Ðtaking.€€In€òòDel€Monte€Dunesóó,€526€U.S.€at€687,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1624,€the€Court€considered€actions€byÐ €Ð Ða€local€government,€taken€over€five€years,€denying€landowners€permission€to€develop€their€property.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€that€case,€the€landowners€submitted€their€initial€plan€in€1981€in€conformance€with€existingÐ D!” Ðzoning€and€general€planning€requirements,€proposing€substantially€fewer€units€than€existingÐ 0"€  Ðrequirements€would€allow.€€The€planning€commission€denied€the€application,€but€suggested€that€aÐ #l! Ðproposal€for€a€specified€smaller€number€of€units€would€receive€favorable€consideration.€€When€theÐ $X" Ðlandowners€submitted€a€revised€proposal€meeting€those€suggestions,€the€commission€again€deniedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€application€and€suggested€an€even€greater€reduction€in€the€scale€of€the€development,€again€statingÐ à%0!$ Ða€specific€number€of€units.€€The€landowners€tried€again,€submitting€a€revised€plan€for€the€number€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðunits€suggested.€€The€commission€again€denied€the€application.€€The€landowners€appealed€to€the€cityÐ ¸'#& Ðcouncil,€which€overruled€the€commission€and€referred€the€plan€back€to€the€commission€withÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinstructions€to€consider€a€proposal€for€even€fewer€units.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€landowners€once€again€reduced€the€number€of€units€to€be€included€in€the€developmentÐ ° Ðâ âto€comply€with€the€councilððs€instructions€and€submitted€four€specific,€detailed€site€plans.€TheÐ œì Ðcommission,€nonetheless,€again€rejected€the€proposal.€€The€city€council€again€overruled€theÐ ˆØ Ðcommission,€ð ðfinding€the€proposal€conceptually€satisfactory€and€in€conformance€with€the€cityððsÐ tÄ Ðprevious€decisions€regarding,€òòinter€aliaóó,€density,€number€of€units,€location€on€the€property,€andÐ `° Ðaccess.ðð€€526€U.S.€at€696,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1632.€€The€council€approved€one€of€the€site€plans,€subject€toÐ L œ Ðspecific€conditions,€and€granted€an€18„month€conditional€use€permit€for€the€development.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€landowners€submitted€a€final€plan€addressing€all€the€conditions€specified€by€the€city.€Ð  ` ÐThe€cityððs€architectural€review€committee€approved€the€plan,€and€the€staff€of€the€planningÐ ü L  Ðcommission€recommended€approval€of€the€plan€as€satisfying€the€cityððs€conditions.€€The€commissionÐ è 8  Ðrejected€the€recommendation€of€its€staff€and€denied€approval€of€the€development€plan.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðlandowners€again€appealed€to€the€city€council€which€denied€the€final€plan,€declined€to€specify€whatÐ À  Ðother€measures€the€landowners€could€take,€and€refused€to€extend€the€conditional€use€permit.€€TheÐ ¬ü  ÐSupreme€Court€stated€that€the€council€did€not€base€its€decision€on€the€landownersðð€failure€to€meetÐ ˜è  Ðany€of€the€specific€conditions€earlier€required€by€the€city,€but€made€general€findings€as€to€the€planððsÐ „Ô  Ðinadequacies€that€were€unsupported€by€the€facts.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€jury€found€there€was€a€taking€based€on€jury€instructions€that€it€should€find€for€theÐ H˜ Ðlandowners€if€it€found€either€that€the€landowners€had€been€denied€all€economically€viable€use€of€itsÐ 4„ Ðproperty€or€that€the€cityððs€rejection€of€the€plaintiffððs€development€proposal€did€not€substantiallyÐ  p Ðadvance€a€legitimate€public€purpose.€€526€U.S.€at€700,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1634.€€There€was€sufficientÐ  \ Ðevidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€that€the€cityððs€purported€reasons€for€denying€the€developmentÐ øH Ðapplication€were€invalid€and€that€the€city€unfairly€intended€to€forestall€any€reasonable€developmentÐ ä4 Ðof€the€property.€€526€U.S.€at€703,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1635.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€cityððs€actions€in€òòDel€Monte€Dunes€óówere€described€as€shifting€in€the€nature€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðdemands€made€and€its€final€denial€as€inconsistent€with€its€professional€staff€and€its€own€previousÐ ”ä Ðdecisions.€€526€U.S.€at€706,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1637.€€There€was€also€proof€that€the€city€had€long€beenÐ €Ð Ðinterested€in€acquiring€the€property€itself.€€òòId.óóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€òòDel€Monte€Dunesóó€the€Court€carefully€distinguished€the€cityððs€conduct€in€that€case€fromÐ D!” Ðother€ð ðroutine€regulatory€decisions.ðð€€526€U.S.€at€706„07;€119€S.€Ct.€at€1637.€€òòSee€also€Tahoe„SierraÐ 0"€  ÐPreservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€334,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1485€(distinguishing€the€diligent€and€good€faithÐ #l! Ðefforts€of€the€board€in€that€case€from€the€ð ðstallingðð€in€òòDel€Monte€Dunesóó).€€Further,€in€òòPalazzoloóó,€theÐ $X" ÐCourt€cited€òòDel€Monte€Dunesóó€for€the€statement€that,€ð ðGovernment€authorities,€of€course,€may€notÐ ô$D # Ðburden€property€by€imposition€of€repetitive€or€unfair€land„use€procedures€in€order€to€avoid€a€finalÐ à%0!$ Ðdecision.ðð€€533€U.S.€at€621,€121€S.€Ct.€at€2460.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIn€fact,€the€Court€has€recognized€that€different€questions€arise€ð ðin€the€case€of€normal€delaysÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€obtaining€building€permits,€changes€in€zoning€ordinances,€variances,€and€the€like.€.€.€.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòTahoe„Ð )à$( ÐSierra€Preservation€Councilóó,€535€U.S.€at€329,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1482;€òòFirst€English€Evangelical€Churchóó,Ð |*Ì%) Ð482€U.S.€at€321,€107€S.€Ct.€at€2378.€€The€Court€has€long€recognized€the€police€power€of€localÐ h+¸&* Ðgovernments€and€has€stated€that€such€governments€ð ðmay,€consistent€with€the€Takings€Clause,€affectÐ ° Ðproperty€values€by€regulation€without€incurring€an€obligation€to€compensate€„€„€a€reality€[the€Court]Ð œì Ðacknowledge[s]€explicitly€with€respect€to€the€full€scope€of€the€Stateððs€police€power.ðð€òò€Lucasóó,€505Ð ˆØ ÐU.S.€at€1023,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2897.€Ð tÄ ÐÌò òòòóóó óà  àThe€developer€has€not€alleged€a€total€regulatory€taking,€and€cannot€make€such€an€allegationÐ L œ Ðin€view€of€the€temporary€nature€of€the€denial€of€permits.€Further,€the€developer€has€not€shown€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðdevelopment€or€all€economic€use€of€the€property€was€prevented.€€Although€the€developer€has€allegedÐ $ t Ðthat€the€refusal€to€grant€further€permits€was€arbitrary,€it€has€not€specifically€alleged€that€theÐ  ` ÐCommissionððs€decision€did€not€substantially€advance€governmental€interests.€€The€developer€has€notÐ ü L  Ðspecifically€refuted€the€Commissionððs€proof€that€its€denials€were€based€on€its€interpretation€of€itsÐ è 8  Ðregulations€regarding€the€lapse€of€a€preliminary€plan€after€one€year€and€the€developerððs€refusal€toÐ Ô$  Ðsubmit€a€new€preliminary€plan.€€These€facts€certainly€distinguish€the€Commissionððs€acts€here€fromÐ À  Ðthose€of€the€city€in€the€òòDel€Monte€Dunes€óócase.€€In€addition,€they€are€relevant€to€the€developerððs€claimÐ ¬ü  Ðof€arbitrariness€and€to€any€question€of€legitimate€governmental€interests.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWhile€we€have€serious€doubts€about€the€developerððs€ability€to€establish€the€elementsÐ pÀ Ðnecessary€to€a€compensable€temporary€taking,€we€nonetheless€decline€to€decide€that€Mt.€Juliet€isÐ \¬ Ðentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€substantive€takings€law€based€on€the€record€before€us.€Ð H˜ ÐAdditionally,€we€believe€it€is€more€likely€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€was€based€upon€the€cityððs€statuteÐ 4„ Ðof€limitations€argument.€€From€their€briefs,€the€parties€share€that€interpretation.€€Ð  p ÐÌà@ââìàò òIII.€€òòStatute€of€Limitationsó óóóˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThere€is€another€requirement€of€takings€law€that€is€relevant€to€our€discussion€of€the€applicableÐ Ð  Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€A€taking€of€property€for€public€use€violates€the€Takings€Clause€only€if€justÐ ¼  Ðcompensation€is€not€paid.€€ð ðThe€Fifth€Amendment€does€not€proscribe€the€taking€of€property,€itÐ ¨ø Ðproscribes€taking€without€compensation.ðð€€òòWilliamson€County€Regional€Planning€Commission€v.Ð ”ä ÐHamilton€Bank€of€Johnson€Cityóó,€473€U.S.€172,€194,€105€S.€Ct.€3108,€3120€(1985).€€If€noÐ €Ð Ðcompensation€is€due,€there€is€no€constitutional€violation.€€ò òó óòòLegal€Foundation€of€Washingtonóó,€538€U.S.Ð l¼ Ðat€240,€123€S.€Ct.€at€1421.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€ò òó óthere€is€no€constitutional€violation€if€the€government€provides€an€adequateÐ 0"€  Ðpostdeprivation€remedy€for€the€property€loss€and€just€compensation€is€received.€€òòDel€Monte€Dunesóó,Ð #l! Ð526€U.S.€at€714„15,€119€S.€Ct.€at€1641.Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àThe€Fifth€Amendment€does€not€proscribe€the€taking€of€property;€it€proscribes€takingÐ à%0!$ Ðwithout€just€compensation.€€Nor€does€the€Fifth€Amendment€require€that€justÐ Ì&"% Ðcompensation€be€paid€in€advance€of€or€contemporaneously€with,€the€taking;€all€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðis€required€is€that€a€ððreasonable,€certain€and€adequate€provision€for€obtainingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcompensationðð€exist€at€the€time€of€the€taking.€€If€the€government€has€provided€anÐ )à$( Ðadequate€process€for€obtaining€compensation,€and€if€resort€to€that€process€ððyield[s]Ð |*Ì%) Ðjust€compensation,ðð€then€the€property€owner€ððhas€no€claim€against€the€GovernmentððÐ h+¸&* Ðfor€a€taking.€€Thus,€we€have€held€that€taking€claims€against€the€Federal€GovernmentÐ ° Ðare€premature€until€the€property€owner€has€availed€itself€of€the€process€provided€byÐ œì Ðthe€Tucker€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1491.€€Similarly,€if€a€State€provides€an€adequateÐ ˆØ Ðprocedure€for€seeking€just€compensation,€the€property€owner€cannot€claim€a€violationÐ tÄ Ðof€the€Just€Compensation€Clause€until€it€has€used€the€procedure€and€been€denied€justÐ `° Ðcompensation.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌòòWilliamson€Countyóó,€473€U.S.€at€195,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3120„21€(citations€omitted).€€The€requirement€thatÐ $ t Ða€landowner€pursue€state€remedies€for€just€compensation€before€bringing€a€claim€based€on€violationÐ  ` Ðof€the€Fifth€Amendment€is€a€ripeness€requirement€applicable€to€federal€courts.€òò€Id.óó€€However,€theÐ ü L  ÐSupreme€Courtððs€discussion€of€Tennessee€procedures€for€seeking€compensation€for€a€regulatoryÐ è 8  Ðtaking€is€instructive,€along€with€Tennessee€holdings,€in€determining€the€appropriate€statute€ofÐ Ô$  Ðlimitations.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€òòWilliamson€Countyóó,€the€Court€found€that€the€plaintiffððs€claim€was€not€ripe€for€reviewÐ ˜è  Ðbecause€it€had€not€sought€just€compensation€pursuant€to€Tennessee€law.€€The€Court€found€thatÐ „Ô  ÐTennesseeððs€inverse€condemnation€statutes€and€procedures€allowed€recovery€for€a€taking,€includingÐ pÀ Ðone€ð ðeffected€by€restrictive€zoning€laws€or€development€regulations,ðð€òòi.eóó.,€a€regulatory€taking.€òòIdóó.,Ð \¬ Ð473€U.S.at€196,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3121„22.€€The€Court€held€that€because€the€plaintiff€had€not€shown€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€inverse€condemnation€procedure€was€unavailable€or€inadequate,€its€taking€claim€was€prematureÐ 4„ Ðuntil€it€had€used€those€procedures€to€attempt€to€obtain€just€compensation.€òò€Id.óó,€473€U.S.€at€197,€105Ð  p ÐS.€Ct.€at€3122.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€interpreted€the€takings€provision€of€the€TennesseeÐ ä4 ÐConstitution׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€law€of€inverse€condemnation€consistently€with€the€òòWilliamson€County€óóholding.Ð Ð  ÐArticle€I,€Section€21€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€the€Tennessee€takings€clause,€has€beenÐ ¼  Ðinterpreted€as€recognizing€the€right€of€eminent€domain,€but€also€as€a€limitation€on€that€right€ð ðbyÐ ¨ø Ðentirely€prohibiting€the€taking€of€private€property€for€private€purposes,€and€by€requiring€justÐ ”ä Ðcompensation€when€private€property€is€taken€for€a€public€use.ðð׃#(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòJackson€v.€Metro.€Knoxville€AirportÐ €Ð ÐAuth.óó,€922€S.W.2d€860,€861€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€legislature€has€implemented€this€constitutional€provision€through€adoptionÐ D!” Ðof€eminent€domain€and€inverse€condemnation€statutesòò.€€Edwards€v.€Hallsdale„Powell€Util.€Dist.óó,€115Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.3d€461,€464€(Tenn.€2003);€òòJacksonóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€861.€€Both€statutory€procedures€are€methodsÐ ° Ðby€which€a€landowner€can€enforce€the€right€to€just€compensation.€€Inverse€condemnation€ð ðis€aÐ œì Ðshorthand€description€of€the€manner€in€which€a€landowner€recovers€just€compensation€for€a€takingÐ ˆØ Ðof€property€when€condemnation€proceedings€have€not€been€instituted.ðð€€òòJacksonóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€861„Ð tÄ Ð62.Ð `° ÐÌà  àConsequently,€inverse€condemnation€is€the€method€to€be€used€to€obtain€just€compensation,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€the€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€such€actions€is€the€appropriate€statute€to€be€applied€in€theÐ $ t Ðlawsuit€before€us.€€That€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„16„124,€requires€landownersÐ  ` Ðto€ð ðcommence€proceedings€within€twelve€(12)€months€after€the€land€has€been€actually€takenÐ ü L  Ðpossession€of,€and€the€work€of€the€proposed€internal€improvement€begun.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€developer€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€the€one„year€statute€of€limitationsÐ À  Ðfor€inverse€condemnation€was€applicable€to€his€complaint,€because€the€wording€of€the€statuteÐ ¬ü  Ðimplicates€a€different€scenario€than€the€one€presented€by€this€case.€€It€is€true€that€the€language€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðstatute€envisions€a€physical€possession€or€intrusion€upon€the€land€rather€than€a€regulatory€actionÐ „Ô  Ðpreventing€use€of€the€land.€€However,€it€is€clear€that€inverse€condemnation€is€the€appropriate€causeÐ pÀ Ðof€action€here€and€that€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€such€actions€is€the€correctÐ \¬ Ðstatute€to€use.€€òòSeeóó€òòPleasant€View€Util.€Dist.€v.€Vradenburg,óó€545€S.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€1977)Ð H˜ Ð(holding€that€where€an€entity€with€the€power€of€eminent€domain€ð ðdestroys,€interrupts€or€interferesÐ 4„ Ðwith€the€common€and€necessary€use€of€real€property€of€another.€.€.€.ðð€such€action€constitutes€aÐ  p Ðð ðtaking,ðð€and€the€inverse€condemnation€statute€and€its€related€limitations€statute€apply,€even€in€casesÐ  \ Ðwhere€there€is€no€actual€entry€upon€the€land).€€The€question€is€not€whether€the€one€year€statuteÐ øH Ðapplies,€but,€rather,€when€does€the€one€year€start€running.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àUnder€the€statute,€the€triggering€event€for€the€running€of€the€statute€is€the€landownerððsÐ ¼  Ðknowledge€of€the€entry€onto€the€land€or€the€beginning€of€the€improvement€affecting€the€land€and€itsÐ ¨ø Ðuse.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Similarly,€the€triggering€event€in€a€regulatory€takings€case€is€the€date€the€landowner€knew€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€government€was€depriving€it€of€the€economic€use€of€its€property.€In€the€case€before€us,€that€eventÐ €Ð Ðoccurred€when€the€Commission€denied€the€developerðð€application€for€further€development€and€heldÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€developer€was€required€to€file€for€approval€a€new€preliminary€plat€for€the€subdivision€as€aÐ X ¨ Ðwhole€as€a€prerequisite€to€further€development.Ð D!” ÐÌÔ‡XáXXXáÔà  àA€thorough€review€of€the€record€in€the€trial€court€shows€that€the€developerððs€primary€disputeÐ #l! Ðwith€the€Commission€was€the€Commissionððs€position€that€the€original€approval€by€Wilson€CountyÐ $X" Ðâ âof€the€preliminary€plat€had€lapsed€and,€consequently,€the€developer€was€required€to€submit€a€newÐ ô$D # Ðpreliminary€plan.€€The€developer€took€the€position€that€it€did€not€have€to€submit€a€new€preliminaryÐ ° Ðplan.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€developer€was€aware€of€the€Commissionððs€interpretation€and€application€of€theÐ tÄ Ðordinances€and€regulations€to€Park€Glen€in€at€least€March€of€1995€when€the€city€informed€theÐ `° Ðdeveloper,€affirming€discussion€at€the€March€meeting€of€the€Commission,€of€the€requirement.€€InÐ L œ Ðfact,€the€developerððs€complaint€alleges€that€ð ðfrom€late€1995€or€early€1996,ðð€the€city€denied€permitsÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€further€development.€€Ô#†XáXXXáÍ—#ÔIn€his€deposition,€Mr.€Campbell€indicated€that€he€became€aware€of€theÐ $ t Ðalleged€ð ðtakingðð€of€his€property€right€in€late€1995€or€early€1996.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€Commissionððs€Ô‡XáXXXáÔposition€was€later€reaffirmed€in€a€meeting€on€January€15,€1998,€whereÐ è 8  Ðthe€developer€appeared€and€stated€its€position€that€no€new€preliminary€plan€need€be€submitted€forÐ Ô$  Ðapproval€and€the€Commission€adhered€to€its€interpretation€of€the€regulations.׃&d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Because€the€developerÐ À  Ðclaims€that€the€Commissionððs€decision€to€require€the€developer€to€submit€a€new€preliminary€plan€was€Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€arbitrary€and€illegal€action€that€prevented€development,€the€time€for€the€developer€to€file€anÐ ˜è  Ðaction€began€to€run,€at€the€latest,€on€January€15,€1998.׃"´×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†XáXXXáC#Ô€This€lawsuit€was€filed€May€26,€1999,Ð „Ô  Ðbeyond€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations.€€Consequently,€it€is€time€barred€and€the€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðcorrectly€granted€the€cityððs€and€the€Commissionððs€dispositive€motions€and€dismissed€the€lawsuit.Ô‡XáXXXáÔÐ \¬ ÐÔ#†XáXXXᶡ#ÔÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€developer€argues€that€even€if€the€one€year€inverse€condemnation€statute€ofÐ 4„ Ðlimitations€were€applicable,€the€entire€case€should€not€have€been€dismissed€because€the€denial€ofÐ  p Ðpermits€was€an€ongoing€deprivation€of€the€developerððs€full€use€of€its€property.€€Consequently,€itÐ  \ Ðargues,€the€city€is€still€liable€for€a€temporary€taking€from€May€26,€1998,€one€year€before€the€filingÐ øH Ðof€the€complaint,€until€June€of€2001,€when€development€was€permitted.€We€disagree.€€The€action€byÐ ä4 Ðthe€Commission€that€prevented€further€development€until€the€developer€complied€with€theÐ Ð  Ðrequirement€of€a€new€prelimary€plat€was€clear,€definitive,€and€final.€€This€is€not€a€situation,€like€inÐ ¼  ÐòòDel€Monte€Dunesóó,€where€the€city€kept€changing€the€requirements€and€stalled€on€a€final€decision.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOnce€the€Commission€decided€that€approval€of€a€new€preliminary€plat€was€required€beforeÐ €Ð Ðany€further€development€could€be€approved,€the€developer€had€a€choice€of€action.€€It€did€not€decideÐ l¼ Ðto€file€the€required€plat.€€It€did€not€decide€to€seek€judicial€review€of€the€merits€of€the€CommissionððsÐ X ¨ Ðinterpretation.€€Instead,€it€waited€for€more€than€a€year€and€filed€a€lawsuit€seeking€to€compel€theÐ ° ÐCommission€to€issue€permits€and€asking€for€damages€for€delay€in€the€issuance€of€such€permits.€€ItÐ œì Ðsimply€waited€too€long,€and€the€action€is€time€barred.Ð ˆØ Ðà@ìì*ìàò òòòóóó óˆÌÓ  Óò òIV.€òòConclusionó óóóÐ `° ÐÓ‘¨ÓÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€action.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellant,€STS/BAC€Joint€Venture.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ À  Ð