WPC" L賮y{є>"B d<4ܾb'e." it}"oK/.I-hT܃yPdc˵]6RTxYDPx,voO23ϫ9ڢ$\sl8D Ɩp/>rϚǬW5]{FOYQUfvDpx'e%=P/-jQ:,(dO"fꉴ'*q>G|ma%w +ʟq #F1r؜(wivʴe 7]d7W{xu*Gm7/zf@Dk;(ǿd dqX5yXƒ05-HgEϻj/+n| `y%?Er+skjiz1ٗxL(2sȆ"[򎤠z7\HRB2`l]6w[E} >y)v,S-qCwlVF# F UNQ % 0( w@ 4 ! U H0 bx G 0D UH S 0 lU 0D UHMUHJUH 1mGUHO 0c)UHUH 0D` hU:sUH B D3EUHgUHAUHUHUH UH 0wB 0 0C 0 0 0^ 09 9 9 9 9 AO(!w!w! 0D=" D/" B"HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLJ(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  PE P PP Ӏf|$d$3|x<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular- - =  )   XXXX(3$ !  <09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    1    XIXXX%XXIԀSeeStateexrel.Collierv.CityofPigeonForge,599S.W.2d545,547  (Tenn.1980).((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    2    XIXXX%XXIԀSeeCityofGallatinv.CityofHendersonville,510S.W.2d507,509  (Tenn.1974).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regulartuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) $    3    XIXXX%XXIԀSeeTenn.CodeAnn.651103(a)(1)(A).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    4    XIXXX%XXISeeHartv.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d512,516(Tenn.1990).(;s$2,  0  .3  0  <09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular(3$ !   XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX   April27,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.ɘXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular d 'dxd $    4    -XFlXXX-%XXFlSeeHartv.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d512,516(Tenn.1990).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    4    /XOXXX/%XXOSeeHartv.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d512,516(Tenn.1990).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    1    1XOXXX1%XXOԀSeeStateexrel.Collierv.CityofPigeonForge,599S.W.2d545,547  (Tenn.1980).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    2    3XOXXX3%XXOԀSeeCityofGallatinv.CityofHendersonville,510S.W.2d507,509  (Tenn.1974).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    3    5XOXXX5%XXOԀSeeTenn.CodeAnn.651103(a)(1)(A).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular $    4    7XOXXX7%XXOSeeHartv.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d512,516(Tenn.1990).<09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular(O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛXXXX=GXdd= 7XXdd7   ! ,XXX!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   p    x    (   FORPUBLICATION  @0 0 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` r   p    x    (   @$ATKNOXVILLE̜   p    x    (   ̜   p ̜   p    x    (     STATEOFTENNESSEE,EXREL.ROBERT ( ( H @ J.EARHART,ETAL.,  x    ( (      p    x    ( (  PlaintiffsAppellants,   ( (      p    x    ( (SullivanChancery   p    x    ( (v.   p    x    ( (Hon.ThomasJ.Seeley,Jr.,      p    x    ( (Judge(SittingbyInterchange)   p    x    ( (   p    x    ( (S.Ct.No.03S019709CH00116CITYOFBRISTOL,TENNESSEE,   ( (     p    x    ( (  DefendantAppellee. x    ( (  ForPlaintiffsAppellants:   (   ForDefendantAppellee:  DavidH.Hornik  x    (   JackW.Hyder,Jr.    Nashville p    x    (   Massengill,Caldwell,and XP    p    x    (   Hyder,P.C.DavidL.Buuck   x    (   Bristol  Knoxville̜   p    x    (   AmicusCuriae: xp    p    x    (   TennesseeMunicipal   p    x    (   AttorneysAssociation   p    x    (   DebraC.Poplin   p    x    (   Knoxville 0  `"X# @$ OPINION*h X,XX*  %x' ̛̜ӜJUDGMENTOFCOURTOFAPPEALSAFFIRMEDINPARTANDREVERSEDINPART;̜CASEREMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT.   (     REID,J. h.`'2 Ӝ̛@* I  0)5   TheissuespresentedhadtheiroriginintwoannexationordinancesadoptedbytheCityofBristolin1989.TheordinancesundertooktoannextherightofwayofHighway11Eextending P7H0= approximatelyfourmilessouthfromthecitylimitsofBristolintothePineyFlatsarea.Theareaincludednopropertyotherthanthehighwayrightofway.  In1991,BluffCityadoptedanordinanceannexingthePineyFlatsarea,includingaportionofHighway11Eincludedinthe1989Bristolordinances.BristolfiledsuitagainstBluffCitycontestingthelattersaction.Inthatsuit,BristolrelieduponTenn.CodeAnn.651110(b),whichgivesalargermunicipalityprioritywithrespecttocompetingclaimstoannexthesamearea.BluffCitycounterclaimedonthegroundsthatBristols1989ordinanceswerevoid.Thetrialcourt,undertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,heldthatBristolsannexationwasillegalandvoid.TheCourtofAppealsdecidedtheissueonathirdlegalbasis,BluffCitysclaimwasnotfiledwithin30daysofthedateBristolsordinancewasadopted.Theapplicationforpermissiontoappealwasdenied.  OnJanuary11,1995,Bristoladopted24annexationordinances,pursuanttowhichitundertooktoannex24separateparcelsofpropertyadjacenttothatportionofHighway11EincludedinBristols1989ordinances.TherightofwayofportionsofEgyptRoadandHighway390whichintersectwithHighway11Ewereincludedalso.Within30days,theplaintiffs,ownersof15ofthe24parcelsfiledaquowarrantoanddeclaratoryjudgmentsuitcontestingthe ,%0 annexations.Ownersofoneoftheparcelsvoluntarilydismissedtheirclaims,leaving14parcelsatissue.Thecomplaint,whichoriginallychargedthattheordinanceswereunreasonablewithinthemeaningofTenn.CodeAnn.651103(a)(1)(A)(1992)wasamendedtochargethat16oftheordinances,the14ordinancespreviouslynamedaswellastwoadditionalordinances,wereillegalonthegroundsthattheyconstitutedprohibitedcorridorannexationsandthatthe x7p0> 1989highwayrightofwayannexationwas nullandvoidunderTenn.CodeAnn.651102(1992)becauseitdidnotannexpeople,privatepropertyorcommercialactivities.Theamendedcomplaintalsoallegedthattheillegalityofthe1989ordinancesrenderedallofthe1995ordinancesillegalbecausethetractswerenotcontiguoustthemunicipalboundary.Inaseparatecase,whichwasconsolidatedwiththecasebeforetheCourtfortrial,BluffCityattackedthevalidityoffiveoftheordinances,includingthreewhichwerenotchallengedbytheplaintiffs,bringingthetotalofthechallenged1995ordinancesto19.  Thejuryconsideredtheordinancesseparatelyandfoundthat14ofthe19annexationswerereasonable.However,thetrialjudgefoundthatnineofthose14werevoidasamatteroflaw.Twooftheordinancesfoundtobevoidwerethoseundertakingtoannex 5.2 therightsofwayofEgyptRoadandHighway390,andtheothersevenaffectedparcelsdidnotadjointheCityofBristol exceptbybenefitoftherightofwayofU.S.Highway11E.Thecourtheldthatanannexationordinancewhichdoesnotincludepeopleorprivatepropertyand,therefore,cannotbechallengedbecausenoonehasstandingtosue, hasnoforceandis void.Thatcourtfurtherheldthatthevalidityofsuchordinances canbeattackedanytime,andthatthe1989rightofwaybytheCityofBristolwasvoid.Thecourtstated: Usingaroadrightofwaytobootstrapthecityintoapositionofsayingthatthenewlyannexedareaadjoinstheoldareaisameresubterfuge.Despitethesefindings,thetrialcourtgrantedBristolsmotionforanewtrialandadifferentjudgeastothe14ordinancesfoundtobeinvalid,statingasauthorityStateex  rel.SullivanCountyv.CityofBristol(Tenn.App.August30,1995). h` ThefiveordinanceschallengedbyBluffCityweredisposedofbysettlement.AtanewtrialheldinJanuary1996,thejuryfoundall9remainingordinancestobereasonable.Thetrialcourtapprovedthejurysfindings,foundthattheplaintiffswerenotentitledtodeclaratoryrelief,anddeclinedtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentregardingthevalidityofthe1989ordinances.  Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthejuryverdictastoeachordinanceandheldthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindecliningtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentregardingthevalidityofthe1989ordinances.Thecourtstated,however,thatthevalidityofthe1989ordinancescouldbechallengedasavoidactof 5.2 amunicipality.@tt) II      Theordergrantingtheapplicationforpermissiontoappeallimitedtheappealtotwoissues:8  WhethertheCourtofAppealscorrectlypermittedtheappellanttocollaterallychallengethe1989annexationordinanceoutsideofthequowarranto  proceduresassetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.651103,andwhethertheCourtofAppealscorrectlyruledthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindecliningtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentconcerningthe1989annexation. YY #  Infindingthatthevalidityofthe1989ordinances,asopposedtotheirreasonableness,couldbeattackedatanytime,theCourtofAppealsrejectedBristolsargumentthatanannexationordinancemaybechallengedonlybyquowarrantopursuanttoTenn. %  CodeAnn.651103.Thatcourtreasonedthat thestatutepresupposesavalidordinance,which,ifvoid,canbechallengedasanyothervoidactofthemunicipality.  Inresponse,Bristolcontendsthatanannexationordinancebecomesimmunetodirectorcollateralattackupontheexpirationof30daysafteritsadoptionifnocontestisfiledwithinthattimebyan affectedlandowner.Itsrationaleisthatthevalidityoftheordinanceis subsumedinthequestionofitsreasonableness. 5.2 Ї  Thiscasedemonstratesthat,ifBristolsrationaleisaccepted,therecanbenoeffectivejudicialreviewofannexationordinancesthatutilizethehighwayrightofwayapproach.Sincethe1989ordinancesdidnotincludeany people,privateproperty,orcommercialactivities, 0 %  1      ׀noonehadstandingtocontestthe  ordinances; 2  %  2      ׀consequently,theybecameinviolateevenifdoneby h`   exerciseofpowernotconferredbylaw.x4x %  3      ׀Subsequently,separate H@  ordinancesannexingseparateparcelsofpropertycouldbeadoptedsolongaseachparceladjoinsthehighwayrightofwayincludedinthepriorordinances.Inthiscase,additionalrightsofwayalongEgyptRoadandHighway390wereannexed,allowingparcelsadjoiningthoseroadstobeannexedbysubsequentordinances.Thentheonlybasisforattackiswhethertheannexationofaparticularparcelis reasonable.Underthisannexationscenario,therecouldbenoattackontheoverallplanbecausetheoriginalrightofwayannexationordinancecannotbequestionedastovalidityorreasonableness.Evenaflagrantusurpationofpowerbythecityundertheguiseofadoptinganannexationordinancecouldstandunchallenged,accordingtoBristolsrationale.  Nevertheless,BristolinsiststhatthelegalpropositionsitespousesrepresenttheintentofthelegislatureandhavebeenvalidatedbythisCourt. H0@), Ї@88) III   Ѐ  ThefirstissueforreviewiswhethertheCourtofAppealscorrectlypermittedtheplaintiffstocollaterallychallengethe1989annexationordinanceoutsideofthequowarrantoproceduressetout  inTenn.CodeAnn.651103.  Thelegislaturehastheauthorityto extendorcontractmunicipalboundariesandthatpowerhasnotbeendelegatedtothecourts.Wittv.McCanless,200Tenn.360,292S.W.2d392,396  (1956).ArticleXI,9oftheTennesseeConstitutionspecificallygrantedthisauthoritytothelegislature: TheGeneralAssemblyshallbygenerallawprovidetheexclusivemethodsbywhichmunicipalitiesmaybecreated,merged,consolidatedanddissolvedandbywhichmunicipalboundariesmaybealtered.XIXXXIHowever,underthe H!@ statutes,theCourtis giventhepowertodeterminewhethertheordinanceisreasonableorunreasonable,andwhetherthestatutoryrequirementshavebeencompliedwith.Wittv.McCanless,292S.W.2d &" at396.Inconstruingtheapplicableprovisionstoascertainwhethertheactionsofthemunicipalityareincompliancewiththestatute,thisCourtmustascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentandtheordinarymeaningofthelanguageofthestatutes.Carson h.`'* CreekVacationResorts,Inc.v.Dept.ofRevenue,865S.W.2d1,2 H0@), (Tenn.1993).Unambiguousstatutesmustbeconstruedtomeanwhattheysay.Montgomeryv.Hoskins,222Tenn.45,47,432S.W.2d654, 4-0 655(1968).The legislativeintentorpurposeistobeascertained 5.2 primarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused...withoutanyforcedorsubtleconstructiontolimitorextendtheimportofthelanguage.Worrallv.KrogerCo.,545S.W.2d736,   738(Tenn.1977);Statev.Sliger,846S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993).   But,statutes arenottobeconstruedsostrictlyastodefeattheobviousintentionofthelegislature.Statev.Netto,486S.W.2d h`  725,728(Tenn.1972)(citingSouthernRy.v.Sutton,179F.471 H@  (1910)).  Theoriginalstatutesauthorizingamunicipalitysannexationofpropertybyordinancewereenactedin1955. Beforetheirpassage,annexationofpropertybymunicipalitycouldbeaccomplishedonlyunderPrivateActoftheLegislature.JoeM.Looney,MunicipalitiesJudicialreviewofAnnexation,36Tenn.L. h` Rev.825(1969).Thestatutesextendedalimitedauthoritytoannexterritorytomunicipalities,providingthatamunicipality byordinance,mayextenditscorporatelimitsbyannexationofsuchterritoryadjoiningitsexistingboundariesasmaybedeemednecessaryforthewelfareoftheresidentsandpropertyownersoftheaffectedterritoryaswellasthemunicipalityasawhole....Tenn.CodeAnn.651102(a)(1)(1992).Thismaybedone whenpetitionedbyamajorityoftheresidentsandpropertyownersoftheaffectedterritory,oruponitsowninitiative....Id.If H0@), annexationistheresultofthemunicipalitysowninitiative,itcanbejustifiedonlyif itappearsthattheprosperityofsuchmunicipalityandterritorywillbemateriallyretardedandthesafety 5.2 andwelfareoftheinhabitantsandpropertyendangered...unlesstheareaisannexed.Id.Thissectionalsoprovides thatthe  ordinanceshallnotbecomeoperativeuntilthirty(30)daysafterfinalpassagethereof.Id.     Atthesametimetheauthoritytoannexterritorywasdelegatedtomunicipalities,theprovisionallowingownersofpropertyintheannexedareatochallengethereasonablenessoftheannexationwasenacted.Thatprovision,currentlyfoundatsection651103,(afterdeletingthelanguageofthe1984amendmentwhichhasbeenheldtobeunconstitutional6., %  4      )provides:  8  (a)(1)(A)Anyaggrievedownerofpropertylyingwithinterritorywhichisthesubjectofanannexationordinancepriortotheoperativedatethereof,mayfileasuitinthenatureofaquo X P warrantoproceedinginaccordancewiththispart H!@ ...tocontestthevaliditythereofonthegroundthatitreasonablymaynotbedeemednecessaryforthewelfareoftheresidentsandpropertyownersoftheaffectedterritoryandthemunicipalityasawholeandsoconstitutesanexerciseofpowernotconferredbylaw.... YY Tenn.CodeAnn.651103(1980).  Undertheclearlanguageofthestatute,suitsforquo h.`'* warrantoonthegroundsthattheannexationisnotreasonably H0@), necessarytothesafetyandwelfareoftheinhabitantsandpropertyinvolved,arelimitedtopersonsowningpropertywithinthe 4-0 territory;and,onceaquowarrantosuitisappealedandfoundvalid,  thejudgmentoftheappellatecourtisfinaland not...subjecttocontest....Tenn.CodeAnn.103(d)(1992).XIXXXIGenerally,    [a]judgmentinquowarranto,likeotherjudgments,isconclusive   uponthepartiesandtheirprivies.65Am.Jur.2dQuoWarranto  121(1972). ByrequiringthattheStatebringsuchaproceeding,weavoidthespecterofnumeroussuccessivesuitsbyprivatepartiesattackingthevalidityofannexations....Theseproblemsareavoidedbyrequiringquowarrantoproceedingsbecausethejudgment  settlesthevalidityoftheannexationonbehalfofallpropertyholdersintheaffectedarea.AlexanderOilCo.v.CityofSeguin,  825S.W.2d434,437(Tex.1991).#XIXXXI2H#    But,XIXXXIԀwherethequowarrantoproceedingisnotavailable, h` alternativeequitableremediesarenotbarred.#XIXXXIvK#XIXXXI [W]heretheremedy H!@ byquowarrantoisavailable,itisusuallyheldthatthereisno (#  concurrentremedyinequity,unlessbyvirtueofstatutoryprovision.Butifquowarrantoisnotanadequateremedy,itwillnotbeabar &" toalternativeremedies.65Am.Jur.2dQuoWarranto7(1972). (!$ #XIXXXI=L#Theavailabilityofotherremediesisspecificallyacknowledgedin *#& section651113(1992),whichprovides, Exceptasspecificallyprovidedinthispart,thepowersconferredbythispartshallbeinadditionandsupplementalto,andthelimitationsimposedbythispartshallnotaffectthepowersconferredbyanyothergeneral,specialorlocallaw.XIXXXITheTennesseeDeclaratoryJudgmentActis 4-0 justsuchanothergenerallawconferringthepowertochallengethe 5.2 validityandconstructionofstatutesandmunicipalordinances.UndertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,8  Anyperson...whoserights,status,orotherlegalrelationsareaffectedbyastatute,[or]municipalordinance,...mayhavedeterminedanyquestionofconstructionorvalidityarisingunderthe...statute,[or]ordinance,...andobtainadeclarationofrights,statusorotherlegalrelationsthereunder. YY Tenn.CodeAnn.2914103(1980).  Bristolpresentsnoauthorityforthepropositionthatpersonswhodidnotownpropertywithintheterritoryannexedareboundbythe30dayruleofTenn.CodeAnn.651103(c).Thecasestheypresentconcerningthe30dayrequirementinvolveplaintiffswhohadstandingtosueunderthestatutesbecausetheyownedpropertywithintheterritorybeingannexed,butneglectedtofilesuitwithinthetimeallowed.Seee.g.,CityofOakRidgev.RoaneCounty,563 %  S.W.2d895(Tenn.1978);Brentv.TownofGreeneville,203Tenn.60, &" 309S.W.2d121(1957).BristolreliesonCityofGallatinv.Cityof (!$ Hendersonville,510S.W.2d507(Tenn.1974)andStateexrel.Kessel *#& v.Ashe,888S.W.2d430(Tenn.1994),forthepropositionthata ,%( personorentitywhodoesnotownpropertybeingannexedhasnostandingtochallengetheannexation.Theholdingsinthesecasesaffirmtheclearmeaningofthestatute,anditisthatlawwhichpreventedtheplaintiffsfromchallengingBristols1989ordinancebyquowarranto.However,thatlawdoesnotdenystandingtothe 5.2 presentplaintiffstocontestthe1989ordinancesorthe1995ordinance.ThedistinguishingfactisthattheplaintiffsbeforethisCourt,doownpropertyinterritorypresentlybeingannexedasanoffshootofthe1989ordinancewhichcouldnotbechallenged.XIXXXI  #XIXXXIX#XIXXXIThisCourthasstatedthatthestatute authorizesacourt h`  contestononlyonegroundwhethertheannexationisreasonablynecessaryforthewelfareoftheresidentsandpropertyownersoftheaffectedterritoryandthemunicipalityasawhole.CityofOak  Ridgev.RoaneCounty,563S.W.2dat897.However,inthatcase,the  Courtdidnotdiscusstheremediesavailableunder othergeneral,specialorlocallaw.Tenn.CodeAnn.651113.Itmerelyconsideredtherighttofileaquowarrantosuitestablishedunder  thestatute:8   Weholdthattherighttobringasuit (#  pursuanttotheauthorityofTenn.CodeAnn.[651103]toreviewanyissuearisingoutof %  theadoptionofanannexationordinanceauthorizedinTenn.CodeAnn.[651102]expiresthirtydaysaftertheoperativedateoftheordinance,thecourtshavenojurisdictionofsuchsuitsthereafter. YY Id.at898(emphasisadded). x-p&) #XIXXXIX#XIXXXI  Otherstateshaveallowedchallengestomunicipalannexationordinancesoutsideofaquowarrantoaction.Inthecase 3,/ ofAlexanderOilCo.v.CityofSeguin,825S.W.2d434,436(Tex. 4-1 1991),thecourtstated Theonlypropermethodforattackingthe 6/3 validityofacitysannexationofterritoryisbyquowarranto  proceeding,unlesstheannexationiswhollyvoid.TheTexascourtfoundtheordinancevalid,butrecognizedseveralinstancesinwhichannexationordinanceswereheldvoidthroughaprivatechallenge,stating, ThecommontraitinthesecasesiswhetherthemunicipalityexceededtheannexationauthoritydelegatedtoitbytheLegislature.Id.at438.#XIXXXI]# H@    AsimilarsituationwaspresentedinthecaseofPeopleex  rel.CoojarRealtyCorp.v.VillageofBurrRidge,225N.E.2d39  (Ill.App.Ct.1967),inwhichaquowarrantoproceedingwasfiled  challengingnotonlytheannexationoftherelatorsproperty,butalsoapriorannexationofahighwaywhichwasusedasthe contiguouspropertyforthesubsequentannexation.Thecourtheld, TheannexationofrelatorCoojarspropertyhereisdependentonthevalidityofthepriorannexationoftheportionofRoute66....Weholdthatsuchroadwayannexationashereattemptedisinvalid.Id.at41. &"   Themajorityofcourtshaveinterpretedtherequirementthattheannexedlandbe contiguous,tonotallowXIXXXItheannexationof ,%( thinstripsoflandtoconnectalargerparceloflandtoamunicipality#XIXXXId#.XIXXXIStateexRel.Dept.ofTransp.v.CityofMilford,576 H0@), A.2d618,622(Del.Ch.1989)#XIXXXIe#,(seecasescitedtherein).These (2 +. decisionsarticulatetheprincipleimplicitintheTennesseestatute.Thevalidityofanannexationordinanceallegedtoexceedthe 5.2 authoritydelegatedbythelegislatureissubjecttochallengeundertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct.AndwhereasBristoliscorrectincontendingthatobjectionstoreasonablenessundersection651102mustbefiledwithin30days,thatlimitationdoesnotapplytosuitscontestingthevalidityofanordinancewhichpurportstoannexanareathatdoesnotincludepeople,privateproperty,orcommercialactivity.SeeStateexrel.Collierv.CityofPigeonForge,599 H@  S.W.2d545(Tenn.1980).XIXXXI  Accordingly,theCourtofAppealscorrectlypermittedthe  plaintiffstochallengethe1989annexationordinanceoutsideofthequowarrantoproceduresofTenn.CodeAnn.651103.  @tt) IV  h`   Thesecondissueiswhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindecliningtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentconcerningthe1989annexation.XIXXXIUnderthestatute,thetrialjudgedoeshave &" discretionastoadeclaratoryjudgmentruling:8  Thecourtmayrefusetorenderorenteradeclaratoryjudgementordecreewheresuchjudgmentordecree,ifrenderedorentered,wouldnotterminatetheuncertaintyorcontroversygivingrisetotheproceedings. YY kTenn.CodeAnn.2914109(1980).#XIXXXIk#ThisCourthasstatedthat 4-0 whethertoentertainadeclaratoryjudgmentactionis,incertain 5.2 situations,largelydiscretionarywiththetrialjudge.Inacasewheretherewas veryvoluminoustestimony,thecourtheldthatthe judgehaddiscretionnottoundertakeadetaileddelineationofprioritiesbetweenliensasserted.EastSevierCountyUtility   Districtv.WachoviaBankandTrustCo.,570S.W.2d850,852(Tenn.  1978).Inthatcase,however,theCourtheldthatafterrefusingtodeterminethepriorityoftheliens,thesuitshouldhavebeendismissedwithoutprejudicesothatthepetitionercouldhaveasserteditsliensinaproperhearing.Thetrialcourtsdiscretioninrefusingadeclarationis verywide,StandardAccidentInsur.  Co.v.Carvin,217Tenn.662,400S.W.2d235,236(1966),andwill  notbedisturbedonappealunlessthetrialjudgehasactedarbitrarily.SouthernFireandCas.Co.v.Cooper,200Tenn.283,  292S.W.2d177,178(Tenn.1956).InCarvin,theactionwasbrought h` todeterminewhowasdrivingacaratthetimeoftheaccident.TheCourtfoundthatadeclarationofrights mayproperlyberefusedifitcanbemadeonlyafterajudicialinvestigationofdisputedfacts,andthatitis contrarytothespiritandpurposeoftheDeclaratoryJudgmentsLawthatapartyshouldbedelayedintheprosecutionofanaccruedcauseofactionuntiltheterminationofaproceedingbroughtforadeclaratoryjudgment.Id.at23637 ,%( (quotationsomitted).AndinCooper,whereagainatortactionwas h.`'* pending,theCourtwasaskedwhetherthetrialcourtsrefusaltodeclarewhetheraninsurancecompanywasrequiredtodefendanactionwheretheinsuredhaddelayedgivingtheinsurancecompanynoticeoftheaccident,wasanabuseofdiscretion.TheCourtfoundthat the 5.2 refusaloftheCourttodeclaretheinsurersobligationswithinthepremisesneednotprejudicewhateverright,ifany,ithasbyreasonoftheallegeddelayofinsuredingivingnoticeoftheaccident.SouthernFireandCasualtyCo.v.Cooper,292S.W.2dat178.The   Courtheldthatbecausetheequitableremedywasnotnecessarytopreventirreparableloss,andbecausesuchanactionwoulddelaythe,prosecutionoftheunderlyingcauseofaction,thetrialcourthadnotactedarbitrarilyinitsrefusal.Id.at17879. (  XIXXXI  Atissuehere,iswhetherBristolssomewhatingenious  annexationschemeisconsistentwiththepurposesoughttobeaccomplishedbythestatutesauthorizingmunicipalitiestodeterminetheirownboundaries.ThatpurposewasdiscussedbytheCourtinStateexrel.Collierv.CityofPigeonForge,599S.W.2d545(Tenn. h` l980):8  8 YYThewholetheoryofannexationisthatitisadevicebywhichamunicipalcorporationmayplanforitsorderly &" growthanddevelopment.Heavily ' # involvedinthisiscontroloffringe (!$ areadevelopmentsandzoningmeasures )"% totheendthatareasofunsafe,unsanitaryandsubstandardhousingmaynot ringtheCitytothedetrimentoftheCityasawhole.Inaword,annexationgivesacitysomecontrol h.`'* overitsowndestiny.Thepreservation X/P(+ ofpropertyvalues,thepreventionofthedevelopmentofincipientslumareas,adequatepoliceprotectionwithinametropolitanarea,andtheextensionofcityservicestothosewhoarealreadyapartofthecityasapracticalproposition,arethelegitimateconcernofanyprogressive 6/3 city.(Emphasissupplied).    Id.at547(quotingCityofKingsportv.Stateexrel.Crown   Enterprises,Inc.,562S.W.2d808,814(Tenn.1978)).Thefocusof   theCourtsstatementswasthevalidityofanannexationofastripoflandalongahighway:8  8 YYWeshouldemphasizethatthisisnot,asappellantsinsist,merelya stripor shoestringor corridorannexation,althoughitislongandlean.Suchannexations,solongastheytakeinpeople,privateproperty,orcommercialactivities,andrestonsomereasonableandrationalbasis,arenotpersetobecondemned.Wedonot  dealwithanannexationwhereinacityattemptstorunitscorporatelimitsdowntherightofwayofanestablishedroadwithouttakinginasinglecitizenorasinglepieceofprivateproperty.Suchanannexationisperhapsquestionableandisnothereinvolved.Asinanyannexation,andmoreparticularlyonewhereinageometricallyirregularparceloflandisannexed,theCourtmustscrutinizethestatedandostensiblepurposeoftheannexation.    1~Id.at54647.Thepurposeofthestatuteandtheprocedure +$' availableforimplementingthatpurposealsowerediscussedinHart x-p&) v.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d512(Tenn.1990).There,the X/P(+ plaintiffschallengedanamendmenttoTenn.CodeAnn.651103,whichwasadoptedbythelegislaturein1984,andprovidedstandingtofilequowarrantoactionstoresidentsandownersofproperty 4-1 adjoiningaproposedannexationincertaincountiesbasedona 6/3 populationclassification.ThatactwasdeclaredunconstitutionalbecausetheCourtfoundtherewasnorationalbasisforthepopulationclassifications.TheCourtstated: Thelegislativedebateindicatesthattheannouncedpurpose[oftheamendment]wastopreventstripannexation.Hartv.CityofJohnsonCity,801S.W.2d  at517.Thepurposeoftheoriginalstatutewouldnothavebeenaffectedbytheamendment,whichonlyexpandedtheclassofaffectedpersonsauthorizedtofilequowarrantoproceedings.Consequently, (  eventhoughthestatutewasfoundtobeunconstitutional,thedeterminationbytheCourtthatthepurposeofthestatutewastoprevent stripannexationisrelevanttotheinquirybeforethetrialcourt#XIXXXIw#ofwhetherthe1989annexationwasvoidbecauseit  exceededtheauthorityofthemunicipality.  Thisquestiondoesnotconcerndisputedfactsorthedelayofanothercauseofaction.Therefore,thecasesrelieduponbyBristoldonotsupportthetrialcourtsdecisiontorefusetoissueadeclaratoryjudgment.Inthecasebeforethecourt,adeclaratoryjudgmentwould terminatethecontroversy.Wherethereispresentedasignificantissuethatneedsresolving,asinthiscase,refusingtoissueadeclaratoryjudgmentcannotbeexcusedonthebasisofdiscretion.Thiscaseinvolvesanimportantissueoflawaffectingthegrowthofcitiesthroughoutthestatewhichneedstoberesolved.ThesameconsiderationswhichpromptedthisCourttograntpermissiontoappealrequirethattheissuebeaddressedatthetriallevel.Consequently,thetrialcourterredindecliningtoconsiderthe 5.2 issue.  Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.  CostsaretaxedtotheCityofBristol.     x    ( _________________________     x    ( Reid,J.Concur:Anderson,C.J.,BirchandHolder,JJ.Drowota,J.Notparticipating.