NASHVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST TO CENTRAL CHURCH OF CHRIST v. AMY GRANT GILL AND ANDREW M. BURTON, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF A.M. BURTON, ET AL. - Articles

All Content

NASHVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST TO CENTRAL CHURCH OF CHRIST v. AMY GRANT GILL AND ANDREW M. BURTON, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF A.M. BURTON, ET AL.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 19, 2024

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: Joshua R. Denton and Tonya J. Austin, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nashville Church of Christ, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Central Church of Christ.

Attorneys 2: John O. Belcher, Elizabeth R. Sykes, and William H. Lassiter, Jr., Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellees, Amy Grant Gill and Andrew M. Burton, as co-administrators of the Estate of A.M. Burton; Nelson Lynch Burton; A.M. Burton, II; George Edward Spain; Kathleen Grant Harrell and Mimi Grant-Verner, as co-trustees of the Burton P. Grant 2020 Revocable Trust; Mimi Grant-Verner; Carol Grant-Nuismer; Kathy Grant Harrell; Amy Lee Grant-Chapman-Gill; Jean Walker Campbell; Michael Armstrong Burton; David M. Dunlap, as the personal representative of the Estate of Mary Burton-Dunlap; Leslie Burton; Dr. Sloan Burton; Lissa (Burton) Copesky; Elizabeth Carol Burton Roark; Larry Roberts; Alexander Roberts; Elissa Spiller; Amy Morrison; Captain Dexter Morrison; Sydney G. Roberts; Eric W. Roberts; and Patricia L. Clark-Palmer.

Judge(s): MCGEE

This appeal involves a complaint to quiet title and for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by a church. The church had purchased property in 1925 pursuant to a deed providing that if the property ceased to be used for the purposes and objects described in the deed, it would “revert”to the estate of an individual who was then serving as a trustee of the church. In 2019, an attorney informed the church that he represented several individuals who were heirs of said trustee and were concerned that the property was not being used in a manner consistent with the deed. Thus, the church filed the instant complaint and sought a declaration that the restriction in the deed was no longer valid and enforceable, or in the alternative, it had not violated the restriction by utilizing the property in a manner inconsistent with the deed. The parties filed cross motions for partial summary judgment on the issues surrounding the validity of the deed restriction. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the restriction remained enforceable. Thus, the trial court noted that the remaining issue to be decided was whether the church had adhered to the applicable restriction. The church filed a motion asking the trial court to either certify its partial summary judgment order as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02 or grant it permission to seek an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Before this motion was heard, however, an agreed order was entered certifying the trial court’s partial summary judgment order as final pursuant to Rule 54.02. The church appealed. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its order as final and dismiss the appeal.

Attachments: