DAVIDSON PABTS, LLC V. LUCIEN WORSHAM - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 30, 2015

Head Comment: CORRECTION: Correction only to page 2, the third paragraph, the spelling of "Pabst" has been corrected to "Pabts"

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Lucien C. Worsham, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Attorneys 2:

Robert J. Notestine, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Davidson Pabts, LLC.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

This appeal arises from an action to quiet title to property that was acquired by Plaintiff at a tax sale in 2008. The former owner of the property opposed the petition contending he did not receive proper notice of the tax sale and, therefore, the sale was void. Following discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment contending there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment quieting title in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appeals contending the court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material facts exist concerning whether the county provided proper notice of the tax sale. He also contends the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which it granted the motion as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. We have concluded that Plaintiff filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment demonstrating that it acquired title through an order confirming the tax sale, which shifted the burden of production to Defendant to establish that a genuine dispute of material fact exists that precludes summary judgment. However, Defendant failed to carry that burden. As for Rule 56.04, the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which the motion was granted; however, we are able to discern from the record the grounds for granting the motion; therefore, this omission constitutes harmless error. There being no dispute of material fact concerning whether the county provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the tax sale, Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.