STATE OF TENNESSEE ON RELATION OF V. CALVIN HOWELL ET AL. v. JIMMY FARRIS ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Mar 9, 2018

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Charles M. Purcell and Christopher C. Hayden, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellants, State of Tennessee - Civil, and Virgil Calvin Howell.

Attorneys 2:

Michael R. Hill, Milan, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jimmy Farris.

John D. Burleson and Matthew R. Courtner, Jackson , Tennessee, for the appellees, Shelia Dellinger, City of Bolivar, Tennessee, Barrett Stevens, Tracy Byrum, James Futrell, Teresa Golden, Randy Hill, Todd Lowe, Larry Allen McKinnie, Willie McKinnie, and David Rhea.

Judge(s): GOLDIN

This case arose as a result of a local building inspector’s refusal to issue building permits to the owner/developer of three commercial properties because the owner/developer did not have a licensed general contractor overseeing construction. Subsequently, without submitting completed applications for the building permits or paying the required permit fees, the owner/developer appeared before the Bolivar city council to appeal the denials of the building permits. Relying on the recommendation of the city attorney, the city council determined that because the owner/developer had not filed written building permit applications or paid building permit fees, an appeal was not appropriate and refused to take any action. The owner/developer then filed a complaint for a writ of certiorari and other relief in the Chancery Court. Following the filing of the lawsuit, the owner completed the applications, paid the permit fees, and the building permits were issued. The owner/developer was later granted permission to amend his complaint to allege an inverse condemnation claim based on a regulatory taking. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Chancery Court ultimately granted defendants summary judgment on all of the owner/developer’s initial claims. The defendants later filed a motion to dismiss as to the owner/developer’s claim for inverse condemnation. The motion to dismiss was also granted by the Chancery Court. The owner/developer appeals. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Chancery Court is affirmed.

Attachments: