Cameo Bobo v. City of Jackson, Tennessee
511 S.W.3d 14
Tenn. Ct. App.2015Background
- Property at 425 N. Hays St., Jackson was owned by Dorothy Lipson; Environmental Court ordered demolition for dereliction; Circuit Court affirmed on April 7, 2011.
- Lipson transferred the property to Cameo Bobo by quitclaim deed on May 10, 2011.
- Circuit Court later entered an order directing the City to demolish the property (August 20, 2012); the City demolished the house in April 2013.
- Bobo filed suit on April 22, 2014 alleging trespass and inverse condemnation, claiming she was never served or made a party to the demolition proceedings.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing governmental immunity (for trespass) and that Bobo's inverse-condemnation claim was time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124; trial court granted summary judgment. Bobo appealed only the statute-of-limitations ruling for inverse condemnation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bobo's inverse-condemnation claim is time-barred under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-124 | Limitations did not start until physical demolition in April 2013 | Limitations began when Bobo had notice of the demolition risk (at latest Jan 18, 2013) or by virtue of being party to prior proceedings | Affirmed: claim barred — courts assess when plaintiff reasonably should have realized a permanent injury; here Bobo had inquiry notice at acquisition and thus is charged with earlier knowledge |
| Whether trial court erred in concluding Bobo was a party to prior demolition proceedings | Bobo: she was never served nor properly made a party | City: record captions, certificates of service, and orders show she was added as a defendant | Trial court was wrong to find she was a party, because there was no court order or proof of service; but error was harmless because other grounds (inquiry notice) support summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (summary-judgment standard and burdens)
- Green v. Green, 293 S.W.3d 493 (Tenn. 2009) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- B & B Enterprises of Wilson Cnty., LLC v. City of Lebanon, 318 S.W.3d 839 (Tenn. 2010) (statute applies to all takings claims beyond literal physical possession)
- Pleasant View Util. Dist. v. Vradenburg, 545 S.W.2d 733 (Tenn. 1977) (definition of a taking that interferes with use of property)
- Knox Cnty. v. Moncier, 455 S.W.2d 153 (Tenn. 1970) (one-year limitations starts when owner realizes or should reasonably realize permanent injury)
- Davidson Cnty. v. Beauchesne, 281 S.W.2d 266 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955) (timing of when taking is completed depends on facts)
- Jones v. Cocke County, 420 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967) (limitations measured from date of manifested flooding when owner first knew of injury)
- Morgan Cnty. v. Neff, 256 S.W.2d 61 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952) (limitations should allow one year after injury or reasonable notice)
- Texas Co. v. Aycock, 227 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1950) (definition and scope of inquiry notice)
- City Finance Co. v. Perry, 257 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1953) (inquiry notice charges purchaser with facts discoverable by reasonable investigation)
- Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp., 387 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 2012) (inquiry notice imputes knowledge of facts that diligent inquiry would reveal)
- First Tenn. Bank, N.A. v. Mungan, 779 S.W.2d 798 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (pleadings' factual statements are conclusive against pleader unless amended)