Joseph O'Shields v. City of Memphis, 545 S.W.3d 436

Background

In 2001 Memphis passed an ordinance annexing South Cordova, stating an effective date of December 31, 2001; property owners filed a timely quo warranto suit (Cochran I) to challenge the annexation.
Cochran I was dismissed for failure to prosecute; a final order denying post-judgment relief was entered June 28, 2011, and no appeal was taken.
A second quo warranto suit (Cochran II) was filed July 5, 2011, but it was not filed within the 30-day statutory period after the ordinance and was later dismissed.
Property owners (O’Shields et al.) sued in July 2012 seeking refunds of 2012 property taxes, arguing annexation did not take effect before Jan. 1, 2012 so Memphis lacked authority to assess 2012 taxes under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-504(c).
The City argued the ordinance became operative 31 days after the final judgment in Cochran I (i.e., July 29, 2011) under Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-103(d)(1), so taxing for 2012 was lawful.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the annexation took effect July 29, 2011 and delayed provision of services does not void or delay annexation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did annexation take effect before Jan. 1, 2012 for tax-assessment purposes?	Annexation was not effective until around July 1, 2012 (city only began services then); therefore City could not assess 2012 taxes.	Cochran I produced a final judgment June 28, 2011; per statute the ordinance became operative 31 days later (July 29, 2011), making 2012 assessments lawful.	Court held annexation effective July 29, 2011; City lawfully assessed 2012 taxes.
Does provision (or lack) of municipal services control the effective date of annexation?	Failure to provide services until July 2012 shows annexation was not effective earlier.	Service delivery timing does not alter statutory effective date; service remedies are separate.	Court held delayed services do not render annexation void or delay its effective date.
Did Cochran II (filed July 5, 2011) hold the ordinance in abeyance?	Cochran II affected the operative date because litigation continued.	Only quo warranto suits filed within the 30-day statutory window hold the ordinance in abeyance; Cochran II was untimely.	Court held Cochran II did not hold the ordinance in abeyance; it was untimely.
Was the trial court’s adoption verbatim of the City’s proposed findings reversible error?	Trial court erred by adopting the City’s proposed findings verbatim.	Plaintiffs failed to brief or cite record authority on the issue; it is waived.	Court declined to address the claim as waived for lack of argument and record citations.

Key Cases Cited

Highwoods Props., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 297 S.W.3d 695 (Tenn. 2009) (explains limited scope of judicial review of municipal annexation and that statutory quo warranto framework is exclusive).
City of Oak Ridge v. Roane Cnty., 563 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn. 1978) (holds quo warranto must be filed within 30 days or courts lack jurisdiction to challenge annexation thereafter).
Lee v. City of Chattanooga, 500 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. 1973) (delayed provision of municipal services is not a basis to abate taxes or void annexation).
State ex rel. Hardison v. City of Columbia, 360 S.W.2d 39 (Tenn. 1962) (annexation is not void because citizens do not immediately receive all rights and privileges).
Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare–Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review explained).
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (adopts the summary judgment standard applicable to cases filed after July 1, 2011).
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (issues unsupported by cited authority and record references in appellate briefs are waived).