Raymond Hunter, Jr. v. City Of Chattanooga Beer Board, E2017-00017-COA-R3-CV

Property at 2510 East Main Street was rezoned from C-2 to M-2 in 1979; M-2 does not permit restaurants/bars/event halls.
Hunter owned the property since 2000, operated a bar (Boo‑Coe’s), obtained a beer permit in 2000, and later leased to tenants who held their own permits; the last beer permit expired December 31, 2011.
Beginning in 2012 Hunter rented the site as an event hall and obtained certificates of occupancy for that use in April 2013; event hall is a distinct use under the City code.
Hunter has a history of beer‑code violations while operating Boo‑Coe’s (multiple suspensions in 2009 and surrender of permit in 2010) and police calls when the property was used as an event hall.
Hunter applied for a beer permit on September 9, 2013; the Chattanooga Beer Board denied the application after reviewing his history and testimony that suggested he would not responsibly hold a permit.
Hunter petitioned the chancery court for certiorari review without swearing the petition under oath or stating it was the first application for the writ; the trial court held a de novo trial, affirmed the Beer Board, and Hunter appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the chancery court have subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear Hunter's certiorari petition?	Hunter filed timely petitions and proceeded pro se; court could review Beer Board denial.	City's position: petition was not verified under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27‑8‑106 (no oath/notary, no statement it was first writ), depriving the trial court of jurisdiction.	Court held the petitions were not sworn as required; failure to verify deprived the chancery court of subject‑matter jurisdiction, so the trial court’s judgment was vacated and the case dismissed.
Was Hunter entitled to a beer permit on the merits?	Hunter argued he intended to comply and that prior nonconforming uses and past permits supported issuance.	City argued (and Beer Board found) property was not zoned/ grandfathered for bar/restaurant/event hall and Hunter’s past violations showed inability to responsibly hold a permit.	The court did not reach the merits because it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Kirkpatrick v. O’Neal, 197 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for bench trials; de novo review with presumption for factual findings)
Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003) (de novo review of legal questions)
Metro. Beer Permit Bd. v. Jones, 625 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. 1981) (statutory certiorari permits de novo trial in chancery or circuit court)
Talley v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 358 S.W.3d 185 (Tenn. 2011) (omission that a petition is the first writ is non‑jurisdictional and waivable)
Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Cawood, 330 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2010) (failure to verify certiorari petition under § 27‑8‑106 deprives court of jurisdiction)
First Am. Trust Co. v. Franklin‑Murray Dev. Co., L.P., 59 S.W.3d 135 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction requires dismissal and vacatur)