Ronald Whitford v. Village Groomer & Animal Inn, Inc.
M2020-00946-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 17, 2021Background:
- Two adjacent lots were originally one parcel sloping south-to-north; storm drains were on the northern portion and a shed was on the southern portion before subdivision.
- Whitford bought the northern lot in 2002, built two buildings (Suite A and Suite B); Village Groomer leased Suite B, later bought the southern lot in 2007 and built a new building and dog runs (operating there from 2009).
- Some gutters on Village Groomer’s new building drained toward Whitford’s pre-existing storm drains; dog runs had black drainpipes and used cleaning chemicals and a turf vacuum system.
- In 2011 Whitford discovered a cavity/sinkhole under Suite B, performed repairs, and sued Village Groomer (2012) alleging temporary nuisance and trespass by diverting water and animal sewage onto his property.
- A 2019 jury found no temporary nuisance and no trespass; the trial court entered judgment for Village Groomer, denied Whitford’s new-trial motion, and Whitford appealed arguing lack of material evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did D create a temporary nuisance by diverting water/animal sewage causing a sinkhole? | Whitford: gutters and dog-run drainage diverted water and waste onto Suite B, causing sinkhole and nuisance. | Village Groomer: natural slope always directed water north; new building did not increase flow and some drainage reduced flow to Whitford; dog runs did not drain onto Whitford. | Verdict for Village Groomer affirmed: record contains material evidence supporting no temporary nuisance. |
| Did D trespass by diverting water onto Whitford’s land? | Whitford: directing gutters/flows onto Whitford’s drains and land was an unauthorized entry (trespass). | Village Groomer: prior common ownership and pre-existing drains/shed created an implied easement; use was consistent with original purpose and did not materially increase burden. | Verdict for Village Groomer affirmed: material evidence supports no trespass (implied easement/use consistent with purpose). |
Key Cases Cited
- Crabtree Masonry Co., Inc. v. C & R Constr., 575 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1978) (standard of review for jury verdicts — appellate court must affirm if any material evidence supports verdict)
- Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013) (definition and scope of common-law nuisance)
- Zollinger v. Carter, 837 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (landowner at higher elevation liable for changes causing concentrated/unnatural flow onto lower land)
- Pate v. City of Martin, 614 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. 1981) (distinguishing temporary nuisance and recoverable damages)
- Clabo v. Great Am. Resorts, Inc., 121 S.W.3d 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (permanent vs. temporary nuisance principles)
- Morrison v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (definition of trespass as unauthorized entry)
- Hall v. Pippin, 984 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (easement holder’s right to use servient tenement can outweigh landowner’s exclusive possession)
- Johnson v. Headrick, 237 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (implied easement by prior common ownership binds subsequent owners)
- Adams v. Winnett, 156 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941) (easement holder cannot unilaterally expand use to materially increase burden on servient tenement)