Steppach v. Thomas
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 91
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Steppach challenged Memphis City Council actions approving a Reddoch Street Planned Development and a companion Reddoch Street Closure after a 2006 hearing.
- The Street Closure and Planned Development were approved despite O.P.D. recommendations and City Charter discretionary authority.
- The controversy focused on whether abutting/frontage property owners signed the closure application and on procedural compliance with Street Closure Regulations.
- Thomas sold the Subject Property to First Capital Bank; Steppach amended to include Bank as a party while Thomas was dismissed.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for the City on the Planned Development; the Street Closure issue proceeded to hearing with findings favoring the City.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding the City did not act illegally or arbitrarily and that the Street Closure complied with procedures and public welfare considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City Council acted illegally/arbitrarily on Street Closure | Steppach argues procedural/illegal action by Council | City Defendants contend proper procedures followed and discretion valid | Street Closure affirmed; procedures complied; action not arbitrary |
| Whether Section 602.3 procedures were violated | Council failed to follow Street Closure Regulations | Council complied with notice and action requirements | Procedural compliance found; no violation established |
| Whether Harry Dermon Trust was an abutting owner requiring sign-off | Trust as abutting owner should sign; its status taints closure | Trust not an abutting owner under 602.4(C) and need not sign | Trust not abutting; not required to sign; closure valid |
| Whether Thomas' dismissal was proper | Thomas remains indispensable due to initial filings | Bank successor; Thomas no longer owner; dismissal appropriate | Thomas properly dismissed; Bank substituted as party |
| Whether corruption/Fifth Amendment issues tainted Council actions | Allegations of corruption and adverse inferences support invalidation | No competent evidence of corruption; actions legislative; not voidable | No reversible corruption showing; actions upheld; no adverse inferences warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990) (administrative vs. legislative action; standard of certiorari review)
- Fallin v. Knox County Bd. of Comm'rs, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983) (certiorari vs. declaratory judgment for legislative actions)
- Lynn v. Polk, 76 Tenn. 121 (Tenn. 1881) (separation of powers; cannot inquire into motives of legislature)
- State v. Taylor, 64 S.W. 766 (Tenn. 1901) (street closure authority and municipal powers)
- Baker v. Butler, 364 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn. 1962) (common law dedication vs. municipal acceptance; rights transfer)
- Lions Head Homeowners' Ass'n v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 968 S.W.2d 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (zoning/variance interpretations; ambiguity and due process)