The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee v. The Board of Zoning Appeals Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 1081
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- CBS Outdoor applied for permits to convert and add digital billboards; the Metro Zoning Administrator denied the permits and CBS appealed to the BZA.
- The BZA reversed the Zoning Administrator and granted the permits by 4–2 vote.
- Metro filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Davidson County chancery court under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-101 to challenge the BZA’s decision, naming BZA and the property owners/permittees as respondents.
- Permittees moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), arguing Metro lacked standing to sue its own board; the chancery court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Metro had standing; the Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding Metro may be ‘‘aggrieved’’ under § 27-9-101 and thus has standing.
- The Supreme Court declined to decide whether Metro’s internal authorization to file the petition was proper because that issue was not preserved in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metro has standing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-101 to seek judicial review of its own BZA’s decision | Metro: § 27-9-101 allows "anyone who may be aggrieved" to seek review; Metro alleged the BZA’s decision prevents enforcement of its zoning ordinances and thus Metro is "aggrieved." | Permittees: Metro cannot be an aggrieved party to sue its own board; the legislature omitted an express provision authorizing municipal suits, showing intent to exclude Metro. | Metro has standing: "anyone" includes a municipal corporation and aggrievement exists where the BZA’s ruling interferes with Metro’s ability to enforce ordinances or causes substantial, direct, adverse effects on Metro. |
| Whether Metro met the statutory ‘‘aggrieved’’ requirement to sue under § 27-9-101 | Metro: alleged the BZA’s ruling will allow billboards that violate Metro’s zoning code, interfering with Metro’s statutory duties and corporate interests. | Permittees: argued Metro was not specially injured but simply asserting general enforcement interests and that BZA is Metro’s land-use voice. | Metro sufficiently alleged aggrievement (interference with enforcement / substantial direct adverse effect), so the pleadings survive a 12.02(6) dismissal. |
| Whether the Court should consider Legislature’s failure to adopt the Standard Act provision allowing municipal suits | Permittees: omission shows legislative intent to bar municipal challenges. | Metro: § 27-9-101’s plain text "anyone" includes municipalities; other statutes (e.g., § 13-7-206(b)) let municipal officers appeal to the BZA, so judicial review should be coextensive. | The Court rejected the negative inference from the omission and construed "anyone" to include Metro; legislative omission did not bar suit under § 27-9-101. |
| Whether Metro had internal authority to file the petition (authorization) | Metro: its Department of Law was authorized by the Metro Charter to file. | Permittees: argued Metro lacked Charter/resolution authority to file; issue was raised on appeal. | Court declined to decide: issue not litigated in trial court and record is insufficient; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knierim v. Leatherwood, 542 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn. 1976) (standing doctrine for certiorari challenges)
- Wood v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 196 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (defining "aggrieved" and zone-of-interests for § 27-9-101)
- State v. Harrison, 270 S.W.3d 21 (Tenn. 2008) (overview of standing/justiciability principles)
- Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (12.02(6) motion tests legal sufficiency of pleadings only)
- City of Brentwood v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 149 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (municipality may seek judicial review of BZA decisions; avoid anomalous appeal rights)
- Fallin v. Knox County Bd. of Comm'rs, 656 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1983) (certiorari is proper remedy to challenge BZA determinations)