716 S.W.3d 68
Tenn. Ct. App.2025Background
- Homeowners Thomas and Angela Roberts discovered and removed old underground storage tanks while renovating their property, leading to a finding of petroleum contamination by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC).
- TDEC undertook an extensive cleanup and subsequently issued a cost-recovery order for over $166,000 against the Roberts under Tennessee's Petroleum Underground Storage Act (Storage Tank Act).
- The Roberts challenged the cost-recovery order; both an administrative judge and the Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board upheld the order after hearings.
- The Roberts then sought judicial review in Tipton County Chancery Court, which reversed the Board and set aside the assessment, finding the Roberts were not responsible parties under the Act and that TDEC lacked evidence that a release occurred after the Act's effective date.
- TDEC appealed, and on appeal, the focus shifted to whether the Tipton County Chancery Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the applicable statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tipton County Chancery Court had subject matter jurisdiction | UAPA allows for venue in several chancery courts, including closest to residence | Storage Tank Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to Davidson County Chancery Court | Tipton lacked jurisdiction; only Davidson County Chancery Court has it |
| Whether UAPA venue provisions override the Storage Tank Act's jurisdiction clause | UAPA supersedes conflicting statutes for procedure and venue | Exclusive jurisdiction is specifically granted to Davidson County only | No conflict exists; jurisdiction and venue distinguishable; exclusive jurisdiction applies |
| Whether the Roberts could obtain review in Tipton County based on UAPA amendments | UAPA’s broader venue statute permits local filing | Specific jurisdiction provided by Storage Tank Act controls | Exclusive jurisdiction cannot be overridden by general venue statutes |
| Effect of filing in the wrong court | Their case should be heard on the merits in Tipton | Should transfer, not dismiss, if wrong venue | Ordered transfer to correct court, Davidson County |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2012) (clarifies courts review subject matter jurisdiction de novo)
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction and venue)
- Rich v. Tenn. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 350 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 2011) (courts must give effect to legislative language)
- Coffee Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. City of Tullahoma, 574 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. 2019) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Hayes v. Gibson Cnty., 288 S.W.3d 334 (Tenn. 2009) (repeals by implication disfavored, statutes must be harmonized)