FILED

June 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

CITY OF KNOXVILLE, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9801-CV-00038

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) KNOX CIRCUIT

)

v. ) HON. HAROLD WIMBERLY,

) JUDGE

GARUIN LEOTTO CURRIER, )

) REVERSED AND

Defendant-Appellant. ) REMANDED

GEORGE T. UNDERWOOD, JR., Knoxville, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

RONALD L. GRIMM and ROBERT B. FROST, AMBROSE, WILSON, GRIMM &

DURAND, Knoxville, for Defendant-Appellant.

O P I N I O N

Franks, J.

The City of Knoxville charged defendant with violating the City’s

ordinance Section 16.188, i.e., defendant sold a pawned television which was not held

for ninety days before sale as required by the ordinance.

Defendant defended on the ground that the ordinance was in conflict

with the State law on the subject matter, but the Trial Judge found the ordinance to be

valid. Defendant has appealed.

Defendant insists that the ordinance is in conflict with Tennessee Code

Annotated §45-6-204, which provides that a pawnbroker licensed in Tennessee has the

power to:

purchase tangible personal property under a buy-sell agreement from

individuals as a pawn or a pawn transaction, on the condition that it may

be redeemed or repurchased by the seller at a fixed price within a fixed

time not to be less than sixty (60) days.
2

In contrast, the City ordinance provides:

A pawnbroker is required to hold at the place of business a property

taken on pawn, deposit or pledge, for a period of not less than ninety

(90) days before offering the property for sale or disposing of the

property by trade, transfer, shipment or otherwise. After the lawful time

of ninety (90) days has expired and the articles are placed in stock or

offered for sale, such articles shall be reported to the police department

by their given number, and when any article is redeemed by its owner,

the number of the article redeemed shall be reported to the police

department.

The plaintiff argues, and we agree, that where the General Assembly

does not completely pre-empt the field of regulation, the municipal regulation of the

scheme which does not adversely aff ect the State scheme, is va lid. Capital News Co.

Inc., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 562 S.W.2d

430-434 (Tenn. 1978). It is contended that since the State statute expresses minimum

standards, i.e, “not less than” extending the time frame by the municipal ordinance

does not conflict with the State statute.

Appellant insists, however, the code sections and the ordinance are in

conflict, and points to Tennessee Code Annotated §45-6-211, which after stating that

a “pawnbroke r shall reta in in his possession the pledged goods for thirty (30) days

after the maturity date of the pawn transaction” provides that if the pledger does not

redeem the pledged goods within thirty days after the maturity date, a “pawnbroker

shall acquire an absolute title to the pledged goods,” and “. . . shall have the authority

to sell or dispose of the unredeemed pledged goods as his own, and he may, if he

decides, sell the unredeemed pledged goods.” Also, T.C.A. §45-6-211(b) s ets forth

thirty day after the maturity date, as the exact time when the pawnbroker acquires

absolute title to the pledged goods. Moreover, T.C.A. §45-6-211(d)(I) requires that a

notice that the goods are subject to resale thirty days after the maturity date “shall” be

printed on all pawn or buy-sell tickets, and specifies the exact wording of such notice . 

After the statutorily stated maturity date, T.C.A. §45-6-211 gives a pledger an
3

additional thirty days after the maturity of the pawn transaction in which to redeem the

pledged goods, and vests title in the pawnbroker if the goods are not redeemed in the

statutorily prescribed period.

The foregoing statutory scheme was established by Chapter 724, Public

Acts of 1988, which was described as Tennessee Pawnbrokers Act of 1988. The

General Assembly revised the Act in 1995 in Chapter 186, Public Ac ts 1995. This

statutory scheme is a broad and detailed regulation of pawnbrokers in Tennessee.

Municipal ordinances in conflict and repugnant to a State Law of state

wide application, are universally held to be invalid. Southern Railway Co. V. The City

of Knoxv ille, 442 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. 1968). A test which has been widely used in

determining whether the provisions of a municipal ordinance conflict with a statute

governing the same subject, is whether the ordinance prohibits an act which the statute

permits, or permits an act which the statute forbids. 56 Am.Jur.2d Municipal

Corporations, etc., §374 at p.408. Generally, an ordinance may enlarge upon the

provisions of a statute by requiring more than the sta tute requires, unless the statute

limits the requirement in all cases to its own prescription, Id. at 409. In the case

before us, the ordinance enlargement of time runs counter to the provisions of the

statute. The statute vests owne rship in the pawnbroker after the prescribed statutory

time in all case s, and mandates that the thirty day waiting period shall be printed on all

pawn tickets. The enlargement of time in the ordinance conflicts with the statutory

rights of pawnbrokers established in the statute, and we conclude that the ordinance in

question runs counter to what the legislature has expressly licensed and authorized.

We reve rse the holding of the Trial Judge and find that the ordinanc e is

in conflict with the State statutory scheme set forth in the Tennessee Pawnbrokers Act

and is invalid. Southern Railway Co.

The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for entry of judgment
4

consistent with this opinion, and the cost of the appeal is assessed to the appellee.

__________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

CONCUR:

___________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

___________________________

William H. Inman, Sr.J.