### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ma rc h 11
, 200 9 S es sio n

CIT Y OF FRANKLIN, TE NNESSEE v. PEG GY HUNTE R ET AL


### .

Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Williamson County No. 32311 R.E. Lee Davie s, Jud ge

No. M2007- 02399-COA-R 3-CV - F iled May 6, 2009

Pr op e rt y ow ne rs a

pp e a l an or de r a

uth or izin g the City of F ra nk lin to de mol ish a ho use on th eir proper ty . Be cause we have dete rmined that the proc edure used by the city did not comply with due proce ss, we re verse

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Re verse d

ANDY D. B E NN E TT , J ., delivere d the op i n i o n o f t he cour t, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R . and R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J J ., joined.

Peg g y Hunter, N ashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

Doug las Hunter, N ashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
Shauna R. Billing sley , Fr anklin, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, City

of F ranklin, Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

Peg g y H u n te r an d D o u g la s H u n te r

o w np r o p e rty

lo c a te d o nL ib e rty

Pi k e in F r a n k li n, Tenne ssee. On January

9, 2006, based upon a

n aff idavit from a building offic i al o f t he City of Fr anklin, the cha

ncer y court issued a

n inspection war

rant a uthorizi ng cit y o ff

icials to inspect the Hunters’ proper

ty to determine c ompliance with portions of the F ranklin Municipal Code “ to the extent that such violations m ay constitute a publi c n u i sance .” The war rant c ited the municipal building code, pl umbing code, electrica l code, fuel gas code, property maintenanc e code, exist ing bu ild ing c od e , e ne rg y c on se rv a tio n c od e , me c ha nic a l c od e , r e sid e nti a l c od e , h and ic a p a c c e ssi bil ity

c od e , a nd fi re or lif e sa fe ty c od e s. Th e c ity bu ild ing of fi c ia ls we re or de re d to mak e an im me diate inspection of the pr operty and re turn the administrative inspec tion warra nt within ten day s. The

war rant a dvise d t h e Hu n t ers that, in ac corda nce w ith Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-120- 117(g ), willful ref usal to permit the inspection or obstruc tion of the inspection constituted a Class C misdemeanor.-2-

On F e br ua ry 28 , 2 00 6, the c ity fi le d a “ Mo tio n F or Or de r To Sho w C a us e Why De fe nd a nts Should Not B e Held I n Contempt” with a retur n by a building of

ficial stating that the Hunter s had ref used to a llow the inspection. The motion wa s hear d on Marc h 20, 2006, and the c ourt enter ed an

or de r d a te d M arc h 2 8, 20 06 , s ta tin g the te rm s o f an a g re e me nt re a c he d by the pa rt ie s. Pur su a nt t o the or de r, the Hunte rs we re to a llo w the c ity to i ns pe c t o n Mar ch 21 , 20 06 , a nd the c ity wa s to pr ov ide the m w itha

re po rt of the ins pe c tio n o n M arc h 2 4, 20 06 , or as so on the re a ft e r a s r e a so na

bly po ssi ble . N o la

te r t ha n o ne we e k af

te r t he c ity su bmi tte d it s r e po rt

to t he Hu nte rs , th e y

we re to a pp ly for a building/re novation permit. The Hunte rs wer e to complete the work a n d ca l l for a

final inspection by

Aug ust 31, 2006.

The c ity filed a se cond conte mpt moti on on May 12, 2006, alleg ing that, although the Hunters had per mitted the inspection and the c ity had submitted its report detailing the def ects in the proper ty , the Hunter s had neve r applied f or a building/re novation permit as orde red. The court found the Hunter s to be in contempt of the M arc h 26, 2006 order and awarde d the city its attorney fee s for having to file its contempt motion.

On Octobe r 4, 2006, the c ity filed a third c ontempt motion alleg ing that the Hunters had bee n g ra nte d a re a so na ble op po rt

un ity to c omp ly wi th the Marc h 2 8, 20 06 or de r b ut h a d f a ile d to re qu e st a fina l building inspection. The c ity reque sted a finding that the Hunter s were in contempt and appropr iate punishment for the contempt. On De cembe r 8, 2006, the c ourt enter ed an or der r equiring the house to be c ompleted by May 1, 2007. An attorne y

fee awa rd wa s to be dismissed if the work

was c ompleted as orde red.

On J uly 31, 2007, the city

filed a f ourth contempt motion alleg ing that the Hunters ha d failed to rec eive a

final building inspec tion and that the codes administration had re voked their building permit. The c i t y s o u gh t a finding of conte mpt for fa ilure to comply with the court’s or der of Dec ember

8, 2006, as we ll as punishment for the conte mpt.

The four th contempt motion was hear d on September 20, 2007. The Hu n t er s wer e not pr e se nt wh e n the he ari ng be g an, and the c ity pr oc e e de d to argue its c a se be fo re the c ourt . T he c ity asked the court to orde r anothe r inspection of the proper ty and to r equire the Hunters to apply for a demolition permit and complete the demoli tion within a reasonable period of time. Gary Luffman, city building code official, testified about the conditi on of t he property and opined that it had been

un inh a bit a ble fo r 17 y ears . M r. Luf fm an f ur the r o pin e d th a t th e ho us e po se d a nu isa nc e du e to environmenta l and hea lth problems and as a fire hazard. Photogra phs showing the condition of the house we re pr esente d to the court. B ased upon this proof a nd the Hunter s’ fa ilure to appe ar, the court found the m to be in c ontempt of court. The court order ed that the city had the r ight to inspec t the prope rty

the foll o wi n g W ednesda y . Then, “ if the City

conclude d that the house ne eds to be demolished, . . . the City

may proce ed immediately

to demolish the house and send him [ Mr. Hunter ] the bill.” The c ourt also awa rded the city

its attorney

fee s.

I mmediately afte r the court announce d this de cision, Mr. Hunter appea red in the c ourtroom and stated that he had be en sitting in anothe r cour troom. Mr. Hunter w as sworn in a nd g ave-3-

testimony as to why

he had not c ompleted work on the house as or dere d, including the fac t that he had bee n injured at work on Marc h 19, 2006. Mr. Hunter prese nted statements from his doctor and testified that he h ad sust ained a traumatic br ain injury . The c ourt dec lined to chang e its decision, stating that Mr. Hunter ha d been g iven more than enoug h time to do the work. The c ourt’s orde r,
e nte re d o n Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 07 , p ro vid e d th a t if the c ity de te rm ine d, a ft e r ins pe c tio n, that th e ho us e
wa s n on -c omp lia

nt w iththe re le va

nt c od e se c tio ns , the c ity “ may take a ll s te ps ne c e ssa

ry to d e mol ish the structure ” and that the Hunters would be ar the costs of t he demolit ion. The c ourt furthe r aw arde d the city a judg ment for attorney

fee s, court re porter f

ees, a nd court c osts.

On a pp e a l, t he Hunte rs , w ho are re presen tin g the mse lve s, argue that th e c ourt e rr e d in authorizing the City

of F ranklin to demolish their proper ty at t he conte mpt hearing . The c ity makes

se ve ra l argume nts in s up po rt of the le g a lity of the c ha lle ng e d ord e r, inc lud ing a sse rt ion s th a t th e c ity made a trial amendme nt to its pleading s to request de moliti on of t h e p ro p erty and that the c ourt’s order was a proper exercise of

its contempt powers.

AN A LY SIS

We r e vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t w itha pr e su mpt io n of

c or re c tne ss p ur su a nt t o Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d), but we revie w leg al conc lusions under a pure de n o v o s t an dard w ith no presumption of cor

rec tness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ. , 58 S.W .3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001)

.
Th e po lic e po we rs of a

mun ic ipa l c or

po ra tio n g e ne ra lly

inc lud e the po we r t o r e g ulate pu bli c
n u is an ces. S

ee W inters v. Sawyer , 4 63 S.W. 2d 70 5, 70 6 ( Te nn . 1 97 1) ; see also 6A Eug ene McQuillin et al., T HE L A W O F M U N I CI PA L C O RP O RA T I O N S § 24.63 (3rd e d. 1997). Such re g ulation must, of cours e, co m p l y

with principles of due proce ss. See M anning v. City of Lebanon , 124 S.W .3 d 5 6 2 , 5 6 6 ( T e n n

. Ct

. A p p

. 2 0 0 3 )

. Pr o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s r e qu ir e s th a t a p r o p e rty owner
rec eive “notice and an opportunity to be hear d at a mea ningf ul time and in a meaning ful manner .” Id. I n deter

mining the pr ocedur al prote ct i o n s n ece ssary to satisfy

due proc ess in a par

ticular situation, courts consider the private inter est at stake, the risk of an errone ous deprivation of the interest unde r t h e p roce dures use d and the pr obable va lue of a dditional safeguards, a nd the g overnme ntal interests involved. Keisling v. Keisling
, 92 S.W .3d 374, 377 (Tenn. 2002) . Ex cept in an emer g ency

situat ion, such as a f

ire, due proce ss ge nera lly require s a municipality

to provide the prope rty

owner with notice and an oppor tunity to be hea rd prior to de stroy ing his prope rty

. See 6A McQuillin e t al., su

pra , at § 24.26; 7A McQuillin et al., su pra , at § 24.561(3rd e d. 1998); J . E. Macy , Annotation, Con sti tut ion al Ri gh ts o f O wne r a s aga ins t D estr uc tio n o f B uil din g b yPu bli c Authorities , 14 A.L .R.2d 73, §§ 2, 5 (1950).
A primary

purpose of

pleading s is to g ive t he opposi ng party notice of the i ssues to be tried

so that he or she can adequately prepa re f or trial. Keisling
, 92 S.W. 3d a t 37 7; McClellan v. Bd. of Re ge nts , 921 S.W .2d 684, 688 (Tenn. 1996) . I n the pre sent ca se, t h e o rig inal inspection war rant obtained by

the City of Fr anklin g ave it the authority to inspect the Hunter s’ prope rty to determine if it c on sti tu ted a nuisa

nc e . T he c ity

the n f ile d a mot ion fo r c on te mpt

ba se d u po n th e Hunte rs ’-4-

alleg ed fa ilure to comply

with the inspection war

rant. At that he aring , the par ties entere d in t o an ag ree ment under w hich the city would inspect the prope rty and g ive the Hunter s a rep o rt and the Hunters we re to take action to reme dy any defe cts found by the city . The he aringat which the c ourt g ave the city

the au t h o ri ty

to demolish the Hunters’ pr operty was a hear ing on a

fourth conte mpt motion. I n light of the posture of the c ase a nd the manner

in which this action arose , the Hunter s had no notice that the he aringon September 20, 2007, w ould involve a re quest by the city for pe rmission to d e molis h the ir

pr op e rt y . Rathe r, the iss ue be fo re the c ourt wa s w he the r t

he Hunte rs we re in

co n t em p tfo r f

ai l i n g t o co mp l y

wi t h t h e c o u rt ’s p re v i o u s o rd er

. T h e c i t y d i d n o tfi l e a n y

p l ea d i n gs to have the pr operty

decla red a nuisance or to reque st authority to have the pr operty

demolished.

The c ity argues that it essentially

amende d its pleading s at t he hea ring when it asked the court for pe rmission to demoli sh the proper ty and the Hunte rs fa iled to object

. T en n

. R

. Civ. P . 15.02 authorizes amendment of the pleading s to conform with the proof if additional issues are “tried by express or impli ed consent of the parties.” This theory does not work he re, how ever , beca use the Hunters we re not present at the poi nt when the city raised the issue of demolition and there is nothing in the rec ord to sug g est that they impliedly

consente d to the deter

mination of that issue.

The c ity further asser ts that the court’s or der a uthorizi ng d emol ition of the proper ty was proper as a penalty for contempt. We f ind this argument to be without mer it. A cour t’s contempt power s can be used to compel obe dience to its orders and to p u n i s h t h o s e who willfully disobey those order s. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-1- 102 and 29-9- 102. We know of no authority , and the city cites none, unde r which a court is empowe red to orde r the demolition of a house as a punishment for c ontempt of an orde r re quiring inspection and re pair of the house. E v en if a court mig ht have

su c h a uth or ity un de r so me c ir c ums tanc e s, the du e pr oc e ss c on c e rn s d isc us se d a bo ve wo uld

pr oh ibi t the impositi on of such a

reme dy when t h e l i t i gant had no notice that such a pe nalty was be ing reque sted.

We h a ve c on c lud e d, the re fo re , th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a uth orizing the City

of F ra nk lin to demolish the Hunters’ house without due proce ss. We express no opinion about whether unde r appropr iate notice, ple ading s, and judicial finding s, this house may be demolis hed. We reve rse the decision of the tr ial court. Costs of appe al ar e asse ssed ag ainst the City of F ranklin.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BEN

NETT, JUDGE