FILED

December 6, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

1

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FRANCES GREGG BRI CKELL a nd ) BLOUNT CI RCUI T

EDWI NA ELLI S COFFEY, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9505- CV- 001159

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. W. DALE YOUNG

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CI TY OF FRI ENDSVI LLE, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

MI CHAEL H. MEARES, Ma r yville , for a ppe lla nt .

DAVI D T. BLACK, Ma r yville , for a ppe lle e .

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .

Thi s i s a n e xt r a or di na r y a ppe a l i n t he mos t l i t e r a l s e ns e of

t he wor d. The a ppe l l a nt pr e va i l e d i n t he t r i a l c our t , but ne ve r t he -
2

l e ss, ha s appeal e d cl a i mi ng t ha t t he t r i a l cour t er r e d i n r e f us i ng

t o c ons olida t e thi s a c tion with a not he r a c tion r e l a ting to the s a me

s ubj e c t ma t t e r pe ndi ng i n t he s a me c our t .

The pl a i ntif f s f ile d the i r c ompl a i nt s e e ki ng a de c l a r a t or y

j udgme nt a s t o t he owne r s hi p of a n a ba ndone d r a i l r oa d ri ght - of-wa y.

The r a i l r oa d r i ght - of - wa y ha s be e n f or ma l l y a ba ndone d by CSX

Tr a ns por t a t i on, I nc . , or i t s pr e de c e s s or i n t i t l e a nd no i s s ue i s

ma de r e ga r di ng t he a ba ndonme nt . The pl a i nt i f f s s ought t he c our t ’ s

j udgme nt t ha t t he Ci t y of Fr i e nds vi l l e ha d no owne r s hi p r i ght t o

t he a ba ndone d r i ght - of - wa y. The pl a i nt i f f s f ur t he r s ought a

de t e r mi na tion a s t o whe t he r t he a c t i vi t i e s of t he Ci t y upon t he

pr ope r t y c ons t i t ut e d a t a ki ng by i nve r s e c onde mna t i on. The

pl a i ntif f s f i l e d a mot i on f or pa r t i a l s umma r y j udgme nt on t he i s s ue

of owne r s hi p of t he a ba ndone d r i ght - of - wa y. The Ci t y r e s ponde d t o

t he mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt a nd i n i t s r e s pons e a gr e e d t ha t

t he r e wa s no i s s ue of ma t e r i a l f act r e l a t i ng t o owne r s hi p of t he

pr ope r t y a nd a gr e e d t ha t t he pr ope r t y r e ve r t e d t o t he a dj oi ni ng

l a ndowne r s a s a lle ge d in the c ompl a i nt. The City a s s e r t e d,

howe ve r , t ha t t he r e wa s a ge nui ne i s s ue of ma t e r i a l f act as t o

whe t he r t he Ci t y ha d i nve r s e l y c onde mne d pl a i nt i f f s ’ pr ope r t y by

its act i on as al l e ge d i n t he c ompl a i nt. The City f ur t he r a s s e r t e d

t ha t if the r e ha d be e n a t a ki ng by i nve r s e c onde mna t i on, t he Ci t y’ s

act i on wa s ba r r e d by the s t a t ut e of li mi t a t i ons c ont a i ne d in T. C. A.

§ 29- 16- 124. Alte r na tive l y, the City ins i s t e d tha t if the r e wa s no
3

i nve r s e c onde mna t i on, t he n t he i s s ue s we r e l i mi t e d t o a n a c t i on f or

t r e s pa ss. Fur t he r , the City ins i s t e d in i t s r e s pons e t o t he mot i on

f or s umma r y j udgme nt t ha t t he c a s e s houl d be c ons ol i da t e d wi t h

McCollum, e t a l v. City of Fr i e nds ville , a s i mi l a r cas e t he n

pe ndi ng i n t he s a me cour t , f or f ear t ha t a “f a i l ur e t o c ons ol i da t e

t he s e a c t i ons s ubj e c t s t he de f e nda nt to t he r i s k of i nc ons i s t e nt

de t e r mi na tion on t he i s s ue of i nve r s e c onde mna t i on a nd woul d r un

c ont r a r y t o j udi c i a l e c onomy. ”

Subs e que nt t o t he r e s pons e t o t he mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt ,

t he City f ile d its a ns we r . In the a ns we r , the City a dmitte d tha t

i t ha d “ gr a de d, l a nds c a pe d a nd s owe d” t he for me r ra i l r oa d r i ght - of -

wa y a nd a ve r r e d t ha t i t ha d done s o s i nc e 1988. The Ci t y a ga i n

a s s e r t e d the s t a t ut e of limita tions .

A he a r i ng wa s he l d on t he mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt a nd upon

t he i s s ue of c ons ol i da t i on. The c our t s us t a i ne d the pl a i ntif f s ’

motion f or pa r t i a l s umma r y j udgme nt r ul i ng t ha t t he a ba ndone d

r i ght - of-wa y r e ve r t e d t o t he a dj oi ni ng l a ndowne r s . The c our t

de ni e d t he mot i on t o c ons ol i da t e .

Subs e que nt t o t he s us t a i ni ng of t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ mot i on f or

pa r tia l s umma r y j udgme nt , t he de f e nda nt f i l e d a mot i on f or pa r t i a l

s umma r y j udgme nt a ve r r i ng t ha t t he r e wa s no ge nui ne i s s ue of

ma t e r i a l f a c t on t he i s s ue of i nve r s e c onde mna t i on a nd t ha t t he
4

City wa s e ntitle d to judgme nt a s a ma tte r of la w. The City

a s s e r t e d in its motion tha t “ t he de f e nda nt [ City] is e ntitle d to

pa r t i a l s umma r y j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w hol di ng t ha t t he Ci t y

of Fr i e nds vi l l e ha d not i nve r s e l y c onde mne d t he pr ope r t y a t i ssue . ”

Af t e r a he a r i ng on J a nua r y 31, 1995, t he c our t e nt e r e d i t s

j udgme nt . I n t he j udgme nt t he c our t r e c i t e d t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s

t hr ough c ouns e l a dvi s e d t he c our t t ha t t he y di d not r e s i s t t he

City’ s mot i on f or pa r t i a l s umma r y j udgme nt a nd t ha t t he y woul d

a gr e e to the gr a nt i ng of pa r t i a l s umma r y j udgme nt i n or de r t o ha ve

t he ma tte r f i na lly r e s ol ve d. The pl a i ntif f s a l s o a nnounc e d t ha t

t he y woul d vol unt a r ily di s mi s s the i r c l a i m f or da ma ge s f or t r e s pa s s

s o t ha t a f i na l or de r c oul d be e nt e r e d. The a ppe l l a nt pr e va i l e d on

a l l i ssue s r e l a ting to the me r its of the c a s e . It is f r om thi s

j udgme nt t ha t t he Ci t y a ppe a l s .

Fi r s tly t he r e i s no r e qui r e me nt t ha t s e pa r a t e cases ha ve

c ons i s t e nt j udgme nt s . Ea c h c a s e mus t s t a nd or f a ll on its own

me r its . The City a s s ume s the pos ition tha t thi s c a s e wa s de c i de d

on t he s a me f act s as McCollum, s upr a . Suc h, howe ve r , i s not t he

cas e . I n t hi s c a s e , a s oppos e d t o McCollum, the pl a i ntif f s

c oncede d t ha t t he r e wa s no ge nui ne i s s ue of a ma t e r i a l f act

r e l a ting t o i nve r s e c onde mna tion, a nd, the r e f or e , the City wa s

e ntitle d t o a j udgme nt as a ma t t e r of l a w t ha t t he r e ha d been no

t a ki ng. Fur t he r , the y withdr e w the i r c l a i ms f or tr e s pa s s to the i r
1

McCollum was also appealed to this court. The transcript of the proceedings

filed in McCollum and in this case are identical.

5

pr ope r t y. The Ci t y c onc e de d t ha t i t ha d no owne r s hi p i nt e r e s t i n

t he pr ope r t y i n que s t i on. I n t hi s c a s e t he r e wa s no j us t i c i a bl e

i ssue l e f t for t he cour t t o deci de except t he as s e s s me nt of c os t s .

No i s s ue i s ma de r e ga r di ng t he a s s e s s me nt of c os t s .

For a cont r ove r s y t o be r e ga r de d as "j us t i c i a bl e" t he r e mus t

e xi s t a r eal i s s ue or que s t i on r a t he r t ha n a t he or e t i cal or

s pe c ul a tive one . I n a ddi t i on, t he f a c t s mus t be r i pe f or a

j udi c i a l a dj us t me nt. He s t e r v. Mus i c Vi l l a ge U. S. A., I nc ., 692

S. W. 2d 426 ( Te nn. App. 1985) , c i t i ng Pa r ks v. Al e xa nde r , 608 S. W. 2d

881 ( Te nn. App. 1980) . Obvi ous l y t hi s c a s e doe s not me e t t he t e s t .

On t he ot he r ha nd, i n McCollum, the pl a i ntif f s s till s ought a

de t e r mi na tion t ha t t he r e ha d be e n a n i nve r s e t a ki ng a nd t ha t t he

pl a i nt i f f s we r e e nt i t l e d t o a t t or ne y’ s f e e s , not onl y f or i nve r s e

c onde mna t i on but a l s o f or a ba ndonme nt of a c onde mna t i on a c t i on

pur s ua nt t o T. C. A. § 29- 17- 812. Obvi ous l y a j us t i c i a bl e i s s ue

r e ma i ne d i n McCollum.

1

Fi na lly, the ma tte r of c ons olida tion a ddr e s s e s its e l f to the

s ound di s c r e t i on of t he t r i a l c our t . Rul e 42. 01, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of

Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e pr ovi de s a s f ol l ows :
6

42. 01 Cons ol i dat i on. — Whe n act i ons i nvol vi ng a

c ommon que s tion of l a w or f a c t a r e pe ndi ng be f or e a

c our t , t he c our t ma y or de r a l l t he a c t i ons c ons ol i da t e d

or he a r d j oi nt l y, a nd ma y ma ke s uc h or de r s c onc e r ni ng

pr oc e e di ngs t he r e i n a s ma y t e nd t o a voi d unne c e s s a r y

c os t s or de l a y. Whe n t he a c t i ons a r e t o be t r i e d be f or e

a jur y, the joi nt he a r i ng or tr i a l s ha ll be on a ll of the

ma tte r s in is s ue in the a c tions , e xc e pt a s to is s ue s on

whi c h j ur y t r i a l ha s be e n wa i ve d by a l l pa r t i e s . Whe n t he

act i ons a r e not t o be t r i e d be f or e a j ur y, t he j oi nt

he a r i ng or t r i a l ma y be on a l l or a ny of t he ma t t e r s i n

i s s ue in the a c tions .

I n Va n Za ndt v. Da nc e , 827 S. W. 2d 785 ( Te nn. App. 1991) , t he

c our t s pe a ki ng of Rul e 42. 01 s t a t e d:

The us e of t he t e r m " ma y" i n t he i ni t i a l por t i on of

t hi s Rul e c l e a r l y gi ve s the tr i a l c our t di s c r e t i on a s to

whe t he r t he f act s of a pa r t i c ul a r cas e me r i t cons ol i da -

tion of c a s e s of t ha t t ype . 1 Am. J ur . 2d, Ac t i ons i n

c ha pt e r VI I I e nt i t l e d " Cons ol i da t i on of Ac t i ons " ha s thi s

t o s a y:

§ 157. Cons ol i da t i on a s ma t t e r of r i ght or di s c r e t i on.

I n t he abs e nce of s t a t ut e , t he c ons ol i da t i on of

act i ons i s not a ma tte r of r i ght, but r e s t s i n t he s ound

di s c r e t i on of t he c our t , a nd i t s di s c r e t i on i n or de r i ng

or r e f us i ng c ons ol i da t i on wi l l not be i nt e r f e r e d with

unl e s s a bus e d.

Va n Za ndt , a t pa ge 787.

We a gr e e wi t h our c ol l e a gue s t ha t t he que s t i on i s a ma t t e r

whi c h a ddr e s s e s its e l f to the di s c r e tion of the tr i a l c our t and the

c our t ’ s judgme nt t he r e on wi l l not be di s t ur be d a bs e nt a c l e a r

s howi ng of a bus e of di s c r e t i on.
7

We f i nd no a bus e of di s c r e t i on on t he pa r t of t he t r i a l c our t .

Fur t he r , we f i nd no me r i t i n t he i s s ue pr e s e nt e d f or r e vi e w by t he

a ppe l l a nt . We af f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t i n a l l

r e s pect s . Cos t s of t hi s a ppe a l a r e t a xe d t o t he a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s

cas e i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l cour t f or t he col l ect i on t he r e of .

 __________________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

CONCUR:

___________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

___________________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FRANCES GREGG BRI CKELL a nd ) BLOUNT CI RCUI T

EDWI NA ELLI S COFFEY, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9505- CV- 001159

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. W. DALE YOUNG

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CI TY OF FRI ENDSVI LLE, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

 )

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

ORDER

Thi s a ppeal ca me on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Bl ount Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Upon c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of t he opi ni on t ha t t he r e

wa s no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .

We a f f i r m the judgme nt of the tr i a l c our t in a ll r e s pe c t s .

Cos t s of t hi s appeal ar e t a xe d t o t he appe l l a nt and t hi s cas e i s

r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or t he c ol l e c t i on t he r e of .

 PER CURI AM