### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON N ove m be r 17, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE EXREL 

### . T HE C OMM ISSION ER OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO RTATI ON

v. WI LLI AM H. THO MAS, JR.
A n A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C H - 07- 0454- 1 W al t er L. E vans, C hancel l or

_________________________________ N o. W 2008- 00853- C O A
- R 3- C V - F i l ed A pri l 27, 2010

_________________________________ T hi s appe al i nvol ves s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on w i th r es pectt o bi l l boar d perm i t s . T he defe ndant ’ s appl i cat i on fora St at e perm i tt o er ecta bi l l boar d i n Shel by C ounty w as deni ed, s o he fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve appe al fr om thi s deci s i on. M eanw hi l e, the def endantpr ocee ded t o er ectthe bi l l boar d i n Shel byC ounty w i thouta St at e perm i t
. T he St at e fi l ed thi s pet i t i on i n Shel by C ount y t o enj oi n the def endantfr om er ect i ng the bi l l boar d pendi ng r es ol ut i on of the adm i ni s tr at i ve appeal

. T he def endantar gued thatthe St at e w as notent i t l ed t o i nj unct i ve reli ef beca us e he ha d unfai r l ybeen de ni ed a St at e perm i t
. T he def endantal s o fi l ed a count er cl ai m bas ed on al lege d i m pr operconductbySt at e off i ci al s , s eeki ng t o enj oi n the St at e fr om i m pr oper l y enfor ci ng i t s r egul at i ons agai ns thi m i n al l cas es i n w hi ch he ha d been deni ed a St at e bi l l boar d perm i t
. T h e tr i al courtent er ed an or derenj oi ni ng the St at e fr om i m proper enfo rcem ent of the bi l l bo ard r egu l at i on s. L at er, aft er l eng thyevident i aryheari ng s, the tr i al courtor der ed t he S t at e t o gr ant the defenda nt St at e per m i t s forvar i ous bi l l boar d s i t es and as s um ed cont i nui ng j ur i s di ct i on overcert ai n ad m i ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch the d ef en d an t had appe al ed the deni al of bi l l boar d perm i t s . T he St at e now appea l s . W e fi nd that , bys t atut e, the t r i al court i n D avi ds on C ounty has excl us i ve s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthe mat t er s as s ert ed by the defenda nt i n r es pons e t o the pet i t i on for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd i n hi s count er cl ai m s . T her efor e, w e r ever s e the deci s i on of the tr i al courtbas ed on l ack of s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n , d is m is s th e c o u n te rc la im in its e n tir e ty, an d re m a n d

.Defen dant/Appellee William H . Thomas, J r., appeared pro sefor oral argument o f this appea l. At the trial 1 lev el, Thomas w as rep resented by C . B arry Ward. “Outdoor adv ertising ” is defined as: 2 (12) “ Outdoor adv er ti s ing ”me an s any

outdoor sign, display , d ev ice, bulletin, figure, painting , d

rawin g , m essag e, placard, po ster, billboard or other thingthat is use d to adv ertise or info rm , any

part of theadv ertisingor informativ e contents of which is located within an adjacent area and is visible from anyplace on the m ain trav eled w ay of the state, interstate, or p rim ary

highway sy stem s. T.C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 2( 12 ) (2 00 8)

. “Ad j acent area” is defin ed a s: 3 (continu ed.. .) -2- T en n . R . A p p . P . 3 A p p eal as of R i gh t; Ju d gm en t of

the C h an cery C ou rt i s R ever s ed, C ounte rcl ai m i s D i s m i s s ed, and C as e i s R em anded H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J

. , del i ver ed th e o p inion of the C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S. , and D AV I D R. F ARMER , J

. , j oi ned.
R obertE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t orneyG ener al ; M i chae l E

. M oor e, Sol i ci t orG ener al ; and G eor ge G

. B oyt e, J r . , J acks on, T ennes s ee, forthe appe l l ant , St at e of Tennes s ee W i l l i am L

. H endr i cks , J r . , and C l ayt on C

. C handl er , M emphi s , T ennes s ee, forthe appe l l ee, W il li am H

. T h o m as, Jr. 1
OP I NI ON
F AC T S AN D P ROCEEDI NGS B E L OW

Backg r ound B y s t atut e, t he Pl ai nt i f

f / A ppel l ant T ennes s ee D epar t m ent of T r ans por t at i on ( “TD O T ”) , by and thr ough i t s B eaut i f i cat i on D i v i s i on, i s char ged w i t h t he r es pons i bi l i t y forover s eei ng T ennes s ee’ s r equi r em ent s and re gul at i ons for er ect i ng and m ai nt ai ni ng out dooradver t i s i ng, com m onl y r ef

err ed t o as bi l l boar ds

. T he B i l l boar d R egul at ion a nd C ontr ol A ctof 1972, 2 c o d if ie d a t T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o ta te d § 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 1 , e t s e q . ( “ t h e Act ” ) , g o v e r n s t he c o n s tr u cti o n , o p era ti o n , an d m ainten an ce o f bil lbo ard s ad jace n t t o interst ate o r prim ary hi ghw ay s ys t em s i n T ennes s ee. T D O T enfor ces t he A ct t hr ough t he R ul es of t he Tennes s ee 3(... continu ed) 3 ( 1) “A dj a c e ntar e a ” me ans th atar e awi thi n s i x hundr e d s i xty f e e t( 66 0') of

the ne ar e s ted ge of theright- of- way

of interstate and primary highway s and v isible fro m the m ain trav eled way of the interstate o r primary highway s. T.C.A . § 54

- 21- 102(1) ( 20 08 )

. The statute defin es a num ber o f the term s in this d efinition, inclu ding “interstate” sy stem , “primary sy stem ,” and

“main trav eled w ay .” SeeT .C .A . § 54

- 21- 102(9 ), (1 0), (12), and (14). The Perkins Road site is alongInterstate 240, near Pe rkins Road. 4 -3- D e p a rtm e n t o f T r a n s p o r ta ti o n ( “ T D O T R u le s ” ) , C h a p te r1 6 8 0

- 0 2

- 0 3 , a n d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e a p p lica b le fe d e ra l r e g u latio n s, 2 3 C .F .R . § 7 5 0 , S u b p a rt G , O u td o o r A d v e rtisin g C o n tro l. U n d e r th e A c t, no p e rso n m a y c o n stru c t, ere c t, or o p e ra te a b ill b o a rd a d jac e n t to a n in ter sta te o r prim ary h igh w ay w ith o u t a S tat e p erm it

. T

. C

. A

. § 5 4 -21 -10 4 (a) (S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). T o q u ali fy fo r a S tate b ill b o a rd p e rm it, a n a p p lica n t m u st s a tisfy th e T D O T a n d fe d e ra l re g u latio n s in fourgener al cat egor i es : zoni ng of t he s i t e, s paci ng f

r om t he nea r es t exi s t i ng bi l l boar d, s i ze of t he str uctur e, and t he l i ght i ng of t he s tr uctur e. See T D O T R ul es , C hapt er1680- 02- 03-

. 03.
P erm i tappl i cat i ons ar e made t o the TD O T C om m i s s i on orthr ough the B eaut i fi cat i on D iv is io n . I

d. at 16 80 -02-03-. 03 (1) (a) (6)

. A n app l i cant w ho i s d enied a perm i tm ayrequest a n a d m in is tr a tiv e h e a ri n g . I d. at 1680- 02- 03-

. 03( 1) ( a) ( 10)

. T he admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs ar e conduc t ed pur s uantt o t he U ni form A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct( U A PA ) , T ennes s ee C o d e A n n o ta te d § 4 -5 -1 0 1 , et s eq. , and the rul es of the A dm i ni s tr at i ve D i vi s i on of the T e n n e s s e e D e p a rt m e n t o f S ta te
. I d.
B il lbo a rd C o n stru ction W it h o u t P er m it s D e fe n d a n t/A p p e llee W ill iam H . T h o m a s, Jr . (“T h o m a s” ), b e c a m e sig n ifica n tly in v o lv e d in t he out dooradver t i s i ng/bi l l boar d bus i nes s i n 2004. In 2 0 06, T hom as ow ned as m any as th irty leg a lly p e rm itt e d b ill b o a rd s s u bjec t to th e A c t. T hom as appl i ed for St at e per m i t s on at l eas t four ot her bi l l boar d s i t es i n S h elby C o unt y, T en n esse e, bu t th ese ap p li ca tio n s w e re d en ied. T h ese sit es a re refe rred to as S o u thern M il lw o rks (1 p erm it ), K ate B o n d P

. D

. (2 struc tures, 4 p erm it s), P erk ins R o ad (2 p erm it s), 4 a n d C ro ss ro a d s F o rd (1 p e rm it). A s to e a c h site , T h o m a s w a s d e n ied a S tate b ill b o a rd p e rm it based o n either t he p roxi m i t y o f the si t e t o an exis t i ng bil l bo ard or zoning i ssues. O n eac h of t hos e four s i t es , des pi t e havi ng been deni ed a St at e per m i t , T hom as p roceede d w i t h cons tr uct i on of

t he bi l l boar d s tr uctur es . O n t he Sout her n M i l l w or k s i t e, T hom as r eques t ed an adm i ni s tr at i ve hear i ng t o chal l enge t he deni al of t he per m i t
. T he adm i ni s tr at i veThom as h ad s ecured a local p ermit from

Sh elby C ounty for the S outhern

Millwo rk

site. 5 A s to ano th er

s it e at 5 47 0 B os w el l S tr ee t i n S he lb y C ounty , ano th er

P art o f th e S he lb y

C ounty C hanc er y 6 Court issued

an inj unction

requiringThomas to remov e a billboard sign. Thomas, a licen sed attorney , w as publicly cen sured by

the Tennessee Board o f Pro fessiona l Respon sibility for failing to com

ply with the o rder of th e C hanc er

y C ourt
. This site, own ed b y

Thomas, was subject to a drainag e eas ement in fav or o f the State. 7 The Cros sroads Ford site is in an area that is subject to the State’s permanent drainag e easement for the 8 protection

of a loca l creek

. To excav ate the road t o construct the b illboard structure, Thomas’s co ntractor filled ov er part of the S tate’s drainag e area . -4- pr ocee di ngs cul m i nat ed i nt o an or derr equi r i ng T hom as t o r em ove the Sout her n M i l l w or ks b i l l b o a r d , b e c a u s e h e h a d n o S t a t e p e r mi tfo ri t
. T h i s wa s n o td o n e . On t h e Ka t e Bo n d P

. D. 5 s i t e, T D O T obt ai ned an or derf r om an adm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge t o t he ef fectt hatT hom as coul d noter ecta bi l l boar d i n t he abs ence of a val i d per m i t , and r equi r i ng hi m t o r em ove the b il lbo ard from the s it e. T h o m as ap p ea led the A L J’s ruli n g to the D av idso n C o u n ty C h an ce ry C our t , and di d notr em ove the bi l l boar d. O n t he Per ki ns R oad s i t e, T hom as m etw i t h l ocal of f i ci al s butt he per m i tw as noti s s ued, and TD O T i s s ued Thom as a not i ce of vi ol at i on. 6
Fi nal l y, on t he C r os s r oads For d s i t e, T hom as ’ s per m i t appl i cat i on num ber5848 w as deni ed 7 b ec au se it w as less than 1 , 0 0 0 fee t f rom an ex ist ing p erm itted b il lbo ard o w n ed b y T h o m as’s c o m p e tito r, C le a r C h a n n e l O u td o o r, w h ic h w a s n o t p e rm itte d u n d e r T D O T re g u la tio n s . See T D O T R ul es , C hapt er 1680- 02- 03-

. 03( 1) ( a) ( 4)

. T hom as r eques t ed a c ont es t ed ca s e hea r i ng fora dec l arat o ry o rde rundert he U A PA , ar gui ng t hathi s pr opos ed bi l l boar d s i t e qual i f i ed foran exc ept i on t o t he pr oxi m i t y r ul e and that h is p erm i tappl i cat i on s houl d t her efor e be gr ant ed. O n N o v em ber27, 2006, af t era hea r i ng, an adm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge r ul ed that T hom as w as notent i t l ed t o t he bi l l boar d per m i t
. T hom as appea l ed that ru li n g t o t he C o m m issi o n er o f T D O T (“C o m m issi o n er” ). I n ear l y 2007, w hi l e hi s appea l on t he C r os s r oads For d s i t e w as pend ing, T hom as began cons tr uct i on of a bi l l boar d s tr uctur e att he s i t e, des pi t e the factt hathi s per m i tappl i cat i on had b ee n d en ied. T o ere ct th e b il lbo ard stru cture at t h e C ross roa d s F o rd site, T h o m as’s contr act orexca vat ed a r oadw ay overa box cul ver ton t h e S tat e-ow ned r i ght

- of

- w ay att he I nt er s t at e 40/ I nt er s t at e 240 i nt er change , w i t houtper m i s s i on t o do s o. 8In a s o m e wh atp uz z l i n gd e f e n s e , Th o m a s a l s o a s s e rt e d th atth e S t at e w a s n o te nt i t l e d t o i n jun c t i v e r e l i ef 9 becau se h e ha d n ot y et com pleted the b illboard structure.

-5- T ri al C ourt P roce edi ngs Stat e Petiti on In lig h t o f T h o m a s’s h isto ry o f c o n stru c tin g b ill b o a rd s w ith o u t a p e rm it, T D O T d e c id e d to s eek i nj unct i ve r el i ef

agai ns thi m i n Shel by C ount y w i t h r es pectt o t he C r os s r oads For d s i t e. T hus , on M ar ch 2, 2007, t he St at e of T ennes s ee ( “St at e”) , on behal f of T D O T , f

i l ed a Pet i t i on forR es tr ai ni ng O r der , T em por ary I n j u n c ti on, D ecl ar at or y J udgm ent , and Per m anent I nj unct i on agai ns t T hom as i n t he Shel by C ount y C hance r y C our tbel ow . G i ven the factt hat T hom as di d nothave a per m i t for t he bi l l boar d, t he St at e al l eged, com pl et i on and us e of t he bi l l boar d s tr uctur e forout d o o r adver t i s i ng w oul d vi ol at e the B i l l boar d R egul at i on and C ontr ol A ct , s peci f

icall y T enness ee Code A nnot at ed § 54- 21- 104. U ndert he A ct , t he stru c tu re w o u ld b e d e e m e d a p u b lic n u isa n c e , p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 5 , a n d a n y p ro fits T hom as gai ned f

r om i t s us e w oul d be unj us t pr of i t s f r om a publ i c nui s ance . T he St at e as ked the tri al co u rtto issue an o rde r pro h ibit ing T h o m as fro m co m p let ing the C ross roa d F o rd b ill b o a rd stru c tu re , an d fu rth e r a sk e d th e trial c o u rt to d e c lar e th e b ill b o a rd stru c tu re a p u b lic nui s ance undert he A ctand t o r equi r e T hom as t o di s pos e of w hat everhad bee n cons tr uct ed athi s ow n expens e. I f T hom as us ed the s tr uctur e forout dooradver t i s i ng, t he St at e as ked that hi s r evenue s be hel d i n a cons tr uct i ve tr us t
. T he tr i al cour ti s s ued a t em por ar y r es tr ai ni ng or derand s eta s how caus e hea r i ng M ar ch 19, 2007. O n M ar ch 16, 2007, T hom as fil ed hi s ans w er . I n t he ans w er , T hom as adm i t t ed ongoi ng cons tr uct i on of

a bi l l boar d s tr uctur e att he C r os s r oads For d s i t e, adm i t t ed t hathi s appl i cat i on fora St at e per m i thad bee n deni ed, and adm i t t ed thathe di d nothave a T D O T per m i t t o er ect a bi l l boar d att hatl ocat i on. N ever t hel es s , T hom as deni ed thatt he S t at e w as ent i t l ed t o t he re lief r e q u e ste d , b e c a u se th e d e n ial o f h is p e rm it ap p lica tio n o n th e C ro ss ro a d s F o rd site “ is curr ent l y t he s ubj ect of an adm i ni s tr at i ve appea l

. ” T hom as averr ed thatT D O T ’ s deni al of 9 h is p e rm it a p p lica tio n w a s b a se d o n se lec tiv e a n d v in d ictiv e e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e a p p lica b le b i l l b o a r d r e g u l a t i o n s . As s e r t i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e h a d “ u n c l e a n h a n d s , ” T h o ma s c l a i me d T DOT h ad en g ag ed in a s eries o f a cti o n s inten d ed to d iscri m inate ag ains t h im , to h arm h im , to h arm hi s pr oper t y ow ner s hi p, and t o pr ovi de as s i s t ance t o hi s com pet i t or s . T hom as averr ed that T D O T s ys t em at i cal l y deni ed hi m a due pr oces s hear i ng af t erdenyi ng hi s per m i tappl i cat i on. C o u n ter c la im In addit i on t o an answ er, T ho m as f i l ed a co un t ercl ai m w hich con t ai ned si m i l ar al l egati on s. I n t he count er cl ai m , T hom as as s er t ed that T D O T h ad adopt ed a pol i cy of s el ect i ve enforcem ent and ho st i l e and dis cri m i nator y act i on against T ho m as favori ng his b u si nessNot surprising ly , Thomas’s co m petitors and the lawfirm

sought to quashthe subp oenas and asked th e trial 10 court for a protectiv e ord er. The req uest fo r a protectiv e ord er w as apparently no t granted. -6- c o mp e t i t o r s . As e v i d e n c e o f T DOT ’ s a n i mo s i t y , T h o ma s s u b mi t t e d e ma i l s wr i t t e n b y T DOT o ffic ials w ith c o m m e n ts h e sa id w e re h o stile to w a rd h im . H e c ited in sta n c e s in w h ich h is com pet i t or s w er e al l egedl y tr eat ed m or e favor abl y, and cl ai m ed thathe w as “s i ngl ed out ” for a d v e rs e re g u la to ry a c tio n b y T D O T

. In h is c o u n ter c laim , T h o m a s a lso a lleg e d th a t, on n u m e ro u s o c c a sio n s af ter th e d e n ial o f h is appl i cat i on fora bi l l boar d per m i t , T D O T r ef us ed hi s r eques t for an adm i ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng. T D O T ’ s fai l ur e t o gr antt he r eques t ed heari n g s, T hom as cl ai m ed, vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due p roc ess an d eq u al pro tecti o n , an d furthe r ev iden ce d T D O T ’s an im u s tow ard h im

. A s reli ef, T hom as s oughtan orderenj oi ni ng T D O T em pl oyees f r om t aki ng s el ect i ve and d isc rim in a to ry a c tio n s a g a in st h im re g a rd in g th e C ro ss ro a d s F o rd b ill b o a rd p e rm it a p p lica tio n , an d a sk e d th a t T D O T b e a ffirm a tiv e ly re q u ire d to iss u e h im a b ill b o a rd p e rm it fo r t h a t s ite

. Shor t l y t her eaf

t er , T D O T and Thom as agr eed to the di s s ol ut i on of t he TR O i s s ued by the tr i al cour tw hen TD O T f i l ed i t s pet i t i on. T he par t i es agr eed t o cooper at e i n di s cover y and t o agr ee on a dat e fora hea r i ng on t he i nj unct i ve r el i ef r eques t ed. T he r e c o r d s h o ws t h a tTh o m a s s o u g h tc o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c o v e r y . He n o t i c e d s e v er al d e p o sitio n s, so m e o f T D O T o ffic ials a n d o ffic ials o f th e M e m p h is a n d S h e lb y C o u n ty O ff i c e s o f Pl a n n i n g a n d Dev e l o p m e n ta n d Con s tr u c t i o n Cod e En fo r c e m e n t
. He i s s ued s ubpoenas duces t ecum s eeki ng num er ous docum ent s f r om non- par t ies to t he l i t i gat i on, inclu d ing co m p eti tor b il lbo ard co m p an ies an d ev en a l aw fi rm rep rese n ti n g a c o m p eti tor. 10 T hom as s er ved on TD O T m ul t i pl e r eques t s for adm i s s i ons ; he al s o i s s ued br oad r eques t s for T D O T d o cu m en ts pe rt ainin g to n u m ero u s co m p eti tors an d their l aw fi rm , b il lbo ard appl i cat i ons and adm i ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs , and di s cus s i ons am ong T D O T em pl oyees for a p eriod o f tim e s p a n n ing sev era l yea rs. N u m ero u s interrog atories, si m il arly b roa d , w ere a l s o s e r v e d o n TDO T. T he tr i al cour t s chedul ed a hear i ng for M ay 17, 2007. O n t he dat e of t he hea r i ng, T hom as filed a n a p p lica tio n fo r a tem p o ra ry re stra in in g o rd e r. T h o m a s s o u g h t a T R O to e n jo in T D O T f r om ( 1) i nt er fer i ng w i t h T hom as ordi s par agi ng h im t o bus i nes s as s oci at es , ( 2) providi ng no np ub l i c i nform at i on abo ut T ho m as’ s bu si ness t o com peti t ors or assi st i ng t ho se co m p eti to rs in w ay s tha t w o u ld o b stru ct T h o m as’s b u sine ss, and (3) issuin g a b il lbo ard per m i tt o a par t i cul arcom pet i t ori n a nam ed l ocat i on. H e ci ted em ail s and otherevi dence regar ding t he d eal i ng s of TD O T offi ci al s w i t h T ho m as’ s com peti t ors and h i s busi ness a ss o c iate s, w h ich a lleg e d ly d isp a ra g e d T h o m a s a n d in d ica ted p re fe re n tial tre a tm e n t to-7-

c o m p e tit o rs. T h o m a s a g a in assert ed tha t T D O T , in s e v e ra l u n re late d m a tters , h a d im p ro p e rly den i ed h i s r equ estforcon t est ed case h eari ng s. A tt he hea r i ng, t he St at e ar gued thatt he tr i al cour tdi d nothave s ubj ectm at ter j ur i s di ct i on ov er Thom a s ’ s c ou nt e r c l a i m s . The St a t e t oo k the po s i t i on t ha tThom a s ’ s c l a i m s a gai nst T D O T coul d be as s er t ed onl y i n D avi ds on C o u n ty, T ennes s ee. T hom as ar gued thatt he Shel b y C o u n ty tr ia l cour tcoul d i s s ue i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tT D O T , and thatvenue w as p ro p e r in S h e lb y C o u n ty p u rsu a n t to T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d § 2 0 -4 -1 0 7 , ap p lica b le to m at t er s i nvol vi ng r eal pr oper t y. T hom as pr es ent ed docum ent s obt ai n ed in d is cover y and a r g u e d t h a th e was e n t i t l e d t o i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

a g a i n s tTDO T. T h e n e x t d a y , o n M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the S tate filed a m o tio n to d ism iss T h o m a s’s c o u n ter c laim pur s uantt o R ul e 12. 02 of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e for l ack of s ubj ectm at t er ju risd ictio n , lac k o f ju risd ictio n o v e r T D O T , im p r o p e r v e n u e , an d fa ilu re to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re li ef c o u ld b e g ran ted. T h e S tat e a lso a sserted in it s m o ti o n that T h o m as’s count er cl ai m w as barr ed undert he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni t y. O n M ay 22, 2007, t he t r i al cour tent er ed an or deron t he m at t er s hear d i n t he M ay 17 hea r i ng. A tt he out s et , t he tr i al cour tr ej ect ed the St at e’ s as s er t i on t hat t he tr i al cour tl acke d s ubj ect m a tter ju risd ictio n , b e c a u se T h o m a s so u g h t in ju n c tiv e re lief a g a in st th e S tate a n d n o t S tate f unds orpr oper t y, an d beca us e Thom as as s er t ed s el ect i ve enf or cem entas a def

ens e t o t he St at e’ s pet i t i on. T he tr i al cour tf ur t herhel d t hatven u e for Thom as ’ s count er cl ai m w as prop er in Shel by C ount y, beca us e “the St at e i ns t i t ut ed thi s act i on and s oughtt o obt ai n an i nj unct i on agai ns tM r . T hom as as a r es ul tof t he u se o f h i s pr oper t y i n Shel by C ount y, T ennes s ee, ” and beca us e T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m w as bas ed on TD O T ’ s act i ons w i t h r es pect t o Shel by C ount y pr oper t y ow ned by Thom as . T hus , t he t r i al cour thel d t hati thad s ubj ect ma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r a n d d e t e r mi n e t h e ma t t e r s r a i s e d b y T h o ma s i n h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m. H av ing fou n d that it h ad su bject m att er jurisdicti o n an d that v en u e w as p rop er, th e tri al co u rt wen to n t o a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s o f T hom a s ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ri n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

a g a i n s tTDO T. T he tr i al cour tr evi ew ed t he em ai l s and ot her evi dence s ubm i t t ed by T hom as i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m of s el ect i ve and vi ndi ct i ve enfor cem entof T D O T ’ s bi l l boar d r egul at i ons . T he tr i al cour tfound t hatt he docum ent s ind icated t hata TD O T at t or ney and a T D O T of f i ci al had gi ven pr ef

er ent i al tr eat m entt o T hom as ’ s com pet i t orand had ha d cont actw i t h t he com pet i t or that ap p ear ed t o be unethi cal

. T he tr i al cour tfound al s o t hata ce r t ai n T D O T of f i ci al had m a d e u n tr u e a n d d isp a ra g in g re m a rk s a b o u t T h o m a s to a p e rso n w ith w h o m T h o m a s d id bus i nes s . T he tri al cour tfound al l of t hi s t o be “s ubs t ant i al evi dence of s el ect i ve and v i n d i c t i v e e n fo r c e m e n ta g a i n s tt h e Def e n d a n tTh o m a s ” b y TDO T. C o n seq u en tl y , the tri al co u rtg ran ted T h o m as v ir tually all of t h e re li ef h e re q u ested

. It enj oi ned TD O T f

r o m di s par agi ng T hom as t o hi s bus i nes s as s oci at es , f r om pr ovi di ngThis case was Phil li p s v. TD OT

, N o. M2006

- 0092 12- CO A- R3- CV, 2007 WL 1237 695 (Tenn. C t. A pp. 11 Apr . 2 6, 2 00 7)

. -8- n o n p u b lic in fo rm a tio n a b o u t T h o m a s’s b u sin e ss to h is c o m p e tit o rs, a n d f r o m a ss istin g h is c o mp e t i t o r s wi t h “ o b s tr u c t i n g ” T h o ma s ’ s b u s i n e s s . I tf u r t h e re n j o i n e d T DO T f

r o m:

. . . en g a g in g in a n y fu rth e r s e le c tiv e o r v in d ictiv e e n fo rc e m e n t ac ts w ith r egar d t o [ T ho m as]. [ T D O T ] i s enj oi ned t o acti n any w ay t ow ar ds T hom as exce ptequi t abl y and eq u al l y t ow ar ds T hom as , [ a nam ed com pet i t or ] and ot her s w ho deal w i t h T D O T , and t o cea s e any and al l act s w hi ch s how or a p p e a r to b e b a se d o n fa v o ritism , b ias , p re ju d ice , o r p re fe re n c e , an d th a t all act i ons of

T D O T s hal l appl y equal l y t o T hom as as t hey appl y t o [ t he nam ed com pet i t or ] , orany otherent i t y. T he tr i al cour t expl ai ned thatt hi s expans i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef , pr ohi bi t i ng T D O T f r om act i ng a n y w a y “ e x c e p t eq u itab ly a n d e q u a lly ,” to w a rd T h o m a s “ a n d o th e rs” w a s “ n e c e ss a ry to p re v e n t a n y fu rth e r se lec tiv e o r v in d ictiv e e n fo rc e m e n t ag a in st T h o m a s b y T D O T .” T h is o rd e r w a s to re m a in in e ffe c t p e n d in g fu rt h e r o rd e rs o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt
. T he tr i a l c ou r t di d no t e xp r e s s l y a dd r e s s t he St a t e ’ s pe t i t i on for i nj un c t i ve r e l i ef agai nst T ho m as. T h e S tate so u g h t p e rm is s io n f r o m th e trial c o u rt fo r a n im m e d iate in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l, pur s uantt o R ul e 9 of t he T ennes s ee R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, of t he deni al of

i t s m ot i on to d ism iss T h o m a s’s c o u n ter c laim fo r la c k o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t im m e d iate ly a c t o n th e S tate ’s r e q u e st fo r p e rm iss io n to a p p e a l.

A dm i nis trati ve Proc eedings on O therSit es D e v e lo p m e n ts in T h o m a s’s p e n d in g a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s o n h is b il lb o a rd p e rm it appl i cat i ons s oon r es ul t ed i n f ur t heres cal at i on of

t he Shel by C ount y l i t i gat i on. O n J une 6, 20 07 , t he T D O T C om m i ssi on er i ssued an order i n the pend i ng adm i nis trat i ve co ntes t ed case r egar di ng t he C r os s r oads For d sit e. The C om m i s s i oner ’ s f i nal or deraf

f i r m ed the or derof th e A L J, w h ich h e ld th a t T h o m a s d id n o t q u a lify fo r a n y e x c e p tio n s to th e p ro x im ity ru le and, t her efor e, w as not en t i t l ed t o a bi l l boar d per m i tfort he C r os s r oads For d s i t e. O n t he sam e date, th e T D O T C om m i ssi on er i ssued a fi nal or der i n an otheradm i nis trat i ve case r el at ed t o T hom as ’ s per m i tappl i cat i ons for t he K at e B ond P. D

. s i t e, appl i cat i ons 5816 and 5817. I n t hat or der , t he C om m i s s i oneral s o r ul ed aga i ns tT hom as , r ever s i ng t he A L J ’ s r ul i ng i n hi s favorand r em andi ng t he cas e t o t he A L J t o r econs i der t he m at t eri n l i ghtof a C our tof A pp eal s deci si on i n an othercase i nv olvi ng T ho m as. 11The State objected to the filingof the th i r d-pa rty com plaint, notingthat it wa s asse rted ag ainst S helby 12 County “in name on ly ,” and that, at anyrate, the trial court did not h av e su bject m atter jurisdiction o v er an inv erse co ndem

nation laws uit under T ennes see C ode Ann otated § 1 6- 11- 102(a) (jurisdiction co nferred by st at ut e to c ir cuitc ourt). -9- T h e s e t wo a d v e r s e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r u l i n g s d r e w a n i mme d i a t e r e s p o n s e f r o m T h o ma s . On J une 21, 2007, T hom as fi led an appl i cat i on i n t he Shel by C ount y tr i al cour tfora s econd T R O . T h is a p p lica tio n a lleg e d th a t tw o n a m e d T D O T e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re h o stile to T hom as had i m per m i s s i bl y par t i ci pat ed i n t he TD O T C om m i s sioner ’ s t w o J une 6, 2007 ad v erse ruli n g s an d , in d o ing so , v iolated th e tri al c o u rt ’s M ay 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 restrai n ing o rde r. T hom as as s er t ed f

ur t her t hat T D O T had fai l ed t o com m ence a U A PA cont es t ed ca s e hea r i ng, des pi t e Thom as ’ s N ovem ber2006 r eques tr egar di ng th e d e n i a l o f h i s f o u rper m i tappl i cat i ons at an unr el at ed s i t e, St eve R oad P. D

. , and t hat T D O T ’ s fai l ur e t o do s o cons t i t ut ed a vi ol at i on of t he tr i al cour t ’ s M ay 22, 2007 r es tr ai ni ng or der

. T hom as as ked t he t r i al cour t t o i s s ue a s econd or der , enj oi ni ng cer t ai n T D O T em pl oyees f r om par t i ci pat i ng i n any TD O T m at t er i nvol vi ng T hom as . T hom as al s o as ked the tr i al cour tt o s t ay the f i nal or der s i s s ued by the T D O T C om m i s s i oneri n T hom as ’ s pendi ng adm i ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs . I n addi t i on, T hom as r eques t ed t hat T D O T be or der ed t o s how caus e w hy bi l l boar d per m i t s had notbeen i s s ued t o hi m on hi s fourappl i cat i ons on t he St eve Road P. D

. s i t e. O n J ul y 6, 2007, T hom as f i l ed a m ot i on forl eave of cour tt o f

i l e a thi r d- par t y com pl ai nt agai ns tSh elby C o u n ty. T h e third-p arty c o m p lai n t asserted a c lai m for inv erse co ndem nati on, i

. e. , t he unl aw f

ul t aki ng of

hi s pr oper t y. T hom as candi dl y ex p lai ned i n hi s m ot i on t hathe s o u g h t to fi le th e th ir d p a rt y c o m p la in t a g a in s t S h e lb y C o u n ty “ fo r t h e a c tio n s o f t h e S ta te ,” beca us e the St at e coul d notbe s ued undert he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni t y. I ndeed, t he p ro p o se d c o m p lain t w a s o ste n sib ly a g a in st S h e lb y C o u n ty , b u t es se n tially c o m p lain e d o n ly o f ac ti o n s b y the S tat e. T h o m as a sserted that, b y refu sing to allow h im to p lace b il lbo ard s tr uctur es w i t hi n t he TD O T per m anentdr ai nage e as em enton hi s pr oper t i es , t he St at e deni ed T h o m a s a ll ec o n o m ica lly v iab le u se o f h is p ro p e rties a n d in ter fe re d w ith h is re a so n a b le ex p ec tat ion to u se h is p rop erti es for o u tdo o r a d v erti sing

. T h u s, T h o m as asse rt ed , the S tat e’s a c tio n s c o n stitu ted a n u n law fu l ta k in g o f h is p ro p e rty w ith o u t ju st c o m p e n sa tio n . O n Ju ly 12 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the tr ial c o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g T h o m a s le a v e to file th is th ird -p a rty com pl ai nt
. T he tr i al cour thel d t hatt he f i l i ng of the com pl ai ntagai ns tShel by C ount y w as appr opr i at e bec aus e, pur s uantt o R ul e 19. 01 ( j oi nderof

par t i es i f

feasible) an d R ul e 13. 08 ( j oi nderof

par t i es t o obt ai n com p let e rel i ef) of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, com pl et e r el i ef

coul d notbe gr ant ed w i t houts uch j oi nder

. I ts t at ed expr es s l y t hatt he i s s ue o f subject m att er jurisdicti o n co u ld b e a d d resse d lat er. A l s o on J ul y 6, 2007, t he tr i al cour thel d a hea r i ng on T ho m as’s ap pl i cat i on forf ur t her i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

. On J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e tr i a l c o u r te n t e r e d a n o r d e rg r a n t i n g T h o ma s s o me of t he r el i ef

he r eques t ed and sc hedul i ng a show caus e hear i ng on t he r em ai nder

. T he tr i al-10-

c o u r ts t a y e d t h e T DOT Co mmi s s i o n e r ’ s t wo J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 7 f i n a l o r d e r s a n d o r d e r e d T DOT to fu ll y co m p ly w ith T h o m as’s d isco v ery req u ests b y Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 7

. T h e tri al co u rt sc h e d u led a sh o w c a u se h e a rin g o n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 7 , req u irin g th a t th e tw o T D O T o ffic ials w h o w e re a lleg e d ly h o stile to w a rd T h o m a s a p p e a r a n d sh o w c a u se re g a rd in g th e ir inv o lvem en t i n T D O T C o m m issi o n er’s Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 7 o rde rs, T D O T ’s resp o n se to T h o m as’s d isc o v e ry re q u e sts , the iss u a n c e o f a b il lb o a rd p e rm it t o o n e o f T h o m a s’s c o m p e tit o rs a t a s i t e nea rt he W ol f

R i ver , and TD O T ’ s refu sal to gr antT hom as per m i s s i on t o cons tr uct bi l l boar ds w i t hi n t he St at e’s d rai nage e as em enton t he C r os s r oads For d s i t e. T D O T w as furthe r ord ere d to sh o w ca u se a t th e A u g u st 7, 20 0 7 h ea ri n g o n w h y the fo u r bil lbo ard p e r mi t s fo rwh i c h T h o ma s a p p l i e d o n t h e S t e v e R o a d P

. D. s i t e h a d n o tb e e n i s s u e d t o h i m. Show Cause H eari ng, Stay O rder O n A ugus t 7, 2007, at t he begi nni ng of t he s how caus e hea r i ng, T hom as announce d t hathe i nt ended t o pr es entpr oof conce r ni ng a w i de r ange of gr i evanc es agai ns tT D O T , dat i ng back to 2 0 0 5

. T h e S tat e o bjected to ex p an sion o f the sco p e of th e h ea ri n g b ey o n d the p ara m eters s t at ed i n t he J ul y 16, 2007 or der s et t i ng t he s how caus e hear i ng. O ver t hi s obj ect i on, t he tr i al c o u rt d e c id e d to a llo w T h o m a s to p re se n t w itn e ss e s an d o th e r p ro o f “ to e sta b lish th e b a sis for [hi s] con t enti on of bias and prej ud i ce, part i al i t y on the partof these T D O T em ployees. A n d th e n w e w ill m o v e fro m th e re to d e ter m in e w h e th e r o r n o t th e S ta te h a s s h o w n th a t it w a s ju s tif

ie d in a c tio n w h ic h it to o k .” F rom t here , th e sh ow cause h eari ng grew i nto a proceeding thatspann ed som e t en d ays – A ugus t7, 9, 20, 21, 22, Sept em ber17, 18, 19, 2 6 , and 27, 2007. T he hea r i ng i nvol ved a p p ro x im a tely a d o z e n w itn e ss e s, e ith e r in p e rso n o r b y d e p o sitio n , an d a p p ro x im a tely s eventy- s i x exhi bi t s . T he w i t nes s es i ncl uded t hr ee T D O T at t or neys , fourem pl oyees of t he B ea u ti fi ca ti o n O ffi ce , a T D O T m ainten an ce su p erv isor, an d the T D O T C o m m is s io n er. T hom as t es t i f

i ed att he hea r i ng, and al s o pr es ent ed t he t es t i m ony of an engi neer . T he s ubj ect ma t t e ro f t h e t e s t i mo n y c o v e r e d a wi d e r a n g e o f t o p i c s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a T DOT att o rne y w ith a c o m p eti tor o f T h o m as an ea rl ier p roc ee d ing ag ains t T h o m as in an o ther P art of t he Shel by C ount y C hance r y C our t , num er ous bi l l boar d per m i tappl i cat i ons by T hom as and hi s com pet i t or s i n var i ous s t ages of t he adm i ni str ati ve pr oces s , T D O T ’ s i nt er nal c o m m un i cat i on s regar ding Th om as and his com peti t ors, and w hether T ho m as or h is c o m p e tit o r q u a lified fo r e x c e p tio n s to th e b ill b o a rd re g u latio n s in v a rio u s lo c a tio n s. In h is t es t i m ony, T hom as as s er t ed, am ong ot her t hi ngs , t hatT D O T tr eat ed hi m l es s favor abl y t han it tre a ted h is c o m p e tit o r, an d th a t, w h e n h is pe rm it a p p lica tio n s w e re d e n ied , T D O T w o u ld n o t g ra n t h is re q u e s ts fo r a d m in is tr a tiv e h e a ri n g s o n th e d e n ie d a p p lic a tio n s . M eanw hil e, i n S eptem ber 200 7, du ri ng t he co urse of t he tes t i m on y in th e sh o w cause hear i ng, T hom as r ecei v ed a not i ce f r om T D O T of

adm i ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i n f i ve cont es t ed m at t er s r el at ed t o hi s per m i t appl i cat i ons forbi l l boar ds att he fol l ow i ng s i t es : ( 1)The trial co ur tn ot e d that b oth th e S tate’s claim s an d Thomas’s co unterclaim s “involv e billbo ards th at 13 Thom as h as so ught to be e rected on certain pieces of p roperty he own s in Shelb y

C ounty .” -11- C ro ss ro a d s F o rd , (2 ) S tev e R o a d P .D ., (3 ) P e rk in s R o a d , (4 ) S o u th e rn M ill w o rk (p e n d in g in D avi ds on C ount y i n C hance r y C our t ) , and ( 5) W i l s on – i n Fayet t e C ount y. O n O ct ober5, 2007, aftert he conc l us i on of t he t es t i m ony fort he s how caus e hea r i ng butbefor e the tr i al c o u rt h a d iss u e d a n o rd e r, T h o m a s filed a m o tio n a sk in g th e trial co u rt to iss u e a sta y in a ll f i ve TD O T adm i ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs o n T h o m as ’ s per m i tappl i cat i ons . T hom as ar gued th a t T D O T h a d h e re to fo re re fu se d T h o m a s’s re q u e sts fo r ad m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s, a n d its deci sion at th atpoi ntt o i s s ue not i ce of hear i ngs w as “an a ctof cont i nui ng bad fai t h of T D O T ” and “a n at t em ptt o us ur p [ t he tr i al ] cour tof j ur i s di ct i on. ” H e cont ended thata s t ay w as nece s s ar y t o pr eventconf l i ct s bet w een the adm i ni s tr at i ve dec isi o n s an d t he r el i ef T h o m a s h a d re q u e ste d o f th e trial c o u rt, n a m e ly , m a n d a ted iss u a n c e o f th e p e r m its to T ho m as. A f t era hear i ng on T hom as ’ s m ot i on for a s t ay, on O ct ober 24, 2007, t he tr i al cour tent er ed a n o rd e r g ra n tin g th e m o tio n . A s re q u e ste d , the sta y o rd e r a p p lied to th e p ro c e e d in g s in a ll f i ve of T hom as ’ s cont es t ed ca s es . T he or ders peci f i cal l y i n cl uded the U A PA pet i t i on for ju d icia l re v iew in v o lv in g th e S o u th e rn M ill w o rk s s ite, p e n d in g in th e D a v id so n C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt, as w e ll as th e a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s o n th e W ilso n site in F a y e tte C o u n ty
. T hi s or deral s o deni ed the St at e’ s r eques t for perm i s s i on foran i nt er l ocut oryappea l pur s uantt o T ennes s ee Rul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 9. Tr ialC ourtF i nalO rder O n Febr uar y 12, 2008, t he tr i al cour tent er ed an or der on T hom as ’ s r eques tforr el i ef

. T he 1l 0- page or dercont ai ned s om e 188 f i ndi ngs of

factand conc l us i ons of l aw . A tt he out s etof t he or der , t he tr i al cour t out l i ned i t s pr i orr ul i ngs and then addr es s ed the i s s ue of j ur i s di ct i on. T he tr i al cour tr ecogni zed t hat t he U A PA , s peci f i cal l y T ennes s ee C ode A nnot at ed § 4- 5- 322, p ro v id e s th a t “J u d icia l R e v iew o f a n A d m in istra tiv e B o d y ’s d e c isio n sh o u ld b e in stitu ted in t he C hance r y C our tof D avi ds on C ount y. ” I tnot ed, how ever , t hatT ennes s ee Code A n n o tate d § 2 0 -4 -1 0 7 , rela ted to v e n u e , p ro v id e s th a t ac tio n s in v o lv in g “ re a l p ro p e rty in w h ich th e S tate o f T e n n e ss e e o r a n y a g e n c y th e re o f, is a p a rty , m a y b e p ro p e rly in stitu ted in an y co u n ty i n w h ich su ch p rop erty i s loca ted.” It also cit ed ca selaw stat ing that “[a ] plainti ff, b y fi lin g s u it, w a iv e s a n y ri g h t to d is p u te v e n u e . Co rby v . Ma tth e ws , 541 S. W

. 2d 789 ( T enn. 1976)

. ” I n addi t i on, i tobs er ved thata r eques tforchan g e o f v en u e thati s m ade f ort he pur pos e of

del ayi ng t he l i t i gat i on s houl d be deni ed. Fi nal l y, t he t r i al cour t det er m i ned that T h o m a s’s c laim s w e re c o m p u lso ry c o u n ter c laim s p u rsu a n t to T e n n e ss e e R u le o f C iv il P roc ed u re 1 3

. 0 1 , b ec au se th ey aro se o u t o f th e sam e tr an sac ti o n o r o cc u rren ce as th e S tat e’s ori ginal peti t i on for i njunct i ve rel i ef, or, i n t he al t ernat i ve, w ere perm i ssi ve co un t ercl ai m s. 13 In l i gh tof al l of these fact ors, t he tri al cou rtfound t hat, “as a m at t er of po l i cy, M r. T ho m as’-12-

c o u n te rc la im s h o u ld b e h e a rd in th is [S h e lb y C o u n ty ] C o u rt to p ro m o te ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y .” T hus , t he tr i al cour tr ej ect ed the S tat e’s argum entt hati tdi d nothave s ubj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on ov er Th om as’ s coun t ercl ai m s. S at i sf i ed thati thad j uri sdi ct i on ov er the subj ectm at t er, t he tr i al cou rtw ent on t o ad dress a w i de rang e of i ssues i nv olvi ng T D O T ’s com pli ance w i t h the tri al cou rt ’s dis cov ery orders , s ever al of

T hom as ’ s bi l l boar d per m i tappl i cat i ons , an d b il lboa r d per m i tappl i cat i ons by T hom as ’ s com pet i t or s . A s t o t he di s cover y or der s , t he tr i al cour t found T D O T i n cont em pt for fail ing to co m p ly w ith o rde rs t o p rod u ce ce rt ain d o cu m en ts an d re sp o n d to T h o m as’s dis cov ery r equ est s. R egardi ng t he perm i t app l i cat i on s by bo t h T ho m as and h i s com peti t ors, t he tr i al cour tcons i der ed ea ch appl i cat i on s epar at el y; i tr evi ew ed in so m e det ai l t he i nner w or ki ngs of

T D O T of

f i ci al s ateac h s t age of

t he adm i ni s tr at i ve proc es s , w i t h par t i cul arfocus o n T D O T o ffi cials w h o w ere d ee m e d e ith e r b iased ag ains t T h o m as, biase d in fav o r of a com p eti tor, o r both. A s t o eac h appl i cat i on, f i ndi ngs w er e m ade on w hetherpar t i cul ar act i ons by T D O T of

f i ci al s w er e ei t hererr oneous ori n vi ol at i on of t he tr i al cour t ’ s pr i oror der enj oi ni ng T D O T f

r om act i ng “i n any w ay exce pt equi t abl y and equal l y” t ow ar d T hom as and hi s com pet i t or s . N ext , i n r es pons e t o T hom as ’ s r eques t t hat t he tr i al cour t i nt er vene i n ot her o n g o ing u n reso lved ad m inistrati v e p roc ee d ing s inv o lving T D O T ’s de n ial o f bil lbo ard perm i t s t o h i m , t he tr i al cou rtm ade the fol l ow i ng rul i ng s: St eve Road P. D

. : D i s s ol ved the s t ay as t o t he ongoi ng adm i ni s tr ati ve pr ocee di ngs on bi l l boar d per m i tappl i cat i ons 7317, 7 3 1 8 , 7319, and 7320, per m i t t i ng t he adm i ni s tr at i ve pr oces s t o pr ocee d; K ate B o n d P

. D

. : O rde red T D O T to issue p erm its w ith resp ec t t o b il lbo ard per m i tappl i cat i ons 5816, 5817, 581 8 , an d 5819 bas ed on the pr evi ous con cl usi on s r egardi ng bias and un fai rness i n the process; C r os s r oads For d: R em anded the i s s ue of per m i tappl icat i ons 5848 and 7546 t o t he TD O T C om m i s s i onert o rec o ns i dert he i s s ues “f r om a neutr al p e r s p e c t i v e wi t h o u tt h e i n v o l v e me n to ri n f l u e n c e o f

a n y o f T h o ma s ’ k n o wn adver s ar i es w i t hi n T D O T ; ” the tr i al cour tr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s m at t er “t o i t s concl us i on; ” and Per ki ns R oad: D i s s ol ved the s t ay t o al l ow adm i ni s tr at i ve enf or cem entact i on t o pr ocee d r el at ed t o per m it ap pl i cat i ons 7068 and 7069, butr et ai ni ng juri sd ict ion o v er the m att er. T he tr i al cour tdecl i n ed to exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overT hom as ’ s per m i tappl i cat i ons on t he W i l s on s i t e, beca us e the r eal pr oper t y i nvol ved w as i n Fayet t e C ount y. I tal s o di s s ol ved theA case inv olv ingthe permit app lications related to theSo uthern Millwork site was pendingin the D av idson 14 County Ch ancery

C ourt, and permit app lications related to theWolf Riv er site had been resolv ed in a proc ee di ngin

adif fe re nt P art o f th e S he lb y

C ounty C hanc er y C ourt
. In the f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t an d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l aw , th e tr i a l c o urt h a d s t at e d th at th e ru l e p r o h i bitingthe 15 placement o f a newbillbo ard w ithin 1 000 feet of an e xistingbillbo ard a ppeare d to be “ arbitrary

and v oid.” At the h earing , th e S tate info rm ed th e trial c ourt that this rule was established by state regulation, no t by

local practice. T he trial court rev ised its findingto declare that an intern al pro cedura l stand ard u sed by TDO T was arbitrary and v oid. This appears to be th e on ly v ariation betw een the o rig inal finding s of fact an d thefinal order entered by

the trial court. -13- s t ay of t he adm i ni s tr at i ve and j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs r el at ed t o t he Sout her n M i l l w or k and W olf R i ver si t es. 14
T h e trial c o u rt n o ted th a t T h o m a s h a d re q u e ste d th a t itfin d “ e v e ry d e c isio n o f T D O T a n d its em p loy ee s tow ard s T h o m as [to b e] ‘il lega l, h ig h h a n d e d an d eg reg iou s. ’ ” T h e tri al co u rt decl i ned t o do s o, al t hough i tfound t hatT D O T “s houl d bears om e of t he r es pons i bi l i t y” for the a cti o n s o f offici als w h o m th e tr ial co u rth ad fou n d u n ethica l or b iased

. T h e tri al co u rt obs er ved: 1 6 5

. T h o ma s , . . . wi t h h i s a s s e r t i v e p o s t u r e , s p r e a d f u e l o n t h e f

i r e o f T DOT of f i ci al s , by i gnor i ng, w i t houtC our tappr oval , deci s i on of T D O T , and con struct i ng bil l bo ards and ad vert i si ng , w i t ho ut pr op er s t at e perm i t s. 166. I n s om e ins tance s , T hom as m ay have been j us t i f i ed i n t aki ng an agg res si ve ap proach w i t h T D O T regar ding the d enial of som e of hi s perm i t s. T he tr i al cour tnot ed thati tcoul d not“s ubs t i t u te its jud gm entfort hatof T D O T ” as t o t he i s s uance of

per m i t s , butw as l i m i t ed t o t he U A PA s t andar d of r evi ew of

ad m inis tr at i ve d e c isio n s. It fo u n d , h o w e v e r, th a t it h a d th e p o w e r to sa n c tio n T D O T fo r c iv il co n tem p t “to i m pr es s upon T D O T t he nec es s i t y t o com pl y w i t h t he C our t ’ s or der s an d to t r eatT hom as fa ir ly .” O n M ar ch 19, 2008, t he tr i al cour t convene d a hear i ng t o addr es s t he pr oper dr af t i ng of t he fi n al ord er in the ca se, ba sed o n the tri al co u rt ’s fi n d ing s o f fact an d co n clus ion s o f l aw . In the r es ul t i ng or der , ent er ed on the s am e day, t he tr i al cour tadopt ed the Febr uar y 2008 f i n d i n g s o f

fa c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w v i r t u a l l y v e r b a t i m. T h e tr i a l c o u r to r d e r e d T DOT 15 to issue T h o m as th e b il lbo ard p erm it s related to the K ate B o n d P

. D

. sit e, rem an d ed T h o m as’s appl i cat i on on t he C r os s r oads For d per m i t s t o t he T D O T C om m i s s i onerforr econs i der at i on w i t hi n t he tr i al cour t ’ s l i m i t s , and or der ed t hat an adm i ni s tr at i ve hear i ng be pr om pt l y s etfor t he per m i ta p p l i c a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e St e v e Roa d P. D. s i t e . Th e tr i a l c o u r t“ r e t a i n[ ed] j ur i s di ct i on of

t he per m i tappl i cat i ons of T hom as as t o t he K at e B ond P. D

. , C r os s r oads For d, St eve Road P. D

. , and Per ki ns R oad per m i tappl i cat i ons . ” T he tr i al cour taw ar ded Thom as-14-

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0 in at torn ey fee s as ap p rop ri ate da m ag es an d san cti o n s ag ains t T D O T for it s fail u re t o com pl y w i t h t he or der s of t he tr i al cour t
. T he tr i al cour tcer t i f i ed the M ar ch 19, 2008 or der as fina l pu rsua n t t o R u le 5 4

. 0 2 o f th e T en n esse e R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, no ti n g that “the re is s til l p e n d in g T h o m a s’ c o m p lain t fo r u n law fu l ta k in g filed Ju ly 2 7 [sic ], 2 0 0 7 .” O n A p ril 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , the S tate filed its n o tice o f a p p e a l. O n th e d a y th e S tate filed its n o tice o f a p p e a l a n d th e re a fte r, T h o m a s file d a se rie s o f p o stj udgm entm ot i ons and appl i cat i ons for reli ef in t he tr i al cour t
. O vert he St at e’ s obj ect i on, T hom as w as p erm itt ed t o t ake the depos i t i on of t he TD O T C om m i s s i onerr egar di ng T h o m a s’s c o n tin u e d a lleg a tio n s o f c o n tem p t. O n A u g u st 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , the trial c o u rt h e a rd a ll o f T h o m as’ s pos t

- tr i al m ot i ons . O n Sept em ber23, 2008, t he tr i al cour tent er ed an or der denyi ng T hom as ’ s pos t

- tr i al m ot i ons ; how eve r, it requi r ed TD O T t o convene a cont es t ed cas e hea r i ng r el at ed t o per m i tappl i cat i ons f i l ed by T hom as over w hi ch t he tr i al cour thad not pr evi ous l y exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on, r el at ed t o the Jani ce D unn s i t e. I n addi t i on, T D O T w as or der ed t o pay Thom as $16, 135. 63 i n di s cr et i onar y cos t s . T h e S tat e f i l ed a s uppl em ent al n o ti ce o f ap p ea l f

rom the S ep tem b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r. I SS UE S ON A PPE AL AN D S T AN DA RD OF R EVI EW O n appea l , t he St at e r ai s es s ever al i s s ues for our r evi ew . I t ar gues t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n denyi ng t he St at e’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er juri sd ict ion o r ba sed o n the d o ctri n e o f so v ere ign im m u n ity . It co n tend s tha t th e tri al co u rt err ed i n gr ant i ng T hom as i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tT D O T and i n f

i ndi ng t hat T D O T vi ol at ed t he i nj unct i ve or der s . T he St at e m ai nt ai ns t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n as s er t i ng j ur i s di ct i on overT hom as ’ s T D O T bi l l boar d per m i t ap p li cat i ons and the r el at ed adm i ni s tr at i ve p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d i n a s s e s s i n g s a n c t i o n s a n d d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o s t s a g a i n s tTDO T. W e per cei ve the det er m i nat i ve i s s ue t o be w hethert he tr ial courthad s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e the cl ai m s forr el i ef as s er t ed i n T hom as ’ s cou n terc l ai m and T hom as ’ s s ubs equentr eques t s t hatar os e f r om t he count er cl ai m . W hethers ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s i s a ques t i on of l aw , and w e r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on on t hi s i s s ue de novo , a ffo rd in g it n o p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s . No rth la n d In s. C o . v. S ta te , 33 S. W

. 3d 7 2 , 7 2 9 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ). A N A LY S IS T he St at e ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s M ay 22, 2007 or derand any s ubs equentor derar i s i ng outof T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m ar e voi d and s houl d be vac at ed, beca us e the tr i al cour tdi d not hav e subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on t o ad j ud i cat e t h o se c laim s. R at her, t he S t at e argues, T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m s , as w el l as hi s l at er r eques t s fori nj unct i ve r el i ef , s oughtaf f i r m at i ve r eli ef f r om t he deni al of

bi l l boar d per m i tappl i cat i ons t hatw er e i n var i ous s t ages of t he-15-

adm i ni s tr at i ve pr oces s . T he tr i al cour t ’ s ass er t i on of j ur i s di ct i on overt hes e cl ai m s w as i m pr oper , t he St at e ar gues , beca us e s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overt he adm i ni s tr at i ve ma t t e r s r e s t e d e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e Da v i d s o n Co u n t y Ch a n c e r y Co u r tp u r s u a n tt o t h e UAP A, T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 4-5- 322( b) ( 1)

. I t cont ends t hat t he t r i al cour t i ncorr ect l y r el i ed on T ennes s ee Code A n n o tat ed § 20- 4- 107, beca us e ( 1) t he s t atut e r el at es t o venue, not s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on , a n d ( 2 ) T hom as ’ s l aw s ui tw as nota s ui t“i nvol vi ng” r eal pr oper t y; rather, i t i s a l aw sui t abo ut t he dis po si t i on of bi l l bo ard perm i t s. See Southw es tWi lliam s on C ount y C om m . A s s ’ n v. Salts m an , 66 S. W

. 3d 872 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2001)

. I tal s o m ai nt ai ns that the tri al co u rterred in relyin g o n R u le 13 o f t h e T en n esse e R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re beca us e i t cannot be used t o enl ar ge t he ri ght t o as s er tcl ai m s agai ns tt he St at e. T her efor e, t he S tat e ar gues , beca us e the tr i al cour tdi d nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overt he af f i r m at i ve cl ai m s forr el i ef r ai s ed by Thom as , t hen the or der s gr an ti n g T h o m as t he r el i ef r eques t ed ar e voi d. I n r es pons e, T hom as em phas i zes t he tr i al cour t ’ s num er ous factual f i ndi ngs , d etai l i ng i ns t ance s i n w hi ch TD O T of f i ci al s engage d i n unethi cal conduct and i n s el ect i ve, bi as ed, and v i n d i c t i v e e n fo r c e me n t o f t h e b i l l b o a r d r e g u l a t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m. He c o n t e n d s t h a tTDOT r em ai ns i n cont em ptof t he tr i al cour t ’ s or der s . T hom as as s er t s t hatT D O T s houl d notbe perm i t t ed to com e before this C ou rtw hil e i trem ai ns i n co ntem pt of t he tr i al cou rtorders

. T h o ma s d o e s n o td i s p u t e t h a tt h e UAP A s p e c i f i e s t h a tp e t i t i o n s fo rj u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f T DOT a d mi n i s tr a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e t o b e f i l e d i n t h e Da v i d s o n Co u n t y Ch a n c e r y Co u r t
. He ar gues , how ever , the tr i al cour tcorr ect l y found t hatt hi s cas e i s gover ned by Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 20- 4- 107, appl i cabl e t o cas es “ w h ich inv ol ve[ ] r eal pr oper t y. ” B as ed on the pl ai n l anguage of

t hi s s t atut e, T hom as ar gues , t he tr i al cour tpr oper l y exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on overhi s count er cl ai m . H e di s t i ngui s hes t he Salts m an case, ci t ed b y the Stat e, becau se T hom as ’ s cl ai m s i nvol ve s i ngl e, i dent i f i abl e par cel s of

pr oper t y i n Shel by C ount y. T hom as as s er t s t hatt he St at e’ s act i on i n f i l i ng t he i ni t i al pet i t i on fori nj unct i ve r el i ef opened the door t o hi s def

ens es and count er cl ai m s bas ed on s el ect i ve orvi ndi ct i ve enf or cem entof gover nm entr egul at i ons . H e al s o cont ends t hatt he Shel by C ount y cour tcan i s s ue i nj unct i ve r el i ef w her e a bona f

i de def endantr es i des t her e, nam el y, t hi r d-pa rt y def endantShel by C ount y.

“ T h e c o n c e p t o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n in v o lv e s a c o u rt’s la w fu l au th o rity to a d ju d ica te a contr over s y br oughtbefor e i t
. ” No rth la n dIn s. C o . v. S ta te , 33 S. W

. 3d 727, 729 ( T enn. 2 0 0 0 ); M ei

ghan v. U. S. Spri nt C om m c’ ns Co. , 924 S. W

. 2d 632, 639 ( T enn. 1996)

. “Subj ect m at t er jur i s di ct i on i nvol ves t he natur e of t he ca us e of

act i on and the r el i ef

s oughtand ca n onl y be conferred o n a cour tby cons t i t ut i onal orl egi s l at i ve ac t
. ” Northland Ins
. C o. , 33 S .W .3 d a t 7 2 9 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h u s, w h e th e r a c o u rt h a s s u bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n to heara par t i cul arcontr over s y depends upon t he natur e of t he ca us e of

act i on and the r el i ef s o u g h t. L anders v. Jones , 8 7 2 S

. W

. 2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 5 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 ).Basica lly , a “contes ted case” is an ag ency adjudication. SeeT .C .A . § 4- 5- 102(3 ) (defin ition o f contested 16 ca se ). -16- U ndert he Tennes s ee Const i t ut i on, t he St at e ca n be s ued onl y as di r ect ed by the G ener al A s s em bl y by s t at u te. A rt
. 1, Sect i on 17, T enn. C ons t i t ut i on. U nderT ennes s ee Code A n n o tate d § 4 -4 -1 0 4 (a ), “th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly h a s cle a rly p re sc rib e d th a t a su it ag a in st a c o m m is s io n e r i n h is o r h e r o ffic ia l c a p a c ity , i

. e. , a s u it ag a in st th e S tate , m u st be b ro u g h t in D avi ds on C ount y. ” Salts m an , 66 S

. W

. 3d at88 1. S ect i on 4-4-104 (a) provides: E ach de par t m ents hal l m ai nt ai n a centr al of f i ce at t he capi t ol , w hi ch shal l be th e o ffic ial re sid e n c e o f e a c h c o m m iss io n e r, o r h e a d o f d e p a rtm e n t. T. C. A. § 4

- 4

- 1 0 4 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 5 )

. Th e e f fe c to f t h i s s t atu t e “ i s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e [ TDO T] C o m m is s io n e r’s o ffic ial re sid e n c e a t th e ‘c e n tra l o ffic e ’ o f T D O T ‘a t th e c a p ito l’ in D avi ds on C ount y. ” Salts m an , 6 6 S

. W

. 3 d at 88 1

. G en era ll y , “a co m m issi o n er o r he ad o f a depa r t m e n to f

s t a t e g o v e r n m e n tm a y b e s u e d a s s u c h o n l y i n t h e c o u n t y o f h i s o f f i ci al r es i dence

. ” I

d. ( quot i ng D e lta Loa n & Fi n. Co. v . Long , 3 3 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 , 6 (T en n . 1 9 6 0 )). M or eover , t he U A PA s peci f i es t he pr ocedur e forj udi ci al r evi ew of a “c ont es t ed ca s e” and 16 s p e c i f i e s wh i c h c o u r tma y c o n d u c ts u c h a j u d i c i a l r e v i e w: (a )(1 ) A p e rso n w h o is a g g r ie v e d b y a fin a l d e c isio n in a c o n tes ted c a se is e n tit led to ju d icia l r e v iew u n d e r th is c h a p ter , w h ich sh a ll b e th e o n ly a v a ilab le me t h o d o f

j u d i c i a l r e v i e w. * * * ( b) ( 1) ( A ) Pr ocee di ngs for r evi ew ar e i ns t i t ut ed by f i l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew i n t he chanc er y cour tof

D avi ds on C ount y, unl es s anothercour ti s s peci f i ed by s t atut e. T

. C

. A

. § 4- 5- 322( a) ( 1) and (b)(1) ( A ) ( 2005)

. T hus , t hi s s t atut e pr ovi des t hata per s on a g g ri e v e d b y a n a g e n c y a d ju d ic a tio n , i

. e. , deci s i on i n a cont es t ed ca s e, m ay obt ai n j udi ci al r evi ew of

t he dec i s i on o n ly undert he U A PA , and o n ly by f i l i ng a pet i t i on i n t he D avi ds on C ount y C hance r y C our t , “unl es s anothercour ti s s peci f i ed by s t atut e. ” I

d. In ass ert i ng t hat the tr i al cou rthad j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear hi s defenses and co un t ercl ai m against T D O T, Thom a s i n e f

fe c ta r gu e s t ha thi s c ou nt e r c l a i m s fa l l w i t hi n the e xc e pt i on , “ un l ess another cour t i s s peci f

i ed by s t atut e. ” I

d. H e r el i es f

i r s ton T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 20- 4-107 , w hich provides: N ot w i t hs t andi ng any other l aw or r ul e of pr ocedur e t o t he contr ar y, any ac t i on t he s ubj ectm at t erof

w hi ch i nvol ves r eal pr oper t y i n w hi ch thi s s t at e, oranyTennessee Cod e Annotate d § 20

- 4- 107 is contained in Title 20 on Civil Pro cedure , C hapter 4 o n Venue , 17 and within

Part 1

-Venue of A ctions. In thi s app e a l , the parties and the trial court belowrefer to it a s a v enue statute. -17- a g e n c y o f th is s tate , is a p a rty , m a y b e p ro p e rly in stitu ted in a n y c o u n ty in w hi ch the pr oper t y i s l ocat ed. T

. C

. A

. § 20- 4- 107 ( 2009)

. T hom as cont ends t hat t he re s ol ut i on of hi s cl ai m s and def

ens es agai ns tT D O T det er m i nes w hether T hom as can use hi s Shel by C ount y pr oper t y i n a w ay that i s econom i cal l y benef

i ci al

. I n t hi s w ay, he ar gues , t hey “i nvol ve[ ] r eal pr oper t y” and, under S e c tio n 2 0 -4 -1 0 7 , m a y b e a s s e rt e d a g a in s t T D O T in S h e lb y C o u n ty
. W e r es pect f

ul l y di s agr ee. Fi r s t , Sect i on 20- 4- 107 “addr es s es venue a nd does notconf er s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. ” Willia m s v . Nice ly , 230 S. W

. 3d 385, 391 n. 6 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2007)

. T he Tennes s ee Supr em e C our thas e x p lai n ed thatvenue a nd s ubj ectm at t er

17 j ur i s di ct i on ar e s epar at e and di s t i ngui s habl e: Subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on and venue ar e t w o sep ar at e conc ept s . Subj ect m att er jurisdicti o n co n c e rn s the au tho ri ty o f a p arti cu lar co u rtto h ea r a p a rt ic u la r c o n tr o v e rs y . L anders v. Jones , 8 7 2 S .W .2 d 6 7 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 ). It relates to th e na ture of th e cau se of acti o n an d the reli ef s o u g h t. I d. It is g e n e ra lly d e fin e d b y th e c o n stitu tio n o r sta tu te a n d c o n fe rre d b y th e a u th o rity th a t o rg a n iz e s th e c o u rt s . C ooperv. R eynol ds , 77 U

. S. (10 W all

. ) 308, 19 L .E d

. 9 3 1 (1 8 7 0 ); T urpi n v. C onner Bros . Excavati ng C o. , Inc. , 761 S. W

. 2d 296 ( T enn. 1988)

. H er e, t her e i s no ques t i on t hatt he C ir cu itC our tforK nox C o u n ty h a s s u bj e c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a c tio n . T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 29- 16- 104 ( 1980 R epl

. )

. Fur t her , there is no ques t i on t hatt he cour thas p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e p a rt ie s . V enue, on t he otherhand, i s a conc eptbas ed on pr i vi l ege of and conve ni ence to th e p a rt ie s . T urpi n v. C onner Bros . Exca va ti n g C o. , Inc. , 761 S. W

. 2d at 297. I ti s gener al l y nota condi t i on pr ece dentt o t he cour t ’ s pow er , butr el at es i ns t ead t o t he appr opr i at enes s of t he l ocat i on of t he ac t i on. W hi l e ther e i s m uch debat e r egar di ng t he conne ct ednes s bet w een t h e tw o conce pt s , ourr ul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e have cl ear l y di s t i ngui s hed bet w een the t w o. I m pr opervenue i s a m at t er w hi ch i s w ai ved unl es s cont es t ed i n t he f i r s tpl eadi ng. T enn. R

. C i v. P. 12. 08. Subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, on t he otherhand, cannotbe w ai ved, b e c a u s e it is th e b a s is fo r t h e c o u rt ’s a u t h o ri ty to a c t. See Lan ders v. Jones , 8 7 2 S

. W

. 2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 5 (T en n . 1 9 9 4 ).-18-

M ei ghan , 924 S. W

. 2d at639 ( foot not e om i t t ed)

. T hus , s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on addr es s es t he co urt ’s authori t y t o hear a case, w hil e ven ue is based o n the con ven i ence o f the p art i es. A s n o ted ab o v e, t he i s s ue i n t hi s appea l i s w hethert he G ener al A s s em bl y has conf err ed a u th o ri ty o n th e S h e lb y C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt to h e a r T h o m a s ’s c la im s a g a in s t T D O T , i

. e. , w hethert he Shel by C ount y C hance r y C our th as subj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. Sect i on 20- 4- 107, as a venue s t atut e, does notaddr es s t he tr i al cour t ’ s s ubj ectm at t erj ur isdi ct i on. Wi llia ms , 230 S. W

. 3d at391 n. 6. M or eover , Sect i on 20- 4- 107 i s not appl i cabl e t o T hom as ’ s cl ai m s agai ns t T D O T

. A s not ed a b o v e , th e s ta tu te s ta te s th a t it a p p lie s to le g a l p r o c e e d in g s in w h ic h “ th e s u bje c t m a tte r . .

. inv o lves rea l p rop erty.” T

. C

. A

. § 2 0 -1-1 0 7

. A n y inv o lvem en t of real p rop erty in T h o m as’s c laim s a g a in st T D O T is tan g e n tial a t m o st; th e th ru st o f h is c laim s a re th a t T D O T o ffic ials act ed in an unfai r m ann er t ow ard him w i t h r espect t o hi s app l i cat i on s forbil l bo ard perm i t s. A s i m i l ars i t uat i on w as pr es ent ed i n t he Salts m an cas e, ci t ed by TD O T

. I n S a ltsm an , W i l l i am s on C ount y l andow ner s pet i t i oned t he W i l l i am s on C ount y C hance r y C our tt o i s s ue a n in ju n c tio n a n d w rit o f m a n d a m u s d ire c tin g T D O T a n d its C o m m iss io n e r to h a lt cons tr uct i on w or k on St at e R out e 840 and t o per for m addi t i onal s t udi es befor e pr ocee di ng. T D O T ar gued thatt he tr i al cour tdi d nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on; i tcont ended that th e p e titio n w a s “ a s u it a g a in s t a c o m m is s io n e r i n h i s o r h e r o ffic ia l c a p a c ity , i

. e. , a s u it a g a in s t th e S ta te ,” a n d th e re fo re h a d to b e b ro u g h t in D a v id s o n C o u n t y . Salts m an , 66 S. W

. 3d at881. T he tr i al cour thel d t hati thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, bas ed i n par ton i t s f i ndi ng t hatt he l aw s ui t i nvol ved r eal pr oper t y and w as pr operi n t he county w her e the r eal pr oper t y w as l ocat ed, pur s uantt o Secti o n 2 0 -4-1 07. T he tr i al cour tt hen i s s ued a l engthy i nj unct i ve or der , di r ect i ng t he T D O T C om m i s s i onert o per for m num er ous s peci f i ed dut i es a n d “ e n jo in in g th e C o m m iss io n e r a n d o th e rs f ro m d o in g v a rio u s a n d su n d ry th in g s w ith r es pectt o R out e 840. ” I d. at876. T D O T appea l ed. O n appea l , t hi s C our t r ever s ed and di s m i s s ed the cas e i n i t s ent i r et y forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on . T he d i sm i ssal w as based in part on t he app el l at e cou rt ’s fi nd i ng t hat t he case w as notaboutr eal pr oper t y: I n t he i ns t ant cas e, i t i s cl ear beyond any doubtt hatt he pet i t i on, as am ended, s eeks an or derf

r om t he tr i al cour tdi r ect i ng t he C om m i s s i onert o per for m t he d u ties all eg ed to b e inc u m b en t up o n h im as th ey p ertain to the p lann ing for, and the cons tr uct i on of , R out e 840 thr ough s out hw es tW i l l i am s on C ount y. T h e trial c o u rt re c o g n ize d th e th ru st of th e p e tit io n -a p e tit io n th a t it g ra n ted “ in its e n tirety .” It a g re e d w ith th e p e tit io n e rs th a t th e C o m m iss io n e r h a d c e rta in l egal dut i es per t ai ni ng t o R out e 840 i n W i l l i am s on C ount y and thathe w as not m ee ti n g h is r esp o n sibil it ies w ith resp e c t to tho se d u ti es. T h e tri al co u rt re m e d ied th is p e rc e iv e d b re a c h o f d u ty b y o rd e rin g th e C o m m iss io n e r toThom as cites Carter v. Olson , 6 60 S.W. 2d 483 (Tenn. 1 983), in suppo rt of his as sertion that S ection 20- 4- 18 10 7 c on f e r s j ur i s di c t i ononth e tr i a l co urtto he arh i s c l a i ms. Dis c us s i ng Carter , th e co urt in Saltsman observ ed th at the Sup reme C ourt, in relatin g the history of the case, noted that the trial court had relied o n Section 20

- 4- 107 as authority

for its jurisdiction, but did no t discu ss thequ estion of su bject m atter j urisdiction

. Saltsman , 6 6 S .W.3 d at 879. We agree an d find Carter inapplicable to this case. -19- p ro p e rly p e rfo rm h is d u ties a n d , to th e e x te n t h is d u ties a re d isc re tio n a ry in natur e, t o per for m t hem w i t hout abus i ng hi s di s cr et i on. T he cour t t hen hal t ed al l w or k on R out e 840 i n W i l l i am s on C ount y unt i l t he C om m i s s i onerhad done t hatw hi ch he w as or der ed t o do. T hi s i s nota s ui taboutr eal p rop erty. I ti s a s ui ts eeki ng t o r equi r e a com m i ssion er o f

a depa r t m entof

the St at e of

T ennes s ee t o do hi s j ob. T h e r e fo r e , t h e W i l l i a ms o n Co u n t y Ch a n c e r y Co u r t c a n n o t r e l y u p o n T

. C. A. § 2 0 -4 -1 0 7

. . . to s u sta in its ju risd ictio n in th is c a se . [T h a t] sta tu te[ ] sim p ly do[ es ] notappl y t o t he ca us e of act i on at t em pt ed t o be as s er t ed i n t he pet i t i on. I d. at88 0

. T hus , t he Salts m an C o u rtfou n d that the p eti ti o n , in es sen ce , so u g h t t o req u ir e t he TD O T C om m i s s i on “t o do hi s j ob. ” I thel d t hatt he fact t hat t he ext ens i on of R out e 840 m ay i m pact pr oper t y i n W i l l i am s on C ount y di d not m ake the l aw s ui tan ac t i on “the s ubj ect m at t erof

w h ich i nvol ves r eal pr oper t y. ” I d. ( quot i ng T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 2 0 -4 -1 0 7 ). T h u s , th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t w a s d e e m e d v o id a n d o f n o e ffe c t. I d. at882. H er e, T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m as s er t s t hat T D O T act ed unfai r l y t ow ar d hi m i n i t s tr eat m ent of hi s bi l l boar d per m i tappl i cat i ons i n a var i et y of w ays , s uch as appl yi ng T D O T r egul at i ons t o hi m but not t o hi s com pet i t or s , r ef us i ng t o gr anthi m adm i ni s tr at i ve hea r i ngs on t he deni al of hi s per m i t appl i cat i ons , and i n di s par agi ng hi m t o hi s bus i nes s as s oci at es . T hus , T hom as es s ent i al l y see k s to have the tr i al cour tr equi r e the TD O T C om m i s s i oner“t o do hi s j ob” w ith o u t b ia s o r v in d ic tiv e n e s s to w a rd h im

. Idat880. T he tr i al cour t ’ s ext ens i ve f i ndi ngs and or der s r ef

l ecta s i m i l arfocus ; t he tr i al cour tas s er t ed cont i nui ng j ur i s di ct i on o v ert he a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s o n se v e ra l o f T h o m a s’s b ill b o a rd p e rm it ap p lica tio n s in o rd e r to m oni t orw hetherT D O T per for m ed i t s dut i es and tr eat ed Thom as i n t he m annerpr es cr i bed by t he cour t
. T hus , T hom as ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tT D O T do noti nvol ve r eal pr oper t y and Sect i on 2 1 0 -4 -1 0 7 d o e s n o t a p p ly

. I d. ; see also B arry v. C om m ’rs of C om m erce & Ins. , N o. 01A 01- 9404- C H

- 00156, 1994 W L 485588, at*1- *2 ( T enn. Sept

. 9, 1994) ( f i ndi ng Sect i on 20- 4- 107 i nappl i cabl e bec aus e gr avam en of com pl ai ntw as righ tt o pr act i ce unl i cens ed a rc h itec tu re ); B o w d en B ldg
. C o rp . v. T en n . R ea l E state C o m m ’n , 1 5 S .W .3 d 4 3 4 (T e n n . C t. A pp. 1999) ( f

i ndi ng Sect i on 20- 4- 107 i nappl i cabl e bec aus e t he gr avam en of t he com pl ai nt related to the ri g h t t o en g ag e in un li ce n sed rea l estate b rok ering , n o t th e re al estate it self). 18Altho ugh the discuss ion in Mit ch el l is unclear, the discuss ion likely relates to v enue, bec ause the p arties 19 canno t con sent to sub

j ect matter jurisdiction and it is n ot w aiv able. T he th ir d party com

pla intstate s: “As a re sul t of the Doctr ine of Sovere ign Im m uni ty underTe nne sse e law, 20 Thom as b ring s this cause of ac tion fo r un lawfu l takingag ainst S helby County for the actions o f the State of Tennessee as d escribed

here in.” The Rule 54 .02 certification of the fin al j udgm ent in this case did n ot inc lude the disposition of the th ird- 21 party c om pl ai nt a g ai ns t S he lb y

C ounty , s o w e addr es s th e th ir d-party com pl ai nt on ly in re sp on seto Th omas ’s arguments re g ardingthe trial court’s jurisdiction o v er his counterclaim s. -20- T hom as cont ends t hat“TD O T has w ai ved any obj ect i ons t o T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m bei ng f i l ed i n Shel by C ount y, as T D O T or i gi nal l y f i l ed s ui tagai ns tT hom as ” i n Shel by C ount y. V enue obj ect i ons can be w ai ved, of cour s e, and venue can be negot i at ed or cons ent ed t o by t he par t i es ; s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, on t he otherhand, ei t herexi s t s ori t does not
. “Par t i es cannotconf

ers ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on on a t r i al or an appe l l at e cour tby appea r ance , pl ea, cons ent , s i l ence , orw ai ver . ” D is hm on v. Shelby S tat e Cm t y. C ollege , 15 S. W

. 3d 477, 480 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). T ho m as al so asser t s on ap peal that the tr i al cou rth a d su bjec tm at t er j uri sdi ct i on becau se Shel by C ount y, a co- def endantby vi r t ue of hi s t hi r d- par t y com pl ai nt , i s a “bona f i de m at er i al l ocal def endant

. ” Thom as ci t es M itchellv. Carm i chael , 5 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d 8 6 9 (T en n . 1 9 7 5 ), w hi ch hel d t hati tm i ghtbe pos s i bl e, w her e t he St at e does notobj ect , t hatt he St at e m ay be j oi ned as a def

endanti n a county ot hert han D avi ds on C ount y i f t her e ar e “ b o n a fi de and m a ter ial lo c a l d e fe n d a n ts ” th a t re sid e in th e fo ru m c o u n ty , d e sp ite th e fa c t th a t th e S tate “r es i des ” i n D avi ds on C ount y. W e f i nd t he M itch e llcas e t o be i nappl i cabl e t o t he ca s e atbar

. Fi r s t , i n t he i ns t antcas e, t he S tate o b v io u sly o bjec ts. S e c o n d , itis c lea r fro m th e re c o r d th a t S h e lb y C o u n ty is n o t a 19 “bona f i de m at er i al l ocal d efe ndant

. ” A l t hough t he thi r d- par t y com pl ai ntnam es Shel by C ount y as t he thi r d- par t y def endant , t he cl ai m s asser t ed ther ei n al l r el at e t o act i ons of t he St at e. I ndeed, i n t he m ot i on forl eave t o f i l e the thi r d- par t y co m p la i ntand eve n i n t he c o m p lain t it se lf, T h o m a s ac k n o w led g e s tha t S h e lb y C o u n ty is n a m e d a s a d e fe n d a n t m e re ly as a su b te r f

uge t o avoi d di s m i s s al undert he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni t y. T her efor e, 20 t he i l l us or y nam i ng of

Shel by C ount y as a t hi r d- par t y def endant pr ovi des no bas i s forf i ndi ng t hat the tr i al cou rthas subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on ov er Th om as’ s cl ai m s. 21
T hom as ar gues t hat he as s er t ed hi s cl ai m s of s el ect i ve and vi ndi ct i ve enf or cem entm er el y as “an af fi rm at i ve d efense and d efensi ve co un t er- cl ai m . ” H e ci t es M o o re v . T a te , 111 S. W

. 935 ( T enn. 1889) , fort he pr opos i t i on t hat “w hen t he st at e vol unt ar i l y pl ace s i t s el f i n t he pos i t i on of a sui t or, . . . so far as con cerns al l proper m at t ers for adjudi cat i on grow i ng ou tof the cau se-21-

o f ac ti o n su ed o n , . . . the d efe n d an t w o u ld b e e n ti tl ed to p lead an d p rov e a n y an d all m att ers pr oper l y def

ens i ve. . . . ” M oo re , 111 S. W

. at936. I n M oo re , deci ded i n 1889, t he St at e of A l abam a f

i l ed s ui ti n Shel by C ount y, T ennes s ee, on a n in d e b te d n e s s . T h e d e fe n d a n ts s o u g h t to p le a d s e t- o ff b a s e d o n b o n d c o u p o n s . Id. M oo re w a s la ter in ter p re ted b y th e T e n n e ss e e S u p re m e C o u rt a s b e in g lim ited to c irc u m sta n c e s in w hi ch the St at e had cons ent ed t o be count er s ued i n r es pons e t o t he St at e’ s or i gi nal pet i t i on. See S ta t e e x r e l
. Mo u lto n v . Wi llia ms , 343 S. W

. 2d 857 ( T enn. 1961) ( hol di ng t hatt he S t at e’s peti t i on for an inj un ct i on did not r em ov e t he S t at e’s soverei gn i m m un i t y an d, t hu s, trial c o u rt w a s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n o v e r th e d e fe n d a n t’s co u n ter c laim ). O b v io u sly , the S tate i n t hi s cas e does notcons ent to T hom as ’ s count er cl ai m s , and s o t he hol di ng i n M oo re is i nappl i cabl e. M o re o v e r, M oo re i s al s o i nappl i cabl e bec aus e, i n t hi s cas e, i ti s cl eart hatt he m at t er s as s er t ed b y T h o m a s in h is de fen ses a n d co u n terclai m s are n o t “pro p erly d efe n sive ” to th e S tat e’s o ri g inal p eti ti o n in this ca se. T h e p rov isi o n s o f th e B il lbo ard R eg u lat ion an d C o n tr o l A ct are c lea r a n d u n e q u iv o c a l. T e n n e ss e e C o d e A n n o tate d § 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 4 (a ) p ro v id e s: U n les s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in th is c h a p ter , n o p e rso n sh a ll c o n stru c t, ere c t, oper at e, us e, m ai nt ai n, orcaus e or per m i t t o be cons tr uct ed, er ect ed, oper at ed, us ed, orm ai ntai n ed , any out dooradver t i s i ng w i t hi n s i x hundr ed s i xt y fee (6 6 0 ' ) o f th e n e a re st e d g e o f th e rig h t-o f-w a y a n d v is ib le f ro m th e m a in travel ed w ay o f the in terst at e or pri m ary hi gh w ay syst em s w i t ho ut f i rs t obt ai ni ng f

r om t he com m i s s i onera per m i tand a t ag. T .C .A . § 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 4 (a ) (2 0 0 8 ). T h u s, in th e a b se n c e o f a S tate p e rm it an d tag , the A c t flatly p ro h ib its th e e re c tio n o r co n stru c tio n o f a b ill b o a rd stru c tu re w ith in 6 6 0 fe e t o f a n in ter sta te hi ghw ay r i ght

- of

- w ay, “unl es s ot her w i s e pr ovi ded i n t hi s chapt er . ” I d. I n t he event o f a viol at i on of Secti on 54 -21-104 , t he n ext s ect i on of the A ctprovides: ( a) ( 1) A ny per s on, ei t herow neror l es s ee, of any out door adver t i s i ng w ho has fai l ed t o acti n acc or dance w it h § 54- 21- 104 s hal l r em ove the out door adver t i s i ng i m m edi at el y. ( 2) Fai l ur e t o r em ove the out dooradve rt i s i ng s hal l r endert he out door adv erti si ng a publ i c nui s ance and s ubj ectt o i m m edi at e di s pos al , r em oval or des tr uct i on. T

. C

. A

. § 54- 21- 105( a) ( 1) and ( 2) ( 2008)

. T her efor e, t he A ctdeem s out dooradvert i s i ng c o n stru c ted o r e re c ted w ith o u t a p e rm it t o b e a p u b li c n u isa n c e , an d m a n d a tes im m e d iate r em oval by t he ow nerof t he out dooradver t i s i ng.Effectiv e in June 2009 , the Gen eral A ssem bly amended the Act to expressly

pro v ide fo r this remedy

. The 22 amen dment s pe ci fi es th at TD O T may

f il e a pe ti ti on to est ab li shs uc h a co ns tr uc ti v e tr us t i n th e ch an ce ry court for thecounty

in whic h the i lleg al structure is located, but limits the court’s j urisdiction to issuing approp ri at e en fo rc ement o rd er s w ith re sp ec t t o su bs ec ti on ( c) (7 ): (7) A ll gross re v enues receiv ed o r payable fro m the operatio n o f a ny ou t door adv ertising de v ic e er ec te d w itho ut

f ir st o bt ai ni ngap ermita s re quir ed un de r § 54

- 21

- 10 6 ar e su bjec t t o be in gf or fe it ed to th e st ate andp lace d inth e hi ghw ay f un d fo r th e admin is tr at io n of th is ch ap te r or

any o th er p ur po seautho ri z ed

und er § 54- 21- 106. F or th e en fo rc ement o f th is su bdivis io n (c )( 7) , th e departm ent may f il e a pe ti ti on in th e ch an ce ry c ourtf or th e co unty inwhi chth e un law fu l o ut do or a dv erti si ng de v ic e is or w as lo cate d or in th e co unty

whe re th e pe rs on

ere ct in gthedevic e re si de s. In su chc as e, th e juri sdic ti on o f th e ch an ce ry

c ourt sh al l b e li mit ed

s ol ely to th e auth ority

to is su e approp ri at e orde rs f or th e en fo rc ement o f th is s ub di vis i o n ( c ) ( 7) , i nc l ud i ng, wi tho utli mit at i on , the autho r i ty to es t abl i s h aco ns truc t i ve trust for an a ccountingand receipt of rev enues obtaine d from the operatio n of the unlaw ful outdo or ad

v ertisingdevice. T.C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 5( c) (7 ) (S upp. 2 00 9)

. Section 54

- 21- 107 of theA ct contains e xpress exem ptions to therequirem ents of section 54

- 4- 104; these 23 exem ptions includebillboards “adv ertisingactivities cond ucted on the property

on which they

are located” or “ adv erti si ngth e sa le or le as e of pro pe rty onwh ic h th ey

areloc at ed

. ” T.C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 7( a) (1 ) an d (2 ). -22- M i r r or i ng t he pr ovi s i ons of t he A ct , t he St at e’ s pet i t i on fori nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tT hom as al l eged that , des pi t e havi ng been de ni ed a pe r m i t , he w as er ect i ng a b il lbo ard att he C r os s r oads For d s i t e, i m m edi at el y adj ace nt t o t he I nt er s t at e 40 r i ght

- of

- w ay, i n vi ol at i on of S e c tio n 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 4 . T h e p e tit io n a sk e d th e trial c o u rt to a d ju d g e th e b ill b o a rd to b e a p u b lic n u isa n c e u n d e r S e c tio n 5 4 -2 1 -1 0 5 , an d to re q u ire T h o m a s to re m o v e it i m m e d iate ly a t h is ow n expens e, as r equi r ed undert he sa m e s ect i on. T he pet i t i on as ked thatany r evenue s T h o m a s re c e iv e d fo r u se o f th e ill e g a l b ill b o a rd b e p lac e d in a c o n stru c tiv e tru st. 22 T he A ns w ert o t he St at e’ s p eti ti on f i l ed by Thom as adm i t t ed thathe had notobt ai ned a T D O T p erm it for a b il lbo ard at th e C ross roa d s F o rd sit e an d att ac h ed a p h o to o f th e b il lbo ard stru cture that h ad b ee n p arti all y co n stru cted o n tha t s ite

. L ikew ise, at t h e firstev iden ti ary h e a rin g b e fo re th e trial c o u rt, T h o m a s a d m itt e d th a t co n stru c tio n o f a b ill b o a rd w ith o u t a p erm itw as il lega l un d er S tat e stat u tes, that h e d id n o t h av e a T D O T p erm itfor a b il lbo ard att he C r os s r oads For d s i t e, and t hat he hi r ed cont r act or s w ho i n facthad begun c ons tr uct i on of a bi l l boar d on t he C r os s r oads For d s i t e. N o w h ere i n t he bl i zza r d of pl eadi ngs f

i l ed by T hom as ori n t he m ul t i pl e hea r i ngs di d T hom as cl ai m t hatcons tr uct i on of a bi l l boar d att he C ro ss ro a d s F o rd site fe ll w ith in th e “ u n les s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in th is c h a p ter ” e x c e p tio n to th e A c t’s b lan k e t p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st e re c tin g a b ill b o a rd w ith o u t a p e rm it. 23
B e c a u se th e A c t flatly p ro h ib its th e e re c tio n o f o u td o o r a d v e rtisin g w ith o u t a S tate p e rm it, t he ent i r et y of

T hom as ’ s def

ens es and count er cl ai m s ar e i r r el evant t o t he St at e’ s pet i t i on forIn June 2009, the Gen eral A ssem bly amended

T.C. A. § 54- 21- 105 to clarify that j urisdiction

lies 24 e xc l us i vel y inDavid s onCo unty: (d) N otwith standin gany other law to thecontrary , in any caseor controv ersy

arisingfrom any regulatory

or enforcement action taken by the com missioner or d epartment under § 5 4- 21- 105 or this chapter, wherein any cau se o f action, claim , countercla im , cross- claim or any othe r cl ai m

or re qu es t f

or r emed y whats oe v er

is a ss erte d ag ai ns t thes tate , th e co m mis si on er , th e departm ent o r any

o ff ic ia l o r em

pl oyeeth er eo f, juris di ct io n sh al l b e v es te d ex clus iv ely inth e ch an ce ry

courtfor Dav id so n C ounty ; pr ovid ed , that any conte st ed

c as e he arin gw ith re sp ec t t o th e is su an ce , d en ia l, n onre ne w alo r v oi di ngo f any o ut do or a dv erti si ngp ermit sh al l r emai n un de r th e juri sdic ti on o f th e co m

mis si on er in a cco rd an cew ith th e Uni fo rm Administrativ e P rocedures A ct, c om piled in title 4 , c hapter 5. T.C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 5( d) ( S upp. 2 00 9)

. -23- i nj unct i ve r el i ef

. U nl es s T h o m as fi ts w ithi n one of t he exc ept i ons nam ed i n t he A ct , i f he does nothave a St ate bi l l boar d per m i t , he i s notal l ow ed t o er ecta bi l l boar d. Per i od. T her efor e, none of

t he def ens es or count er cl ai m s as s er t ed by T hom as can be cons i der ed as “prop erly de fens i ve” t o t he St at e’ s pet i t i on. T hus , t hi s ar gum enti n favorof a f i ndi ng t hat th e trial co u rt h a d su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r T h o m a s’s c o u n ter c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. A s t o the m at t er s al l eged i n T hom as ’ count er cl ai m and otherpl eadi ngs , he i s not l ef tw i t hout a r em edy. T he U A PA pr ovi des t hat any per s on aggr i eved by an adm i ni s tr at i ve body’ s f i nal deci s i on i n a cont es t ed ca s e m ay s eek j udi ci al r evi ew o f th atdeci s i on. T

. C

. A

. § 4- 5- 322. T h e d e c isio n o f a n a d m in is tr a ti v e b o d y n o t to h o ld a c o n tes ted c a se h e a rin g is s u bjec t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w u n d e r t h e U A P A ju s t a s if a c o n te s te d c a s e h e a r i n g h a d b e e n h e ld

. See A rm stron g v. Ten n . D ep’tVet eran ’s A ff airs , 9 5 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 9 5 , 6 0 0 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). A “cont es t ed cas e” i s “a pr ocee di ng, i ncl udi ng a dec l ar at or y pr ocee di ng, i n w hi ch the l egal r i ght s , dut i es or pr i vi l eges of a par t y ar e r equi r ed by any s t atut e orcons t i t ut i onal pr ovi s i on t o be de term i ned by an a gency a f t eran oppor t uni t y fora hea r i ng. ” T. C

. A

. § 4- 5- 102( 3) ( 2005 & Supp. 2009)

. Fur t her m or e, i f a per m i tappl i cantr eques t s a decl ar at or y or derf r om T D O T , an d T D O T refu ses to issue su c h a n o rd er, th e a p p li ca n t m ay fi le a p eti ti o n for a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t. See T

. C

. A

. § 4- 5- 225( a) ( 2005)

. H ow ever , t he G ener al A s s em bl y has s peci f i ed thatt he only tr i al cour tw i t h s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overany of t hes e t ypes of c l a im s is th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt in D a v id s o n C o u n ty
. See T. C. A. § § 4

- 4

- 1 0 4 ( a ) , 4- 5- 3 2 2 (b )(1 )(A ), & 4 -5 -2 2 5 (a ); s e e Doe v . Ha ttaw ay , N o. E 2001- 02732- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2002 W L 1 4 0 0 0 5 7 , a t * 2 -3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 ); Salts m an , 66 S

. W

. 3d at88 0. T hu s, t he def ens es , cl ai m s , and r eques t s forr el i ef as s er t ed by Thom as i n t he tr i al cour tbel ow m ay onl y be hea r d i n D avi ds on C ount y. 24
I n s um m ar y, w e hol d t hatt he Shel by C ount y C hance r y C our tw as w it h outs ubj ectm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n , i

. e. , w i t houtauthor i t y, to h ea r the c ount er cl ai m s and otherr eques t s forr el i efIn Jun e 2009 , t he Gene ra l A ss em bly am en de d T.C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 5 to p ro v id e fo r th e de ni alo f bi llbo ard 25 permits to any

perso n who had erected a billbo ard w ithout a pe rmit. SeeT.C.A. § 54- 21- 105(c ) (Su pp. 2009 ). The amendment specifies that pendingadministrativ e pro ceeding s is not a defe nse. Id. The purpo se of theamendment i s “ bo th t o d eter un lawfu l con duct and to pre v ent any perso n from

ben efittingfrom un law fu l c on du ct
. ” T. C

. A

. § 5 4- 21

- 10 5( c) (8 ). -24- as s er t ed by T hom as i n t hi s cas e. I tnece s s ar i l y fol l ow s , then, t hatt he j udgm entof t he Shel by C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt b e lo w is v o id a n d o f n o e ffe c t. See Salts m an , 66 S. W

. 3d at882. I n t he tr i al cour t ’ s or der s i n t hi s cas e, w e f i nd no pr ovi s i on addr es s i ng t he St at e’ s r eques tfor re lief in its o rig in a l p e tit io n , a p a rt fro m a c o n se n t o rd e r ea rly in th e p ro c e e d in g s a g re e in g to di s s ol ut i on of t he T R O gr ant ed w hen t he St at e’ s pet i t i on w as i ni t i al l y f i l ed. Fr om t he cont ext o f th e p ro c e e d in g s, w e fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt im p licitly d e n ied th e S tate ’s p e ti ti o n in its ent i r et y. H ow ever , i ti s uncl earf r om t he r ecor d w hetherT hom as ’ s cons tr uct i on of a bi l l boar d att he C ross roa d s F o rd site w as e v er c o m p let ed , o r w h ethe r T h o m as rem o v ed the p arti al struc ture t hat had b e e n e re c ted , or w hethert he S t at e’s ori ginal requestforrel i ef has been o t herw i se m o o ted

. If th e S tate ’s r e q u e st fo r re lief r e m a in s v iab le, o u r h o ld in g in th is c a se o b v io u sly

25 chan ges t he l and scape of t he l i t i gati on dram at i cal l y. T herefore, w e m ustrem and t he cau se t o t he tr i al cour tforr econs i der at i on of t he St at e’ s pet i t i on i n l i ghtof t hi s O pi ni on. C ONC L US I ON T he dec i s i on of

t he tr i al cour t i s r ever s ed i n i t s ent i r et y, t he count er cl ai m i s di s m i s s ed, and t he ca s e i s r em anded forf ur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s O pi ni on. C os t s att he tr i al cour tl evel and on appe al ar e t o be t axed a gai ns t A ppel l ee W i l l i am H

. T hom as , J r . , forw hi ch ex ec u ti o n m ay issue if

n ec essa ry

_______________________________________

HOL L Y M

. KI RB Y, J UDGE