IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

October 15, 2020 Session

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE V.

WILMOTH FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Jefferson County

No. 17-CV-51 Robert E. Lee Davies, Senior Judge1

___________________________________

No. E2019-02283-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

This action concerns the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint for injunctive relief in 

which Jefferson County sought to enforce its zoning ordinance as applied to a 

commercial wedding event venue operated in a rural residential area. We affirm the trial 

court’s holding that the activities are immune from the County’s authority to enforce its 

zoning powers by virtue of the agricultural use of the property. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed; Case Remanded

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KENNY W.

ARMSTRONG, J., joined. THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., not participating.

F. Clinton Little and Eric B. Foust, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jefferson 

County, Tennessee. 

Benjamin C. Mullins, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Wilmoth Family 

Properties, LLC, Cedar Pond Farms, Shawn and Priscilla Wilmoth. 

OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

In 2004, Shawn and Priscilla Wilmoth (collectively “the Wilmoths”) purchased 

the property at issue in Jefferson County (“the County”), believing it to be zoned 

agricultural, for use as a residence and a farm. The property consists of two tracts, a main 

tract with 28.5 acres and a much smaller tract across the road with 1.5 acres. The 

 

1Sitting by Tennessee Supreme Court designation. 

02/01/2021
- 2 -

property was formally used as a dairy farm and as a slaughterhouse. When the Wilmoths 

bought the property, they repaired some existing buildings and built their own residence 

and other structures, including a pavilion and a barn for rental use by third parties for 

events or overnight stays. 

The Wilmoths purchased the property with the intent of operating a farm. They 

immediately applied for and received Greenbelt protection and initially used the property 

for hay production and to raise chickens for egg production. The Wilmoths later

discovered that the property was zoned R-1 or rural residential. In 2010, Mr. Wilmoth 

applied to the County Zoning Commission to have the property rezoned as agricultural. 

His request was denied. Despite the denial, the Wilmoths began renting the farm as an

event venue in 2011, operating under the registered name of Cedar Pond Farms. 

The surrounding neighbors began to complain about the activities on the farm, 

namely the increased traffic and noise from the events. In 2016, the County sent notice to 

the Wilmoths to stop the use of the property as an event venue, claiming that such 

commercial events, specifically weddings, were prohibited by the R-1 zoning regulation. 

The Wilmoths did not cease their use of the property as an event venue. 

On May 5, 2017, the County filed a complaint against the Wilmoths and their 

company, Wilmoth Family Properties, LLC, and the venue, Cedar Pond Farms. The 

County sought a restraining order and an injunction, alleging that the present use of the 

property was in violation of the applicable zoning regulations. The parties have at all 

times agreed that the rental of the property as an event venue violates the R-1 Zoning 

Ordinance at issue in this action. The question has always been whether these activities 

are immune from the County’s authority to enforce its zoning powers by virtue of the 

agricultural use of the property pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-1-

118(b),2 which provides protection from the enforcement of zoning regulations when 

“normal agricultural activities” are present on the property.3 

The County filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it sought to enforce 

the zoning ordinances with regard to the non-conforming use of the property. The 

County claimed that the Wilmoths were “attempting to circumvent [the County’s] zoning 

regulations by maintaining a token amount of agricultural activities and/or farm 

operations which [had] no connection whatsoever to the commercial event venue use.” 

The County asserted that the current use of the property could not be defined as an 

agricultural use, thereby removing any protection afforded by statute. 

 

2

“Nothing in this part shall be construed as granting counties the power to prohibit or regulate 

normal agricultural activities.” 

3 The Wilmoths also raised a freedom of worship challenge not at issue in this appeal. 
- 3 -

The Wilmoths likewise moved for summary judgment, claiming that Cedar Pond 

Farms met the statutory definition of a farming operation and was afforded protection 

from the suggested zoning regulations pursuant to the definition of agriculture, found at 

Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 1-3-105 and 43-1-113, and defined as follows:

A. The land, buildings, and machinery used in the commercial 

production of farm products and nursery stock; 

B. The activity carried on in connection with the commercial 

production of farm products and nursery stock; 

C. Recreational and educational activities on land used for the 

commercial production of farm products and nursery stock; 

D. Entertainment activities conducted in conjunction with, but 

secondary to, commercial production of farm products and nursery stock, 

when such activities occur on land used for the commercial production of 

farm products and nursery stock.

As used in this definition of agriculture, the terms “farm products” means 

forage and sod crops; grains and feed crops; dairy and dairy products; 

poultry and poultry livestock, including breeding and grazing; fruits; 

vegetables; flowers; seeds; grasses; forestry products; fish and other aquatic 

animals used for food, feed, fiber or fur . . . 

(Emphasis added.). 

The trial court denied the competing motions for summary judgment, finding that 

a question of fact remained concerning whether Cedar Pond Farms was used for the 

commercial production of farm products or nursery stock. The court then directed the 

parties as follows: 

1. If Cedar Pond Farms is an active farm being used for the commercial 

production of farm products or nursery stock, then are the events being held 

there such as weddings, political fundraisers, etc. “recreational” as defined 

in the above statute? 

2. If weddings and other events are not “recreational”, are weddings 

“entertainment” as defined in the above statute? 

3. If weddings and other events are considered to be “entertainment”, 

then are they being conducted in conjunction with, but secondary to, 

commercial production of farm products or nursery stock? 
- 4 -

The case proceeded to a hearing, at which Mr. Wilmoth testified in depth 

concerning the farming operation in comparison to his use of the property as an event

venue. Mr. Wilmoth testified that they offer the property and related equipment for the 

events but that neither he nor anyone in his family is present for or has a part in 

conducting the actual events. He claimed that his time is spent tending to the farm and 

his various entrepreneurial interests unrelated to this action. 

Following the hearing, the court found that “the use of Cedar Pond Farms as a 

wedding venue and other events such as political rallies and birthdays does not fall within 

an ordinary meaning of a recreational or educational activity.” The court then offered an 

in-depth analysis concerning whether the property was exempt from the zoning 

regulations by virtue of its entertainment activities conducted in conjunction with, but 

secondary to the farming operation. The court then held as follows: 

The Wilmoths are in fact operating a farm; that they produce crops for 

horses and cattle, that they have livestock for breeding and grazing; and that 

they produce and sell poultry products. From a time and effort perspective, 

wedding events are clearly secondary to the amount of work which the 

Wilmoths put into working their farm. It is true they make more rental 

income from wedding events, but the Court finds this is not determinative. 

As long as the present amount of effort by the Wilmoths continues to be 

dedicated to the production of farm products and nursery stock, they and 

Cedar Pond Farms fall within the definition of agriculture set forth in 

[Sections] 43-1-113 and 1-3-105.

This timely appeal followed the dismissal of the complaint for injunctive relief. 

II. ISSUES

This case presents the following dispositive issues concerning this court’s review

of the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for injunctive relief: 

A. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Wilmoths are 

commercially producing farm products and nursery stock within the 

meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-105(2)(A) and Tennessee 

Code Annotated § 43-1-113(b).

B. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Wilmoths’ use of 

their property as a commercial venue qualified as “entertainment activities 

conducted in conjunction with, but secondary to, commercial production of 

farm products and nursery stock” within the meaning of Tennessee Code 
- 5 -

Annotated § 1-3-105(2)(A) and Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-1-113(b).

C. Whether farm weddings are best classified as a “recreational” 

activity within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-105(2)(A) 

and Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-1-113(b).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of 

correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 

13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). We review questions of law 

de novo with no presumption of correctness. Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 

(Tenn. 2006). To the extent that the issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret and 

apply statutes, we note that statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review

de novo, affording no presumption of correctness to the conclusions of the trial court. 

State v. Crank, 468 S.W.3d 15, 21 (Tenn. 2015); In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 817 (Tenn. 

2014); Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 

2013) (citing Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009)). 

The principles of statutory interpretation are well established. When reading 

“statutory language that is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its plain meaning in its 

normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would limit or expand the 

statute’s application.” Eastman Chemical Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn. 

2004). “[W]e presume that every word in a statute has meaning and purpose and should 

be given full effect if the obvious intention of the General Assembly is not violated by so 

doing.” SunTrust Bank v. Burke, 491 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting 

Lind v. Beaman Dodge, 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011)). “When a statute is clear, we 

apply the plain meaning without complicating the task.” In re Baby, 447 S.W.3d at 817. 

However, when a statute is ambiguous, “we may reference the broader statutory scheme, 

the history of the legislation, or other sources.” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 

S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tenn. 2008).

IV. ANALYSIS

A.

The County asserts that the actual farming activities present in this case do not rise 

to the threshold level of commercial production contemplated by the legislature in the 

statutory definition of agriculture, thereby removing any agricultural protection from the 

applicable zoning statutes. The Wilmoths respond that there is no minimal production 
- 6 -

threshold for a farm to qualify as having a “commercial production.” The court found, 

and the record confirms, as follows concerning the agricultural use of the property: 

1. The Wilmoths have sold or bartered hay produced by their farm. 

2. Using grant money, the Wilmoths installed fencing and put in 

watering systems for their fescue and cattle. 

3. The Wilmoths have sold cattle for profit and presently have nine 

cows and a bull on the farm. 

4. The Wilmoths have consistently had [18] to [22] chickens which 

they have used for egg production. Presently, these eggs[4] are being sold 

to their LLC which operates eateries in Jefferson County and Knoxville. 

We, like the trial court, hold that these facts establish that Cedar Pond Farms is engaged 

in the commercial production of farm products and nursery stock within the meaning of 

the applicable statutes. 

B. & C.

As a threshold issue, the County argues that the trial court erred in applying the

Tennessee Right to Farm Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-101, et 

seq., in determining that the activities were permitted. “The Tennessee Right to Farm 

Act protects farms and farm operations from nuisance claims by creating a rebuttable 

presumption that they are not nuisances.” Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 

405, 418 (Tenn. 2013). Here, the County sought to enjoin the commercial activity as a 

violation of the applicable zoning regulations, not to abate a nuisance. The trial court 

referenced the Right to Farm Act but ultimately confined its analysis to whether the 

activity at issue was immune from the County’s authority to enforce its zoning powers by 

virtue of the agricultural use of the property.

We turn now to whether the use of the property as a commercial event venue 

qualifies as “agriculture” within the meaning of the statutes. At trial and now on appeal, 

the Wilmoths argue that the weddings qualified as (1) a recreational activity and/or as (2) 

an entertainment activity conducted in conjunction with, but secondary to the commercial 

production of farm products and nursery stock as permitted by the statutes. 

The trial court held that the use of Cedar Pond Farms as a wedding and event 

venue does not fall within an ordinary meaning of a recreational or educational activity as 

 

4

In excess of 400 to 600 eggs per month. 
- 7 -

interpreted by our Supreme Court. See Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 430 (holding that amplified 

music concerns did not fall within the “rubric” of agriculture as currently defined by the 

legislature). In Shore, the Supreme Court first found as follows: 

[W]e have found nothing that suggests the General Assembly considered 

noise from amplified music concerts held on a farm to necessarily have a 

connection with producing farm products. Nor have we found any basis to 

conclude that the General Assembly considered music concerts to be some 

sort of farm operation. The plain language of the Tennessee Right to Farm 

Act reflects a close connection between producing farm products and the 

conditions or activities shielded by the Act. Accordingly, we decline to 

give the same broad interpretation to the Tennessee Right to Farm Act that 

was given by the courts below.

Id. at 423-24. The Court then considered whether the activities at Maple Lane Farms 

qualified as agriculture within the meaning of Section 43-1-113(b)(1)(C) and related 

statutes. The court noted that not all activities that qualify as agritourism activities for 

purposes of liability limitations will qualify as agriculture for the purpose of exemption

from zoning limitations. Id. at 429. The court held that the activities at issue, amplified 

music concerts, were more properly characterized as entertainment, a category not yet 

included in the definition of agriculture. Id. at 429-430.

The Wilmoths ask this court to categorize the offending events as recreational 

within the meaning of the statute, thereby permitting the use of the property as a wedding 

venue without the limiting provision now applicable to entertainment activities. The 

Wilmoths argue that weddings are an active recreational activity within the definition of 

agriculture when held on land used for the commercial production of farm products and 

nursery stock. See Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 428 (suggesting that active, rather than passive 

activities are more properly characterized as recreational). We agree that weddings have 

an active component in that the attendees witness the covenant formed between the 

fiancé/fiancée and then, in most cases, partake in a celebration of the union in which 

eating, drinking, and dancing are most commonly offered by the hosts. However, we 

disagree that such active recreational activities qualify as a “normal agricultural activity,” 

exempting the property from applicable zoning regulations pursuant to Section 5-1-118.

Normal is defined as “conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern[,] characterized 

by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.” Merriam-Webster Online 

Dictionary (2021) (www.merriamwebster.com (derived from Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed.)). Such normal agricultural activities have previously 

been limited to, inter alia, pumpkin patches, corn mazes, and hay rides, and have not 

included 300-person wedding celebrations and other similar amplified events. See 

generally Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 429 (providing that all activities held on a farm do not 

qualify as agricultural). We affirm the trial court on this issue. 
- 8 -

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shore, the legislature amended the 

definition of agriculture to include the following provision: 

Entertainment activities conducted in conjunction with, but secondary to, 

commercial production of farm products and nursery stock, when such 

activities occur on land used for the commercial production of farm 

products and nursery stock.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-1-113(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). The trial court found that as 

long as the present amount of effort expended by the Wilmoths continues to be dedicated 

to the production of farm products and nursery stock, they and Cedar Pond Farms fall 

within the entertainment definition of agriculture. 

The entertainment at issue, farm weddings, is necessarily conducted in conjunction 

with the production and operation of the farm. Mr. Wilmoth testified that the event 

venue is successful due to the aesthetic appearance of the farm and the farming operation 

itself, noting that the venue provides multiple photographic opportunities of general life 

on the farm. The record reflects that in 2019, the farming income amounted to

approximately $6,250, while the farm rental income amounted to approximately $47,247, 

including $28,375 in rental income for weddings and other events on the property. Mr. 

Wilmoth testified in-depth concerning his time spent operating the farm in comparison to 

the minimal time he spent facilitating his event venue business, which housed five 

weddings in 2019. We, like the trial court, believe that the present use of the property is 

in keeping with the legislature’s obvious intent to allow the necessary supplementation of 

farming income with income from related activities as long as such activities are 

secondary to the commercial production of farm products and nursery stock. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for injunctive relief 

based upon our interpretation of [Section] 43-1-113(b)(1)(D) and related statutes. 

V. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The case is remanded for such further

proceedings as may be necessary. Costs of the appeal are taxed to appellant, Jefferson 

County, Tennessee. 

_________________________________

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JUDGE