### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove mb er

7, 200 7 S es sio n

CLEAR CHANNEL OUT DOORS, ET AL


### . v. TE NNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRA NS POR TAT ION

Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 05-1839-II Car ol L. McCoy, Chancellor

No. M2006- 02322-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 13, 2008

This appea l is from a final or der i n a p ro ce ed i n g for judicial r eview of an administrative de cision pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 4-5-322. The Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Transpor

tation (“TDO T”) filed th i s ac tion claiming that a billboard which wa s rebuilt by the def endants a fter it wa s blown do wn in a sto rm did no t me e t the re qu ir e me nts of the re g ulatio n g ov e rn ingre c on str uc tio n o f s tor

mdama g e d b ill bo ard s. F oll ow ing a he ari ng , the Ad min ist rativ e L aw Jud g e de te rm ine d th a t th e re bu ilt billboard violated the applicable regulation and ordered its remova l. The decision was af firmed by the TDOT Commissioner (“ the Commiss ion er” ), and later by the Chance ry

Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) . On appe al, we fi n d t h at the Tria l Court did not have the nec essar y administrative re cord be fore i t as required whe n it reviewe d this case. B eca use the Tr ial Court’s

re vie w i s li mit e d to the a dmi nis trative re c or d, Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 -5 -3 22 (g ), and the c omp le te administrative re cord was not a vailable to the Trial Court, w e vac ate the T rial Court’s judg ment and

rema nd for a new r eview to be conducte d afte r the full adminis trative re cord is filed w ith the Trial Court. We vacate and re mand.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cha nc e r y C our t V ac at e d; Ca se Rem anded

D. M I CHAEL S W I NEY , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P AT R I C I A J. C OTTRE LL , P.J., M.S., and R O SS H. H I C KS , S P .J., joined.
Arvin H. Reingold, Chattanooga, Te nnessee , for the Ap p e ll an ts , Cl e a r Ch an n e l O u tdoor s and Ge orge and Katherine Mor gan.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, At torne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r, a nd Bruc e M. But le r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

or the Appe llee, Te nnessee Depa rtment of Transportation.R ul e 10 o f the R ul es of

t he C our t of

Ap peal s provi des : “ T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1

p art i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt b y m em o randum op i ni o n when a f ormal opi ni on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y m emo r andum o pi ni on i t sh al l b e des i gn at ed

‘ M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N , ’ s hal l not be publ i s hed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed

c a se .”

F o r th e sa k e o f c o n s isten c y a n d to re d u c e c o n fus io n , w e w ill re fer to b o th C le a r C h a n n e l O u td o o rs a n d it s

2

p re d e c e sso r c o m p a n y, E ller M e d ia C o m p a n y, as “C le a r C h a n n e l.”

-2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

More than twe nty year s ago, a bil l b o ar d (“ the Old Billboard”) w as construc ted along Interstate 24 in Hamilton County on property owned by G eorge and Katherine M organ. The billboard is ow ned by Clear Channel Outdoors (f

ormerly known a s Eller Media Company) (“Clea r Ch an n el ”)

. B eca

use the Old Billboard wa s in place w hen the Ge nera l Assembly enac ted the 2 Bill board Regulation and Control Act of 1972, which governs outdoor adve rtising in Tennessee , the Old Bill board w as permitted to remain as a gr andfathere d nonconforming sign.

The Old Bill board, which was built on wood posts with a metal fa ce, w as blown down in a sto rm on Se pte mbe r 6, 19 98

. Th re e da ys la te r, Cle ar Chann e l r e qu e ste d p e rm iss ionfr om T DO T t o rebuild the Old Billboard. TDOT grante d permission in a letter which stated, in pa rt, that “the sign may b e r e b u il t i n it s e x a c t l o c a ti o n u s in g li k e mate ria ls to it s o r ig in a l s iz e a n d h e ig h t. ” T h e le tte r
a lso state d th a t T DO T’ s r e c or ds ind ic a te d th a t th e Ol d Bi llb oa rdwa s b uil t onwo odpo sts

.
Th e re pla c e me nt b ill bo ard(“ the Ne w B ill bo ard ” ) co ns truc te d by Cle ar C ha nn e l ha d a sin gle metal pol e and a

wooden f

ace . TDOT br ought this action against Clear Channe l and Geor ge and Katherine Morgan (collec tively “ Def endants” ) alleging that the New Bill board had lost its status as a gra ndfathe red struc ture be cause it was not built wit h “l i k e materials” as r equire d by TDOT

re g u lations, and there fore , must be removed. Following an administrative he aring (“ the Administrative Hea

ring”), the Administrative Law Judge issued an I nitial Order that the New Bill board violate d the re gulations and had to be r emoved within t h i rt y d ay s of the Initial Or der be c omi ng a

final or de r. Th e Com mis sio ne r u ph e ld the In iti a l O rd e r andte rm inate d D e fe nd a nts ’ permit for the Old Bill board.

Pur su a nt t o T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 -5 -3 22 , D e fe nd a nts app e a le d th e Com mis sio ne r’ s ruli ng to the Trial Court, w hich aff irmed the Final Order

enter ed by the Commissioner. Def endants a ppeal the Trial Court’s judgment to this Court.

At oral a rgument, we informed c ounsel that the appe llate re cord did not inc lude the transc ript fr om o r e xh ibi ts i ntr od uc e d at th e Ad min ist rativ e He ari ng , a ndwe su gg e ste d th a t c ou ns e l f or bo th parties take appropriate action to supple ment the rec ord. Afte r later discovering that these items may

no t ha ve be e n f

ile d w ith the Tria l Co urt, we e nte re d an or de r r e qu ir ing the pa rt ie s, wi thi n th irty d a ys , either: 1) to obtain an order from the Trial Court supple menting the appellate rec ord if the transc ript and exhibits from the A dminist rative H earing were , in fac t, filed with and re lied upon by the Trial Court; o r 2 ) to s h o w c a u s e w h y w e s h o u ld n o t r e man d th is c a s e if th o s e p o r tions of the-3-

Ad min ist rativ e Re c or d w e re no t f

ile d inthe Tria l Co urt.

On Janua ry 14, 2008, TDOT responded to our Orde r to Show Cause by stating that “the Chance ry Court Cler

k has advised that Chance llor McCoy has not e ntere d the parties’ Agre ed Or der Supplementing the Appellate Rec ord bec ause the Chance llor does not believe that she re viewed or relied on the transcripts and exhibits from the Administrative Recor d,” and ther efor e, TDO T does not object to this Court remanding the ca se to the Tria l Court.

Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 4-5-322( g) re quires that a T rial Court’s re view of a decision rende red by a n administrat i v e ag ency “shall be c onfined to the [a dminist rative] rec ord.” H aving

rec eived no c onfirmation that the Trial Court possessed the c omplete Administrative Recor d when it reviewe d the Commiss ioner’s r uling, we vac ate the T rial Court’s dec ision and remand f or proce edings consistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322. As it is TDOT’ s responsibility to provide the Trial Court with the complete Administrative Rec ord pursua nt to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5- 322(d),

we a lso order TD OT to file the r emainder of the Administrative Rec ord with the Trial Court so that the Trial Court may c onduct a pr oper r eview of this matter.

Conclusion

After car eful re view, we vacate t he decision of t he Trial Court and re mand for the Trial Court to conduct a new review of the Commi ssioner’s ruling af ter the f ull Adminis trative Rec ord has be en filed with the Tria l Court. To facilitate this revie w, we a lso order TD OT to file the r emaining portions of the Admi nistrative R ecor d with the Trial Court no later than thirty days af

ter the f iling of our Ma ndate in this case . Costs on appeal ar e tax ed ag ai n s t the Appellee , the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Transportation.

_________________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWI NEY, JUDG E