STATE OF TENNESSEE, Upon )
Relation of LLOYD R. ADAMS, )
MURPHY W. RALSTON, and )
W.C. TALLANT, )
)
Plaintiffs/Appellants, )
) Rutherford Chancery
) No. 92CV-820
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9404-CH-00195
CITY OF MURFREESBORO, )
TENNESSEE, )
Defendant/Appellee.
)
)
FILED
Nov. 1, 1995
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF RUTHERFORD COUNTY
AT MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE ROBERT E. CORLEW, III, CHANCELLOR
PHILLIP L. DAVIDSON
2400 Crestmoor Road
Suite 107
Nashville, Tennessee 37215
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS
THOMAS L. REED, JR.
City Attorney
111 West Vine Street
P.O. Box 5055
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37133-5055
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, Upon )
Relation of LLOYD R. ADAMS, )
MURPHY W. RALSTON, and )
W.C. TALLANT, )
)
Plaintiffs/Appellants, )
) Rutherford Chancery
) No. 92CV-820
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9404-CH-00195
CITY OF MURFREESBORO, )
TENNESSEE, )
)
Defendant/Appellee. )
OPINION
This is a suit to invalidate an annexation ordinance of the City of Murfreesboro. The
plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his suit, although neither party questioned the
adequacy of the description of the land to be annexed. On October 26, 1994, this Court filed
an opinion pointing out the infirmities of the ordinance and remanded to allow such
infirmities to be remedied.
On August 28, 1995, a supplemental record was received indicating the remedial
measures taken to which neither party takes exception. Such measures are therefore accepted
as adequate, and attention will be directed to the original issue which was:
Is the annexation ordinance reasonable, taking into
consideration the health, safety and welfare of the area to be
annexed and the city.
See Volmer v. City of Memphis, Tenn. 1990, 792 S.W.2d 446.
The applicable statute is T.C.A. Section 6-51-103, which reads in pertinent part as
follows:
Quo warranto to contest annexation ordinance -- Appellate
review. -- (a)(1)(A) Any aggrieved owner of property which
borders or lies within territory which is the subject of an
annexation ordinance prior to the operative date thereof, may
file a suit in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding in
accordance with this part, §6-51-301 and title 29, chapter 35 to
contest the validity thereof on the ground that it reasonably may
-2-
not be deemed necessary for the welfare of the residents and
property owners of the affected territory and the municipality as
a whole and so constitutes an exercise of power not conferred
by law. . .
* * *
(c) . . . Suit or suits, shall be tried on an issue to be made up
there, and the question shall be whether the proposed
annexation be or be not unreasonable in consideration of the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens and property owners
of the territory sought to be annexed and the citizens and
property owners of the municipality . . .
In the annexation of territory, someone must fix the boundaries, and this power, when
exercised, is legislative and will not be disturbed by the courts unless the action was arbitrary
and unreasonable. State, ex rel Wood v. City of Memphis, Tenn. 1974, 510 S.W.2d 889.
The whole theory of annexation is that it is a device by which a municipal corporation
may plan for its orderly growth and development. State, ex rel Collier v. City of Pigeon
Forge, Tenn. 1980, 599 S.W.2d 545.
If two municipalities seek to annex the same territory, the larger municipality has
precedence. T.C.A. §6-51-110(b).
It appears that the area in question adjoins the city limits of Murfreesboro and fronts
on a U.S. highway at an interchange with an interstate highway under construction.
It also appears that an attempt is being made to incorporate the same area into a
satellite city smaller than the City of Murfreesboro.
The Trial Judge filed a lengthy memorandum reciting the evidence and his findings.
-3-
The appellant presents the following arguments:
I. The evidence at trial preponderated against the trial court's
finding that the annexed area needed municipal services.
II. The fact that the city has the present ability to provide
services does not prove that the ordinance is reasonable
especially if there is no proof that the services would ever be
utilized.
III. The evidence at trial clearly preponderated against any
finding that the annexation ordinance was reasonable for the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the area to be
annexed and the city.
IV. The evidence at trial preponderated against any finding
that the City of Murfreesboro had any legitimate need to
control the area to be annexed.
Each of these contentions has been examined in the light of the above authorities, the record
and the findings of the Trial Court which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The judgment of the Trial Court dismissing this suit is affirmed. Costs of this appeal
are taxed against the appellant. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for any necessary
further proceedings.
Affirmed and Remanded.
_______________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
_____________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
_____________________________________
HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, JUDGE
-4-