WPC"% wGLr /Z4|jG C;rcMr 8<* I>U=ͲWcp^:?Y7D-9Y(mMc͟7c-4xƽ  h(M/\e5 ;\_g 5Zjv/-|enVxyc%T|74-+PгNw:6F%GQ>hoeIN* ,X NS1߳1}?e'~3 $Ą24fxM%aԼFd⣾9+) !}3(½u{hz9ǒ" {צ.? I=lJˮB{†:أ2]QH0&8YQWmo[=&䨔)nznWТj_^uHbU'N\ % 0#8   ^ g zs  V  m w  j04N    &E8:I b ^b 0D   0 D L T \ d l  t  ~  eb6>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0    B ! ! 0'! D3! D-! 0K+"+" ASv"" 0# 0D3$ Aw$("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptn3   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5=M3H\Opinion Summary3|x  R$      1    _An_ RM20_Ԁ_zone_Ԁ___permits_Ԁthedevelopmentofresidentialsinglefamily,duplex,andmultifamilydwellings  atadensityof20dwellingunitsperacre.?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.(#$  0  12 & R$      2    _ԀAn RS20_zone___Ԁpermitsonlysinglefamilydwellingsatadensityof1.85dwellingunitsperacre.456789101112  R$      3    _ԀThepartiesfiledcompetingmotionsforsummaryjudgmentduringthecourseof_thelitigation.Asalluded  tointhestipulation,thetrialcourtgrantedMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgmentinpartanddismissedWestchesters t claimfortherecoveryofitslostprofits.ThatdecisionwasnotappealedbyWestchester.     [ R$      4    _ԀInitsbrief,MetroaddressestherationaleandproprietyofthetrialcourtsdecisiondismissingWestchesters  inversecondemnationclaim._SinceWestchesterdidnotappealthisaspectofthetrialcourtsjudgment,thisissueisnot t beforeus.________________________________________________________________See_ԀTenn.R.App.P.13(b)_( Reviewgenerallywillextendonlytothoseissuespresentedforreview.)._- -  R$      5    _Whiletheoraltestimonyessentiallycorroboratescertainofthestipulatedfacts,itspresenceintherecord  mandatesthatwereviewthisrecordunderthepurviewofTenn.R.App.P.13(d).Needlesstosay,inthis13(d)review, t wetreatthefactswhicharethesubjectofthestipulationasundisputed.(|G2$ !.8Bdd8         0   d(|3s$ !.8Bdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$ !.8Bdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bdd8     _  BBB8XXdd8  )F*]@ #BB#WYBINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#BWYp#BBԈ &   October10,2005Session L #BB #XXB #BXX#BB%    THEWESTCHESTERCOMPANY,LLC%v.%  METROPOLITAN J GOVERNMENTOFNASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY,  ^ TENNESSEE%J#BB#XXB  " r  @@ Appealfromthe%  CircuitCourt%cfor%  Davidson% County " r @@No.% ! 03C2002%!Ԁ% " WalterC.Kurtz,Judge%" ^  @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.% # M200402391_COA_ԄR3CV%#ԀDecember20,_2005_   AV) ` dE<` A   %    %#BXX#XXBThisdisputearoseaftertheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty( Metro)  _rezoned_Ԁpropertyownedbytheplaintiff,TheWestchesterCompany,LLC( Westchester),from  multifamilytosinglefamily.Asaresultofthezoningchange,Westchesterwasunabletocarry x throughwithitscontracttosellthepropertytoathirdpartyforthedevelopmentofmultifamily d townhouses.Westchestersoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentastowhetherithadavestedrightinthe P previouszoningclassificationbyvirtueofthefact(1)thatitrelieduponstatementsmadebyMetro < employeesregardingthethenexistingzoningandWestchestersrightsunderthatzone;(2)thatthe (x _rezoning_Ԁcausedittolosetheprofititwouldhavereceivedunderthecontract;and(3)thatitis d potentiallyliableforbreachofcontract.Asanalternativetheoryofrecovery,Westchesterargued P thatthezoningchangeamountedtoanunconstitutionaltakingofitsproperty.#BXX@#XXBThetrialcourtruled < infavorofMetroanddismissedWestchestersclaims.Westchesterappeals,butonlyastothetrial ( courtsdeterminationthatitdidnothaveavestedrightinthepreviouszoning.Weaffirm.   % $ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight%$ ;Judgmentofthe% % CircuitCourt   Affirmed;CaseRemanded%%  !    #BXM #XX.BCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% & HerschelP.Franks,_P.J._, `#" %&and% ' D.Michael_Swiney_,J.%',joined. L$# %  RichardM.SmithandDarrenA.Olsen,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TheWestchester $&t!% Company,LLC.% '`"& %  %KarlF.Dean,DirectorofLaw,J.BrooksFoxandJohnL.Kennedy,MetropolitanAttorneys, (8$( Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty, )$%) Tennessee.#BXX#XXB *&* x -(- _ OPINION #BXX#XXB    #BXX#XXB    I.    Thepartiesenteredintoastipulationoffacts,whichprovidesasfollows: ` `   ` %  #BXX#XXB  8 ` OnoraboutMay1,2003,Westchesterclosedontherealproperty 8  withimprovementsthereonlocatedat3110WoodlawnDrive, $ t Nashville,DavidsonCounty,TennesseeforThreeHundredSixteen  ` ThousandTwoHundredandTwentyFiveDollars($316,225.00). L ` x` x   8 ` WhenWestchesterpurchasedtheproperty,thepropertywaszoned $  RM20. #  1       ` x` x   8 ` Priortoclosingontheproperty,representativesofWestchestermet   withrepresentativeofMetroinordertoperformagoodfaith   investigationasitrelatedtoresidentialmultiuseoftheproperty p zonedRM20.\` x` x   8 ` Ontwoseparateoccasions,representativesofWestchesterwere 4 advisedbyrepresentativesofMetrothatthepropertywasproperly  p zoned,thatthepropertycouldbedevelopedasresidentialmultiuse  \ property,andthatnomistakesconcerningthezoningoftheproperty H hadbeenmadebyMetro.4` x` x   8 ` Basedontheserepresentationsandotherfactors,Westchester   purchasedtheproperty.` x` x   8 ` OnoraboutMay1,2003,DeanMontgomerynegotiatedacontract  forsalewithWestchesterforthepropertylocatedat3110Woodlawn l Drive,Nashville,DavidsonCounty,Tennessee.X ` x` x   8 ` ThepurchasepricefortheresaleofthepropertywasFiveHundred 0"  TwentyFiveThousandDollars($525,000.00).#l!` x` x   8 ` Thetermsofthecontractforsalewerenegotiatedbasedonthe $D # assumptionthatthePropertywouldremainsuitablefordevelopment %0!$ inaccordancewiththethenexistingRM20zoning.&"%` x` x   '#&   8 ` Afterexecutionofthecontractforsale,Westchesterwasnotifiedof   theproposedzoningchangefromRM20toRS20. #  2      ` x` x   8 ` [Westchester]appearedandspokeinoppositiontothezonechange t inquestionatthePlanningCommissionsmeetingonthismatteron ` June26,2003.L ` x` x   8 ` TheminutesofthatJune26[th]meetingexplainthatthepropertyin $ t questionhadbeenmistakenlyrezonedtoRM20in1998andthatthe  ` zonechangelegislationwhichisthesubjectofthislawsuit(BL2003  L  1480)wasdesignedtocorrectthaterrorandputthezoning  8  classificationbacktoRS20.$ ` x` x   8 ` ThePlanningCommissionunanimouslyapprovedthiszoning   correction. ` x` x   8 ` ThepropertysbasezoningwasaccordinglychangedfromRM20to p RS20byBL20031480whichpassedthirdreading[bytheCouncilof \ theMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty]on H July15,2003.4` x` x   8 ` Atameetingwithcounsel[sic]members,neighbors,and[M]etro  \ representatives,itwasapparentthatthezoningchangewasmadein H ordertoprohibittheconstructionoftownhomeswhichweretobe 4 builtinaccordancewiththeRM20zoningordinanceinplaceatthe   timeoftheexecutionofthecontractforsale. ` x` x   8 ` ThechangeinzoningfromRM20toRS20puttheexecutedcontract  forsalebetweenWestchesterandDeanMontgomeryindefault.  Westchesterwasunabletodeliverthepropertyinamannerthatcould l beusedasitwasimplicitlywarrantedundercontract.X ` x` x     8 ` AnOrdergrantingMetrosmotionforsummaryjudgmentand 0"  dismissingWestchestersclaimforlostprofitswasenteredby[the #l! trialcourt]onMay4,2004.(T #  3      $X"` x` x b    (Numberingandcitationsintheoriginalomitted)(paragraphsrearrangedtomaintainchronology). %0!$ b~' &"%   ThetrialcourtheldahearingonWestchestersremainingclaimsagainstMetro.Inaddition  tothestipulationoffacts,Westchesterpresentedbrieftestimonythatessentiallycorroborated  stipulatedfacts.ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofMetroonallofWestchestersremainingtheories t ofrecoveryanddismisseditssuit.Thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffactand ` conclusionsoflaw: L  ` ` ThechangeofzoningfromRM20toRS20doesnotdestroyall $ t beneficialuseoftheproperty.Theonlychangeinthispropertyhas  ` beenthenormalsortofmodificationoftheusethatwouldoccurin  L  anyzonechange.  8  Thepartiesagreethatthereisnoevidenceofsubstantialconstruction   havingtakenplaceinthiscase.   Thereisalsonoevidenceofanysubstantialliabilitydirectlyrelated   toconstruction.[Westchester]hasputonproofthattherearelost p profitsinexcessof$200,000.Lostprofitsofanyamountdonotrise \ tothelevelofavestedright. H [Westchester]couldimmediatelysellthisproperty,if[it]sodesired,  p withnooutrightloss.Thereisnothingintherecordtoindicatethat  \ [Westchester]couldnotsellthepropertyforatleasttheamount[it] H purchaseditfor. 4 Thereisnooutofpocketlossby[Westchester]inthiscase.   ThepossibilityofalawsuitfromMr.Montgomerytorecoveragainst  [Westchester]istoocontingenttoconstituteavestedrightonbehalf  of[Westchester]. l TherecordreflectsthatMr.DeanMontgomerywaspreviouslyaparty D! tothislawsuitbuthasbeendismissedout. 0"  Thereisnothingintherecord,andthepartiesagree,thatthisisnota $X" caseofimproperspotzoning.TheMetropolitanPlanning $D # CommissionandtheMetropolitanCouncilwerewithintheirrights %0!$ andauthorityinrezoningthispropertyfromRM20toRS20. &"% BASEDUPONTHESEFINDINGSOFFACT,THECOURT (#' HEREBYMAKESTHEFOLLOWINGCONCLUSIONSOFLAW: )$( Thereisnounconstitutionaltakinginthiscase. h+&* ЇThechangeofzoningfromRM20toRS20doesnotdestroythe  beneficialuseoftheproperty.  [Westchester]didnotattainvestedrightsinthethencurrentzoning t regulations. ` [Westchester]hasnotprovedanyclaimfordamagesunderanyofthe 8  othertheoriessetforthintheComplaint. $ t Allclaimsand/ortheoriesfordamagesinthiscaseshouldbe  L  dismissed.  8  ` `*` R*(Numberingandcitationsinoriginalomitted).Westchesterappeals,allegingthatthetrialcourterred   indeterminingthatitdidnothaveavestedrightintheRM20zoning., #  4           II.   5   `     h     Westchestermakestwobasicargumentsonthisappeal.Itplacesprimaryemphasisonthe \ factthat,whilethesubjectpropertywasstillzonedRM20,itsoldtheproperty,atahandsomeprofit, H toonewhointendedtoconstructmultifamilystructures,ausepermittedbythezoneexistingatthe 4 timeofthesale.Toamuchlesserextent,WestchesterarguesthatMetroisestoppedtodenytheuse  p ofthepropertyformultifamilydevelopmentbasedonconversationsthatanofficerofWestchester  \ hadwithemployeesofMetropriortothesale.Bothoftheseargumentsaremadeinthecontextof H Westchesterssoleissue,whichitstatesasfollows: 4 ` ` Whetherthe[trialcourt]erredbyfindingWestchestersrightsdidnot   vestinthecontinuityoftheexistingzoning.  9` 9` 9  III.  :    Inthisnonjurycase,involvingtheintroductionoforaltestimony,/ #  5      ourreviewisdenovoupon X  therecordoftheproceedingsbelow;buttherecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectness D! astothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations!onethatwemusthonorunlesstheevidence 0"  preponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181 #l!  (Tenn.1995).Ourreviewofquestionsoflawisdenovowithnosuchpresumptionofcorrectness $X" )F ) )  attachingtothetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,  35(Tenn.1996).     IV.  >    WefirstaddresswhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtoconcludethatWestchesterhada  vestedrightinandtotheRM20zonebyvirtueofitscontractwithMontgomeryanditspotential   liabilityunderthatcontract.Theconceptofavestedrightinazoning,whichhaslongbeen  t recognizedinTennessee,allowspropertyowners,whohaveacquiredtherequisite vestedinterest z ` underanexistingzone,touseanddevelopthepropertypursuanttosaidzoneevenifasubsequent f L  zoningordinanceisenacted.See Stateexrel.SCAChem.WasteServs.,Inc.v.Konigsberg ,636 R 8  S.W.2d430,437(Tenn.1982);101AC.J.S.ZoningandLandPlanning71(2005).Thequestion >$  ofwhetheroneslossofacontractand/orthatentityspotentialcontractliabilityissufficientto *  createavestedrightinazoningclassificationhasnotbeenspecificallyaddressedinTennessee;but   itisclearthatneithercircumstancefitswithinthegeneraldefinitionofwhatisrequiredforvesting.    Itiswellsettledthatrightsunderanexistingordinancedonotvestuntilsubstantialconstruction   orsubstantialliabilitiesareincurredrelatingdirectlytoconstruction. Stateexrel.SCAChem.  WasteServs.,Inc. ,636S.W.2dat437(emphasisadded).Inthecasenowpending,itisundisputed  thatconstructionofthetownhouseshadnotcommencedpriortothezoningchange;thus,thefirst  prong!the substantialconstructiontest!doesnotapply.Havingconcededthatpoint,  WestchesterspecificallyasksthisCourttodeterminewhetherthetrialcourterredinitsapplication p ofthesecondpartoftherule!the substantialliabilitiesprong. v\   Westchestercontendsthatitslostprofitsand/oritspossibilityofbeingsuedforbreachof N4 contractamountto substantialliabilities...relatingdirectlytoconstruction.Wedisagree.The :  plainlanguageofthe substantialliabilitiesconceptcontradictssuchaconclusion.Itisclearthat &  theliabilityincurredmustbe,literally,directlyrelatedtoconstruction.See PepProps.v.Townof  Farragut ,1991WL50211,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedApril10,1991),perm.app.denied,  September9,1991(holdingthat$13,000.00in preliminaryexpensesdidnotqualifyas   substantialliabilitieswithinthepurviewoftherequirement).Westchesterslostprofitsand  potentialliabilityonthecontracttosellthepropertyarenotliabilitiesincurredinrelationto  construction.Theyaremoreappropriatelylabeledaslosses/liabilitiesincurredinrelationtothe   holdingofinvestmentproperty.Intheinstantcase,constructionhadnotcommenced;Westchester !  hadnotenteredintocontractsrelatedtotheconstructionofthetownhouses;andithadnotsustained "l! anylossesrelatedtoconstruction.WearenotawareofanyTennesseecaserecognizingavested r#X" rightinzoningcontinuitywherethereisnoconstructionorexpenditures/liabilitiesrelatedto ^$D # construction.Weseenojustificationfortheexpansionofthewelldefinedconceptoftheactivities J%0!$ requiredtopermitthevestingofrightsinazoningclassification.Thepurchaseofpropertydoesnot 6&"% carrywithitaguaranteethatthezoningwillnotbechanged.Onthecontrary,thezoningofall "'#& propertyissubjecttochangeforlegallyvalidreasons.Theeffectivenessofalegallyvalidzoning (#' changecanonlybethwartedbyafindingofavestedrightinthepreviouszone,arightthatsimply ($( doesnotexistinthiscase. )%)   $P   @  @ OP     +'+ *] * *    V.  P  Westchesteralsosuggeststhatitsgoodfaithrelianceoncertainrepresentationsmadeby  MetroemployeesestablishesitsvestedrightintheRM20zone.Inotherwords,Westchesterargues  thatMetroisestoppedtodenyittherighttouseitspropertyformultifamilydevelopmentbecause  ofWestchestersrelianceonrepresentationsmadebyMetroemployees.Itwasstipulatedthat,prior k toenteringintothecontracttosellthepropertytoMontgomery,WestchesterwasadvisedbyMetro W  employees thatthepropertywasproperlyzoned,thatthepropertycouldbedevelopedasresidential C t multiuseproperty,andthatnomistakesconcerningthezoningofthepropertyhadbeenmadeby / ` Metro.Whileweacceptallofthisastrue,thesefactsdonotestablishavestedrightintheRM20  L  zone.In CorlewsAutoSalvage,Inc.v.MurfreesboroBd.ofZoningAppeals ,1989WL54913,  8  at*7(Tenn.Ct.App.M.S.,filedMay24,1989),thisCourt,inrejectingasimilarestoppelargument  $  underthevestedrightsrubric,statedthat [e]venthoughthe[ SCAChemical ]opinionmaycontain   somecomforttoonewhoexpendsmoneyorcontractsliabilityunderanexistingordinance,itdoes   notrecognizeestoppelinfavorofonewhoexpendsmoneyorcreatesliabilityinrelianceuponoral   statementsofadministrativeofficials. Id. (emphasisadded).Itisclearthatestoppeldoesnot   generallyapplytotheactsorstatementsofpublicagents. Stateexrel.Moultonv.Williams, 343  S.W.2d857,861(Tenn.1961); Haymonv.CityofChattanooga ,513S.W.2d185,189(Tenn.Ct.  App.1973).Thoughexceptionstothisgeneralruleexist,see CityofLebanonv.Baird ,756S.W.2d o 236,242,244(Tenn.1988),weknowofnoauthoritysupportinganexceptionunderthecurrent [ facts.Westchestersestoppelargumentiswithoutmerit. Gx    `     h      p      x   VI. P Z   `    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thismatterisremandedtothetrialcourtfor ( collectionofcostsassessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtothe  appellant,theWestchesterCompany,LLC.     `     h     _______________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE