Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim

Summary

The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed a dispute over a service road that crossed the boundary between adjoining properties. The court held that the trial court erred by failing to rule on a pending motion to amend before granting summary judgment, but that the error was harmless because Tennessee's statutory tax-payment bar for adverse possession did not apply to the small disputed portions of contiguous tracts where each owner paid taxes on the respective property. The court addressed common-law adverse possession, prescriptive easements, and the effect of boundary mistakes and tax assessments.

Holdings

1. The chancery court erred by failing to rule on the plaintiff's motion to amend before entering summary judgment, because Rule 15.01 requires that leave to amend ordinarily be freely given and the motion must be considered. The error was harmless under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(b) because the statutory tax-payment bar did not apply and the plaintiff's substantive rights were not prejudiced.
2. Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-110(a) does not bar a common-law adverse-possession claim when the disputed area lies between contiguous tracts, is relatively small, and the adjoining owners claiming ownership have paid taxes on their respective properties.
3. The undisputed evidence established common-law adverse possession because Cumulus and its predecessors possessed the actual service-road area exclusively, actually, adversely, continuously, openly, and notoriously for more than twenty years.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the chancery court erred by granting summary judgment before ruling on the plaintiff's motion to amend its pleading to assert a prescriptive-easement theory.
2. Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-110(a), which bars claims by persons who fail to pay taxes on claimed real property for more than twenty years, barred a common-law adverse-possession claim involving a relatively small disputed area along the boundary of contiguous tracts.
3. Whether the undisputed evidence established the elements of common-law adverse possession for the disputed service-road area.

Disposition

reversed