Quo Warranto to Contest Annexation Ordinance — Appellate Review

1. Law
2. Tennessee Code
3. Cities and Towns
4. Change of Municipal Boundaries
5. Annexation
6. Quo Warranto to Contest Annexation Ordinance — Appellate Review

1. 1. 1. Any aggrieved owner of property that borders or lies within territory that 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 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. Notwithstanding any other section in this chapter, for purposes of this section, an “aggrieved owner of property” does not include any municipality or public corporation created and defined under title 7, chapter 82 that owns property bordering or lying within the territory that is the subject of an annexation ordinance requested by the remaining property owner or owners of the territory and whose property and services are to be allocated and conveyed in accordance with § 6-51-111, § 6-51-112 or § 6-51-301, or any contractual arrangement otherwise providing for such allocation and conveyance.
      2. Subdivision (a)(1)(A) does not apply to the counties covered by subdivision (a)(2).
   2. 1. Any aggrieved owner of property, lying within territory that 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 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.
      2. Subdivision (a)(2)(A) shall apply only in counties having a metropolitan form of government and in counties having populations of:

         not less than  nor more than

         4,000 4,300

         14,940 15,000

         43,700 44,700

         49,400 49,500

         58,000 59,000

         67,300 67,400

         74,500 74,600

         100,000 250,000

         475,000 480,000

         700,000

         according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census, and in any county with a population of not less than two hundred eighty-five thousand (285,000) and not more than two-hundred ninety thousand (290,000) based upon the 1980 federal census.

2. The rendering of services under a mutual aid agreement, an automatic response agreement, an operational agreement, or any other agreement as allowed under a comprehensive growth plan, pursuant to chapter 58 of this title, or the providing of mutual aid or assistance under the Mutual Aid and Emergency and Disaster Assistance Agreement Act of 2004, compiled in title 58, chapter 8, is not admissible as evidence against the municipality in any action brought under this section or title 29, chapter 14.
3. The municipality shall have the burden of proving that an annexation ordinance is reasonable for the overall well-being of the communities involved.
4. 1. If more than one (1) suit is filed, all of them shall be consolidated and tried as one (1) in the first court of appropriate jurisdiction in which suit is filed. Suit or suits shall be tried on an issue to be made up there, and the question shall be whether the proposed annexation is or is 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. Should the court find the ordinance to be unreasonable, or to have been done by exercise of powers not conferred by law, an order shall be issued vacating the ordinance and the municipality shall be prohibited from annexing, pursuant to the authority of § 6-51-102, any part of the territory proposed for annexation by such vacated ordinance for a period of at least twenty-four (24) months following the date of such order. In the absence of such finding, an order shall be issued sustaining the validity of such ordinance, which shall then become operative thirty-one (31) days after judgment is entered unless an abrogating appeal has been taken from the judgment, or unless the presiding court grants the municipality's petition to defer the effective date pursuant to subdivision (d)(2).
   2. Upon petition of the municipality, the presiding court may, as part of the judgment sustaining the validity of the annexation ordinance, order that the effective date of the ordinance be fixed as December 31 following the date of entry of the judgment or determination of appeal. In making any order under this subdivision (d)(2), the court shall consider the necessity of the deferred effective date to render municipal services to the annexed territory within a reasonable time. The petition shall be filed by the municipality in the presiding court where the annexation ordinance is being contested in a quo warranto proceeding as provided in this section.
5. If on appeal judgment shall be against the validity of such ordinance, an order shall be entered vacating the same and the municipality shall be prohibited from annexing, pursuant to the authority of § 6-51-102, any part of the territory proposed for annexation by such vacated ordinance for a period of at least twenty-four (24) months following the date of such order. If judgment shall be in favor of the validity of such ordinance, it shall become operative forthwith by court order and shall not be subject to contest or attack in legal or equitable proceeding for any cause or reason, the judgment of the appellate court being final.
6. Should the territory hereafter sought to be annexed be the site of substantial industrial plant development, a fact to be ascertained by the court, the municipality shall have the burden of proving that the annexation of the site of the industrial plant development is not unreasonable in consideration of the factors above mentioned, including the necessity for or use of municipal services by the industrial plant or plants, and the present ability and intent of the municipality to benefit the industrial plant development by rendering municipal services thereto when and as needed. The policy and purpose of this provision is to prevent annexation of industrial plants for the sole purpose of increasing municipal revenue, without the ability and intent to benefit the area annexed by rendering municipal services, when and as needed, and when such services are not used or required by the industrial plants.
7. During the time that any annexation ordinance is being contested as provided in this section, the annexing municipality and the county governing body or any affected school, sanitary or utility district, or all such districts, may enter into an agreement to provide for new, expanded, and/or upgraded services and facilities, including, but not limited to, equipment, land and buildings, and capital expenditures, including sale of bonds, to finance such services and facilities, which agreement shall include an equitable division of the cost and liabilities of such capital expenditures between the annexing municipality and the county governing body or any affected school, sanitary, or utility district, or all such districts, upon final determination of such contested annexation ordinance.
8. When territory is annexed that is located in a county other than one in which the city hall of the annexing municipality is then located, any suit filed pursuant to this section for the purpose of contesting the annexation ordinance shall be filed in the county where the city hall of the annexing municipality is located. The chancellor, however, shall change the venue to a county that is adjacent to either the county where the annexing municipality's city hall is located or the county where the proposed annexation is located.
9. When a final judgment is rendered in a quo warranto suit contesting a proposed annexation, the municipality shall notify the county mayor of the outcome of the litigation, so the county may keep abreast of the status of a pending annexation. Similarly, when a municipality files an appeal of a decision in a quo warranto suit, the municipality shall notify the county mayor of the pending appeal.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.