The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the Chancery Court's ruling that invalidated the City of Lebanon's ordinance for demolishing unsafe structures. The Chancery Court had found the ordinance inconsistent with state law and a violation of property owners' due process rights. However, the appellate court determined that the ordinance aligns with general law and that its provisions for post-order hearings are adequate to ensure due process.
The City of Lebanon had adopted the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code in June 2000, allowing a building official to issue a Notice of Unsafe Building if a structure is deemed unsafe. This notice is served to the owner, who can appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days, with a required hearing within 60 days. Vanessa Manning received such a notice for her property on October 9, 2001, and although she did not object to the demolition, she later filed a Petition for Certiorari, claiming the building was restorable and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The trial court ruled the Petition was timely and that the Abatement Code was ineffective due to improper adoption under state law, also siding with Manning on the due process issue. The appellate court noted that the Board did not contest the timeliness of the Petition and discussed the limitations on municipal authority to adopt conflicting ordinances based on state law principles established in previous case law. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The appeal addresses the validity of the Lebanon Building Abatement Code and its relationship with Tenn. Code Ann. 13-21-103 and the state's Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 13-21-101 et seq.). The appellant contends that the Abatement Code conflicts with the state act. However, it is noted that the legislation does not provide the exclusive means for municipalities to demolish unsafe buildings, as indicated in Winters v. Sawyer. The final section of the state code clarifies that the powers conferred are supplemental and do not restrict municipalities from enacting their own regulations. Municipalities can exercise powers granted by the legislature, as established in Nichols v. Tullahoma Open Door, Inc.
Tenn. Code Ann. 6-54-502 allows municipalities to adopt codes by reference without detailing them fully. The Lebanon Abatement Code, which incorporates parts of the Southern Building Code, is deemed lawfully enacted. While Tenn. Code Ann. 6-54-504 limits municipalities from adopting penalty clauses by reference, this issue was not contested by the parties.
Regarding due process, both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions protect against the deprivation of liberty or property without due process. Ms. Manning does not challenge the municipality's authority to enact the ordinance but raises concerns about the procedural aspects, specifically the notice and opportunity to be heard. Procedural due process requires that these elements are meaningful, but hearings do not need to precede governmental actions.
A post-decision hearing is sufficient for due process if conducted within a reasonable timeframe, considering the relevant issues and interests. The ruling in State v. AAA Bail Bonds emphasized that a property right, such as a bonding company’s license, cannot be revoked without a hearing first, but a post-deprivation hearing can fulfill due process requirements if timely. In Ms. Manning’s case, the demolition order did not constitute a deprivation of property, as she was granted a hearing right before enforcement, which must occur within sixty days of her request. The court concluded that this procedure met her due process rights. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Chancery Court of Wilson County for further proceedings, with costs taxed to Vanessa Manning.
