The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Chancery Court's dismissal of Bobby Clark King's declaratory judgment action against the City of Gatlinburg, concluding there was no justiciable controversy. The trial court determined that the plaintiff’s requests had been approved by the City, including the issuance of building permits for his property in the Vic King Subdivision, which initially contained an unimproved access easement. An attorney for the City stated that a road constructed in 1993 did not qualify as a public street. Following a letter from the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development advising that building permits should not be issued for lots not fronting a public road, the City Manager informed King that permits would be halted until regulations were reviewed. King sought to validate the waiver of road requirements for his subdivision, but the court ruled that there was no ongoing controversy warranting declaratory relief. King’s subsequent motion citing newly discovered evidence regarding a withdrawn property purchase was also dismissed. The appellate review of the summary judgment was conducted de novo, confirming that without a justiciable controversy, declaratory relief was not appropriate under Tennessee law.
To establish a justiciable controversy, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the issue is real rather than theoretical, that they have a genuine interest in the matter, and that an opposing party with a real interest exists. The case must involve "present rights" based on "presently existing facts," and the controversy must be substantial and immediate enough to justify a declaratory judgment. Advisory opinions are prohibited, and the court will not entertain requests meant to alleviate future concerns. The Supreme Court allows trial courts broad discretion in deciding whether to grant declaratory judgments, and such refusals will only be reversed if arbitrary.
In this case, the plaintiff sought a judicial opinion on the City’s previous actions regarding a subdivision project. Although the City had approved the project and waived further requirements, the plaintiff was concerned about proceeding without official confirmation. The defendant repeatedly indicated it would not oppose the plaintiff's plans. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a justiciable controversy, thereby affirming the trial court's denial of a declaratory judgment.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in denying a Motion to Alter or Amend based on newly discovered evidence related to property sales. However, the affidavit provided did not sufficiently explain why this evidence was not presented earlier, and the trial court's discretion in such matters was upheld. The court applied the Harris test, which considers factors such as the efforts made to obtain evidence, its importance, the explanation for its late submission, potential prejudice to the nonmoving party, and other relevant elements. Ultimately, the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff's motion was deemed appropriate, leading to the affirmation of the judgment and remanding the case with costs assessed to the plaintiff.
