Brennco Incorporated filed a lawsuit against the City of Chattanooga Better Housing Commission to prevent the demolition of its buildings, which the City planned due to alleged failure to repair. The plaintiff obtained a restraining order on July 30, 1999, which required them to submit architectural plans, apply for a building permit, and secure the buildings by specified deadlines. After hearings where the plaintiff indicated incomplete tasks, the restraining order was extended, but further conditions were imposed, including a requirement to inform the City about the status of a loan application.
In February 2000, the plaintiff requested an extension for loan approval, which the court granted, setting an April 17, 2000, deadline for submitting necessary documents to HUD. Failure to meet this deadline would allow the City to initiate demolition on May 1, 2000. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, citing delays due to contractor inconsistencies, was denied on June 5, 2000, leading to the dismissal of the action. The court temporarily restrained the City from demolition pending appeal, contingent on the plaintiff posting a bond.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserted violations of due process rights, claiming lack of notice regarding the demolition, referencing return receipt cards from 1998 addressed to the company president. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court's judgment, upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.
In 1998, hearings were held by the Better Housing Commission (BHC) where Ms. O’Linger testified that she attended and was informed of the orders through her attorney. Records confirm that copies of the orders were sent to the owner's registered address, the hearings were publicly advertised, and condemnation signs were posted on the buildings. Ms. O’Linger participated in the hearings and expressed her concerns, and was granted time to commence renovations. The plaintiff's claim regarding lack of notice was dismissed as unfounded since she attended the meetings. The plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to adhere to its own notice regulations, but attached City Code sections showed compliance, including posting signs and mailing notice to Ms. O’Linger's public record address, in accordance with relevant ordinances. The Chancellor's dismissal of the case was deemed appropriate, following nearly a year given to the plaintiff to secure financing for renovations, with no indication that financing was imminent. Two years had elapsed since the initial BHC appearance concerning the property condition, and the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunity to rehabilitate the property. The Trial Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff's action was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to Brennco Incorporated.
