Lexplug logoLexplug

Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC

Tennessee Supreme Court
2013 Tenn. LEXIS 644, 411 S.W.3d 405, 2013 WL 4428904 (2013)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The Tennessee Right to Farm Act protects only those activities connected to the commercial production (growing or raising) of farm products, not marketing activities like music concerts; furthermore, amplified music concerts constitute 'entertainment' rather than 'recreation' or 'agriculture,' and are therefore subject to local zoning regulations.


Facts:

  • The defendants owned and operated Maple Lane Farms, which traditionally produced cattle, corn, vegetables, and strawberries.
  • To increase revenue, the farm began hosting public festivals involving activities like corn mazes and pumpkin patches, eventually adding amplified music concerts.
  • The plaintiff, a retiree, purchased a home approximately 150 feet from the farm's boundary line.
  • The concerts featured loud music that vibrated the plaintiff's home, prevented her from hearing her television or sleeping, and forced her to leave her property during the day.
  • Other neighbors testified that the noise was inescapable, creating disturbances similar to living in a commercial parking lot.
  • Despite complaints and warnings from county officials, the farm owner continued to host multiple concerts per year, viewing them as marketing efforts.
  • The plaintiff suffered stress, anxiety, and health issues attributed to the noise and disruption caused by the concerts.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff appealed a decision by the county building official to the Blount County Board of Zoning Appeals.
  • The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that the Defendant could hold only one concert per year.
  • Plaintiff filed suit in the Chancery Court for Blount County seeking to abate the nuisance and enforce the Board's decision.
  • The Chancery Court granted the Defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the Plaintiff's proof.
  • Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
  • The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted the Plaintiff permission to appeal.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do amplified music concerts held on farm property qualify as 'farm operations' protected from nuisance suits under the Tennessee Right to Farm Act, and do they constitute 'agriculture' exempt from county zoning regulations?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice William C. Koch, Jr.

No, amplified music concerts are neither protected 'farm operations' nor exempt 'agriculture.' Regarding the Right to Farm Act (TRFA), the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that 'farm operations' are not nuisances. However, the Court determined that the TRFA defines 'farm operation' specifically in connection with the 'commercial production' of farm products. Based on statutory construction, 'production' refers to the growing or raising of products, not the marketing of them. Although the concerts were a clever marketing tool, they were not connected to the actual production of crops or livestock. Therefore, the TRFA's nuisance protection does not apply to the concerts. Regarding zoning, state law exempts 'agriculture' from county zoning regulations. While 'agriculture' is defined to include 'recreational activities,' the Court distinguished this from 'entertainment.' The Court noted that while newer agritourism statutes address 'entertainment' for liability purposes, the general definition of agriculture for zoning purposes was not amended to include entertainment. Because listening to amplified music is passive entertainment rather than active recreation, the concerts do not qualify as agriculture and are subject to local zoning restrictions.



Analysis:

This decision places significant limitations on the scope of 'Right to Farm' statutes, clarifying that they are not blanket shields for all revenue-generating activities on agricultural land. By strictly construing 'production' to exclude 'marketing,' the Court ensured that traditional farming protections do not expand to cover commercial entertainment venues simply because they are located on a farm. This distinction prevents the transformation of rural farmland into unregulated event centers under the guise of agriculture. The ruling affirms the power of local governments to regulate non-agricultural activities on farms through zoning, even if those activities support the farm financially. It establishes a functional test for what constitutes a 'farm operation' protected by nuisance law: the activity must be connected to the actual growing or raising of products, not merely the selling or promotion of them.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"