Hughes v. New Life Development Corp.

387 S.W.3d 453 (2012)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hughes v. New Life Development Corp.

Tennessee Supreme Court
387 S.W.3d 453 (2012)

Facts

Cooley’s Rift was a new residential development set on 1,450 acres. It was promoted as including up to 80 homesites and 1,000 acres of land preserved as wilderness in perpetuity. Douglas and Lynne Hughes and Guy and Louise Hubbs (plaintiffs) bought homesites in the development. The original developer created an association for the homesite owners and a declaration governing the covenants for the community, which included a provision that the declaration could be amended by approval of 75 percent of the association. The promotional materials for the development referenced the large wilderness preserves but also stated that the plans were preliminary and subject to change by the developer without notice. After the Hugheses and the Hubbses had bought their lots, the unsold homesites and the surrounding land was sold to a new developer, New Life Development Corporation (defendant). New Life revised the development plans in a way that proposed to eliminate the majority of the originally planned wilderness, add a golf course, and include more than 500 additional homes. New Life succeeded in amending the original declaration in accordance with its amendment procedures to accommodate these changes. The Hugheses and the Hubbses sued New Life, alleging that New Life’s development plans violated the original declaration and that New Life had taken title subject to that original plan. Following a series of legal proceedings—including a grant of summary judgment to New Life by the lower court and two reversals and remands, with the last directing the lower court to apply a reasonableness review to the amendment of the declaration by the court of appeals—the matter came before the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Koch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership