CITY OF INDIAN HILLS VS. METTS (DAVID), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-000891-MR
CITY OF INDIAN HILLS
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-008373
DAVID METTS; JENNIFER
METTS; AND LOUISVILLE
METRO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; NICKELL AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
TAYLOR, JUDGE: The City of Indian Hills brings this appeal from an April 9,
2008, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting summary judgment and
declaring Ordinance No. 06-01 void for failure to comply with Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) Chapter 100. We affirm.
In 2005, John Conti Realty, LLC (Conti Realty) purchased a 1.7 acre
residential lot located in the City of Indian Hills.1 Conti Realty then filed a
subdivision application with the Department of Planning and Zoning Services
(Department) of the Louisville Metro Planning Commission (Planning
Commission). In the application, Conti Realty sought to subdivide the 1.7 acre lot
into two smaller lots. In January 2006, Indian Hills adopted Ordinance No. 06-01,
which provides, in relevant part:
Section 1. No residential property line as shown
on a subdivision plat of any area in the city, or as such
boundary line may exist as of January 1, 2006 (where the
boundary line was heretofore changed) shall be relocated
or created so as to create an additional lot or lots.
After adoption of the ordinance, the Department refused to process Conti Realty’s
subdivision application. Consequently, Conti filed this action in circuit court on
September 21, 2006. Therein, Conti Realty maintained that Ordinance No. 06-01
was void.
By deed recorded February 6, 2007, Conti Realty sold the property to
David A. Metts and Jennifer H. Metts. By order entered August 8, 2007, the Metts
were substituted as plaintiffs for Conti Realty. The Metts subsequently filed a
motion for summary judgment. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 56.
Therein, the Metts argued that the ordinance was void as violative of KRS
100.211. By order entered January 31, 2008, the circuit court denied the Metts’
motion for summary judgment. The Metts then filed a CR 59 motion to alter,
1
The City of Indian Hills is a fourth-class city located in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
-2-
amend, or vacate the January 31, 2008, order. By an April 9, 2008, order, the
circuit court granted the CR 59 motion to vacate and concluded that “Ordinance
06-01 is void as it was not enacted in accordance with the requirements set forth in
KRS Chapter 100.” This appeal follows.
Indian Hills has filed an appellate brief with this Court that is wholly
deficient. CR 76.12. The brief neither sets forth a statement of points and
authorities nor a specific argument on appeal.2 See Pierson v. Coffey, 706 S.W.2d
409 (Ky.App. 1985). Upon the latter deficiency, Indian Hills included a section in
the brief with a heading titled “Argument.” This argument section was comprised
of one and one-half pages and included only one citation to legal authority. After
reviewing the substantive content of the argument presented therein, we were
unable to discern any particular allegation of error raised for our review.
As an intermediate appellate court, we are endowed with general
appellate jurisdiction by § 111 of the Kentucky Constitution. Consequently, the
Court of Appeals is a court of review; our primary task is to review errors that are
alleged to have been made by an inferior court. In so doing, we generally limit our
review to issues of error raised by parties. Treacy v. James, 274 S.W.2d 46 (Ky.
1954); Herrick v. Wills, 333 S.W.2d 275 (Ky. 1960); Ballard v. King, 373 S.W.2d
591 (Ky. 1963); Rainey v. Mills, 733 S.W.2d 756 (Ky.App. 1987). And, if an
2
We note that under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure 76.12(4)(f), the requirement of
including a statement of points and authorities does not apply to briefs of five pages or less.
However, Indian Hills’ brief is six pages. Notwithstanding, we cannot discern from Indian Hills’
brief what specific errors were made by the trial court below and what authority supports its
argument.
-3-
appellant fails to raise any allegations of error capable of meaningful discernment,
we are bound to affirm the circuit court’s decision as “if no brief had been filed.”
R.E. Gaddie, Inc. v. Price, 528 S.W.2d 708, 710 (Ky. 1975); see also, Grief v.
Wood, 378 S.W.2d 611 (Ky.App. 1964). Indeed, this court is ever cognizant that
“[i]t is not our function . . . to research and construct a party’s legal arguments[.]”
Hadley v. Citizens Deposit Bank, 186 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Ky.App. 2005).
Nonetheless, we observe that the circuit court’s April 9, 2008, order
declaring the ordinance void was a summary judgment. A summary judgment is
proper where there exists no material issue of fact and movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807
S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991). Upon review of the April 8, 2008, order, and the record
before this Court, we conclude that no material issue of fact existed and that
Ordinance No. 06-01 was violative of KRS Chapter 100 as a matter of law.
In sum, we affirm the circuit court’s April 9, 2008, order declaring
Ordinance No. 06-01 void.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is
affirmed.
NICKELL, JUDGE, CONCURS.
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
-4-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
Foster L. Haunz
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DAVID
METTS AND JENNIFER METTS:
Clifford H. Ashburner
Louisville, Kentucky
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.