PRATIK PANDHARIPANDE v. FSD CORPORATION (2022)

ORDER

Plaintiff Pratik Pandharipande, M.D. filed a motion to strike as untimely the answer filed by Defendant FSD Corporation. FSD Corporation, in turn, filed a motion for extension of the time within which to have filed its answer. The Court denies the motion to strike of Pratik Pandharipande, grants the motion for extension of FSD Corporation, and deems the answer timely filed.

Upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal of Pratik Pandharipande, the answer of FSD Corporation, and the record before us, the application is granted. In addition to the issues stated in the application, the Court directs the parties to address in their respective briefs the following issues:

1. Whether there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the application of the 1984 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to the property purchased by Plaintiff Pratik Pandharipande in July 2015, in light of this Court's opinion in Phillips v. Hatfield, 624 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2021), including but not limited to the date on which the 1984 Declaration first was recorded, the ownership on that date of the property which Pratik Pandharipande purchased in July 2015, and whether any of the conveyances in Pratik Pandharipande's chain of title exhibited an intent on the part of the grantor to impose the 1984 Declaration as a servitude.

2. Whether this Court should limit or reject the analysis and holding of Shields Mountain Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Teffeteller, 2006 WL 408050 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006), regarding residential purpose or use restrictions or limitations in restrictive covenants.

The Clerk is directed to place this matter on the docket for oral argument upon the completion of briefing.

PER CURIAM