ÿWPC• …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 4Y m | 0l„ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ U, 0d=U,¡U>Í B B)(DCQ AM”U*á! v~,vÓª D3} 0@° AOðÆ? 0D D/I Bx˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman ./U01î2D34D5V6Ó€@Gav Bu ÔHTÔô3|x@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌMay€15,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò""""'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€åXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€€________________________________________________ÌÌò òARCHIE€BROOKS€and€wife,ÌPATSY€BROOKS,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHouston€Chancery€No.€4„90ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%'$;+'h|¢¿` ç `€€LßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9508„CH„00365ÌÌò òBOBBY€BRAKE€and€wife,ÌJUNE€BRAKE,ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellants.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€HOUSTON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌà@ àLaurence€M.€McMillan,€Jr.,€Cunningham,€Mitchell,€Hicks,Ìà@ àBrollier€&€McMillan€of€ClarksvilleÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppellantsÌÌà@ àDavid€D.€Wolfe€of€DicksonÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòVACATED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌó óÌà@ àóóOpinion€filed:ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÑ7€åXXdìXXdì7ÑÇ›à àThis€appeal€involves€a€boundary€line€dispute.€€Plaintiffs,€Archie€Brooks,€and€wife,ÏPatsy€Brooks,€and€defendants,€Bobby€Brake,€and€wife,€June€Brake,€are€adjacent€landowners.€ÏPlaintiffsðð€complaint€alleges€that€defendants€are€trespassing€on€their€property€and€disputes€theÏtrue€boundary€line€established€by€survey.€€The€complaint€avers€that€plaintiffs€had€an€agreementÏwith€Edward€Coleman,€a€timber€cutter,€to€harvest€timber€on€plaintiffsðð€property.€€Defendants,Ïthrough€their€attorney,€notified€Coleman€in€writing€that€the€property€belonged€to€the€defendantsÏand€threatened€Coleman€with€a€lawsuit€if€he€attempted€to€perform€the€timber€cutting€contract.€ÏThe€complaint€further€avers€that€defendants€have€interfered€with€the€peaceful€use€andÏenjoyment€of€their€property€causing€plaintiffs€damages€and€requiring€that€they€file€this€lawsuitÏto€obtain€judicial€relief.€€Plaintiffs€seek€the€establishment€of€the€boundary€line€between€theÏparties,€injunction€against€defendants€from€trespassing€on€their€property,€and€an€award€ofÏdamages€for€the€loss€of€the€timber€contract,€costs€and€attorney€fees€incurred€in€protecting€theÏtitle€to€their€property.Ìà àDefendantsðð€answer€joins€issue€on€the€material€allegations€of€the€complaint€and€deniesÏthat€they€have€trespassed€on€plaintiffsðð€property.€€Defendants€filed€a€counter„complaint€againstÏplaintiffs€alleging€that€the€boundary€line€has€been€an€agreed€boundary€line€for€many€years,€andÏthat€the€defendants€had€no€knowledge€of€any€dispute€concerning€the€boundary€line€until€shortlyÏafter€the€plaintiffs€acquired€title€to€their€property.€€Defendants€contend€that€they€have€been€inÏopen,€notorious€and€adverse€œpossession€of›€the€property€under€recorded€assurance€of€title€forÏmore€than€forty€years.€€Defendants€also€seek€establishment€of€the€boundary€line,€an€injunctionÏenjoining€the€plaintiffs€from€trespassing€upon€the€property,€and€damages.€Ìà àAfter€a€nonjury€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€true€boundary€line€between€the€partiesÏwas€that€claimed€by€the€plaintiffs,€but€denied€plaintiffsðð€claim€for€damages€finding€thatÏdefendants€acted€in€good€faith€in€contesting€the€boundary.€€Plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€for€newÍtrial€as€to€damages€only,€and€upon€reconsideration,€the€trial€court€found€that€defendants€did€notÏact€in€good€faith€and€awarded€plaintiffs€attorney€fees,€one€half€of€the€Hansard€survey€cost,€andÏthe€œwitnessesðð€expense›€incurred€by€plaintiffs.€€Ìà àThe€disputed€boundary€line€runs€north€and€south.€€The€Brooksesðð€property€is€on€theÏeast€side€and€the€Brakeððs€property€is€on€the€west€side.€€June€Brake,€òònee€óóJune€Brooks,€is€ArchieÏœBrooksððs›€first€cousin.€€Although€the€parties€agree€upon€the€northern„most€point€of€the€disputedÏboundary€line,€the€parties€do€not€agree€upon€the€location€of€the€southern„most€point€of€theÏboundary.€€According€to€plaintiffs,€the€common€boundary€line€at€the€southern€portion€of€theÏpartiesðð€property€is€located€approximately€182€feet€west€of€the€point€claimed€by€the€defendants.€ÏAs€a€result€of€the€partiesðð€disagreement,€the€ownership€of€a€7€acre€area€of€hilly,€wooded€land€isÏin€dispute.Ìà àIn€1976€the€Brakes,€who€were€then€living€in€Michigan,€purchased€32€acres€of€landÏfrom€June€Brakeððs€€mother,€Ethel€Brooks.€€Because€the€Brakes€agreed€to€purchase€the€land€byÏthe€acre,€€Ethel€Brooks€arranged€for€Garner€Smith€to€survey€the€property€to€determine€acreageÏand€boundaries.€€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€Brakes€did€not€obtain€a€copy€of€the€Smith€surveyÏprior€to€purchasing€the€32€acres.€€Mr.€Brake€testified€that€before€he€purchased€the€property,€heÏbelieved€that€the€fence€constituted€the€boundary€line;€however,€he€later€testified€that€he€had€noÏproof€of€the€lineððs€location.€Ìà àWhen€the€Brakes€moved€from€Michigan€to€Tennessee€in€1978,€Mr.€Brake€noticed€thatÏmarkers€from€the€Smith€survey€placed€his€property€line€west€of€where€he€thought€it€was.€€AtÏthis€time,€Mr.€Brake€obtained€a€copy€of€the€tax€map,€a€copy€of€his€deed,€and€a€copy€of€theÏSmith€survey.€€With€these€documents€in€hand,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€€Brake€went€to€visit€PurleneÏBrooks,€Mrs.€Brakeððs€great„aunt€and€plaintiff€Archie€œBrooksððs›€mother.€€Based€on€hisÏconversation€with€Purlene€Brooks,€Mr.€Brake€took€no€further€action,€apparently€assuming€thatÍthe€Smith€survey€was€incorrect€and€that€the€property€line€was,€as€the€Brakes€believed,€alongÏthe€fence.€€Although€the€record€does€not€reveal€the€contents€of€the€Brakeððs€conversation€withÏher,€Purlene€Brooks€testified€at€trial€that€she€did€not€know€where€the€property€line€was€located;Ïin€fact,€according€to€her,€ð ðnobody€really€knew.ðð€€€€Ìà àIn€1991,€Archie€Brooks€took€sole€ownership€of€the€property€adjoining€the€BrakesððÏland,€formerly€owned€by€his€parents,€John€and€Purlene€Brooks.€Archie€Brooks€contactedÏBobby€Brake€at€that€time€to€arrange€for€a€surveyor€to€determine€the€exact€location€of€theÏproperty€line.€€As€a€result€of€this€conversation,€Mike€Pendergrass€ran€a€line€and€found€that€theÏcommon€boundary€was€not€the€fence,€as€the€Brakes€believed;€rather,€the€line€was€west€of€theÏfence,€as€determined€by€the€earlier€Smith€survey.€Ìà àIn€June€of€1993,€the€Brakes€sent€Edward€Coleman,€the€timber€cutter€hired€by€theÏBrookses,€a€letter€threatening€prosecution€if€he€cut€timber€on€what€the€Brakes€believed€to€beÏtheir€property.€€The€Brookses€filed€the€present€suit€to€determine€the€exact€location€of€theÏboundary€line€between€their€land€€and€the€Brakeððs€property.€Ìà àAfter€the€Brookses€filed€suit,€they€hired€David€Hansard,€a€licensed€surveyor€withÏtwenty€years€experience,€to€survey€their€property.€€The€Hansard€survey€established€that€theÏboundary€line€was€in€the€same€location€as€shown€by€the€tax€map,€the€Smith€survey,€and€theÏline€run€by€Pendergrass.€€€Ìà àAt€trial,€the€defendants€and€witnesses€testifying€on€their€behalf€maintained€that€theÏproperty€line€ran€with€an€old€fence€that€was€sixty€(60)€to€eighty€(80)€feet€west€of€the€presentÏfence,€built€in€1969€by€Archie€Brooks.€€This€testimony€conflicted€with€June€Brakeððs€testimonyÏthat€a€large€set€stone,€not€located€along€the€alleged€boundary€line€fence,€marked€the€propertyÏline.€€June€Brake€and€her€brothers€Harold€and€Jerry€Brooks€also€testified€that€their€father€soldÏtimber€cut€from€the€disputed€area,€and€that€he€ran€cattle€and€farmed€on€the€area.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€legal€boundary€line€was€the€line€established€by€theÏHansard€survey.€€The€court€further€found€that€the€defendants€failed€to€prove€that€the€commonÏboundary€was€changed€either€by€agreement€or€by€adverse€possession.€€€The€court€deniedÏplaintiffsðð€claim€for€damages,€however,€finding€that€the€defendants€ð ðrelied€in€good€faith€onÏinformation€given€to€them€in€contesting€the€boundary€.€.€.€.ð ð€€Plaintiffs€thereafter€filed€a€motionÏfor€new€trial€as€to€damages€only.€€The€court,€upon€reconsideration,€found€that€the€defendantsÏhad€prior€knowledge€of,€and€ignored,€the€boundary€line€established€first€by€the€Smith€surveyÏand€later€by€the€Hansard€survey,€€and€awarded€plaintiffs€damages€in€the€amount€of€$4,393.50.€€Ìà àDefendants€present€two€issues€on€appeal,€the€first€of€which,€as€stated€in€defendantsððÏbrief,€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€assessing€the€PlaintiffsððÏlitigation€expenses,€including€attorneysðð€fees,€against€theÏDefendants€as€ð ðdamages.ððÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€attorneys€fees€are€not€normally€awarded€in€civil€litigation€absent€a€ð ðcontract,Ïstatute€or€recognized€ground€in€equity,ðð€ò òòòState€ex€rel.€Orr€v.€Thomasó óóó,€585€S.W.2d€606,Ï607€(Tenn.€1979),€an€exception€to€the€general€rule€exists€in€cases€involving€libel€of€title.€€ò òòòEzellÏv.€Gravesó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€700,€703€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€the€court€explained€theÏrationale€for€permitting€recovery€in€a€case€involving€libel€of€title:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€a€cloud€has€been€cast€upon€the€title€to€property€.€.€.€theÏsole€way€of€dispelling€anotherððs€wrongful€assertion€of€title€is€byÏhiring€an€attorney€and€litigating.€€If€the€defamed€party€were€toÏsimply€speak€out€in€denial,€as€he€might€with€a€character€attack,Ïhe€could€risk€completely€losing€title€by€adverse€possession.€€TheÏplaintiffs€here€were€forced€into€court€by€the€defendantsðð€actions.€ÏThey€were€required€to€hire€counsel,€take€depositions,€arrangeÏfor€court€reporters,€and€run€up€numerous€other€expenses.€€TheseÏcosts,€which€represented€the€only€possible€course€of€action€toÏclear€their€title,€flow€directly€and€proximately€from€theÏdefendantsðð€conduct.€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòIdó óóó.€Ìà àSlander€of€title€was€first€recognized€as€a€cause€of€action€in€ò òòòSmith€v.€Gerntó óóó,€2€Tenn.ÏCiv.€App.€65,€79„80€(1911).€€ò òòòHarmon€v.€Shelló óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9211„CH„00451,€1994€WLÏ148663€(Tenn.€App.€M.S.€Apr.€27,€1994)€To€establish€a€successful€claim€for€slander€of€title,€aÏplaintiff€must€prove:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€that€it€has€an€interest€in€the€property,€(2)€that€the€defendantÏpublished€false€statements€about€the€title€to€the€property,€(3)€thatÏthe€defendant€was€acting€maliciously,€and€(4)€that€the€falseÏstatements€proximately€caused€the€plaintiff€a€pecuniary€lossÏ(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòIdó óóó.€at€*4.€€Statements€made€with€reckless€disregard€of€the€property€ownerððs€rights€or€withÏreckless€disregard€as€to€whether€the€statements€are€false€may€be€malicious€within€the€scope€of€aÏlibel€of€title€action.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€(citing€ò òòòGerntó óóó,€2€Tenn.€Civ.€App.€at€79„80;€€ò òòòHossler€v.€Hammeló óóó,Ï587€N.E.2d€133,€134€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992)).€€To€assert€this€cause€of€action,€the€plaintiff€mustÏallege€ð ðmalice€.€.€.€in€express€terms€or€[by]€any€such€showing€of€facts€as€would€give€rise€to€aÏreasonable€inference€that€[the€defendant€acted€maliciously.]ðð€ò òòòWaterhouse€v.€McPheetersó óóó,Ï176€Tenn.€666,€669,€145€S.W.2d€766,€767€(1940).€€However,€a€good€faith,€but€erroneous,Ïclaim€of€title€does€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action€for€libel€of€title.€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€807€S.W.2d€at€704.€€€€€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€after€plaintiffs€had€a€new€survey€done€and€the€lines€marked,Ïthe€defendants,€or€someone€acting€on€their€behalf,€removed€the€marker.€€The€court€specificallyÏfound€that€defendants€should€have€had€notice€that€they€did€not€own€the€land€in€question,€thatÏthey€ignored€credible€and€compelling€evidence€that€plaintiffs€owned€the€land,€and€that€theyÏintended€to€hold€œpossession›€of€the€property€adversely.€€The€court€further€found€from€the€proofÏthat€the€boundary€line€had€always€been€where€it€was€found€to€be€by€the€court.Ìà àConsidering€the€entire€body€of€proof,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€implied€finding€that€the€defendants€acted€with€reckless€disregard€of€theÏBrooksesðð€rights€as€property€owners.€€They€sent€a€letter€to€Mr.€Coleman€on€June€15,€1993,Íthreatening€him€with€a€lawsuit€should€he€cut€timber,€pursuant€to€the€Brooksesðð€request,€onÏwhat€the€Brakes€believed€to€be€their€property.€€When€they€sent€the€letter,€the€Brakes€were€inÏpossession€of€the€Smith€survey,€commissioned€by€their€seller€more€than€fifteen€years€beforeÏand€relied€upon€by€the€Brakes€to€establish€the€purchase€price€of€their€property.€€The€SmithÏsurvey€did€not€show€the€old€fence€as€the€boundary€line,€as€claimed€by€the€Brakes;€rather,€itÏestablished€a€boundary€line€close€to€the€line€later€established€by€the€Hansard€survey,€182€feetÏwest€of€the€point€claimed€by€the€defendants.€€Additionally,€the€Brakes€had€a€copy€of€the€taxÏmap€and€of€their€deed,€both€of€which€established€a€common€boundary€line€close€to€the€lineÏfound€by€the€Smith€survey.€€Based€on€these€facts,€the€Brakeððs€actions€could€constitute€maliceÏsufficient€to€establish€a€libel€of€title€claim.€€Ìà àLitigants€who€successfully€defend€a€libel€of€title€action€may€recover€reasonableÏexpenses€incurred€in€defending€that€suit.€€ò òòòEzelló óóó,€807€S.W.2d€at€703.€€These€expenses€mayÏinclude,€òòinter€aliaóó,€attorneyððs€fees,€costs€of€depositions,€and€court€reporter€fees.€€ò òòòIdó ó.€ÏóóHowever,€from€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€unable€to€reconcile€the€evidence€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€regarding€the€amount€of€damages€which€should€be€awarded.€€Accordingly,€weÏœwill€remand›€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€calculation€of€plaintiffsðð€damages,€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.€€€Ìà àDefendantsðð€second€issue€on€appeal,€as€stated€in€defendantsðð€brief,€is€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€trial€court€erred€in€not€establishing€the€disputed€boundaryÏline€consistent€with€the€old€fence€line€used€by€the€partiesððÏpredecessors€in€interest.ÌÌÓÓà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€ÏUnless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€ÏT.R.A.P.€13(d).€Ìà àAny€conflict€of€testimony€requiring€a€determination€of€the€credibility€of€witnesses€restsÏin€the€first€instance€with€the€trial€court€and€will€be€given€great€weight€on€appeal€by€the€appellateÏcourt,€unless€other€real€evidence€compels€a€contrary€conclusion.€€ò òòòState€ex€rel.€BalsingerÏv.€Town€of€Madisonvilleó óóó,€222€Tenn.€272,€282,€435€S.W.2d€803,€807€(1968);€ò òòòFranksÏv.€Burksó óóó,€688€S.W.2d€435,€437„38€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Ìà àIn€support€of€their€allegation€that€the€partiesðð€common€boundary€line€was€an€old€fence,Ïrather€than€the€line€established€by€the€Hansard€survey,€the€defendants€contend€that€the€partiesððÏpredecessors€in€interest€acquiesced€in€the€boundary€line€as€established€by€the€fence.€€It€is€wellÏestablished€that€a€disputed€boundary€line€may€be€permanently€established€by€oral€agreementÏbetween€adjoining€landowners,€and€such€agreement€is€not€prohibited€by€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€Ïò òòòThornburg€v.€Chaseó óóó,€606€S.W.2d€672,€674€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€To€establish€the€existenceÏof€a€boundary€line€by€agreement,€the€party€making€the€assertion€must€proveÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€boundary€line€fixed€by€the€[oral]€agreement€.€.€.€[is]Ïdefinite,€certain,€and€clearly€marked,€and€that€it€.€.€.€[is]€made€byÏthe€adjoining€landowners€with€reference€to€an€uncertain€orÏdisputed€boundary€line€between€their€lands.€€Such€an€oralÏagreement,€when€executed€and€actual€possession€taken€under€it,Ïbecomes€conclusive€against€the€owners€and€those€claimingÏunder€them.€€12€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòBoundaries€œóóððÔ€Ô›€78€€(1964).€€InÏorder€to€enforce€an€oral€agreement€to€establishÏthe€location€of€a€boundary€line,€the€parties€mustÏshow:€1)€a€dispute€or€uncertainty€as€to€the€trueÏlocation€of€the€boundary€line;€2)€the€agreementÏof€the€parties€or€their€predecessors€in€interestÏas€to€the€location€of€the€boundary;€3)€that€theÏboundary€line€established€by€the€oral€agreementÏis€definite€and€certain;€and€4)€possession€andÏuse€of€the€property€up€to€the€agreed€boundary€byÏthe€parties€or€their€predecessors€in€interest,€orÏacquiescence€in€the€boundary€line.€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòInman€v.€Nuttó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9209„CH„00352,€1993€WL€46519€(Tenn.ÏApp.€M.S.€Feb.€24,€1993)€at€*2.€€Ìà àWilliam€Edward€Bailey,€Archie€œBrooksððs›€uncle,€farmed€the€tract€inÏquestion€with€Archieððs€father€and€predecessor€in€interest,€John€Brooks.€ÏMr.€Bailey€testified€that€he€and€John€Brooks€built€fences€in€the€disputedÏarea,€but€that€the€fences€were€built€to€keep€in€horses€and€cows,€not€forÏthe€purpose€of€a€boundary€line.€€Mr.€Bailey€testified€that€it€did€not€makeÏany€difference€to€John€Brooks€where€the€boundary€line€was.€€PurleneÏBrooks,€Archie€œBrooksððs›€mother,€testified€that€her€husband€never€toldÏher€where€the€boundary€line€was€located;€according€to€her€testimony,Ïnobody€really€knew€where€the€line€was.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€the€parties,€or€their€predecessors€in€interest,€everÏdiscussed€a€disputed€or€uncertain€boundary€line,€or€that€they€later€fixedÏa€new€boundary€line€by€oral€agreement.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€weÏconclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€court.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Ìà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€awarding€damages€and€expenses€isÏvacated€and€in€all€other€respects€is€affirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion€toÍdetermine€an€award€of€damages€and€expenses€to€plaintiffs.€€Costs€ofÏappeal€are€assessed€against€appellants.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÔ€!Ôœ