ÿWPC5 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(w@E4…™ 0l¨ 0D 0@X 0J˜ 0Tâ 0^6 0h” 0rü 0|n 0†ê 0p 1u 0du U>Ù B) B@ D3] DC AMÓ U* J ýQ ¢N ð AQùÆJ 0D 0DT D/˜ BÇv~ävÓb˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Ž   ‘ ’£“”•Ó€¡¢§aö"3|x¢((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d 'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd* "Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òSeptember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€a€substitution€of€parties€occurred€as€to€Mr.€Ward€who€died€afterÏthis€lawsuit€was€filed.€€The€record€further€reflects€the€death€of€the€substituted€party,€BeatriceÏDarnell€Ward.€€Joyce€Benham,€Gene€Posey,€Marty€Ward€and€Joann€Thompson€were€thereafterÏsubstituted€as€party€plaintiffs.€€They,€along€with€Mrs.€Brown,€Crews€and€Wolfe€are€the€appellantsÏin€this€case.€Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€testimony€of€Mrs.€Wolfe€is€in€accord.Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€Court€acknowledges€the€inconsistency€in€the€findings€made€by€the€jury.€€In€light€ofÏour€decision,€it€is€unnecessary€to€address€this€matter.Ì*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òMYRTLE€MAE€DALY€BROWN,€et€aló ó,à à)à àShelby€County€Chancer€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€97321„2€R.D.Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9611„CH„00275Ìà à)Ìò òNORMA€JEAN€BELTON€DALYó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÙ€*ÙßR€#%"A1-j|cþ|` Å `€€@ÿRßÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€John€C.€Robertson,€Special€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òCarl€I.€Jacobsonó ó,Ìò òGregory€P.€Aubuchonó ó,ÌWYATT,€TARRANT€&€COMBS,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌò òJoe€M.€Duncanó ó,Ìò òR.€Porter€Feild,Ìó óBURCH,€PORTER€&€JOHNSON,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àThis€appeal€concerns€a€suit€for€partition€and€sale€of€real€property.€€In€June€1989,ÏMyrtle€Mae€Daly€Brown,€Willie€Myrle€Daly€Cruse,€Mary€Elizabeth€Daly€Wolfe€and€T.€J.€WardÏfiled€suit€against€Norma€Jean€Belton€Daly,€Appellee,€claiming€that€they€each€own€an€undividedÏone„fifth€interest€in€property,€identified€as€700€Reed€Hooker€Road,€as€the€children€and€survivingÏheirs€of€Earl€J.€Daly€(hereinafter€ð ðFatherðð)€who€died€on€August€7,€1966.× ƒ& ××  ×€€They€further€assertedÏthat€Appellee€is€the€rightful€owner€of€the€remaining€one„fifth€interest€as€the€widow€and€willÏbeneficiary€of€Earl€W.€Daly€(hereinafter€ð ðSonðð),€their€brother,€who€died€in€August€1988.€€AppelleeÏfiled€a€counter„claim€contending€that€Son€solely€owned€the€property€at€the€time€of€his€death€and€thatÏas€the€land€passed€to€her€under€the€terms€of€his€will,€she€is€the€lawful€owner€in€fee€simple.€ÏAppellee€asserted€that€Son€acquired€the€entire€property€either€by€prescription€or€by€transfer€ofÏequitable€title€from€Father€to€Son€based€on€a€contract€to€purchase.€€Appellee€also€relied€upon€theÏdefense€of€laches.ÌÌà àThis€matter€has€come€before€this€Court€once€before.€€After€suit€was€filed,ÏAppellants€demanded€a€jury€trial€in€conformity€with€Rule€38.02€T.R.C.P.€€The€chancery€courtÏdenied€their€demand€on€the€ground€that€they€had€failed€to€comply€with€a€local€rule€of€court.€€TheÏcase€proceeded€to€trial€without€a€jury€and€at€the€close€of€Appellantsðð€proof,€the€court€grantedÏAppelleeððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€reversed,€holding€that€the€chancellor€hadÏerred€and€that€Appellants€were€entitled€to€a€trial€by€jury.€òòò ò€See€Brown€v.€Dalyóóó ó,€884€S.W.2d€121Ï(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€Upon€remand,€the€trial€court€entered€judgment€on€a€jury€verdict€finding€thatÍall€right,€title€and€interest€in€the€property€was€vested€in€the€appellee€and€dismissed€AppellantsððÏcomplaint.€€It€is€from€this€decision€that€Appellants€now€appeal,€citing€error€in€certain€evidentiaryÏrulings€of€the€trial€court.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€expressed,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€a€newÏtrial.ÌÌà àThe€proof€establishes€that€in€June€1964,€Father€purchased€29.09€acres€at€700€ReedÏHooker€Road€for€approximately€$6,500.€€The€deed€to€the€property€has€remained€in€Fatherððs€nameÏsince€purchase.€€Shortly€after€purchase,€a€five€room€house€was€transported€to€the€property.€€It€isÏdisputed€as€to€whether€the€home€was€actually€purchased€by€Father€or€Son.€€When€Father€diedÏintestate,€he€was€survived€by€Son,€T.€J.€Ward€and€Mrs.€Brown,€Wolfe€and€Crews.€€Son€marriedÏthe€appellee€in€September€1969€after€divorcing€his€first€wife.€€No€children€were€born€of€eitherÏmarriage.€€Son€devised€the€entire€property€to€Appellee€under€the€terms€of€his€will.€€ConsiderableÏimprovements€were€made€to€the€home€and€property€throughout€the€years.€€Contradictory€evidenceÏwas€presented€as€to€whether€Father€actually€made€any€improvements€to€or€even€lived€on€theÏproperty€prior€to€his€death.€€There€was€testimony€that€only€Son€lived€on€the€property€until€hisÏmarriage€to€Appellee.€€It€is€not€disputed€that€Son€and€Appellee€resided€in€the€home,€making€variousÏimprovements€thereon,€until€Sonððs€death€and€that€Appellee€continues€to€reside€there.ÌÌà àThe€crux€of€this€appeal€pertains€to€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€certain€evidenceÏproffered€by€Appellants€that€Son€continued€to€live€on€the€premises€after€Fatherððs€death€only€withÏthe€express€permission€of€his€siblings.€€The€evidence€sought€to€be€introduced€pertained€to€aÏmeeting€Appellants€assert€took€place€at€the€property€shortly€after€Fatherððs€death€between€Son€andÏhis€three€sisters€at€which€time€the€latter€made€statements€granting€Son€permission,€at€his€request,€toÏcontinue€living€there.€€The€chancellor€excluded€the€statements€as€inadmissible€hearsay.€€AppellantsÏmade€an€offer€of€proof€based€on€the€testimonies€of€Mrs.€Brown€and€Mrs.€Wolfe.€€Mrs.€BrownÏstated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ.€€At€that€meeting,€did€you€give€permission€to€your€brotherÏto€stay€at€700€Reed€Hooker€Road?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€Tell€the€Court€about€that€discussion.ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€After€we€had€taken€care€of€what€was€going€to€happenÏwith€the€personal€property,€the€question€of€the€farm€arose,€and€myÏbrother,€said€that€he€would€like€to€live€there.€€I€donððt€know€exactlyÏwhat€the€words€were,€and€we€said,€okay,€all€right,€whatever.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€Ìà8 àà àÌà8 àà àQ.€€Did€you€believe€you€had€the€right€to€refuse€himÏpermission?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€I€do.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àMrs.€Wolfeððs€offer€of€proof€is€in€accord.€€However,€she€was€additionallyÏquestioned€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ.€€Did€you€believe€[you]€were€giving€up€your€ownershipÏinterest€in€that€property€when€you€[gave€your€permission]?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€No.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThough€the€trial€court€refused€to€admit€this€testimony,€it€allowed€evidence€as€to€anyÏstatements€made€by€Son€at€the€meeting€which€constituted€admissions€against€interest.€ÏAccordingly,€the€jury€was€privy€to€the€following€testimony:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ.€€Mrs.€Brown,€did€your€brother€talk€about€this€realÏproperty?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€he€did.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€And€what€did€he€tell€you?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€That€he€would€like€to€stay€out€there,€and€just€stay€thereÏbecause€thatððs€where€he€was€at€the€present€time.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€Had€he€been€living€there€with€your€father?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€When€you€went€to€that€meeting,€did€you€believe€that€youÏhad€ownership€interest€in€this€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€And€did€you€believe€your€sisters€had€ownership€interestÏin€this€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€I€did.€€ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€And€did€you€believe€your€brother€had€ownership€interestÏin€the€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€he€did.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€Did€your€brother€say€anything€to€make€you€think€anyÏdifferently€at€that€meeting€about€who€owned€the€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€No,€he€did€not.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓMrs.€Crews€testified:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àQ.€€After€your€father€died,€was€there€a€meeting€out€at€ReedÏHooker€Road?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€.€.€.€.€yes.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€What€did€your€brother€tell€you€about€the€real€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€He€says€I€live€here.€€Iððll€go€ahead€and€stay€if€itððs€okay.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€So€he€specifically€asked€you€if€it€was€okay€for€him€toÏstay€there?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€And€after€that€meeting€he,€in€fact,€stayed€at€the€propertyÏfor€the€rest€of€his€life?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€During€the€next€22€years,€was€anything€said€to€you€byÏanybody€that€made€you€believe€that€you€lost€your€interest€in€thatÏproperty?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€No.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€Youððve€talked€about€what€your€brother€said€about€theÏproperty€when€you€had€this€meeting€.€.€.€after€your€dad€died.€€DidÏyour€brother€talk€to€you€about€this€property€anytime€after€thatÏmeeting?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€Yes,€he€did.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€And€when€was€that?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€About€six€months€before€he€died.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àQ.€€What€did€your€brother€tell€you€about€the€ownership€ofÏthe€property?ÌÌà8 àà àA.€€He€said€that€[Father]€owned€the€property.€€Nobody€elseÏwas€entitled€to€it.× ƒ' ××  ×€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellants€first€issue€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€[Appellantsðð]Ïtestimony€regarding€their€grant€of€permission€to€[Son]€to€remain€on€the€subject€property,€with€suchÏexclusion€thereby€denying€[Appellants]€the€opportunity€to€rebut€[Appelleeððs]€presumption€of€titleÏby€prescription.ðð€€Appellants€argue€that€by€allowing€Appellee€to€set€forth€facts€that€tend€to€proveÏthe€elements€of€prescription,€she€raised€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€Son€obtained€exclusive€title€toÏthe€property€and€that€their€only€way€to€rebut€the€presumption€is€to€present€testimony€establishingÏthat€Sonððs€actions€were€with€permission,€thereby€rendering€the€doctrine€inapplicable.€€They€assert:Ïð ðthe€law€of€prescription€ascribes€to€statements€that€grant€permission€a€legal€significance€quite€apartÏfrom€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ððÌÌà àòòò òMorgan€v.€Dillardóóó ó,€456€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€App.€1970),€holds€that€aÏpresumption€of€title€may€arise€by€an€exclusive€and€uninterrupted€possession€of€the€land€by€oneÏtenant€in€common€for€twenty€or€more€years,€claiming€the€same€as€his€own,€without€any€recognitionÏof€his€co„tenants€or€claim€upon€their€part.€€The€presumption,€however,€may€be€rebutted€by€factsÏshowing€that€the€possession€was€not€adverse€but€by€the€indulgence,€permission,€or€as€tenant€of€theÏowner.€€òòò òMorganóóó ó,€456€S.W.2d€at€363.€€Accordingly,€the€elements€necessary€to€establish€title€byÏprescription€are:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€The€prescriptive€holder€has€been€in€exclusive€andÏuninterrupted€possession€of€the€land€in€question€for€more€than€20Ïyears,€claiming€the€same€as€his€own€without€any€accounting€to€hisÏco„tenants€or€claim€on€their€part€„„€they€being€under€no€disability€toÏassert€their€rights.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€The€holderððs€occupancy€of€the€property€in€question€wasÏwithout€the€actual€or€implied€permission€of€the€other€co„tenants.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òLivesay€v.€Keatonóóó ó,€611€S.W.2d€581,€583€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€If€either€of€these€elements€isÏnot€proven,€the€doctrine€of€title€by€prescription€does€not€apply.€€òòò òLivesayóóó ó,€611€S.W.2d€at€584.ÌÌà àIt€is€not€disputed€that€Son€made€no€formal€accounting€to€his€siblings€regarding€theÏproperty.€€Further,€Appellants€do€not€claim€a€disability€to€assert€their€rights.€€The€only€element€inÏissue,€therefore,€concerns€whether€Sonððs€continued€use€and€possession€of€the€property€for€someÏ22€years€was€permissive.€€The€jury€answered€the€following€factual€questions€in€the€affirmative:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òQuestion€No.€1ó ó:€Did€the€Plaintiffs€prove€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that€Earl€Daly€(father)€owned€700€Reed€Hooker€RoadÏwhen€he€died€on€August€7,€1966?ÌÌà8 àò òQuestion€No.€2ó ó:€Did€the€Defendant€prove€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that:€(1)€Earl€Wesley€Daly€(son)€was€in€exclusive€andÏuninterrupted€possession€of€700€Reed€Hooker€Road€for€a€period€ofÏmore€than€20€years€„„„„€claiming€the€same€as€his€own,€without€anyÏaccount€with€this€co„tenants€or€claim€on€their€part€„„„„€they€beingÍunder€no€disability€to€assert€their€rights;€and€(2)€such€possession€asÏwithout€the€permission€of€Plaintiffs?ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àò òQuestion€No.€4ó ó:€Do€you€find€that€the€Plaintiffs€waited€too€long€toÏraise€their€claims,€so€that€the€passage€of€time€resulted€in€the€loss€ofÏevidence,€the€death€of€witnesses€or€parties,€and€a€failure€of€memoryÏwhich€obscured€the€facts€to€the€prejudice€of€the€Defendant€so€as€toÏmake€it€impossible€to€find€the€truth?€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€are€inclined€to€agree€with€Appellants€that€their€proffered€statements€grantingÏpermission€to€Son€to€remain€on€the€property€after€Fatherððs€death€constitute€non„hearsay€operativeÏfacts€and€not€inadmissible€hearsay€as€suggested€by€Appellee.€€Section€801.5€of€ò òòòTennessee€LawÏof€Evidenceóóó ó€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àOne€of€the€more€difficult,€though€infrequently€encountered,Ïcategories€of€nonhearsay€evidence€encompasses€operative€facts,Ïsometimes€referred€to€as€verbal€acts.€€Operative€facts€are€words€thatÏoperate€to€cause€legal€consequences€wholly€apart€from€the€truth€orÏfalsity€of€the€words.€€Substantive€law€may€make€the€utterance€ofÏwords€an€event€that€causes€a€change€in€legal€relationships,Ïirrespective€of€the€truth€or€falsity€of€the€words€or€the€credibility€ofÏthe€speaker.ÌÌÌÌÓÓNeal€P.€Cohen,€et€al,€òòò òTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóóó ó,€ðð€801.5€at€497€(3rd€ed.€1995).€€InÏòòò òCollins€v.€Greene€County€Bankóóó ó,€916€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€App.€1995),€the€court€held€that€aÏstatement€made€by€a€representative€of€defendant€bank€to€one€of€its€customers€that€plaintiff€(hisÏbusiness€associate)€was€ð ðstealing€[him]€blindðð€to€explain€bankððs€refusal€to€make€a€loan€was€ð ðnotÏnecessarily€inadmissibleðð€but€ð ðcould€be€nonhearsay€operative€facts€which€are€admissible.ðð€Ïòòò òCollinsóóó ó,€916€S.W.2d€at€947.€€The€customer€thereafter€refused€to€assist€plaintiff€in€taking€out€aÏloan€and€plaintiff€filed€suit€against€bank€alleging,€òòò òinter€aliaóóó ó,€a€tortious€interference€with€a€businessÏrelationship.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€944„46.€€Bank€relied€upon€the€doctrine€of€justification€as€a€defense.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€atÏ947.€€òòò òCollinsóóó ó€analogized€the€situation€to€a€defamation€action€where€it€is€necessary€for€the€plaintiffÏto€prove€that€the€defendant€spoke€or€wrote€the€defamatory€words.€€The€plaintiffððs€purpose€is€not€toÍprove€the€statement€true.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€948.ÌÌà àTwo€other€examples€are€set€forth€in€òòò òTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóóó ó.€€The€firstÏinvolves€contract€law,€where€the€issue€is€whether€a€contract€was€formed€and€the€witness€testifiesÏthat€the€declarant€offeree€was€heard€to€say€ð ðI€accept.ðð€€The€second€relates€to€the€law€of€gifts€whereÏthe€object€must€be€delivered€with€the€requisite€intent€and€there€is€testimony€that€the€item€isÏtransferred€and€the€words€ð ðI€give€you€thisðð€are€spoken.€€In€both€instances,€it€is€found€that€the€mereÏuttering€of€the€words€have€legal€significance.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€we€hold€that€where€a€co„tenant€is€claiming€title€by€prescription€(whichÏnecessarily€entails€proof€that€his€possession€of€the€land€was€without€the€other€co„tenantsððÏpermission),€statements€made€by€the€other€co„tenant(s)€granting€him€permission€to€remain€on€theÏproperty€are€not€inadmissible€hearsay€but€have€legal€significance€and€effectuate€legal€consequences,Ïin€and€of€themselves,€irrespective€of€their€truth€or€falsity.€€We€further€find€that€the€exclusion€of€thisÏtestimony€prejudiced€the€appellants€in€their€ability€to€refute€the€defense€of€laches€set€forth€byÏAppellee.€€The€juryððs€finding€that€the€appellants€waited€too€long€to€pursue€their€claims€supports€aÏfinding€of€laches.€€However,€under€ðð€801.7,€òòò òTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóóó ó,€it€is€stated:Ïð ð[a]nother€category€of€nonhearsay€is€a€declaration€to€prove€the€speaker[ððs]€.€.€.€mental€state,€.€.€.€ÏThis€section,€.€.€.€considers€only€those€utterances€offered€for€the€òòò òunderlying€impliedó óóó€assertionÏthat€is€circumstantially€implicit€in€the€literal€spoken€.€.€.€words.€€This€use€is€often€viewed€asÏnonhearsay.ðð€€If€indeed€the€appellants€gave€their€permission€for€Son€to€remain€on€the€property€suchÏwould€explain€their€inaction€in€asserting€their€property€rights€for€some€22€years.€€Granted,ÏAppellants€were€allowed€to€testify€that€they€only€became€aware€that€someone€was€questioning€theirÏownership€interest€after€Sonððs€death€and€that€until€such€time€they€had€no€reason€to€believe€they€noÏlonger€had€an€interest€in€the€property.€€We€find€such€limited€testimony,€however,€insufficient€onÏthe€issue€and€hold€that€the€jury€should€have€been€allowed€to€consider€the€excluded€evidence€as€aÏjust€reason€for€the€appellantsðð€inaction.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€exclusion€ofÍthis€evidence€was€not€harmless.ÌÌà àThe€appellantsðð€final€issue€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€intoÏevidence€[Sonððs]€check€to€[Father],€as€such€check€contained€hearsay€evidence€regarding€an€allegedÏagreement€between€them€for€transfer€of€title€to€the€subject€property.ðð€€Appellants€refer€to€a€checkÏdated€May€19,€1966€drawn€on€the€account€of€Son€payable€to€Father€in€the€amount€of€$1,521.49.€ÏThe€ð ðforðð€line€at€the€bottom€of€the€check€states:€ð ðPayment€in€full€for€all€interest€in€29.1€acres€at€700ÏReed€Hooker€Road.ðð€€Appellants€assert€that€the€ð ðforðð€line€of€the€check€constitutes€inadmissibleÏhearsay.€€The€jury€answered€ð ðyesðð€to€the€following€question:€ð ð[d]o€you€find€that€the€check€datedÏMay€19,€1966€from€[Son]€to€[Father]€was€tendered€in€full€payment€for€all€of€the€fatherððs€interest€inÏ700€Reed€Hooker€Road?ðð× ƒ( ××  ×€€In€òòò òBrown€v.€Daly€óóó óthis€Court€previously€determined€that€theÏchancellorððs€finding€that€the€check€ð ðconstituted€a€valid€transfer€and€expressed€intent,€of€both€theÏfather€and€the€son,€.€.€.€that€the€son€have€all€title€and€interest€in€the€said€propertyðð€was€error€andÏheld:€ð ð[w]hile€the€check€may€be€a€sufficient€memorandum€to€satisfy€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€in€and€ofÏitself,€the€check€does€not,€in€our€opinion,€rise€to€the€dignity€of€an€instrument€of€conveyance€orÏtransfer€of€title€in€and€to€the€subject€property.ðð€€òòò òBrownóóó ó,€884€S.W.2d€at€125.ÌÌà àWe€hold€this€Courtððs€prior€opinion€law€of€the€case€on€this€issue.€€òòò òSee€Ladd€v.ÏHonda€Motor€Co.óóó ó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€90„92€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€Although€òòò òBrownóóó ó€finds€onlyÏthat€the€document€ð ðmay€beðð€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€statute€of€frauds,€the€court,€nonetheless,€holdsÏthat€the€check€does€not€represent€an€instrument€of€conveyance€or€transfer€of€title.€€The€trial€court€isÏinstructed€on€remand€to€disallow€the€admission€of€this€evidence€for€the€purpose€of€establishingÏsuch.ÌÌà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€this€cause€remanded€toÍthe€trial€court€for€a€new€trial€consistent€with€the€holdings€in€this€opinion.€€Costs€are€assessedÏagainst€the€appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌà8 àà àÌÌÌ