ÿWPC …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0l{ 0Dç 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ U, 0d4 U,˜ U>Ä B)DC+ AMnU*»å))v~:vÓ¸ D3‹ B¾ 0@Û AOÆj 0D0 0Dt D/¸ Bç˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÎÙP ïE‡4†¯ ^P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜€* 3|xl((3üÝ$¤¤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% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€appears€from€its€order€that€the€trial€court€€found€that€the€Jim€Buggs€Road€travels€alongÏthe€same€path€as€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road€across€the€Thomases'€property€until€it€ends€at€HighwayÏ114.€There€was€sufficient€evidence€presented€at€trial€to€support€this€finding.€Eulis€MontgomeryÏtestified€that€he€had€always€heard€the€entire€road€called€the€"Bugg€Road,"€while€others€had€referredÏto€it€as€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road.€€Ross€Wyatt€testified€that€he€thought€the€road€abutting€theÏBuckinghams'€property€was€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road.€€Consequently,€we€will€refer€to€the€roadwayÏrunning€northeast€from€the€Buckinghams'€land€to€Highway€114€as€the€Swallow€Bluff„Jim€BuggsÏRoad.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝT.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102€provides:€ÌÌà8 àOn€the€other€hand,€any€person,€and€those€claiming€under€him€neglecting€for€the€saidÏterm€of€seven€(7)€years€to€avail€themselves€of€the€benefit€of€any€title,€legal€orÏequitable,€by€action€at€law€or€in€equity,€effectually€prosecuted€against€the€person€inÏpossession,€under€recorded€assurance€of€title,€as€in€ðð€28„2„101,€are€forever€barred.ÌÌÌ€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌDONALD€BUCKINGHAM€and€wife,ó óà à)à àDecatur€County€Chancery€CourtÌò òCATHERINE€BUCKINGHAMó ó,à à)à àNo.€2371Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellees.à à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|%š` Å `€€Lßà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9412„CH„00278Ìà à)Ìò òMARTHA€THOMAS,€et€aló óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Decatur€County€at€Decatursville.Ìò òHonorable€Walton€West,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òRicky€L.€Woodó ó,€Parsons,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òPaul€Kevin€Carteró ó,€ÌMILAM€AND€CARTER,€Lexington,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellees.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òÌTOMLIN,€Sp.€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThis€case€arises€out€of€a€complaint€filed€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Decatur€CountyÏby€Appellees,€Donald€and€Catherine€Buckingham€(Buckinghams),€against€Appellants,€MarthaÏThomas,€Ricky€Thomas,€Sheila€Thomas,€Bobby€D.€Thomas€and€Jamie€Page€(Thomases).€€In€theirÏcomplaint,€the€Buckinghams€alleged€that€they€were€entitled€to€access€their€property€by€means€of€an€Ïold€road,€which€traverses€the€Thomases'€property.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€Buckinghams,€asÏabutting€landowners€of€a€once€public€road,€had€the€right€to€access€over€the€road.€€The€ThomasesÏhave€appealed€this€judgment.€€ÌÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€as€follows:€€The€Thomases€and€the€Buckinghams€own€tractsÏof€land€in€close€proximity€to€each€other.€€The€tracts€do€not€touch,€but€are€instead€separated€by€aÏtract€of€land€owned€by€Champion€International€Paper€Company,€Inc.€(the€Champion€property).€ÏAn€old€dirt€road€commonly€referred€to€as€"Swallow€Bluff€Road"€begins€at€Highway€114€in€DecaturÏCounty€and€runs€in€a€westerly€direction€across€the€Thomases'€property€to€the€neighboring€propertyÏof€Bryan€and€Tim€Keeton€(the€Keeton€property).€€Swallow€Bluff€Road€then€runs€southeast€acrossÏthe€Keeton€property€until€it€again€meets€€the€Thomases'€property.€€After€crossing€the€southwestÏcorner€of€the€Thomases'€property,€Swallow€Bluff€Road€runs€onto€the€Champion€property€and€endsÏnear€the€Tennessee€River.ÌÌà àAnother€old€dirt€road€commonly€referred€to€as€"Jim€Buggs€Road,"€€runs€north€andÏsouth€along€the€eastern€border€of€the€Buckinghams'€property.€€At€the€northern€boundary€of€theÏBuckinghams'€property,€the€Jim€Buggs€Road€veers€northwest€and€crosses€a€portion€of€€theÏChampion€property€before€it€meets€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road.€€There€is€a€dispute€between€the€twoÏparties€as€to€whether€the€Jim€Buggs€Road€terminates€when€it€joins€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road€orÍwhether€it€joins€with€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road€at€that€point€and€follows€the€path€of€the€SwallowÏBluff€Road€to€Highway€114.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àSometime€around€1986€or€1987,€the€Thomases€began€having€problems€withÏtrespassers€who€would€go€down€the€road€to€make€campfires€and€drink€alcohol.€€Consequently,ÏRicky€Thomas€constructed€a€cable€across€the€road€and€placed€a€lock€on€the€cable.€€The€ThomasesÏgave€a€key€to€all€adjoining€landowners.€€In€the€Spring€of€1992,€Southern€Timber€Mart€ofÏTennessee,€Inc.,€the€predecessors€in€title€to€the€Buckinghams,€sought€to€use€the€Swallow€Bluff„Jim€Buggs€Road€to€remove€timber€cut€on€their€property.€€The€Thomases€initially€gave€a€key€toÏSouthern€Timber€Mart,€but€a€disagreement€later€arose€between€Southern€Timber€Mart€and€theÏThomases€as€to€the€maintenance€of€the€road.€€Consequently,€the€Thomases€put€another€lock€on€theÏcable,€and€refused€to€allow€Southern€Timber€Mart€to€have€access€to€the€road.€€ÌÌà àSouthern€Timber€Mart€brought€suit€against€the€Thomases,€asserting€the€right€to€useÏthe€road.€€The€lawsuit€was€dismissed€by€consent€of€the€parties.€€In€November€of€1993,€theÏBuckinghams€purchased€the€property€from€Southern€Timber€Mart.€€When€the€Buckinghams€soughtÏto€use€the€road,€the€Thomases€denied€their€request.€€This€lawsuit€followed.€€€Ìà àÌà àThe€Buckinghams€brought€suit,€asking€that€the€Thomases€be€enjoined€fromÏinterfering€with€their€use€of€the€road.€€The€Buckinghams€based€their€right€to€access€of€the€road€onÏtwo€alternate€theories:€€The€road€was€a€public€road€and€they,€as€members€of€the€general€public,Ïwere€entitled€to€use€the€road,€or€in€the€alternative,€€they,€as€abutting€landowners,€have€acquired€aÍprivate€easement€to€use€this€road€over€the€Thomases'€property.€€Additionally,€the€BuckinghamsÏprayed€for€damages€incurred€as€a€result€of€the€delay€of€their€timber€sales€due€to€the€Thomases'Ïunlawful€interference€with€the€road.€€Ìà àIn€their€answer,€the€Thomases€denied€that€the€road€crossing€their€property€was€everÏa€public€road,€and€they€further€asserted€that€the€Buckinghams€did€not€have€an€easement€over€theirÏproperty.€€The€Thomases€plead,€as€an€affirmative€defense,€that€they€had€acquired€ownership€of€theÏroadway€by€adverse€possession€and€that€the€Buckinghams€were€barred€from€bringing€their€claimÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102.€€The€Thomases€also€raised€an€issue€of€equitable€estoppel.ÌÌà àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€chancellor€found€that€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road€and€the€JimÏBuggs€Road€were€public€roads€at€one€time.€€He€held€that€the€Buckinghams,€as€abutting€owners€ofÏa€once€public€road,€had€the€right€to€access€over€the€road€even€though€the€road€had€been€abandoned.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€did€not€address€the€Thomases'€claim€of€adverse€possession€and€theirÏassertion€that€the€Buckinghams€were€barred€from€bringing€their€claim€under€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€under€T.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102.€€Instead,€the€Thomases€were€ordered€to€provide€theÏBuckinghams€with€a€key€to€the€locked€cable.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€did€not€address€theÏBuckinghams'€request€for€damages€that€resulted€from€the€delay€in€harvesting€their€timber.€€ÌÌà àThe€Thomases€have€appealed€the€lower€court's€ruling,€presenting€the€followingÏissues€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€finding€that€theÏ[Buckinghams]€had€the€right€to€use€the€roadway€across€theÏ[Thomases']€property€as€an€abutting€landowner€to€an€abandonedÏpublic€road.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€[Thomases]€established€ownership€ofÏSwallow€Bluff€Road€by€adverse€possession€and/or,€whether€theÏ[Buckinghams']€action€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,Ïpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€failing€to€apply€theÏdoctrine€of€equitable€estoppel.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Buckinghams€present€the€following€issue€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€not€awarding€damages€to€theÏ[Buckinghams]€for€the€delays€in€harvesting€their€timber€caused€byÏthe€[Thomases].ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOur€review€of€this€matter€is€òòò òde€novoóóó ó,€however,€the€record€developed€below€comesÏto€us€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€which€we€must€honor€unless€we€find€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€€Furthermore,Ïwhere€issues€in€a€case€turn€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€the€trial€judge,€as€the€trier€of€fact€inÏa€non€jury€case,€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€and€their€manner€and€demeanor€whileÏtestifying€and€is€in€a€far€better€position€than€this€Court€to€decide€those€issues.€€òòò òState€ex€rel.ÏBalsinger€v.€Town€of€Madisonvilleóóó ó,€222€Tenn.€272,€435€S.W.2d€803€(1968);ò ò€òòTown€ofÏAlamo€v.€Forcum„James€Co.óóó ó,€205€Tenn.€478,€327€S.W.2d€47€(1959);€ò òòòLeek€v.€Powellóóó ó,Ï884€S.W.2d€118€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€The€weight,€faith€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witness'Ïtestimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€be€givenÏgreat€weight€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€under€the€law€of€this€state€that€abutting€landowners,€along€a€once€publicÏroad,€have€a€private€easement€of€access€over€the€road€to€their€premises,€even€after€the€road€isÏabandoned.€€òòò òKnierim€v.€Leatherwoodó óóó,€542€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€1976).€€However,€forÏthis€law€to€apply,€there€must€necessarily€be€a€threshold€determination€that€a€road€was€once€public.€ÏWhile€no€evidence€was€presented€at€trial€that€would€show€that€the€Swallow€Bluff„Jim€Buggs€Road€Ïhad€been€dedicated€as€a€public€road,€€it€is€evident€from€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses€that€theÏentire€road€was€for€many€years€open€to€public€travel€and€acquiesced€in€for€use€as€a€public€road.€ÏConsequently,€€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€chancellor€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€road€inÏquestion€was€at€one€time€a€public€road.ÌÌà àLester€Brasher,€testified€that€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road€was€an€open€road€in€theÏ1920s€and€1930s€and€several€people€had€lived€on€the€road.€€He€testified€that€he€had€hauled€logsÏover€the€road€in€his€younger€days€and€had€never€been€required€to€seek€permission€to€use€the€road.€€ÏLeonard€Magers€testified€that€he€too€had€hauled€cross€ties€down€the€Swallow€Bluff€Road,€and€thatÏhe€had€never€been€required€to€ask€permission€to€use€the€road.€€Tommy€Newman€testified€that€thereÏwere€several€houses€on€the€Swallow€Bluff„Jim€Buggs€Road€forty€to€fifty€years€ago.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€had€never€asked€permission€to€use€the€road€prior€to€the€placing€of€the€cable€across€the€road.€ÏDonald€Buckingham€testified€that€there€were€old€home€places€on€his€property€near€a€portion€of€theÏroad.€€Paul€Montgomery,€€who€owned€the€tract€of€land€east€of€the€Buckinghams'€property,€testifiedÏthat€he€had€always€used€the€Swallow€Bluff„Jim€Buggs€Road€to€access€his€property.ÌÌà àDedication€of€a€highway€or€a€roadway€may€be€shown€by€conduct€of€the€owner€andÏit€is€not€necessary€to€prove€formal€overt€acts.€òòò ò€Nashville€Trust€Co.€v.€Evans,ó óóó€€206€S.W.2dÏ911,€914€(Tenn.€App.€1947).€€In€our€opinion,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏfinding€of€the€chancellor€that€the€road€was€at€one€time€a€public€road.ÌÌà àIn€their€answer,€the€Thomases€asserted€an€alternate€defense,€claiming€that€if€theÏroad€was€found€to€have€been€a€€public€road,€€they€had€adversely€possessed€the€portion€of€the€€roadÏcrossing€their€property€and/or€the€Buckinghams'€suit€was€barred€by€T.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102€for€failureÏto€bring€a€claim€to€abate€adverse€use€of€property€within€seven€years.€€However,€the€trial€court€didÏnot€address€the€Thomases'€defenses.ÌÌà àUnder€T.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102,€a€suit€to€abate€adverse€use€of€property€by€another€underÏcolor€of€title€must€be€brought€within€seven€years€from€the€time€the€cause€of€action€arises,€or€theÍright€of€action€is€forever€barred.× ƒ% ××  ×€€à àT.C.A.€ðð€28„2„102€protects€persons,€who€are€holdingÏadversely€under€a€color€of€title,€from€suits€to€oust€them€from€the€entire€boundary€of€lands€on€whichÏthey€are€adversely€holding€a€portion.€€òòò òShearer€v.€Vandergriffó óóó,€661€S.W.2d€680€€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àWe€note€that€under€the€holding€in€òòò òBoyd€v.€Huntó óóó,€102€Tenn.€495,€52€S.W.€131Ï(1899),€€a€right„of„way€may€be€extinguished€by€twenty€(20)€years€adverse€use.€€€Under€T.C.A.€ððÏ28„2„102,€a€suit€to€abate€this€adverse€use€must€be€brought€within€seven€(7)€years€from€the€time€theÏcause€of€action€arose€or€the€right€of€action€is€barred.€€òòò ò€See€Shearer,€ó óóó661€S.W.2d€at€682.€€In€theÏinterim€period€of€time€between€the€seven€(7)€years€and€twenty€(20)€years,€if€the€adverse€holdingÏceases,€the€person€who€has€the€right„of„way€may€resume€his€use,€as€the€right„of„way€still€exists.€€Ïòòò òIdó ó.óó€€On€the€other€hand€he€may€not€bring€an€action€to€abate€the€adverse€use€during€that€period€and€ifÏthe€adverse€use€continues€for€twenty€(20)€years,€the€right„of„way€is€extinguished.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€ÌÌà àThe€Buckinghams€filed€their€complaint€on€December€6,€1993.€€The€Thomases€argueÏthat€they€have€adversely€possessed€the€road€for€over€fifty€years.€€However,€there€is€conflictingÏtestimony€in€the€record€as€to€whether€the€road€could€be€used€without€permission€prior€to€theÏinstallation€of€the€cable€across€the€road.€€Additionally,€there€is€a€discrepancy€as€to€when€the€cableÏitself€was€installed.€€€Nancy€Thomas€testified€that€the€cable€was€erected€in€1987.€€Ricky€ThomasÏtestified€that€he€had€placed€the€cable€on€the€road€around€1986€or€1987.€€Arthur€Ray€Montgomery,Ïon€the€other€hand,€€testified€that€the€cable€had€been€in€place€for€four€or€five€years€at€the€most.€€InÏhis€deposition€taken€on€March€31,€1993,€William€Hopper€testified€that€the€cable€had€been€acrossÍthe€property€for€only€three€to€four€years.€€Accordingly€there€are€disputed€facts€in€the€record€as€toÏ(1)€whether€the€Thomases€have€adversely€possessed€the€road;€and€€(2)€whether€they€have€adverselyÏpossessed€the€road€long€enough€to€extinguish€the€Buckinghams'€easement€or€at€least€to€bar€themÏfrom€bringing€a€cause€of€action€to€abate€the€Thomases'€adverse€possession.ÌÌà àThese€factual€issues€should€properly€have€been€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€ÏConsequently,€we€remand€these€for€the€trial€court's€determination€of€the€issues€of€adverseÏpossession€and€€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà à€€Finally,€the€Thomases€argue€that€the€Buckinghams€should€be€equitably€estoppedÏfrom€bringing€this€action.€€The€Thomases€appear€to€base€this€argument€on€their€assertion€that€theyÏconsented€to€a€voluntary€dismissal€of€the€prior€lawsuit€brought€by€Southern€Timber€Mart€solelyÏbecause€they€believed€that€the€dismissal€would€resolve€all€issues€concerning€the€use€of€theÏroadway.€€However,€after€the€prior€lawsuit€was€€dismissed,€Southern€Timber€Mart€conveyed€itsÏproperty€to€the€Buckinghams,€and€the€Buckinghams€filed€their€suit€against€the€Thomases.€€TheÏThomases€allege€that€the€Buckinghams€knew€of€the€supposed€resolution€of€the€roadway€issueÏwhen€they€bought€the€land.€€They€further€allege€that€they€have€suffered€additional€expenses€due€toÏthe€Buckinghams'€refiling€of€virtually€the€same€lawsuit.€€Consequently,€they€argue€that€theÏBuckinghams€should€be€equitably€estopped€from€bringing€this€lawsuit€and€that€they€should€insteadÏbe€bound€by€Southern€Timber€Mart's€dismissal€of€the€prior€lawsuit.ÌÌà àThe€elements€of€equitable€estoppel€were€set€forth€by€this€Court€in€òòò òConsumerÏCredit€Union€v.€Hiteó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€822€(Tenn.€App.€1990):ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€essential€elements€of€an€equitable€estoppel€as€related€to€the€partyÏestopped€are€said€to€be€(1)€Conduct€which€amounts€to€a€falseÏrepresentation€or€concealment€of€material€facts,€or,€at€least,€which€isÏcalculated€to€convey€the€impression€that€the€facts€are€otherwise€than,Ïand€inconsistent€with,€those€which€the€party€subsequently€attemptsÏto€assert;€€(2)€Intention,€or€at€least€expectation€that€such€conductÍshall€be€acted€upon€by€the€other€party;€€(3)€Knowledge,€actual€orÏconstructive€of€the€real€facts.€€As€related€to€the€party€claiming€theÏestoppel€they€are€(1)€Lack€of€knowledge€and€of€the€means€ofÏknowledge€of€the€truth€as€to€the€facts€in€question;€€(2)€Reliance€uponÏthe€conduct€of€the€party€estopped;€€and€(3)€Action€based€thereon€ofÏsuch€a€character€as€to€change€his€position€prejudicially.€€(CitationsÏomitted.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òHite,ó óóó€801€S.W.2d€822€at€825€(citingòòò ò€Callahan€v.€Town€of€Middletonó óóó,€€292€S.W.2d€501Ï(Tenn.€App.€1954)).€€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€estoppel€is€not€favored€and€it€is€the€burden€of€the€partyÏseeking€to€invoke€the€doctrine€to€prove€each€and€every€element.€€òòò òRobinson€v.€TennesseeÏFarmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€857€S.W.2d€559,€563€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòò òBokor€v.€Holderó óóó,€722ÏS.W.2d€676,€680€€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€The€doctrine€is€ordinarily€applicable€only€to€falseÏmisrepresentations€as€to€facts,€either€past€or€present.€òòò òHiteó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€825€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€there€is€neither€an€allegation€nor€proof€by€the€Thomases€that€theÏBuckinghams€made€a€false€representation€as€to€a€past€or€present€fact€or€concealed€material€factsÏfrom€the€Thomases.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Thomases'€equitable€estoppel€argument€wasÏwithout€merit.€€We€agree.€€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€our€ruling€renders€the€consideration€of€any€other€issues€moot.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€this€cause€is€remanded€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€one„half€toÏAppellants€and€one„half€to€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTOMLIN,€Sp.€J.€(Concurs)