WPC  ?QKetsə fa6tQ,."Cj)k+`/̳~VCSkt ͨ7MNҬS1G__r|lX\-QZ.0; GH,wІDI{r.oXNg dmwXx֥xt?hD}(UIncu$D^TE'\Ayb܉b d3k % ;uPbqyC,[UZ^3f^I6hkb<ծ((&muhC"u ZD1iY CIlkDv ]"ܹGKM„5=&qW0MHxUH~g5tknJM˴$ʩ8F9a\5e+;[6xSıRÆ[poZJɑ)n% JLkW )#!>UN_ % 0U <fw@4U<  0DIU:0U: N6 8 m: : : : : : : : : : : : : AQQ  0h 08 0D  D/L B{ B D3 HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman 8U9:Ӏ;Ӏ<Ӏ=Ӏ>Ӏ?ӀINtpO',3|xN)L  Z $Arrus BT Roman($$   1   !"   XXcXXX X XXc   Ad FILED XXcX   November4,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,yAZ"Arial Regular & !Y"  XDHXXX  XiXXXDHYXXi   Ad FILEDXiXY  October19,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,yAZ"Arial RegularU !" (C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Y$ 7!  8|XXdd8  XDHXXX  (3Y$ 7!  8|XXdd8  XDHXXX  (#$  0  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd 7!  8|XXdd8  XDHXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TI?r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx0, r?INIr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx0, rIN_@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Nt(>.*jx%` `@E` 8ttxPQ  tN@)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ EUGENEBROOKSand  VERDELLEBROOKS,HusbandandWife,     ` PlaintiffsAppellants, `     h      p HardemanChanceryNo.9980vs. `     h      p C.A.No.02A019903CH00066    T.R.LAMBERT,SR.andVADIE   LAMBERT,Husbandandwife,andTIMLAMBERTandGLENDALAMBERT,HusbandandWife,    ` DefendantsAppellees.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHEHARDEMANCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@ THEHONORABLEDEWEYC.WHITENTON,CHANCELLOR@!ErichM.ShultzofMemphis@'ForAppellants@[[DavidM.LivingstonofBrownsville@II(ForAppellees@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED ($$ @33' Opinionfiled: *&&  `     h      p   W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 3//  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE 8 :66  ; 77 899::9 ` Thisappealresultsfromadisputeconcerningownershipofrealproperty.Althoughthetitletothepropertywasconfirmedinplaintiffs,EugeneBrooksandwife,VerdelleBrooks,andtheywereawardedpossessionoftheproperty,theyappealthetrialcourtsorderastothedamagejudgmentagainstdefendants,T.R.Lambert,Sr.,andwife,VadieLambert;TimLambertandwife,GlendaLambert. ` In1982,EugeneBrooks,andwife,VerdelleBrooks,purchasedafiveacretractoflandinHardemanCountyfromNorthwesternAmerican,Inc.NorthwesternAmerican,Inc.originallyacquireda90.70acretractofrealestateonJuly8,1974fromTysonVickersafterMr.VickershadacquiredtheinterestoftheotherVickersheirs.Atthetimetheplaintiffsinspectedandpurchasedthe5.10acretract,itwasunenclosedandunimprovedwoodland.Fromthetimeoftherecordingoftheirdeedin1982,theplaintiffsclaimedownership,paidtherealestatetaxes,andtreatedthe5.10acresofpropertyastheirown.Theplaintiffsvisitedperiodicallytoinspecttheproperty.Atnotimepriorto1992didtheplaintiffsseeanyevidenceofacompetingclaimofownershiponthe5.10acresofrealestate. ` In1992,defendants,TimLambert,andwife,GlendaLambert,obtainedadeedfromT.R.Lambert,Sr.andVadieLambert,foratenacretractoflandthatincludedlandtotheeastandwestofVanBurenRoad.The5.10acresoflandtothewestofVanBurenroadwasthelandclaimedbytheBrookses.T.R.andVadieLamberthadpurchasedtwotractsofpropertyin1952ofwhichtheydeededthetenacrestoTimandGlendaLambert.ThelegaldescriptioninthewarrantydeedgiventoTimandGlendaLambertwasbasedonasurveyofClarenceGoodrum,Jr.,RegisteredLandSurveyor,datedJune1,1992.Afterthedefendants,TimandGlendaLambert,filedtheirdeed,theyplacedamobilehomeontheportionofthepropertyonthenorthwesternsideofVanBurenRoad(the5.10acres),installedawellandaculvert,builtadriveway,anderectedashed.Uponlearningoftheaboveaction,theBrooksesmailedalettertotheLambertsassertingtheirtitle.Whenthe 844 Lambertsrefusedtomove,theBrooksesbroughttheinstantaction. ` Attrial,Mr.MichaelGnall,Jr.,testifiedfortheplaintiffs.Gnallperformedasurveyin1974,whenNorthwesternAmericanwasintheprocessofpurchasingthe90.20acresofpropertyfromTysonVickers.Hetestifiedthataccordingtohissurveyandbasedonhissearchoftherecorddeeds,includingthoseoftheLambertspredecessorsintitle,thedefendant,T.R.Lambert,Sr.,didnotownthe5.10acretractinissue,butthathedidownothertractslocatedtotheeastandsoutheastofthe5.10acres.Mr.Gnallalsotestifiedthatthedefendant,T.R.Lambert,Sr.,wasawareoftheconveyancefromTysonVickerstoNorthwesternAmericanandspecificallyagreedonthelocationoftheboundarylinesofthe90.20acresofpropertybeingconveyed.ThedefendantspresentedevidenceattrialthatT.R.Lambert,Sr.,hiredWayneYates,alicensedlandsurveyortosurveyallofhispropertyin1979,andheconcludedthe5.10acreswasownedbytheLamberts. ` Afteranonjurytrial,thetrialcourtfoundthatthelandwasownedbytheplaintiffs,thattheplaintiffsandtheirpredecessorsintitle,NorthwesternAmerican,hadatleastconstructivepossessionofthe5.10acresfrom1974until1992,thatthedefendants,TimandGlendaLambert,havenotadverselyheldthepropertyfortherequisiteperiodoftime,norcantheytackanyholdingtotheholdingofT.R.Lambert,Sr.andVadieLambert.Thesefindingsarenotcontested.̀ ` Thecourtawardedtheplaintiffs$50.00permonthasafairrentalvaluefor *&& aperiodoffortymonths.Thecourtdeniedplaintiffsclaimforlibeloftitleandattorneyfees,however,findingthatthedefendantsactions inrelianceonthesurveyconductedbyClarenceGoodrumweremadeingoodfaithandwerenotmalicious. ` Plaintiffshaveappealedandpresentthefollowingissuesforreview:9;;98 ` 8 ` !` !1.DidtheChancellorerrindenyingPlaintiffsclaimforlibeloftitle?    8 ` 8 ` !` !2.DidtheChancellorerrindenyingawardofPlaintiffslegalfeesandexpenses?     955 8 ` 8 ` !` !3.DidtheChancellorerrinawardingthefairrentalvalueofthepropertyforonlyfortymonthswhentheevidencewasclearanduncontrovertedthatDefendantsoccupiedthelandforsixtyninemonths?8   8@  L L ̜9:99:99<<9 ` Sincethiscasewastriedbythetrialcourt9:9X*XXX*9:9sitting X$VXXX$Vԛwithoutajury,wereviewthe   case denovo upontherecordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffact   bythetrialcourt.Unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindings,wemustaffirm,absenterroroflaw.T.R.A.P.13(d).8 p 8p!p!   ` Inplaintiffsfirstissue,theyassertthatthetrialcourterredinnotallowingplaintiffstorecoverforlibeloftitle.Slanderorlibeloftitlewasfirstrecognizedasacauseofactionin Smithv.Gernt ,2Tenn.Civ.App.65,79-80(1911). Harmon  v.Shell ,No.01-A-01-9211-CH-00451,1994WL148663(Tenn.App.M.S.Apr.27,  1994)Toestablishasuccessfulclaimforslanderoftitle,aplaintiffmustprove:̜9;99;99==98 ` 8 ` !` !(1)thatithasaninterestintheproperty,(2)thatthedefendantpublishedfalsestatementsaboutthetitletotheproperty,(3)thatthedefendantwasactingmaliciously,and(4)thatthefalsestatementsproximatelycausedtheplaintiffapecuniaryloss.(citationsomitted).    М9<99<9 9>>9Id. at*4.Statementsmadewithrecklessdisregardofthepropertyowner'srightsor !  withrecklessdisregardastowhetherthestatementsarefalsemaybemaliciouswithinthescopeofalibeloftitleaction. Id. (citing Gernt ,2Tenn.Civ.App.at %!! 79-80).Toassertthiscauseofaction,theplaintiffmustallege"malice...inexpresstermsor[by]anysuchshowingoffactsaswouldgiverisetoareasonableinferencethat[thedefendantactedmaliciously.]" Waterhousev.McPheeters ,176Tenn.666, +'' 669,145S.W.2d766,767(1940).Agoodfaith,buterroneous,claimoftitledoesnotconstituteacauseofactionforlibeloftitle. Ezellv.Graves ,807S.W.2d700, /++ 704(Tenn.App.1990). ` Thetrialcourtfoundthattheactionsofthedefendants,TimandGlendaLambert,werenotmalicious.TheplaintiffsassertthatthetrialcourtsrulingwascontrarytothisCourtsrulingin Ezell .Theplaintiffsarguethatthechancellor 733 misconstruedmalicetomeanillwillorspiteand,therefore,rejectedtheirclaim. 9 55 Theplaintiffsarguethatnoticeofanunderlyinginterestbeforefilingadeedissufficienttoestablishmalice.Further,plaintiffscontendthatinfindingthatdefendantsactedingoodfaith,theChancellorerredinthatgoodfaithisnotconsistentwiththeknowledgethatdefendantshadbeforethematthetimeoftheiraction.Theplaintiffssubmitthatthedefendantshadnoticeofanunderlyinginterestbeforefilingtheirdeed,andthatthisnoticeissufficienttoestablishmalice.Wedisagree. Ezell statesthatagoodfaithclaimoftitledoesnotconstitutemalice.    ` Consideringtheentirebodyofproof,wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sfindingthatthedefendantsactionswereingoodfaithandnotmalicious.ThetrialcourtevidentlyconsideredWayneYatestestimony.Moreover,TimLamberttestifiedthattheLambertfamilyhadusedthelandforhuntingsincehewasasmallchild.Further,itappearsundisputedbytherecordthatpriortoacceptingthedeedfromT.R.Lambert,Sr.,TimLambertdidnotknowthatEugeneandVerdelleBrooksclaimedthelandindispute. ` Thesecondissueonappealinvolvesthedenialofplaintiffslegalfeesandexpenses.Tennesseecourtsfollowthe AmericanRulewithregardtoawardingattorneysfees.Althoughattorneysfeesarenotnormallyawardedincivillitigationabsenta"contract,statuteorrecognizedgroundinequity," Stateexrel.Orrv. &"" Thomas ,585S.W.2d606,607(Tenn.1979),anexceptiontothegeneralruleexists ($$ incasesinvolvinglibeloftitle. Ezellv.Graves ,807S.W.2d700,703(Tenn.App. * && 1990).In Ezell ,theCourtexplainedtherationaleforpermittingrecoveryinacase ,(( involvinglibeloftitle:8 ` 8 ` !` !Whenacloudhasbeencastuponthetitleto 0,,   8 ` 8 ` !` !property....Thesolewayofdispellinganother'swrongfulassertionoftitleisbyhiringanattorneyandlitigating.Ifthedefamedpartyweretosimplyspeakoutindenial,ashemightwithacharacterattack,hecouldriskcompletelylosingtitlebyadversepossession.Theplaintiffsherewereforcedintocourtbythedefendants'actions.Theywererequiredtohirecounsel,takedepositions,arrangeforcourtreporters,andrunupnumerousotherexpenses.Thesecosts,whichrepresentedtheonlypossiblecourseofactiontocleartheirtitle,flowdirectlyandproximatelyfromthedefendants'conduct.     Id. at703.    ` Plaintiffscontendsthat Ezell standsforthepropositionthatonewhoclaims  aninterestinrealtywhichconflictswitharecordeddeedisobligatedtoprotectthatinterestand,therefore,legalfeesshouldbeawarded.Whiletheproperforumfordisputesinvolvingtheownershipoflandisthecourts,toadopttheplaintiffsargumentwouldrequireanawardoflegalfeesinallcasesinvolvingpropertydisputes.Thistheoryisnotconsistentwiththe AmericanRule. ` Theexceptiontothe AmericanRuleforlibeloftitleactionsisanarrowone.πLitigantswhoaresuccessfulinalibeloftitleactionmayrecoverreasonableexpensesincurredinthatsuit. Ezell ,807S.W.2dat703.However,thelitigantmustprove " theelementsofalibeloftitleaction,includingmalice,beforeanawardoflegalfeesisappropriate.Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtcorrectlyfoundplaintiffslibeloftitleactionlackingthenecessaryelements. ` Thethirdissueonappealiswhetherthechancellorerredinawardingthefairrentalvalueofthepropertyforonlyfortymonthswhenthedefendantsoccupiedthelandforsixtyninemonths.Theplaintiffsstipulatedthatthefairrentalvalueofthepropertywasfiftydollarspermonth.Thechancellorapparentlyreducedtheawardfromsixtyninemonths($3,450.00)tofortymonths($2,000.000)inconsiderationoftheimprovementsmadeonthelandbyTimLambert.Lamberttestifiedthathehadplacedapermanentwellontheproperty,removedstumpsfromandgraveledthedriveway,andimprovedthegeneralappearanceoftheproperty.TimLambert 8 44 furthertestifiedthathehadimprovedthepropertyby severalthousanddollars.TimLambertstestimonywasundisputedastheplaintiffdidnotputonanyevidenceregardingtheimprovementsmadetothelandorquestionLambertscostestimateoftheimprovements.X*XXX*Thechancellorundoubtedlyaccreditedthistestimony,especially   intheabsenceofanyprooffromplaintiffsthatLambertseffortsdidnotinfactimprovethevalueoftheproperty.# X*XX X*16#X*XXX*Theweight,faith,andcredittobegiventoany   witnessstestimonyliesinthefirstinstancewiththetrieroffact,andthecredibilityaccordedwillbegivengreatweightbytheappellatecourt. InreEstateofWaltonv.  Young ,950S.W.2d956,959(Tenn.1997).# X*XX X*B7#ԀBasedontheforegoing,weconclude  thattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.T.R.A.P.13(d). ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedfursuchuforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary.andcCostsoftheonappealareassessedadjudgedagainsttheϜappellants.X*XXX* `     h      p _________________________________    `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD, !  `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. # X*XX X*:# "   CONCUR: $   X*XXX*____________________________________ &"" ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE # X*XX X*<# '##  X*XXX*____________________________________ )%% HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE # X*XX X*n=#Ԝ    9