WPCU C^^I)uDF0F G&P|w{#x!PCcK;RaJDkILqV\LɠoֺNeL&"䙿M%C f Ũho6ݤTlo½i\yTU^w?sT~ZkǭV><åE/BQmRcڴ["@XVW<ٜYq@~pz&qie:e¶1zo=V(N5ǽCHy,C `5XXXXXA>   Ad FILED   July13,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular++++'dxd d(3$ !  (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !   P X6YXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7 r*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛ @| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEALLENBULLARDandWANDABULLARD,)C/ANO.03A019809CH00310etal., `     h   ) *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffsAppellees,)   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.   `     h   )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT .     `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )DEWAYNESCOTTANDRHONDASCOTT,)̜etal., `     h   ) \  Л   `     h   )HONORABLER.VANNOWENS,   ` DefendantsAppellants.)CHANCELLORForAppellants    h     ForAppellees 6 DONALDMARTLASLEY   h     DAVIDW.WALLACE   Chattanooga,Tennessee h     Chattanooga,Tennessee !h @$XXXX6Y ] XXOPINION    ]X6YX  Ԉ F3(1 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09     /V     Oa     /V    ` Thiscontroversyfocusesonasubdivisionlotthatisownedbynumeroustenantsincommon.Thelotinquestion,Lot10,withdimensionsof196.14'x100.4'x245'x160.2',islocatedinThatcherShoreAcresSubdivisioninHamiltonCounty.ϜSignificantly,ithaswateraccesstoChickamaugaLake.In1981,Ϝitwasconveyedtotheplaintiffsortheirpredecessorsintitle,38ofthe39propertyownersofThatcherShoreAcresSubdivision,bythesubdivisionsdeveloper,JamesC.Thatcher.Bysuchconveyance,eachofthegranteesreceivedanundivided1/39thinterestinLot10.Suchaninteresta1/39thwasalsoconveyedtoapredecessorintitleofdefendantsDewayneandRhondaScott( theScotts).   ` TheScottspurchasedalotinanearbysubdivision,alsodevelopedbyJamesThatcher,whichisreferredtoasThatcherShoreAcresLots41through68,orthesecondThatcherShoreAcresSubdivision.Athirddevelopment,knownastheLasleySubdivision,wasalsodevelopedonadjacentpropertysubsequenttothedevelopmentofthetwoThatcherShoreAcressubdivisions.ThesecondThatcherShoreAcresSubdivisionandtheLasleySubdivisionalsocontainedcommunity outlotswithwateraccess;however,the outlotsinthelattertwosubdivisionswereultimatelysoldintaxforeclosuresales.Thus,thepropertyownersinthesetwodevelopmentsapparentlywereleftwithoutanycommunitylakeaccess.   ` TheScottsinitiallypurchasedLot41inthesecondThatcherShoreAcresSubdivision.However,theysubsequentlypurchasedLot39intheoriginalsubdivisionandtherebyacquired  9.8 Мtheirgrantors1/39thundividedinterestinLot10ofthatdevelopment.Shortlythereafter,theScottsconveyeda1/7800thinterestintheir1/39thinterestinLot10topropertyownersinthesecondThatcherShoreAcresSubdivisionandtheLasleyϜSubdivision. %  1      כ     ` FollowingtheScottsconveyances,theplaintiffsfiledthisactionagainsttheScottsandtheirgrantees,seekingtoϜvoidthevariousconveyancesbytheScotts,aswellastorecoverpunitivedamages,attorneysfeesandcosts.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtfoundthat,althoughtheScotts𛀜deedtoLot39didnotcontainaprohibitionagainstsubdividingtheirϜundivided1/39thinterestinthelakeaccesslot,suchactionϜclearlyhadtheeffectofplacinganadditionalburdenontheϜproperty,tothedetrimentoftheScotts𛀜cotenants.ϜConsequently,thecourtheldtheconveyancestobevoidandofnoeffect.Itawardednominalcompensatorydamagesof$10andpunitivedamagesof$5,000totheplaintiffs.Thecourtsubsequentlysetasidetheawardofpunitivedamages.   ` TheScottsappealed,raisingthefollowingissueforourconsideration:  8 ` DoesTennesseelawallowafeesimplecotenantwithanunrestrictedfractionalinterestinacommonlottoconveyfractionalintereststothirdparties,anddidtheChancellorerrbyvoidingsuchaconveyance? ` `  ЛG 5x+4 МTheplaintiffsurgeustoupholdthetrialcourtsdecisionvoidingthesubjectconveyances,buttoreinstatetheawardofpunitivedamagesandawardthemtheirreasonableattorneysfees.@*   ` TheSupremeCourt,indescribingtherightsanddutiesofcotenants,hasquotedwithapprovalthefollowingexcerptfromTennesseeJurisprudence:  8 ` Tenantsincommonstandinaconfidentialrelationtoeachotherastothejointproperty,andthesamedutiesareimposedonthemasifajointtrustwerecreatedbycontractbetweenthem.Insuchcase,therelationoftrustandconfidencebetweenthembindsalltoputforththeirbestexertionstoprotectthecommoninterest,andforbidstheassumptionofahostileattitudebyanyofthemtowardstherest. ` `    8 ` Thepossessionofoneisthepossessionofallunlessheclaimstoholdexclusivelyforhimself.Tenantsincommonarejointlyseizedoftheentireestate,eachhavinganequalrightofentry,andthepossessionofoneisregardedasthepossessionofalluntiladisseisinoftheothersbyactualouster.Eachhasthesamerighttothepossession,andthetitleofeachextendstothewhole. ` `   Headrickv.Carter ,897S.W.2d256,25960(Tenn.1995)(quoting *& М8Tenn.Jur.Cotenancy6(1992)(emphasisin Headrick omitted)). +!(    ` Generallyspeaking,theapplicablelawregardingtheconveyanceofacotenantsshareiscorrectlystatedin8 1&. Tenn.Jur.,Cotenancy9: 2`(0   8 ` Ajointtenantmaydisposeofhisshareandconveyittoastranger,whowillholdundivided,andincommonwiththeotherowners. ` `  ̛ B:/9 /VX  Oa    /VX   ӜTheScottsassertsthatalawfulconveyance,bydefinition,canneverbe,bydefinition,ahostileact.Whilethismaybegenerallytrue,alawfulconveyanceundercertaincircumstancescanhavesuchasevereadverseimpactontheothercotenantsknownuseofthesubjectpropertythatitcanonlybeconsidereda hostileactagainstthecotenancy.Suchisthesituationintheinstantcase.   ` Priortotheconveyanceatissue,thisrelativelysmallsubdivisionlotwasburdenedonlybythecomingsandgoingsofpeopleassociatedwith39propertyowners.However,asaresultofthesubjectconveyances,thepotentialuseofthislotwasapproximatelydoubled,renderingitsubjecttousebyover40additionalpropertyowners,themembersoftheirhouseholds,andpotentiallytheirinvitedguests.Infact,toupholdsuchaconveyancewouldconceivablyincreasepotentialuseofthelotϜexponentiallyinfinitely,giventhatanyothercotenantwhetheraholderofa1/39thor1/7800thinterestcouldsimilarlysubdividehisorherinterest.Calculationoftheultimatenumberofpotentialusersofthelotiswouldbesubjectonlytotheboundsofonesimagination.̛̜   ` Itisthereforetheopinionofthiscourtthat,undertheuniquecircumstancesofthiscase,theconveyancesinquestionconstitutean assumptionofahostileattitudebytheScottsagainsttheircotenants,andaviolationofthe relationoftrustandconfidencebindingeachtenant toputforth[hisorher]bestexertionstoprotectthecommoninterest[ofthecotenancy].See Hendrick ,897S.W.2dat25960. 񛀀Assuch,they  9.8 cannotbeallowedtostand.