ÿWPCb 0#†°UN6 %„ 0(Š4²Æ BÕò 0Jò 0T< 0^ 0hî 0rVwÈ 0|Þ 0DZ 0†ž 0$Æ´ 1uzU,ï AO 0Dj 0d® U, U >> 0@| B)¼ D3å DC D/[ AMŠ B× U*ô e ò v~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ÙP ÿ;^ï ·^2Çd2 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡1# 3|x£ d2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd%%%%7Border 1dd**'÷ÿ dxd$'Cþÿ << GÿÿüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial èÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€+ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔó óÌò òÔ€+¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ, ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€+XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€#Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€#ÂÔÔ€+ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€#XÔPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  ÓÌó óMARY€J.€DROZDò ò,à àà àà àà àó ó)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àNO.€€€€01A01„9408„CV„00366Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€County€Sixth€Circuità àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€91C„189ÌHERMITAGE€VILLAà àà àà à)ÌÙ€ÙßL€)-';+'h|Úþ— â `€€LßCONDOMINIUMS€HOMEOWNERSà à)ÌASSOCIATION,€INC.,€€HILLSBOROà à)ÌPROPERTY€MANAGEMENTà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,€INC.,€and€à àà àà à)ÌGARY€WALLER,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€by€andà àà à)Ìthrough€CHARLES€W.€BURSON,à àà à)ÌAttorney€General€and€Reporter,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àIntervenor.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€SIXTH€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERSÌÌÓ  ÓCLYDE€PAUL€HOLLANDÌ2628€Old€Lebanon€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€37214Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌLUTHER€E.€CANTRELL,€JR.ÌDAVIES,€CANTRELL,€HUMPREYS€&€McCOYÌ150€Second€Avenue,€North,€Suite€225ÌP.O.€Box€190609ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€37219„0609Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌPAMELA€BINGHAM€BROUSSARDÌASSISTANT€ATTORNEY€GENERALÌATTORNEY€GENERAL'S€OFFICE€„€TAX€DIVISIONÌ404€James€Robertson€Parkway,€Suite€2121ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€37243„0489Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€INTERVENORÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÑ7€XXdìXXdì7ÑÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€#XÔÌó óóóà àFrom€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€dismissing€a€portion€of€the€original€complaint€andÏfrom€the€subsequent€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€granting€summary€judgment€for€the€Defendants€asÏto€a€second€ground€of€recovery€sought,€the€Plaintiff€was€granted€an€interlocutory€appeal€to€thisÏcourt.€€€à àThe€evidence€shows€that€the€Plaintiff€and€her€daughter€purchased€a€condominium€inÏthe€Hermitage€Villa€Condominiums€for€the€purpose€of€a€residence€for€the€Plaintiff.€€TheÏcondominiums€had€been€developed€by€Defendant€Gary€Waller,€and€consisted€of€some€ninety„sixÏduplex€units.€€Defendant€Hillsboro€Property€Management€Company,€Inc.€managed€theÏcondominiums,€and€Hermitage€Village€Condominiums€Homeowners€Association,€Inc.€is€alleged€toÏhave€been€a€homeowners€association€formed€to€oversee€the€development€of€the€condominiums.€€ItÏis€undisputed€that€on€the€evening€of€April€11,€1990,€at€approximately€8:00€p.m.,€the€Plaintiff€wasÏattempting€to€traverse€a€distance€of€some€twenty€feet€across€her€yard€to€the€door€of€herÏcondominium,€aided€by€the€use€of€her€walker,€when€one€leg€of€the€walker€sank€in€a€hole€in€theÏyard€which€had€been€created€by€a€mole€or€some€yard€pest.€€It€is€further€undisputed€that€this€causedÏthe€Plaintiff's€walker€to€become€unstable,€causing€the€Plaintiff€to€fall€to€the€ground,€breaking€herÏhip.€€Ìà àThe€Plaintiff€complained€to€the€Court,€inter€alia,€that€the€provisions€of€the€UniformÏResidential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€were€applicable€to€this€cause,€and€that€the€failure€of€theÏDefendants€to€abide€by€the€terms€of€that€act€constituted€negligence€per€se.€€The€Trial€Court,Ïhowever,€found€that€the€provisions€of€that€act€expressly€exclude€its€application€to€condominiums,Ïand€dismissed€the€portions€of€the€complaint€alleging€negligence€due€to€the€alleged€failure€of€theÍDefendants€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act.€€Ìà àSimilarly,€the€Plaintiff€asserted€that€the€Defendants€were€negligent€per€se€due€to€theirÏviolation€of€a€certain€Metropolitan€Nashville/Davidson€County€ordinance€mandating€dimensions€forÏthe€condominium€at€issue.€€The€Court,€however,€granted€the€Defendant's€Motion€for€SummaryÏJudgment€as€to€this€ground€for€relief.Ìà àThe€Plaintiff€now€seeks€the€order€of€this€Court€causing€the€Uniform€Residential€LandlordÏand€Tenant€Act€to€be€applicable€to€this€cause,€or€alternatively€declaring€the€act€to€be€unconstitutionalÏdue€to€the€language€of€the€act€restricting€its€application€to€properties€other€than€condominiums.€€TheÏState€of€Tennessee€intervened€in€this€action€in€order€to€defend€the€constitutionality€of€the€UniformÏResidential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act,€as€it€is€written,€excluding€condominiums€from€itsÏapplication.€€The€Plaintiffs€further€urge€the€Court€to€reverse€the€order€granting€summary€judgmentÏto€the€Defendants€due€to€the€alleged€violation€of€the€metro€driveway€ordinance.€€€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€first€argues€that€because€of€the€unique€circumstances€of€the€condominiumÏherein,€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€should€apply€to€this€particularÏcondominium,€despite€the€language€of€the€law€which€provides€that€it€does€not€apply€to€suchÏresidential€units.€€The€Appellees€assert€that€this€issue€was€never€raised€before€the€Trial€Court.€ÏCertainly€we€recognize€that€it€is€inappropriate€to€raise€issues€on€appeal€which€were€not€addressed€toÏthe€Trial€Court.€€òòHarrison€v.€Schrader,€óó569€S.W.2d€822,€828€(Tenn.€1978);€€òòCarl€Clear€CoalÏCorp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€850€S.W.2d€140,€143„144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.Ï1993);€€òòTops€Bar„B„Q,€Inc.€v.€Stringer,óó€582€S.W.2d€756,€758€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977)€òòcert.€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€the€Appellant,€however,€generally€sought€the€decision€of€the€Trial€CourtÏapplying€the€uniform€law€to€the€residential€unit€in€question,€we€feel€compelled€to€consider€theÏAppellant's€argument.€€€The€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€generally€does€notÏapply€to€condominiums€because€the€relationship€of€landlord€and€tenant€does€not€exist€in€such€units.€ÏA€condominium€generally€is€considered€to€be€a€unit€in€which€a€number€of€separate€owners€ownÏindividual€units,€within€a€multiple€unit€complex,€with€common€areas€owned€and€maintained€by€allÍof€the€owners€as€undivided€property.€€The€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act,€byÏcontrast,€was€passed€for€the€purpose€of€governing€the€rights€and€obligations€of€landlords€who€ownÏrental€property,€and€tenants€who€have€no€ownership€in€the€property€which€they€occupy,€but€pay€aÏsum€to€the€owner€for€the€privilege€of€occupying€all€or€a€portion€of€the€premises€for€a€period€ofÏtime.€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó66„28„103,€104€(1993).€€The€Uniform€Residential€LandlordÏand€Tenant€Act€specifically€provides€that€it€is€inapplicable€to€"occupancy€by€an€owner€of€aÏcondominium€unit."€€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó66„28„102€(c)€(4)€(1993).€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€despite€the€language€of€the€statute,€it€should€be€made€applicableÏto€the€condominium€unit€in€question€herein.€€€In€support€of€that€contention,€the€Appellant€assertsÏthat€the€condominium€units€in€question€are€separate€duplex€units,€originally€designed€as€rentalÏunits,€which€were€purchased€and€developed€by€the€Defendants€as€a€condominium€project.€€ÏFurther,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€Defendants€continue€to€own€virtually€all€of€the€condominiumÏunits,€very€few€of€them€having€been€sold.€€Further,€the€condominium€association€contemplated€byÏlaw€and€initially€developed€by€the€Defendants€functioned,€if€at€all,€only€very€briefly,€and€did€not,€atÏthe€time€of€the€issues€in€question€in€this€cause,€meet€the€needs€of€the€condominium€owners.€€WhileÏwe€find€the€record€to€support€these€contentions€of€the€Appellant,€we€do€not€find€theseÏcircumstances€sufficient€to€apply€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€to€the€premisesÏin€question.€€Despite€the€fact€that€many€of€the€other€condominium€units€have€never€been€sold€by€theÏdeveloper,€despite€marketing€of€these€units€over€an€extended€period€of€time,€the€evidence€is€clearÏthat€the€Appellant€herein€purchased€her€own€condominium,€and€continues€to€own€it.€€€As€an€ownerÏof€her€condominium€unit,€her€responsibilities€with€regard€to€the€developer,€who€continues€to€own€aÏnumber€of€other€condominium€units,€and€other€condominium€owners€is€vastly€different€than€theÏrelationship€between€a€renter€and€a€landlord€or€premises€owner.€€We€do€not€find€the€UniformÏResidential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€applicable€to€the€present€action.€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€further€seeks€the€decision€of€this€Court€finding€the€provisions€of€theÏUniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€to€be€unconstitutional,€in€that€those€provisions€areÍapplicable€only€to€relationships€between€landlords€and€tenants,€and€not€applicable€betweenÏcondominium€owners€and€developers.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€prevents€the€passage€of€lawsÏwhich€benefit€one€group€of€persons,€while€being€inapplicable€to€other€persons,€unless€theÏdiscrimination€is€based€upon€a€classification€which€rests€upon€a€reasonable€basis.€€òòTennesseeÏConstitutionóó,€Article€XI,€Section€VIII;€€òòC.f.,€Brentwood€Liquors€Corporation€v.€Foxóó,€496€S.W.2dÏ454€(Tenn.€1973);€€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Harrisóó,€442€S.W.2d€602€(Tenn.€1969).€€We€find,Ïhowever,€that€there€is€a€reasonable€basis€for€a€distinction€between€an€owner€of€a€condominium€andÏa€renter€of€an€apartment€or€other€rental€unit.€€In€a€residential€rental€unit,€the€obligations€of€the€tenantÏand€landlord€are€totally€different€from€those€obligations€of€an€owner€of€a€condominium€and€otherÏcondominium€owners€or€the€association€of€condominium€owners.€€A€condominium€owner€ofÏcourse€has€made€an€investment€in€his€condominium,€and€is€owner€of€his€unit.€€He€is€generally€aÏmore€permanent€resident,€who€is€not€renting€for€a€temporary€period€of€time,€but€has€made€anÏinvestment€and€has€responsibility,€generally,€for€maintenance€of€his€unit.€€A€renter,€by€contrast,Ïgenerally€is€more€temporary€in€nature,€and€has€made€little€or€no€investment€in€the€unit€which€heÏoccupies.€€€Because€there€is€no€ownership€on€the€part€of€the€renter,€the€landlord€maintainsÏresponsibility,€generally,€for€all€long„term€maintenance€problems,€and€enjoys€the€occupancy€of€theÏpremises€only€subject€to€a€contract€between€the€parties.€€While€condominium€owners€and€rentersÏmay€each€be€required€to€abide€by€certain€rules€and€regulations€within€their€residential€complex,€justÏas€homeowners€in€a€subdivision€are€required€to€comply€with€local€municipal€ordinances€andÏrestrictive€covenants€within€a€subdivision,€renters€generally€enjoy€less€freedom€and€independenceÏin€the€manner€in€which€they€utilize€their€residential€unit€than€those€who€have€made€purchases.€€Ìà àWe€therefore€find€a€reasonable€basis€for€the€classifications€determined€by€the€legislature,Ïand€find€that€the€discrimination€within€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act€to€beÏproper.€€It€is€totally€reasonable€to€apply€one€set€of€rules€to€the€relationship€between€a€landlord€and€aÏtenant,€and€other€rules€within€the€relationship€between€a€condominium€owner€and€owners€of€otherÏcondominiums€within€the€residential€unit.€€€Protection€of€the€rights€of€renters,€or€tenants,€whoseÍrights€are€more€tenuous€than€those€of€property€owners€justifies€the€passage€of€a€separate€actÏapplicable€to€landlords€and€tenants.€€We€find€the€passage€of€this€act€does€not€violate€the€equalÏprotection€clause€of€the€United€State€Constitution,€in€that€there€is€a€legitimate€legislative€purposeÏbehind€the€passage€of€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act.€€€Similarly,€the€legislatureÏhas€passed€a€separate€act,€the€Horizontal€Property€Act,€òòTennessee€Code€Annotated€ððóó66„27„101,€òòetÏseqóó€(1993),€which€addresses€circumstances€surrounding€condominiums,€and€the€relationshipÏbetween€a€condominium€owner€and€other€owners.€€Because€of€the€factual€differences€involvingÏthese€different€relationships,€we€find€that€the€legislature€was€justified€in€passing€separate€acts.€ÏCertainly€there€is€a€strong€presumption€in€favor€of€legislative€actions.€€òòBozeman€v.€Barkeróó,€571ÏS.W.2d€279€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ìà àThus,€we€find€that€the€Trial€Court€was€justified€in€dismissing€allegations€in€this€causeÏpredicated€upon€negligence€per€se€based€upon€the€Uniform€Residential€Landlord€and€Tenant€Act.€Ïà àThe€Appellant€also€seeks€the€order€of€the€Court€reversing€the€decision€of€the€Trial€CourtÏwhich€granted€summary€judgment€upon€the€complaint€of€the€Appellant€that€the€Defendants€wereÏnegligent€per€se€in€their€violation€of€two€sections€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Code.€€The€twoÏcode€sections€in€question€deal€with€the€sizes€of€parking€lots.€€Courts€may€not€take€judicial€notice€ofÏmunicipal€ordinances.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€party€seeking€to€assert€those€ordinances€to€prove€themÏbefore€the€Trial€Court,€absent€stipulations€of€the€parties.€€òò€€Draper€v.€Haynesóó,€567€S.W.2d€462,Ï465€(Tenn.€1978);€€òòAdams€v.€Dean€Roofing€Company,€Inc.óó,€715€S.W.2d€341,€342€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1986)€òòperm.€app.€denied;€€€Valley€Forge€Civic€League€v.€Fordóó,€€713€S.W.2d€665,€669Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó.€€€€The€Appellant€introduced€excerpts€from€theÏMetropolitan€Code€in€the€Trial€Court,€which€we€have€reviewed€as€a€part€of€the€record.€€€A€readingÏof€the€excerpts€presented,€however,€does€not€show€that€the€ordinances€concerning€the€sizes€ofÏdriveways€and€parking€areas€are€applicable€to€the€premises€in€question.€€The€Trial€Court€hasÏcarefully€reviewed€the€motion€filed€by€the€Defendants,€and€accompanying€affidavits,€as€well€as€theÏresponse€filed€by€the€Plaintiff,€and€has€determined€as€a€matter€of€law€that€the€municipal€ordinancesÍdo€not€apply€to€these€premises.€€€We€cannot€find€that€the€record€reflects€any€facts€on€this€issueÏwhich€are€disputed,€nor€can€we€find€that€the€ruling€of€the€Trial€Court€is€contrary€to€the€prevailingÏlaw.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court,€and€remand€thisÏcause€for€trial€upon€the€remaining€issues.€€ÌÌÓÓÌÌ€à àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ X ÑÑ7€žïXXdðXXdð7ÑÌÓ  Óà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÓ  Óó óMARY€J.€DROZDò ò,à àà àà àà àó ó)Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)à àNO.€€€€01A01„9408„CV„00366Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€County€Sixth€Circuità àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€91C„189ÌHERMITAGE€VILLAà àà àà à)ÌCONDOMINIUMS€HOMEOWNERSà à)ÌASSOCIATION,€INC.,€€HILLSBOROà à)ÌPROPERTY€MANAGEMENTà àà à)ÌCOMPANY,€INC.,€and€à àà àà à)ÌGARY€WALLER,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€by€andà àà à)Ìthrough€CHARLES€W.€BURSON,à àà à)ÌAttorney€General€and€Reporter,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àIntervenor.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àòòÌÌÓ  Óò òJUDGMENTóóÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àó óThis€cause€came€on€further€to€be€considered€by€the€Court€upon€the€interlocutory€appealÏfiled€by€the€Plaintiff,€and€upon€the€briefs€of€both€parties,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€and€upon€theÏentire€record€in€this€cause,€from€all€of€which€the€Court€finds€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÏshould€be€affirmed,€and€that€the€cause€should€be€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€the€Opinion€of€this€Court.Ìò ò€€€€à àó óIT€IS€THEREFORE€ORDERED€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€theÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€the€Opinion€of€thisÏCourt.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellant.€€ÌÌÓÓò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àó ó€€ò òà àà àó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌ