ÿWPCë >u@@@uËÙÓMÀA^6p[ÐZì|<škÿò±w"±ÝÛßs#àƒE ŒÙ L… f–<’X“Ù¬ü~ñ“êyyA +\9ä\ n—(Ûs@‘ìÑl«,ýÌè¹Ú'íuÝžeá´#@,é{ã­QË5h´u¼o ªCvÔ;…ç~';«¡ ³¬b-œÌ(ÉÛSâ;‚(ƒýЧ›ažzfwç tqêÎ^WMÏñßëQƒð‚ë‚i sâò>„¦[c)¸Ýß( hXÜ›?ÖvÂdàf³üÿâoYœ†Óg| ûn®<Á @ö8AÓ*ðž¬Pfsså¸5^_ÏüE½íNÙjfkÐSp–Iwz,ÏÇ w…II¬®RÚq«¿ÿà´Ãè ™{ˆ¥Ç¹ãÔéVãÊõ‰S|aúñÉ€,ÿOQÐ)B·…(}1EÐ(ŒøœÑd µá÷ùÏñ§€#„«½;-z´©{n&VŸSÈë×mçÇdÐqOs+D7·¦ €~××*Vy³ç#EõB«#îp¬zÇ0¸r#t2MÖ+Ù³Ç{h쵯[,?/—ìdÏ=¤făè5"Ü…“tÿƺŸrŒ¿ª½Î|_:&`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T UNŽ 0PÜ , U:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AQg Ƹ 0D~ ~ 0D  D/ B5 BR D3o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0D¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Aæ D?e BG¤˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ îUïðDñIòóDôDõDöÓ€F&tttttt3|xwaiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô ÷Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XØ XXXÔÔ€‡$XXØ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XØ X‡$ÔÐ  ÐÌMay€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼,5¼XXÔÓ'€Ð‡Xè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑœñññöñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñöñññññññFRANCES€DAVIS,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óññßt€ )>.*jx&ÿé` `€€@E¹` 8ttxPRñð È tßññà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9706„CH„00254Ð à0 Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àLawrence€ChanceryÐ  P ÐLORENE€INMAN,€TERESA€G.à  à)à  àNo.€7499„95Ð  ` ÐINMAN,€PAUL€W.€INMAN€andà  à)Ð  p ÐVIRGIL€INMAN,à  à)€Ð 0 € Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellants.à  à)à  àÐ P   Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÌÔ#†X†'X¼¼,58#ÔÔ‡»¬6»XX†'ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ à ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€ÌLAWRENCE€COUNTYÌAT€LAWRENCEBURG,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€CHANCELLORÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓPAUL€B.€PLANTÌHarwell€&€PlantÌ225€Mahr€AvenueÌP.€O.€Box€399ÌLawrenceburg,€Tennessee€€38464Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€W.€HARDINÌHardin€&€ParkesÌ102€West€Seventh€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€692ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€€38402„0692Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS€ÌÔ#†X†'X»»¬6K#ÔÔ‡¼,5¼XX†'ÔÓ  ÓÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌAND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌñöñÑ foÑÑ7€†'XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñöñÌñöñÑ foÑÑ7€†'XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñöñWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ à:063¨ ÐÑ foÑÑ7€†'XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñöñÑ foÑÑ7€ö-XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñöñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X†'X¼¼,5##ÔÔ‡°ñ°XX†'ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X†'X°°ñ #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼,5¼XX†'ÔÔ‡ ¼,5¼¼¼,5Ôà  àThis€case€is€on€appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€of€Lawrence€County,Ð T¤ ÐTennessee,€from€an€Order€of€the€Chancellor€finding€ownership€of€certain€disputedÏland€in€the€Plaintiff/Appellee,€Frances€Davis,€and€granting€her€compensatory€andÏpunitive€damages€for€trespassing.€€The€case€is€properly€before€this€court€forÏreview€de€novo€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findingsÏof€fact.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact,€we€mustÏaffirm,€absent€an€error€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).ÌÌà  àA€review€of€the€evidence€presented€in€the€trial€court€and€the€briefs€filedÏhere€suggest€that€the€facts€are€not€significantly€in€dispute.€€It€appears€that€Mrs.ÏDavis€(along€with€her€husband)€purchased€land€adjoining€the€Inmansðð€farm€inÏMarch€of€1956.€€In€early€1966,€the€Davises€began€construction€of€their€homeÏwhich€is€now€located€on€that€land.€€Later€in€1966,€Mr.€Davis€and€his€sonsÏconstructed€a€decorative€wooden€fence€along€both€sides€and€across€the€front€ofÏthis€home.€€The€fence€on€the€side€nearest€the€Inmans€was€placed€in€the€sameÏlocation€as€an€old€wire€fence€which€was€there€when€the€Davises€purchased€theÏproperty.€€This€fence€has€remained€in€the€same€place€consistently€since€itsÏconstruction€in€1966.€Ì€Ìà  àSometime€after€the€construction€of€the€home,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Davis€beganÏto€maintain€a€portion€of€the€Inmansðð€field,€past€this€wooden€fence.€€They€mowedÏand/or€bushhogged€this€strip€apparently€with€the€permission€of€Mr.€Inman.€€Mr.ÏInman€also€bushhogged€the€area€from€time€to€time.€€Neither€party€ever€reallyÏprevented€the€other€from€coming€on€and€using€this€strip€for€hunting€or€recreation.€ÏÌà  àIn€1995,€the€Inmans€decided€to€divide€the€property€and€hired€a€surveyorÏto€assist€them.€€In€March€of€that€year,€the€survey€was€interrupted€when€Mrs.€DavisÏthreatened€to€have€anyone€arrested€who€came€upon€ð ðher€property.ðð€€Before€theÏsurvey€was€completed,€Mrs.€Davis€mowed€the€strip€outside€the€decorative€fenceÏand€caused€to€be€erected€a€new€barbed€wire€fence.€€The€Inmans€took€action€toÏremove€both€of€the€fences€erected€by€Mrs.€Davis€and€to€erect€their€own€fence.€ÏThis€litigation€ensued€and€a€restraining€order€was€issued.€€Mrs.€Davis€also€hiredÐ ¼9 5@ Ða€surveyor€and€both€parties'€surveyors€testified€at€the€trial€that€in€fact€the€Davises'Ïdeed€did€not€include€either€fence.ÌÌà  àBased€upon€these€facts,€the€Chancellor€held€that€Mrs.€Davis€was€entitledÏto€the€property€encompassed€by€the€barbed€wire€fence€by€open€and€notoriousÏadverse€possession.€€He€awarded€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€based€uponÏthe€Inmans'€actions€in€removing€the€fences€and€certain€trees€on€that€property.ÌÌà  àIn€order€to€acquire€title€by€adverse€possession,€the€possession€must€beÏexclusive,€actual,€adverse,€continuous,€open€and€notorious€for€the€entireÏprescriptive€period€under€a€claim€of€right€or€title€to€the€property€and€the€ownerÏmust€have€knowledge€of€the€adverse€claim.€€òòTidwell€v.€Van€Deventeróó,€686€S.W.2dÐ 8ˆ Ð899,€902€(Tenn.€App.€1984);€òòCarr€v.€Wilbanksóó,€45€Tenn.App.€372,€390,€324Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€786,€794€(1958).€€The€plaintiff,€of€course,€has€the€burden€of€proof.€€òòBoneÐ h¸ Ðv.€Logginsóó,€652€S.W.2d€758,€760€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€While€every€element€of€theÐ P Ðadverse€possession€must€be€proven€by€the€plaintiff,€she€need€only€put€land€to€suchÏuse€and€occupation€as€it€is,€by€its€nature€and€character,€susceptible.€€òòDerryberryÐ 0€  Ðv.€Ledfordóó,€506€S.W.2d€152,€157€(Tenn.€App.€1973).Ð È" ÐÌà  àThe€decorative€wood€fence€erected€in€1966€is,€according€to€the€surveyÏof€Cleghorne€&€Associatesñóñððñóññõñ€ñõññôñdñôññõñepositionñõñ,€very€near€the€boundary€line€established€by€the€InmanÏdeed.€€Inside€that€fence€for€almost€thirty€years,€Mrs.€Davis€planted€trees€andÏflowers,€conducted€activities€with€her€children,€and€generally€treated€it€as€her€yard.€ÏThe€Chancellor€found€this€sufficient€proof€to€establish€open€and€notorious€adverseÏpossession€as€to€this€fence€and€we€find€that€the€proof€in€the€record€supports€thatÏfinding.ÌÌà  àHowever,€beyond€this€fence€is€property€clearly€within€the€Inmansðð€deedÏand€there€is€no€proof€that€this€land€up€to€the€barbed€wire€fence€was€openly€andÏnotoriously€possessed.€€The€barbed€wire€fence€was€constructed€sometime€in€AprilÏof€1995.€€Before€that,€the€only€evidence€is€that€this€land€was€bushhogged€andÏmowed€by€both€parties€and€the€Davises€did€this€to€keep€snakes€from€coming€intoÏthe€yard.€€The€camera€man€on€a€video€exhibit€showing€the€land€repeatedly€admitsÏthat€no€deed€describes€this€particular€piece€of€property.€€We€find€that€the€evidenceÐ H9˜4B Ðin€this€record€preponderates€against€the€Chancellorððs€finding€that€the€strip€of€landÏbetween€the€white€decorative€wood€fence€and€the€barbed€wire€fence€was€acquiredÏby€Mrs.€Davis€through€adverse€possession.€€Therefore,€the€boundary€line€isÏestablished€at€the€location€of€the€white€wood€decorative€fence.ÌÌà  àThe€Chancellor€awarded€compensatory€damages€to€Mrs.€Davis€in€theÏamount€of€$7,569.08.€€This€award€was€based€upon€estimates€provided€by€a€fenceÏcompany,€a€landscaping€company,€and€a€tree€farm€company.€€None€of€theseÏwitnesses€testified€at€the€trial€of€the€case,€but€the€Chancellor€allowed€Mrs.€DavisÏto€testify€as€to€these€estimates€which€she€procured.ÌÌà  àWe€find€the€proof€with€regard€to€compensatory€damages€to€be€containedÏin€the€testimony€of€Mrs.€Davis.€€This€proof€shows€that€damages€done€to€the€whiteÏplank€fence€and€to€the€property€on€the€Davisesðð€side€of€that€fence€are€as€follows:Ï4€pine€trees€($2,000.00),€75€feet€of€board€plank€fence€($562.50),€blue€spruceÏ($285.00),€3€holly€bushes€($97.00),€tractor€work€($210.00),€seed€($87.00),€strawÏ($113.75),€sod€($700.00),€hand€labor€($387.00),€for€a€total€of€$4,442.25.€€WhileÏthe€testimony€as€elicited€from€Mrs.€Davis,€based€upon€the€statements€of€estimate,Ïis€hearsay€within€Rules€802€and€803,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€it€is€clear€from€her€testimonyÏthat€this€is€her€opinion€of€the€replacement€cost€of€this€damaged€property.€€ñìñ€basedÏuponÏtheseÏestimates.€ÏñìñTheÏproof,€although€hearsay,€is€uncontroverted.€€Under€all€of€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€it€appears€appropriate€to€establish€the€compensatory€damages€based€uponÏthis€proof€at€$4,442.25.€€The€damage€award€is,€therefore,€reduced€to€that€amount.ÌÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€award€of€punitive€damages.€€The€trial€court€awardedÏthe€Davises€$15,000€in€punitive€damages.ñïñ€€ñïññðññîñÌñîññðññíñ€€"Whether€or€not€punitive€damages€areÏto€be€awarded€at€all€and,€if€so,€the€proper€amount€of€such€damages,€is€pre„¼eminently€for€the€jury€to€decide;€but€the€discretion€of€the€jury€in€fixing€the€amountÏof€punitive€damages€is€not€beyond€supervision€by€the€Court."€€òòCoppinger€ColorÐ P1 ,8 ÐLab,€Inc.€v.€Nixonóó,€698€S.W.2d€72,€74€(Tenn.€1985).òò€óóÐ è28.: ÐñíññðñÌà è àñðñThe€Inmans€themselves€eñññstablishedÏññññòñxhibitedÏñòñconduct€which€is€willful€and€wanton€under€the€circumstances.€€They€clearly€actedÏrecklessly€and€with€a€conscious€disregard€for€the€property€of€the€Plaintiff.€€ThisÏis€conduct€which€cannot€be€approved€or€accepted€in€a€civilized€society.€€PunitiveÏdamages€are,€therefore,€appropriate.€€However,€a€portion€of€the€conduct€and€actionÏtaken€by€the€Inmans€was€done€to€their€own€property€in€accordance€with€theÏboundary€line€established€heretofore€in€this€opinion.€€We€review€the€assignmentÏof€punitive€damages€de€novo€based€upon€the€record.€€Our€review€leads€to€theÏconclusion€that€an€award€of€punitive€damages€in€the€amount€of€$5,000.00€isÐ H9˜4B Ðappropriate.€€Accordingly,€the€punitive€damage€award€is€reduced€to€that€amount.ÌÌà  àIt€is,€therefore,€ORDERED€that€the€boundary€line€between€Mrs.€DavisÏand€the€Inmans€is€established€precisely€at€the€place€where€the€white€woodenÏdecorative€fence€existed€for€almost€thirty€years.€€The€Plaintiff€is€awardedÏ$4,442.25€in€compensatory€damages€and€$5,000.00€in€punitive€damages€and€theÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€in€accordance€with€thisÏopinion.ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€ü(€ Àè“X°,X°4ì“X<Óà  àà À àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # à¼à  àà À à_______________________________________Ìà  àà À àWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌà  àà À àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à¼____________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÌà  àà À àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à¼____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÔ#†¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¹ #Ôà  à