WPC@  #PA4dϭC|V96ah۱:> 춼3lajXO6dY2Cmlj*8zWMhi*coı0!Ry(;oO* A98S$uDK[h;tYLʙ%,|}h(T,)ʜO%zhzdZQi߷V\Ѫ@#G"g5s]U7`\IEg3콦 OzC^ȥGhM<Y(0LRW+p9fVao0f(-6g) = CfJ]َhq[1Nƽxox{7zLPEcAӽmsۗ:`]e=P)at&wi 9DФ2P} ?)nמ}лA-};CQ@?n*# LUNW % 0U<^w@4U<9 0DAU: AQ 0D 0D 0D` ` D/ B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman !"U#U$U%&'Ӏ(E)*Ӏy&+,,--../3|x3)L  Z $Arrus BT Roman(3$ !   ""   X^XXX 0X X^   Ad FILED X^X 0  July12,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!" $&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (#$  0  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd 7!  7XXdXXd7  XLXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7*r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r*@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE `  ______________________________________________ RANDALLGRAHAMand  CHARLESJ.FYKE,     ` PlaintiffsAppellants, `     h     WilliamsonChanceryNo.24797Vs. `     h     C.A.No.01a019809CH00482     LORAINEEDMONDSON,     ` DefendantAppellee.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHEWILLIAMSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@+ + THEHONORABLECORNELIAA.CLARK,JUDGE@\ \ DavidH.King;King,Turnbow&BrisbyofFranklin@'ForAppellants@\\WilliamCarter(c()C)onwayofFranklin@rr(ForAppellee##@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED # @& Opinionfiled: %!! """""" `     h      p   W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 1--  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJ!UDGE,W.S.CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE! $ 955  ;77 $&&% ` Thisisanactiontoenforcerestrictivecovenantsagainstalandowner.Plaintiffs/appellants,RandallGrahamandCharlesFyke(Plaintiffs),appealtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttodefendant/appellee,LoraineEdmondson(Edmondson). ` PlaintiffsinthisactionarehomeownersintheupscaleneighborhoodofBluffRoadAcresinBrentwood.TheyallegethatEdmondsonhasamobilehomeandoperatesbusinessesonherpropertyinviolationofrestrictivecovenantsplacedontheneighborhood. ` Thefactsareundisputed.InMarch1978,FittsandJohnsonDevelopmentCompany(Fitts&Johnson)acquiredtitletoalargetractoflandwhicheventuallybecameBluffRoadAcres.OnApril7,1978,Fitts&JohnsonsoldtwotractsoflandtoHastyConstructionCompany(Hasty).OnSeptember13,1978,Fitts&Johnsonexecutedrestrictivecovenants,whichtheyrecordedintheRegistersOfficeofWilliamsonCounty.TherestrictionspurportedtocoverallofBluffRoadAcresincludingthetwotractspreviouslysoldtoHastyandinpertinentpartstate:%''%8 ` 8 ` !` !RESTRICTIONSFORBLUFFROADACRES    8 ` 8 ` !` !   h *    * p   *$    8 ` 8 ` !` !Whereas,theundersigneddevelopersofthepropertyknownasBluffRoadAcres,desiretoplacerestrictivecovenantswhichshallbeapplicabletoallthelotsshownontherecordedplatofsaidsubdivisionandbindinguponallpresentandfutureownersfortheperiodhereinafter.TheserestrictionsonlygovernpropertyappearingonthewestsideofOwlCreek.PropertyontheeastsideofOwlCreekremainsunrestricted.    8 ` 8 ` !` !   h *    * p   */++   8 ` 8 ` !` !2.Notrailer,basementhouse,tent,garage,barns,orotheroutbuildingshallbeerectedorusedaseitheratemporaryorpermanentresidence.    8 ` 8 ` !` !   h *    * p   *511   8 ` 8 ` !` !8.Noschoolbuses,trailertrucks,dumptrucks,mobilehomes,etc.,aretobeparkedorstoredonanylot.     955 8 ` 8 ` !` !   h *    * p   *   8 ` 8 ` !` !12.NocommercialactivitiespermittedtobeconductedonthewestsideofOwlCreek....    8 ` 8 ` !` !13.IfthepartiesheretooranyofthemortheirheirsorassignsshallviolateorattempttoviolateanyofthecovenantsorrestrictionshereinbeforeMay10,2003,itshallbelawfulforanyotherpersonorpersonsowninganyotherlotinsaiddevelopmenttoprosecuteanyproceedingsatlaworinequityagainstthepersonorpersonsviolatingorattemptingtoviolateanysuchcovenantorrestrictionsforsuchviolation.    ThereisnoevidencethatHastyagreedtooracquiescedinthecovenantsplacedonthetwotractsitowned. ` OnNovember17,1978,sometwomonthsafterFitts&JohnsonfiledtherestrictivecovenantscoveringBluffRoadAcres,HastysoldpartofthelandinquestiontoMr.andMrs.Thomas.EdmondsonandherhusbandacquiredthepropertyonOctober28,1981fromtheThomases.In1991,afterEdmondsonandherhusbanddivorced,thelandinquestionwasquitclaimedtoher.Edmondsonsubsequentlyinstalledamobilehomeonherproperty,expandedabarn,heldrodeos,andbeganabeautyshoponherproperty. ` Plaintiffs,onbehalfoftwentyone(21)homeownersinBluffRoadAcres,filedsuitagainstEdmondsonassertingthatshewasinviolationoftherestrictivecovenantsandseekinginjunctivereliefbyremovalofhermobilehomeandremovalofagaragelocatedonherproperty.ThecomplaintalsoseekstoenjoinEdmondsonfromholdingrodeosandfromoperatingabeautyshop.Edmondsonansweredthecomplaintandfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.Afterahearingonthemotion,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingEdmondsonsummaryjudgmentwhichstatesinpertinentpart:8 ` 8 ` !` !  Plaintiffsinthislawsuitallegethatdefendantiscurrentlyintheprocessoferectingatraileronthelotownedbyherinthesubdivision,andthatthisactionviolatestheabovereferencedrestrictivecovenant.Defendantclaimsherpropertyisnotsubjecttotherestrictivecovenantsbecauseitwasdeededtoher 955 predecessorintitlepriortotheplacementoftherestrictionsontheproperty.955   Ї8 ` 8 ` !` !  Defendantspositioniscorrect.UnderTennesseelaw,atleastintheabsenceofanexpressedcontraryintention,acovenantrunningwiththelandmustbeconfinedtothepropertyasitexistedatthetimeofthecovenant....    8 ` 8 ` !` !  Althoughcourtsrecognizethevalidityofrestrictivecovenants,theyarenotfavoredandwillnotbeextendedbyimplication.(citationomitted)Sincedefendantspropertyisnotburdenedbyrestrictionseitherdirectlyin   thechainoftitleorbyanyotherdocument,recordedor   otherwise,thiscourtcannotimposesuchrestrictionsuponherland....    8 ` 8 ` !` !  ItisthereforeORDERED,ADJUDGEDandDECREEDthatdefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentshallbe,andishereby,granted.Theactionisdismissed....     ` PlaintiffstimelyappealedthetrialcourtsorderandaskthisCourttodeterminewhethersummaryjudgmentwasappropriate. ` XڪXXXڪAmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovant  demonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).On # amotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. In Byrdv.Hall ,847 )%% S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourtstated:8 ` 8 ` !` !Onceitisshownbythemovingpartythatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,thenonmovingpartymustthendemonstrate,byaffidavitsordiscoverymaterials,thatthereisagenuine,materialfactdisputetowarrantatrial.Inthisregard,Rule56.05[nowRule56.06]providesthatthenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrelyuponhispleadingsbutmustsetforthspecificfactsshowing 3// thatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.# XڪXX Xڪ#XڪXXXڪ8@TLL400    Id. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal). 622  ` Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegal 8 44 conclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. Carvellv.  Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).Sinceonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,  thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingatrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment. Bain ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsgrant   ofsummaryjudgmentis denovo ontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv.Estate   ofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).# XڪXX Xڪ #XڪXXXڪ     # XڪXX Xڪ## ` PlaintiffsfirstassertthatthetrialcourterredingrantingEdmondsonsmotion   forsummaryjudgmentbecauseagenuineissueexistsastoEdmondsonsknowledgeoftherestrictivecovenants.Plaintiffscitetwocasesfromthiscourtwhichdealwithnoticeofrestrictivecovenantsnotfoundinthechainoftitle.In Stracenerv.Bailey ,  737S.W.2d536(Tenn.App.1986),adeveloperpurchasedaparcelofpropertywhichhadbeendesignatedonaplatasapark.Whenthedeveloperattemptedtodevelopthisland,otherownersinthesubdivisionfiledsuittoenjointhedevelopment.ThisCourtheldthatbydesignatingtheareaontheplatasaparkandsellinglotsaccordingtotheplat,theownerofthesubdivisioncreatedarestrictionontheuseoftheproperty.TheonlyquestionthenfortheCourttodecidewaswhetherthedeveloper,asthepurchaseroftheproperty,wasboundbytherestriction.Inholdingthattherestrictionwasapplicabletotheproperty,theCourtnotedthatatitlesearchofthedeveloperschainoftitlewouldhaverevealedthisrestriction.Thiscaseisdistinguishablefromthecaseatbar,becauseatthetimetherestrictivecovenantwasplacedontheparkproperty,񛀜theparkpropertywasownedbytheentityplalcingtherestrictionontheproperty.itwasplacedonthepropertybytheownerthereof.Inthecaseatbar,theentityestablishingownerofthepropertyplacingtherestrictivecovenants didnot ownthepropertywhichisnowowned 0,, byEdmondson. ` In KLNAssoc.v.MetroDev.&HousingAgency ,797S.W.2d898(Tenn. 400 App.1990),adeveloperfiledadeclaratoryjudgmentactionclaimingthatitsproposedofficedevelopmentshouldnotbesubjecttoanurbanrenewalplannot 8 44 foundinitschainoftitle.The KLN Courtheldinpartthat [o]therwisevalid  restrictionsonpropertyarebindingevenwhentheyarenotinthechainoftitleiftheownerhadactualknowledgeoftherestrictionswhenitacquiredtheproperty. Id.   at904. `  KLN dealssolelywiththepowerofthegovernmentatboththestateandlocal   levelstoexerciseitspolicepowertoimposerestrictionsonprivateproperty. Id. at   901.Ofcourse,suchpowerisfirmlyestablishedunderpriorcaselawandislimitedonlybythestateandfederalconstitutions.Thus, KLN iseasilydistinguishablefrom  thepresentcase. ` Whileweagreewiththeholdingofthe Stracener and KLN Courts,wedonot  believethattheyareapplicabletothefactsinthecasebeforeus.Instead,thepertinentissueinthepresentcasedealswiththepowerofadevelopertobindpropertyit doesnotown byfilingasubdivisionplatwhichincludesrestrictive  covenants. ` ThisCourthaspreviouslyheld:8 ` 8 ` !` !Ifitisacovenantrunningwiththeland,atleastintheabsenceofanexpressedcontraryintention, itsoperation # mustbeconfinedtothepropertyasitexistedatthetimeofthecovenant. Andtheruleofstrictconstructionapplies %!! whenanattemptismadetoapplythecovenanttootherlands.     SouthernAdvertisingCo.v.Sherman ,308S.W.2d491,493,43Tenn.App.323,326 ) %% (1957)(emphasisadded). ` Further,theSupremeCourthasdiscussedatwhatpointintimearestrictivecovenantbindsproperty:8 ` 8 ` !` !Thepresentrecordrevealsnoreasonwhytherestrictivecovenantsshouldnotbeappliedaccordingtotheirtermsagainstbuyersoflotswhopersonallyagreedtothemorwhosepurchases occurredaftertherecordationofany 4$00 particularsetofcovenants. Wehavealreadystatedthat 5&11 nosetofcovenantsshouldbegivenanygeneralretroactiveeffect.     EastSevierCountyUtil.Dist.v.WachoviaBank&TrustCo. ,570S.W.2d850,853 9(55 (Tenn.1978)(emphasisadded). ` ItisclearfromthefactsinthiscasethatFitts&JohnsonsoldthetractsoflandinquestionoverfivemonthsbeforerecordingtherestrictivecovenantsforBluffRoadAcres.Itisequallyclearthatthelawappliesrestrictivecovenantstoland asitexistedatthetime...thecovenantwasrecorded. Sherman ,308S.W.2dat493,   43Tenn.App.at326.Thus,EdmondsonspropertyisnotburdenedbytherestrictionswhichapplytoallothertractscomprisingBluffRoadAcres.Further,weagreewiththetrialcourtthatwhetherEdmondsonhadknowledgeofrestrictions,orevenforsometimebelievedtherestrictionsappliedtoherproperty,isnotpertinent. ` TheordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttoEdmondsonisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary..񛀀CostsofappealareassessedtoAppellants.XzXXXz `     h      p _________________________________   `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. # XzXX Xz9#   CONCUR:   DRF XzXXXz____________________________________ #  DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE # XzXX Xz;# $   XzXXXz____________________________________ &"" HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE # XzXX Xz<#     %