WPC# 9YL`0S 7`EruQ[Q;p{](#=EA"m4h<{|LپP-R"Yhvx8.ȎZryN?p= 4z һ{&8U޿1 iKFmhOZ'Cg!4g M )(L႕"Щ@ ն%4 lvEa<&UUjM#gX HQ ^RLJH_Ǡ`e}^e!곅oz-xخ𱓿ű@KSEӀ?Ӏ@ӀAӀy&  3|xJ :  A$  X!XXX `   1    ݀TheDeclarationofCovenantsprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` 8 ` !` !  NOWTHEREFORE ,Declarantherebydeclares  thatallofthePropertydescribedinExhibitAandany  additionalpropertyasmaybySubsequentAmendmentbeaddedtothePropertyandsubjectedtothisDeclarationshallbeheld,sold,andconveyedsubjecttothefollowingeasements,restrictions,covenants,andconditions.Sucheasements,restrictions,covenantsandconditionsareforthepurposeofprotectingthevalueanddesirabilityoftheProperty,andshallrunwiththerealpropertysubmittedtothisDeclaration.Theyshallbebindingonallpartieshavinganyright,title,orinterestinthedescribedProperty,oranypartthereof,theirheirs,successors,successorsintitle,andassigns,andshallinuretothebenefitofeachownerthereof.((3A$ 7!  7XXdXXd7  X!XXX   `   0  (3$ !    $XdgXXX   `   2    ݀Noissueregardingthisrulingispresentedinthisappeal. ""  X'XXX7XX'   Ad FILEDX'X7  August17,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!" $&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (#$  0  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd 7!  7XXdXXd7  X!XXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7Ar )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rA@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE `  ______________________________________________ HICKORYWOODSESTATES  HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION,  ` PlaintiffAppellee,    `     h      p C.A.No.01A019901CH00034Vs. `     h      p DavidsonChanceryNo.974068I     HARRYG.PARMAN,     ` DefendantAppellant.____________________________________________________________________________@  FROMTHEDAVIDSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@ THEHONORABLEIRVINH.KILCREASE,JR.,CHANCELLOR@!JerryL.VanceofNashville@>>(ForAppellant@%BrigidT.Miller;@ Baker,Donelson,Bearman&CaldwellofNashville@rr(ForAppellee;;@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED  &"" @'Opinionfiled: `     h      p   8W.FRANKC898ARWFORD89:RAWFORD, 0,,  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE: < 844  ;77 <==>>= ` Defendant/Appellant,HarryG.Parman,appealstheorderofthetrialcourtdenyinghismotionforsummaryjudgmentandgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoPlaintiff/Appellee,HickoryWoodsEstatesHomeownersAssociation(Association). ` HickoryWoodsEstatesisasubdivisioninDavidsonCounty,Tennessee,governedby AmendedandRestatedDeclarationofCovenants,Conditions,andRestrictionsforHickoryWoods(DeclarationofCovenants),whichisrecordedintheRegistersOfficeofDavidsonCounty.  ##  1      ׀    ` TheAssociationisanonprofitcorporationcreatedtoadminister,manage,andregulatetheaffairsoftheHickoryWoodssubdivisionandallpropertyownershaveamembershipintheAssociation.PursuanttotheDeclarationofCovenants,theAssociation,throughitsArchitecturalReviewCommittee(ARC)determineswhetherimprovementstothepropertyinHickoryWoodsarecompatiblewithotherimprovementswithinthesubdivision.Specifically,ArticleVoftheDeclarationofCovenantsprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:=??=8 ` 8 ` !` !Noimprovementsshallbeerected,constructed,placed,maintainedorpermittedtoremainonanyLotuntilthePlansthereforshallhavebeensubmittedtoandapprovedinwritingbytheARC,whichshalldetermineinitssolediscretionwhetherornottheproposedimprovements,andallfeaturesthereof,areacceptabletotheARCandarecompatiblewithotherimprovementswithintheProject.TheARCshallbethesolejudgeandarbiterof '## suchacceptabilityandcompatibility.IncarryingoutthefunctionsoftheARC,andinordertoinsureuniformityandqualityoftheimprovementslocatedwithintheProject,theARChasprepared,andshallmakeavailabletoallLotOwners,astatementofArchitecturalGuidelines( Guidelines)whichshallbeobservedintheconstructionofallimprovementswithintheProject....    ̜=>==>@@= ` Mr.ParmanownsahomeinHickoryWoods,andhisdeedrefersonitsfacetotheDeclarationofCovenants.WithoutpermissionfromtheARC,Mr.Parmanbeganconstructiononatwelvebyfortyfootdetachedaccessorystoragebuildingbehindhisresidence.Then,onJuly9,1997,Mr.Parman,onadviceofandthroughhisattorney,wrotetheARCrequestingpermissiontoerectthestoragebuilding.OnAugust12,1997,theARC,throughcounsel,deniedinwritingMr.Parmansrequestforpermissiontoerectthestoragebuilding.TheletteralsostatedthatMr.Parmanhadbeenpreviouslyadvisedthattheerectionofsuchastoragebuildingdidnotcomplywithsubdivisionregulations,thatallconstructionmustbestopped,andthatanyimprovementsmustberemoved.Despitereceiptoftheforegoingletter,Mr.Parmanproceededtoerectthestoragebuilding. ` OnDecember9,1997,theAssociationfiledsuitagainstMr.ParmanseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthatMr.ParmanviolatedtheDeclarationofCovenantsandanorderrequiringMr.Parmantoremovethestoragebuildingathisownexpense.Mr.ParmanfiledanAnswerandaCounterComplaint.Theanswerdeniesthatheviolatedtherestrictionsasalleged.InhisCounterComplaint,Mr.ParmanallegedthathepurchasedthepropertywithoutactualknowledgeoftherestrictivecovenantsdespitethereferenceinhisdeedtotheDeclarationofCovenants,thathereceivedactualnoticeoftherestrictionsonlyafterhecommencedconstructionofthestoragebuilding,thathewasinformedthattherewerenoArchitecturalGuidelinesinexistenceforHickoryWoods,andthathewasnotgivennoticeofthemeetingoftheARCsothathecoulddetermineinwhatrespecthisstoragebuildingfailedtomeetthestandardsoftheARC.Heseeksadeclarationthattheplaintiffsactionswere 844  arbitrary,capricious,andanunreasonableinfringementofHarryG.Parmansfreeanduntrammeleduseofhisproperty. ` OnSeptember24,1998,theAssociationfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgmentastoitsclaimandMr.ParmanscounterclaimongroundsthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactthatMr.Parmanhadactualand/orconstructiveknowledgeoftherestrictivecovenantsonhisproperty,thathefailedtoabidebysuch,andthattheARCsactionswerereasonableandwithinitsauthority.Mr.Parmanfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentongroundsthatthereisnogenuineissuefortrialastothematerialfactsregardingtheunreasonablenessoftheenforcementoftherestrictivecovenants. ` Afterahearing,thetrialcourt,onNovember20,1998,enteredanordergrantingtheAssociationsmotionsforsummaryjudgmentanddenyingMr.Parmansmotion.ThetrialcourtfoundthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingMr.ParmansnoticeoftheDeclarationofCovenantsbyvirtueofreferenceofthesameinhispropertydeed,andthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingMr.ParmansviolationoftheDeclarationofCovenants.ThetrialcourtalsofoundthatMr.Parmansaffidavitfiledthedayofthehearingwasuntimelyandnotinproperformtobeconsideredbythecourt.  ##  2       &""  ` Thisappealensued,andMr.Parmanpresentsthefollowingissue,asstatedinhisbrief,forourreview:8 ` 8 ` !` !Didthetrialcourterringrantingplaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentanddenyingdefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment?     ` Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhenthemovantdemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuine 622 issueofmaterialfactexists. 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  thatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.8@TLL     Id. at211(citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).   ` Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfromthefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. 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).  %!!   ` Restrictivecovenantsconditioningtherightofpropertyownerstomake ' ## improvementsontheapprovalofahomeownersassociationorarchitecturalcommitteearegenerallyvalidandenforceable. SeeAssociationofOwnersofRegency + '' ParkCondominiums,Inc.v.Thomasson ,878S.W.2d560,563565(Tenn.App. -$)) 1994).Restrictivecovenantsareenforceableeventhoughthecovenantsvestdiscretionarypowerswiththearchitecturalcommittee. VillagesofBrentwood 1(-- HomeownersAssn,Inc.v.Westermann ,No.01A019708CH00388,1998WL 3,// 289342,at*3(Tenn.App.June5,1998).Theprevailingviewinthisjurisdictionisthatthesesortsofrestrictivecovenantswillbeenforcedaslongastheentityadministeringthecovenantsactsreasonablyandingoodfaith. Id.  IndianHills 9055 ClubHomeownersAssn,Inc.v.Cooper ,No.01A019507CH00319,1995WL  763823,at*3(Tenn.App.Dec.29,1995).Whentherestrictivecovenantsestablishareviewcommitteebutdonotcontainspecificcriteriaforthecommitteetofollow,thevalidityofthecriteriaandthecommitteesinterpretationofsuchwillbejudgedbyastandardofreasonableness. Westermann ,1998WL289342,at*3.=@= =@=   8 ` 8 ` !` ! Themajorityviewwithrespecttocovenantsrequiringsubmissionofplansandconsentpriortoconstructionisthatsuchclauses,evenifvestingtheapprovingauthoritywithbroaddiscretionarypowers,arevalidandenforceablesolongastheauthoritytoconsentisexercisedreasonablyandingoodfaith.     Cooper ,1995WL763823,at*4(quoting Davisv.Huey ,620S.W.2d561,566  (Tex.1981)). ` The Cooper Courtcontinued:   8 ` 8 ` !` !  Whethertheexerciseofapprovalofconstructionplansisreasonableisafactualquestiontobedeterminedinlightofthecircumstances. Trieweiller ,838P.2dat  385. Seealso,LaVielle ,412S.W.2dat593; Snowmass  AmericanCorp.v.Schoenheit ,524P.2d645,648(Colo.  Ct.App.1974).Thereareseveralcriteriathatcourtshaveestablishedtoemploywhenevaluatingthereasonablenessoftheexerciseofpowertoconsent.Themostimportantofthesecriteria,whichindicatethatdisapprovalofplansisreasonable,arelackofcompliancewiththespecificrestrictionsofthesubdivisionandconstructionthatisnotconsistentorharmoniouswiththeoverallplanofdevelopmentorwithneighboringproperty. LeBlancv.Webster ,483S.W.2d647; LaVielle ($$ v.Seay ,412S.W.2d587; Validity,Constructionand )%% EffectofRestrictiveCovenantRequiringConsentofThirdPersontoConstructiononLot, 19A.L.R.2d1274,atp. +'' 1294.     Id. at*4. .**  ` ThefirstquestioniswhetherMr.Parmanhadactualand/orconstructivenoticeoftherestrictivecovenantsonhisproperty.Whilethereisnotacopyofhisdeedintherecord,Mr.ParmanadmitsthathisdeedmadereferencetotheDeclarationofCovenants.Therefore,Mr.Parmanischargeablewithnoticeofallmattersinhisdeedaffectinghisproperty. SeeGordonv.Hirsch ,1990WL19702, 844 at*3(Tenn.App.March6,1990)(citing Teaguev.Sowder ,121Tenn.132,114  S.W.484(1908); Savings,Bldg.&LoanAssnv.McClain ,18Tenn.App.292,76  S.W.2d650(1934)).Inaddition,Mr.Parmansactionsin1996insubmittingapplicationstotheAssociationforvariancespursuanttotheDeclarationofCovenantsisindicativethathemayhavehadactualnoticeoftherestrictivecovenants.Nevertheless,Mr.ParmanischargedwithnoticeoftheDeclarationofCovenantsaffectinghispropertybecauseofthereferenceofsuchinhisdeed. ` ThenextquestioniswhethertheARCsactionsindenyingMr.Parmanpermissiontoconstructthestoragebuildingwerereasonableandingoodfaith.Mr.ParmanspleadingsaverthattheAssociationsactionswereunreasonable,arbitrary,andcapricious.TheAssociationassertsthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingMr.ParmansviolationoftherestrictionsandthatitactedreasonablyandwithinitsauthorityindenyingMr.Parmansrequest.Thepartiespleadingsjoinissueonwhetherplaintiffactedreasonablyunderthecircumstances.Whethertheexerciseofapprovalofconstructionplansisreasonableisafactualquestiontobedeterminedinlightofthecircumstances. Cooper ,1995WL763823,at*4. "  ` PlaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentwasnotsupportedbyanysworntestimonyoraffidavitthatnegatesMr.Parmansallegationthattheplaintiffactedunreasonablyindenyinghisrequest. ` In McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodService ,948S.W.2d477(Tenn.1997),our * && SupremeCourtnotedthatitisnotsufficientforapartyseekingsummaryjudgmenttomakemereconclusoryallegationsthatthenonmovingpartyhasnoevidence.TheCourtsaid:8 ` 8 ` !` !Themovantmusteitheraffirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenonmovantsclaimorconclusivelyestablishanaffirmativedefense.=@==@=Ifthemovantdoesnotnegateaclaimedbasisforthesuit,thenonmovantsburdentoproduceeithersupportingaffidavitsordiscoverymaterialsisnottriggeredandthemotionforsummaryjudgmentfails.=@==@=844    955  Id. at47879(citationsomitted). 8 44  955  ` Intheinstantcase,theAssociationdidnotnegatetheaffirmativeallegationsinMr.Parmanspleadings,andthus,theAssociationsmotionmustfail.Bythesametoken,Mr.ParmanhadnoswornprooforaffidavittonegatetheAssociationsallegationthatitactedreasonably.Thus,hismotionmustfail.Underthestateofthepleadingsinthiscase,thereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhethertheactionoftheAssociationwasreasonableunderthecircumstances. ` Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasnecessary.Costsofappealareassessedonehalftoappellantandonehalftoappellee. `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.   bCONCUR CONCUR:    ____________________________________   ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE     ____________________________________   HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE      =