ÿWPC“* …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 1m@ U:­ 0¶ç 0D 0dá U:E B Á 0JÉ 0T 0^g 0hÅ 0r- 0|Ÿ 0† 0¡ 1u1 0d¦ B U>'U*e D3B)ÂDCë 0@. AMnà» ›v~ŸvÓ 0ð# 0Š$ 0  % 0´©% 0Ç]& 0Û$' 0ïÿ' AOî(Æ=) 0D* D/G* Bv*˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ OBPB gQBgRBDSBgTBDUBVBWBÓ€aBDÒ xúÿÿú, ú3|xaB tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a),c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(f(2"e$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xc©XXXÔÔ€ôœòôXXc©ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌApril€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ú Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€light€of€our€affirmance€of€the€summary€judgment€entered€in€favor€of€Adams,€we€need€notÏaddress€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Lemmððs€demand€for€a€jury€trial.€€We€question,Ïhowever,€whether€the€trial€court,€after€ruling€in€favor€of€Adams€on€the€defense€of€adverse€possession,Ïacted€properly€in€proceeding€to€establish€a€boundary€line€giving€Adams€title€to€the€disputed€strip€of€land.€ÏWe€agree€that€Adamsðð€adverse€possession€of€the€disputed€strip€of€property€for€a€period€in€excess€of€sevenÏyears€constituted€a€valid€defense€which€barred€Lemmððs€claims€to€recover€the€property.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.ÏHewittóó,€164€S.W.€1198,€1199€(Tenn.€1914);€òòErck€v.€Churchóó,€11€S.W.€794,€795€(Tenn.€1889);€T.C.A.€ððÏ28„2„103€(1980).€€Citing€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„2„105€(1980),€Adams€contended€thatÏhe€additionally€was€entitled€to€legal€title€after€seven€years€because€his€adverse€possession€of€the€disputedÏproperty€was€under€color€of€title.€€Contrary€to€this€contention,€Adamsðð€possession€does€not€appear€to€haveÏbeen€under€color€of€title€because€his€deed€did€not€contain€a€description€of€the€disputed€strip€of€property.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBlankenship€v.€Blankenshipóó,€658€S.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€(indicating€that€adverseÏpossession€was€without€color€of€title€because€boundary€line€deed€introduced€by€defendant€for€title€sourceÏdid€not€appear€to€include€disputed€acreage);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPeoples€v.€Hagamanóó,€215€S.W.2d€827,€828€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1948)€(affirming€chancellorððs€decree€which€ruled€that€defendantsðð€adverse€possession€of€disputedÏstrip€of€land€was€without€color€of€title€because€strip€in€controversy€fell€within€boundaries€of€lot€owned€byÏplaintiff).€€Accordingly,€in€order€to€be€entitled€to€a€decree€declaring€him€the€owner€in€fee€of€the€disputedÏstrip,€Adams€was€required€to€demonstrate€that€his€adverse€possession€exceeded€twenty€years.€€òòHallmarkÏv.€Tidwellóó,€849€S.W.2d€787,€792„93€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòJohnson€v.€City€of€Mt.€Pleasantóó,€713€S.W.2d€659,Ï661€(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòMoore€v.€Brannanóó,€304€S.W.2d€660,€667„68€(Tenn.€App.€1957);€òòGibson€v.ÏShularóó,€194€S.W.2d€865,€866€(Tenn.€App.€1946).€€Nevertheless,€our€resolution€of€this€question€does€notÏrequire€a€reversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€because€Lemm€did€not€raise€this€issue€below€or€on€appeal.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ ` p›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ÔÑ7€†^XXdìdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌMARGARET€S.€LEMM,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/à àò ò)€Davidson€Chancery€No.€95„1308„IIÌà àà àó óAppellant,à àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9607„CH„00330Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ€ÙßR€./,A1-j|Iê` ç `€€@ÿRß›GARY€L.€ADAMS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Counter„Plaintiffà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGARY€L.€ADAMS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óThird„Party€Plaintiff/Appelleeà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANNA€FRIESENHAHN,ó óà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óThird„Party€Defendant/Appellantà àà àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€HOBBS€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌò òCHARLES€C.€MORROWÌMORROW,€BOWHAN€&€ASSOCIATESÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌò òBARBARA€J.€PERUTELLIÌSCHULMAN,€LeROY€&€BENNETT,€P.C.Ìó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÑ7€ c© XXdæXXdì7Ñœó ó›ÓÓà àIn€this€boundary€dispute,€Plaintiff€Margaret€S.€Lemm€and€Third„Party€DefendantÏAnna€Friesenhahn€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€order€entering€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏDefendant/Appellee€Gary€L.€Adams.€€In€granting€Adamsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€ruled€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€Lemmððs€action€for€trespass€andÏinjunctive€relief€was€barred€by€Adamsðð€adverse€possession€of€the€disputed€property€forÏa€period€in€excess€of€seven€years.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àLemm€and€Adams€own€adjoining€parcels€of€property€along€Whites€Creek€PikeÏin€Davidson€County.€€œAdams›€acquired€his€property€in€1981.€€œWhen›€Adams€purchasedÏthe€property,€an€existing€fence€ran€along€what€Adams€believed€to€be€the€borderÏbetween€his€property€and€what€is€now€Lemmððs€property.€€€Additionally,€an€existing€roadÏran€more€or€less€parallel€to€and€just€inside€the€fence€œline.€Since›€acquiring€the€property,ÍAdams€continuously€has€used€the€road€and€the€fence.€€œOver›€the€years,€Adams€hasÏimproved€the€road€as€needed,€and€he€also€has€maintained€the€fence€in€order€to€keepÏlivestock€on€his€property.€€œIn›€1986€or€1987,€Adams€constructed€some€new€fencingÏbecause€some€of€the€old€fence€posts€had€deteriorated.€€œWhile›€a€portion€of€the€newÏfence€line€coincided€with€the€old€fence€line,€in€some€places€Adams€moved€the€fenceÏline€several€feet€closer€to€the€Lemm€property.€€œAdams›€has€continued€to€maintain€andÏuse€the€new€fence€since€its€œconstruction.›ÌÌà àLemmððs€property,€on€the€other€hand,€has€been€in€Lemmððs€family€for€many€years.€€ÏœLemm›€first€acquired€a€one„third€interest€in€the€property€from€her€mother€in€1987.€€œIn›Ï1994,€Lemm€purchased€the€other€two„thirds€interest€in€the€property€from€her€sisters€atÏa€public€auction,€and€she€had€a€deed€prepared€conveying€a€life€estate€to€herself€andÏthe€remainder€in€fee€to€her€daughter,€Anna€Friesenhahn.€œAt›€the€time€of€the€sale,€theÏauctioneer€announced€that€Adams€ð ðadmitted€he€was€over€the€line€but€there€would€beÏno€problem.ðð€€œAfter›€the€auction,€Lemm€introduced€herself€to€Adams€and€asked€himÏabout€the€fence.€€œAdams›€admitted€that,€when€he€constructed€his€fence,€he€did€not€haveÏa€legal€survey€showing€the€location€of€the€property€line.€€œLemm›€subsequently€had€aÏsurvey€performed€which€showed€that€Adamsðð€fence€encroached€upon€her€property.€ÏœAdams›€reportedly€told€the€surveyor€ð ðthat€he€did€not€know€exactly€where€his€propertyÏline€was€and€didnððt€believe€that€[the€old€fence€line]€necessarily€represented€the€trueÏproperty€line.ðð€€Lemm€also€hired€a€fence€company€to€construct€a€fence€along€theÏsurveyed€boundary.€€œWhen›€Adams€learned€that€fence€company€employees€planned€toÍconstruct€the€fence€across€his€road,€he€advised€the€employees€that€the€road€was€hisÏproperty€and€could€not€be€fenced.€ÌÌà àIn€April€1995,€Lemm€filed€this€lawsuit€against€Adams,€seeking€injunctive€reliefÏand€damages€for€trespass.€€œAdams›€answered,€raising€the€affirmative€defense€ofÏadverse€possession€and€asserting€a€counterclaim€for€ejectment.€€œAdams›€laterÏamended€his€counterclaim€to€add€Anna€Friesenhahn€as€a€third„party€defendant.€ÌÌà àIn€October€1995,€Adams€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€contending€thatÏLemmððs€action€against€him€was€barred€by€his€adverse€possession€of€the€disputedÏproperty.€€œAdams›€additionally€contended€that€his€adverse€possession€entitled€him€toÏpossession€of€and€title€to€the€disputed€property.€€œLemm›€opposed€the€motion,Ïcontending€that€summary€judgment€was€precluded€by€the€existence€of€genuine€issuesÏof€material€fact€as€to€Adamsðð€defense€of€adverse€possession.€€œLemm›€demanded€that€aÏjury€trial€be€conducted€to€ð ðtry€the€factual€issues€in€this€case.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€subsequently€entered€an€order€granting€Adamsðð€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€and€dismissing€Lemmððs€claims.€€€The€trial€courtððs€order€declaredÏAdams€to€be€the€owner€in€fee€of,€and€entitled€to€possession€of,€all€of€the€land€lying€toÏthe€north€of€(inside)€Adamsðð€fence€line€in€accordance€with€a€March€1996€surveyÏperformed€by€Adamsðð€surveyor.€€Ìà àLemm€filed€a€motion€to€amend€the€order,€which€the€trial€court€denied,€and€thisÏappeal€followed.€€œOn›€appeal,€Lemm€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€threeÍrespects:€€(1)€in€granting€Adamsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€based€on€AdamsððÏdefense€of€adverse€possession;€(2)€in€denying€Lemmððs€demand€for€a€jury€trial;€and€(3)Ïin€denying€Lemmððs€motion€to€disqualify€Adamsðð€attorney.€ÌÌà@ àò òADVERSE€POSSESSIONó óÌÌà àLemm€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Adamsðð€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€because€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€remains€as€to€whetherÏAdams€intended€to€adversely€possess€the€disputed€strip€of€land.€€òòSeeóó€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993)€(indicating€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€ð ðonlyÏwhen€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€the€moving€party€is€entitledÏto€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€lawðð).€€In€support€of€this€contention,€Lemm€points€toÏevidence€that€Adams€maintained€and€improved€the€existing€fence€based€on€hisÏmistaken€belief€that€the€fence€line€represented€the€true€boundary€line.€€CitingÏòòBuchanan€v.€Nixonóó,€43€S.W.2d€380€(Tenn.€1931),€Lemm€argues€that€the€intent€toÏestablish€a€boundary€line€is€an€essential€element€of€the€defense€of€adverseÏpossession€and€that€Adamsðð€mistaken€or€accidental€possession€of€the€disputedÏproperty€was€legally€insufficient€to€support€such€a€defense.ÌÌà àThis€argument€is€without€merit.€€Beginning€with€our€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€inÏòòErck€v.€Churchóó,€11€S.W.€794€(Tenn.€1889),€the€courts€of€this€state€have€continuallyÏadhered€to€the€rule€that,€ð ðwhere€a€purchaser€of€land€accidentally€or€by€mistakeÏencloses€a€contiguous€strip,€believing€he€is€placing€the€fence€on€the€boundary,€andÍholds€the€enclosed€strip€for€[seven]€years,€his€possession€is€adverse,€and€will€availÏagainst€the€true€owner.ðð€€òòPeoples€v.€Hagamanóó,€215€S.W.2d€827,€829€(Tenn.€App.Ï1948)€(citing€òòErck€v.€Churchóó,€11€S.W.€794€(Tenn.€1889),€and€òòWilliams€v.€Hewittóó,€164ÏS.W.€1198€(Tenn.€1914));€òòaccordóó€òòLiberto€v.€Steeleóó,€221€S.W.2d€701,€703€(Tenn.€1949);ÏòòCross€v.€McCurryóó,€859€S.W.2d€349,€352€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€In€such€cases,€the€actualÏintent€to€adversely€possess€the€property€of€another€need€not€be€shown;€it€is€sufficientÏthat€the€possession€was€due€to€ignorance€or€mistake€as€to€the€true€location€of€theÏboundary€line.€€òòLiberto€v.€Steeleóó,€221€S.W.2d€at€703;€òòFoster€v.€Hillóó,€510€S.W.2d€520,Ï522€(Tenn.€App.€1973);€òòGibson€v.€Shularóó,€194€S.W.2d€865,€867€(Tenn.€App.€1946).ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€facts€of€this€case€fall€squarely€within€the€holding€of€òòErckóó€andÏits€progeny.€€In€the€present€case,€it€was€undisputed€that€Adams€believed€the€old€fenceÏline€to€be€the€true€boundary€line€when€he€purchased€his€property€in€1981.€€SinceÏacquiring€the€property,€Adams€continuously€has€used€the€land€inside€the€fence€line€asÏhis€own€property.€€œTo›€this€end,€Adams€has€maintained€the€existing€fence€and,€in€someÏplaces,€has€constructed€new€fencing.€€œUnder›€these€circumstances,€the€trial€courtÏproperly€entered€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Adams€based€on€the€defense€ofÏadverse€possession€because€it€was€immaterial€that€Adams€may€have€possessedÏLemmððs€property€by€ignorance€or€mistake€rather€than€by€design.€€òòLiberto€v.€Steeleóó,€221ÍS.W.2d€at€703.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›ÌÌà àIn€so€holding,€we€conclude€that€Lemmððs€reliance€on€òòBuchanan€v.€Nixonóó,€43ÏS.W.2d€380€(Tenn.€1931),€is€misplaced€because€the€facts€in€òòBuchananóó€areÏdistinguishable€from€those€found€in€the€present€case€and€in€òòErckóó.€€In€òòBuchananóó,€theÏCourt€noted€that€the€erection€of€the€fence€there€ð ðwas€not€by€the€adverse€claimant€at€all,Ïbut€by€the€owner€of€the€adjoining€lot€for€usages€of€his€own,€not€only€in€ignorance€of€theÏtrue€line,€but€without€purpose€to€set€up€a€line.ðð€€òòBuchananóó,€43€S.W.2d€at€382.€ÏStressing€that€intent€was€an€essential€element€of€adverse€possession,€the€CourtÏdeclined€to€extend€the€rule€of€law€announced€in€òòErckóó€to€the€facts€of€the€òòBuchananóóÏcase,€but€the€Court€did€not€overrule€òòErckóó.€€òòIdóó.€€Subsequent€appellate€decisions€haveÏreaffirmed€òòErckóóððs€holding€as€the€ð ðestablished€rule€of€property€in€this€Stateðð€andÍseemingly€have€restricted€òòBuchananóóððs€holding€to€the€facts€of€that€case.€€òòLiberto€v.ÏSteeleóó,€221€S.W.2d€at€704;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPeoples€v.€Hagamanóó,€215€S.W.2d€at€829;€òòGibsonÏv.€Shularóó,€194€S.W.2d€at€866.ÌÌà@ àò òDISQUALIFICATION€OF€COUNSELó óÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€this€litigation,€Lemm€filed€a€motion€to€disqualify€AdamsððÏattorney,€Barbara€J.€Perutelli,€on€the€basis€of€a€conflict€of€interest.€€œThe›€asserted€conflictÏwas€that,€when€Lemm€purchased€the€property€at€auction,€Michael€Bennett,€an€attorneyÏwith€Perutelliððs€law€firm,€performed€a€title€search€on€the€property.€€œAccording›€to€LemmððsÏmotion,€Bennettððs€title€search€revealed€ð ðthat€there€were€no€exceptions,€encroachmentsÏor€defects€with€said€propertyðð€and€ð ð[t]his€was€certified€through€the€Republic€TitleÏCompany€for€the€issuance€of€a€title€policy.ðð€ÌÌà àAdams€responded€by€conceding€that€Michael€Bennett,€one€of€the€law€firmððsÏpartners,€had€represented€Lemm€in€the€closing€of€her€property€in€1994.€€In€an€affidavitÏfiled€with€the€court,€Bennett€outlined€the€extent€of€his€prior€communications€with€Lemm.€ÏœBennett›€initially€was€contacted€by€the€auction€company€which€sold€the€property.€€œAt›€theÏauction€companyððs€request,€Bennett€performed€a€title€search€and€handled€the€closingÏon€the€property.€€œDuring›€the€closing,€which€was€transacted€by€mail,€Bennett€and€LemmÏhad€at€least€one€telephone€conversation€in€which€Lemm€gave€instructions€concerningÏthe€names€which€would€appear€on€the€œdeed.€€In›€connection€with€the€closing,€BennettÏprovided€Lemm€with€an€ownerððs€title€insurance€policy€from€Old€Republic€National€TitleÍInsurance€Company.€€Contrary€to€Lemmððs€assertion,€the€policy€did€not€certify€that€ð ðnoÏexceptions,€encroachments€or€defectsðð€existed€with€respect€to€the€property.€€Instead,Ïthe€policy€indicated€that€it€did€not€insure€against€loss€or€damage€by€reason€of€certainÏcontingencies,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€ð ð[f]acts€which€would€be€disclosed€by€aÏcomprehensive€survey€of€the€premises€herein€described.ðð€€œSometime›€after€the€closing,ÏLemm€contacted€Bennett€to€advise€him€that€a€neighboring€landowner€had€built€a€fenceÏon€her€property€and€to€ask€him€if€the€title€policy€would€cover€this€problem.€€œBennett›Ïinformed€Lemm€that€he€doubted€the€policy€would€cover€this€problem,€but€he€advisedÏher€to€contact€counsel€for€the€title€company€for€a€definitive€answer,€and€he€gave€her€theÏtitle€company€counselððs€telephone€number.€€œLemm›€later€contacted€Bennett€to€informÏhim€that€she€was€suing€the€neighboring€landowner€for€encroachment.€€œLemm›€againÏasked€Bennett€if€the€title€policy€would€cover€this€situation,€and€Bennett€again€instructedÏLemm€to€contact€counsel€for€the€title€company.€€œDuring›€this€last€conversation,€LemmÏadvised€Bennett€that€a€potential€conflict€of€interest€existed€because€Perutelli€wasÏrepresenting€the€neighboring€landowner.€€œAt›€this€point,€communications€betweenÏLemm€and€Bennett€apparently€ceased,€and€Bennett€and€Perutelli€sought€advice€fromÏthe€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€ÌÌà àAfter€conducting€a€hearing€on€this€matter,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏdenying€Lemmððs€motion€for€disqualification.€€œIn›€denying€the€motion,€the€trial€courtÏfound:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[T]hat›€there€is€no€conflict€of€interest€which€would€disqualifyÏdefense€counsel€in€her€representation€of€the€defendant.€ÏThe€Court€finds€that€there€were€no€confidences€or€secretsÍdisclosed€in€Mr.€Bennettððs€representation€of€Ms.€Lemm€inÏthe€closing€nor€in€the€subsequent€phone€conversations€withÏher.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€boundary€line€dispute€currentlyÏbefore€the€Court€between€the€parties€did€not€arise€out€of€norÏis€it€closely€associated€with€the€closing€of€the€LemmÏproperty€by€the€law€firm....€œThe›€Court€further€finds€that€theÏcurrent€representation€of€the€defendant€will€not€undo€legalÏœmatters›€resulting€from€the€closing.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€begin€with€the€premise€that€the€disqualification€of€a€litigantððs€attorney€isÏdiscouraged.€€As€this€court€has€explained,ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àà àA›€trial€court€has€a€broad€range€of€options€available€toÏinsure€that€its€proceedings€are€fair€both€in€appearance€andÏin€fact.€€Disqualifying€an€attorney€is€the€most€drastic.€ÏòòSchiessle€v.€Stephensóó,€717€F.2d€417,€420€(7th€Cir.€1983);ÏòòBurnette€v.€Morganóó,€303€Ark.€150,€794€S.W.2d€145,€147„48Ï(1990).€€It€invariably€causes€delay,€increases€costs,€andÏdeprives€parties€of€counsel€of€their€choice.€€Courts€should,Ïtherefore,€disqualify€counsel€with€considerable€reluctanceÏand€only€when€no€other€practical€alternative€exists.€€òòBoardÏof€Educ.€v.€Nyquistóó,€590€F.2d€1241,€1246€(2d€Cir.€1979).ÌÌÓÓœòòIn›€re€Ellisóó,€822€S.W.2d€602,€605€(Tenn.€App.€1991);€òòaccordóó€òòWhalley€Dev.€Corp.€v.€FirstÏCitizens€Bancshares,€Inc.óó,€834€S.W.2d€328,€332€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(noting€that€trialÏcourts€ð ðshould€be€reluctant€to€disqualify€a€litigantððs€counsel€of€choice€and€should€grantÏdisqualification€motions€sparinglyðð).ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€disqualification€of€counsel,€this€court€previously€hasÏconsidered€the€three„step€analysis€outlined€in€òòSchiessle€v.€Stephensóó,€717€F.2d€417Ï(7th€Cir.€1983),€and€subsequently€adopted€by€Tennesseeððs€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€in€Formal€Ethics€Opinion€89„F„118.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€1989€WL€122981,Íat€*7€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€This€three„step€analysis€requires€the€court€to€determine€(1)Ïð ðwhether€a€substantial€relationship€exists€between€the€subject€matter€of€the€prior€andÏpresent€representationsðð;€(2)€if€a€substantial€relationship€does€exist,€ð ðwhether€theÏpresumption€of€shared€confidences€with€respect€to€the€prior€representation€has€beenÏrebuttedðð;€and€(3)€if€the€presumption€referenced€in€step€2€has€not€been€rebutted,Ïð ðwhether€the€presumption€of€shared€confidences€has€been€rebutted€with€respect€to€theÏpresent€representation.ðð€€òòSchiessleóó,€717€F.2d€at€420.ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€analysis€to€the€present€case,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€deny€Lemmððs€motion€to€disqualify€Adamsðð€attorney.€€With€regard€to€theÏrelationship€between€the€subject€matter€of€the€former€and€present€representations,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€current€boundary€dispute€did€not€arise€out€of,€nor€was€it€closelyÏassociated€with,€the€services€performed€by€Bennett€in€connection€with€the€prior€closingÏof€the€Lemm€property.€€œMore›€importantly,€the€trial€court€made€the€specific€finding€thatÏBennettððs€representation€of€Lemm€did€not€result€in€the€disclosure€of€any€confidences€orÏsecrets,€and€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€thisÏfinding.€€€œòòSeeóó›€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Significantly,€Lemm€did€not€contend€below,€nor€does€sheÏcontend€on€appeal,€that€Bennettððs€prior€closing€of€the€property€involved€anyÏconfidences€or€secrets€which€could€be€used€against€Bennett€in€the€presentÏproceeding.€€Accordingly,€even€if€a€substantial€relationship€existed€between€theÏcurrent€boundary€dispute€and€the€prior€closing€of€the€Lemm€property,€the€presumptionÏof€shared€confidences€was€sufficiently€rebutted€to€permit€Perutelli€to€represent€AdamsÏin€this€lawsuit.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€v.€Kingóó,€1989€WL€122981,€at€*9€(Tenn.€App.€1989)€(holdingÍthat€trial€court€erred€in€disqualifying€defendantððs€counsel€where€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€plaintiff€ever€communicated€any€confidence€or€secret€during€prior€representation);Ïòòsee€alsoóó€òòAutry€v.€Stateóó,€430€S.W.2d€808,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1967)€(holding€thatÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€permitting€attorney€to€participate€in€trial€asÏspecial€prosecutor€where,€although€defendant€sought€attorneyððs€services€prior€to€trial,Ïduring€interview€attorney€learned€nothing€of€confidential€nature€that€would€embarrassÏdefendant€at€trial).ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏAppellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›