WPC- # VUNa % 0N 0 b w@ 4 , 0D;   m  N& 0J( 0Tr 0^ 0h$ 0r 0| 0z 0 1u 0d Bi D3U>B) 0@ DC` AMU*,FV$v~$v & AO++, 0D, D/5- Bd-HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2{$ y!     X[X `   0  - - D U  E  D  E Ӏ D -3|x (#$  0   UMilligan v. George - opinion ! ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d$$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("$    ,,,,7Border 1dd-.C << G<  9p`(Arial " !  #d#++   00   YYY FILED0XJuly9,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#++   $    +X       _Regrettablythecomplaintdoesnotdescribethisdisputedpropertywithprecision.Thecomplaintstatesthat [e]xhibitNo.12totheoriginalcomplaintonlydepictsthedisputedpropertyasa smallareamarkedinred.Thisexhibitwasnotincludedintheappellaterecordwhenitwasoriginallyfiledwiththiscourtandislikewisenotpartofthesupplementalappellaterecord.Thetrialcourtclerkhasbeenunabletocomplywithourordertofilethefourteenexhibitsreferredtointhe_Milligans_complaint.Accordingly,inanorderenteredcontemporaneouslywiththisopinion,wehaveorderedthetrialcourtclerktoforfeitallcostsforthepreparationandtransmissionoftherecordinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.40(g).  !#d#++   $    +X       _WhileweassumethattheGeorgesmotiontodismissinCampbellv.Georgewassimilar,wecannotknowthiswithcertaintysincetherecordinCampbellv.Georgehasnotbeenfiledwiththiscourt. { !#d#++   $    +X       _Thelanguageinthelatterpartofthequotedtexthadnothingtodowiththe_Milligans_claimsbecausetheyhadnotbeen partiestotheearlierGeorgev.Campbelllitigation.Thetrialcourtsreferenceto partiescouldonlyhavebeentothe_Campbells_Ԁandthe_Milligans_.  !#d#++   $    +X       _Wewouldreachanidenticalconclusionifwewereconsideringwhetherthedoctrineofcollateralestoppelbarsthe_Milligans_claims.Likeresjudicata,collateralestoppelrequiresthatthetwosuitsinvolvethesameparties._Dickerson_Ԁv.Godfrey,825S.W.2d692,695(Tenn.1992);Shelleyv._Gipson_,218Tenn.at13,400S.W.2dat714. WemightnotnecessarilyreachthesameconclusionwereweconsideringtheresjudicataeffectoftheGeorgev.CampbellcaseontheCampbellv.Georgelitigation.Theearlierjudgment,eventhoughinconclusive,mayverywellbeadecision onthemerits.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(3);Olsenv.MuskegonPistonRingCo.,117F.2d163,165(6thCir.1941);Parksv._Clift_,77Tenn.529,53132(1882)(holdingthatajudgmentisonthemeritsiftheissuescouldhavebeendisposedofhadthepartiesproperlypresentedandmanagedtheirrespectivecases).However,thedoctrineofresjudicataappliesonlytothefactsinexistenceatthetimetheearlierjudgmentwasrendered.Itdoesnotpreventthereexaminationofthesamequestionbetweenthesamepartieswhen,intheinterval,thefactshavechangedornewfactshaveoccurredthatmayalterthelitigantslegalrightsandrelations.Whitev.White,876S.W.2dat83940;Banksv.Banks,18Tenn.App.347,350,77S.W.2d74,76(1934).Adecisionin_Milligan_Ԁv.Georgemayprovidethebasisforreexaminingtheboundarylineissuesbetweenthe_Campbells_ԀandtheGeorges. PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . ++   _         7'dd7    \RA'\ћ @ + INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜R/1.A1-j|:`  `@Rߛ̛̜+ TOM_MILLIGAN_Ԁandwife  )LOUISE_MILLIGAN_,   )      ) Plaintiffs/Appellees,  ) CannonChancery      ) No.9527VS.      )      ) AppealNo.CURTISGEORGEandwife  ) 01A019609CH00406WILMAJ.GEORGE,   )      ) Defendants/Appellants.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORCANNONCOUNTY@ ATWOODBURY,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEROBERTE._CORLEW_,CHANCELLORForthePlaintiffs/Appellees:   FortheDefendants/Appellants:FrankBuck      SueN._Puckett_Ԅ_Jernigan_LenaAnnBuck     Smithville,TennesseeSmithville,Tennessee@ + AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED +       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE+@ OPINION + Thisinterlocutoryappealinvolvesaboundarylinedisputebetweenneighborswholivealong_Wilmouth_ԀCreekinCannonCounty.Followinginconclusivelitigationbetweentwooftheirneighbors,theownersofoneofthetractsfiledaboundarylineactionintheChanceryCourtforCannonCountyagainsttheownersofoneoftheadjoiningtractsthathadbeeninvolvedintheearlierlitigation.Thedefendinglandownersmovedtodismissthecomplaintonthegroundthatthedecisionintheearlierlitigationwasresjudicataastotheplaintifflandownersclaims.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionbutgrantedpermissiontoseekaninterlocutoryappeal.Wegrantedtheapplicationforpermissiontoappealandnowaffirmthedenialofthemotiontodismissbecausethepartiesinthiscaseandtheformercasearenotthesame.@ I.  Threefamilieslivealongsomebottomlandadjacentto_Wilmouth_ԀCreekRoadintheLibertycommunityofCannonCounty.RobertE.and_Jerris_ԀAnnCampbell(the_ Campbells_)liveona35acretractthathasbeenownedbyMr.Campbellsfamilyformanyyears._Wilmouth_ԀCreekand_Wilmouth_CreekRoadruninanorthtosouthdirectionalongtheeasternboundaryofthe_Campbells_property.TheirneighborstotheeastareCurtisandWilmaJ.George(the Georges).TheGeorgespurchasedtheir31.25acretractinJuly1983.The_Campbells_neighborstothesouthandwestareTomandLouise_Milligan_Ԁ(the _Milligans_).The_Milligans_Ԁpurchasedtheir40acretractinOctober1985._Wilmouth_ԀCreekRoadand_Wilmouth_ԀCreekalsorunalongaportionoftheeasternboundaryofthe_Milligans_property.Asmallportionofthe_Milligans_propertysharesaboundarylinewiththesouthernportionoftheGeorgesproperty. Whiletheterraininthisareaishilly,thereisarelativelylevelstripofgoodbottomlandalong_Wilmouth_ԀCreekand_Wilmouth_ԀCreekRoad.Theneighborsdisagreementconcernstheownershipofthisbottomland.TheGeorgesbelievethattheyownthelandeastof_Wilmouth_ԀCreekbecausea1924deedintheirchainoftitleidentified_Wilmouth_ԀCreekasthewesternboundarylineoftheirproperty.Boththe_Campbells_Ԁandthe_Milligans_ԀbelievethattheirboundarylinewiththeGeorgesistotheeastofthepresentlocationof_Wilmouth_ԀCreekbecausethecreekmovedtothewestfollowingafloodoccurringbetween1925and1927. InMarch1993theGeorgesfiledsuitintheChanceryCourtforCannonCountytoenjointhe_Campbells_ԀfromremovingafencetheGeorgeshaderectedalongthecreek.The_Campbells_ԀcounterclaimedthattheyownedthedisputedpropertyundercoloroftitleandbyadversepossessionandthattheGeorgesweretrespassingonandinterferingwiththeiruseoftheproperty.FollowingabenchtrialinMarch1994,thetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgment,concludingthat boththeplaintiffsandthedefendantshavefailedtocarrytheirrespectiveburdensofproof,and,accordingly,thatbothcomplaintsshouldbedismissed.Georgev.Campbell,Civ.ActionNo.9328(CannonChan.April8,1994). OnMarch28,1995,the_Milligans_ԀfiledthepresentsuitagainsttheGeorgesintheChanceryCourtforCannonCountyseekingadeclarationthatthey,ratherthantheGeorges,ownedaportionofthebottomland._Ԝ 2   כ_ԀTheyassertedintheircomplaintthat somewherebetweentheapproximatetimeof1925and1927,thecreekmovedfromitseasternlocationtoitsmorewesternlocationanddidsosuddenlyinagreatflood.The_Milligans_ԀalsorequestedthetrialcourttoenjointheGeorgesfrominterferingwiththeireffortstosurveytheproperty.Insupportofthisrequest,theyaverred thatonoraboutDecember5,1994,thePlaintiffssurveyor...askedpermissionoftheDefendantstosurveytheaforesaidpropertybyvirtueofachievingclosureofboththePlaintiffsandtheDefendantsproperties.InasimilarandinterrelatedcauseofactioninCampbellv.George,thecauseofactionwasϜtriedpreviouslyandChancellor_Stegall_ԀdismissedthecauseofactionbecausetherewasnoclosureofthesurveyofDefendantsproperties. Oneweeklater,the_Campbells_ԀfiledaseparatesuitagainsttheGeorgesintheChanceryCourtforCannonCountyseekingtoestablishtheboundarylinesbetweentheirproperties.SeeCampbellv.George,Civ.ActionNo.9536(CannonChan.).Thissuitapparentlyraisesthesameissuesthatthetrialcourthadbeenunabletoresolveintheearlierlawsuitbetweenthesameparties. Seizingonthereferenceinthe_Milligans_complainttothe similarandinterrelatedcauseofactioninCampbellv.George,theGeorgesmovedtodismissthe_Milligans_complaintonthegroundthatiswasbarredbythedoctrineofresjudicata.TheGeorgesassertedthatpropertyclaimedbythe_Milligans_Ԁ isaportionoftheexactsamepropertyclaimedbytheCampbellplaintiffsinGeorgev.Campbell.TheGeorgesfiledasimilarmotionseekingtodismissthe_Campbells_lawsuit.OnSeptember20,1995,thetrialcourtfiledanopiniondenyingtheCampbellsmotiontodismissinbothcases.FollowingtheentryofanorderonApril19,1996denyingthemotions,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonSeptember5,1996,grantingpermissiontoseekaninterlocutoryappeal.WegrantedtheGeorgespermissiontoappealonSeptember25,1996.@ II.@ TheScopeofthisAppeal  Wemust,asathresholdmatter,addressthescopeofthisappeal.WehavedeterminedthatweshouldnotconsiderissuesrelatingtothedoctrineofcollateralestoppelortothedenialoftheGeorgesmotiontodismisstheϜ_Campbells_April1995complaintbecauseofthescopeoftheGeorgesmotiontodismissandbecauseofshortcomingsintherecordfiledwiththiscourt. TheCourtofAppealshasappellatejurisdictiononly.Tenn.CodeAnn.164108(a)(1)(1994);Clementv._Nichols_,186Tenn.235,237,209S.W.2dϜ23,23(1948);StewartTitleGuar.Co._v._ԀFDIC,936S.W.2d266,27071(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);JohnWeis,Inc.v.Reed,22Tenn.App.90,100,118S.W.2d677,683(1938).Accordingly,wedeclinetoconsiderissuesanddefensesthathavenotbeenpresentedtothetrialcourt.Simpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion,810S.W.2d147,153(Tenn.1991);_Alumax_AluminumCorp.v.Armstrong_Ceiling_ԛ_Sys_.,Inc.,744S.W.2d907,910(Tenn.Ct.App.1987);_Yarbrough_Ԁv.Stiles,717S.W.2d886,888(Tenn.Ct.App.1986). Thescopeofaninterlocutoryappealisfurtherrestrictedbecausetheappellatecourtswillnotconsiderissuesbeyondthosecertifiedbythetrialcourtandacceptedbytheappellatecourt.Tennessee_Dept_ԀofMentalHealthandMentalRetardationv.Hughes,531S.W.2d299,300(Tenn.1975);Statev.Hazzard,743S.W.2d938,941(Tenn._Crim_.App.1987);_Montcastle_ԛv.Baird,723S.W.2d119,122(Tenn.Ct.App.1986).Trialcourtsmaynot,however,certifyquestionstotheappellatecourtthathavenotactuallybeenraisedbythepartiesanddecidedbythetrialcourt.Permittingthetrialcourttodosowouldrequiretheappellatecourtstoconsiderhypotheticalissuesthatarenotthepropersubjectofjudicialreview.Judicialeconomypromptsustoavoidrenderingadvisoryopinionsordecidingabstractlegalquestions.McIntyrev._Traughber_,884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). TheGeorgesmotiontodismissthe_Milliganscomplaintassertedonlyaresjudicatadefense. 3   כThetrialcourtsopinion,bearingthecombinedstyleof_Milligan_Ԁv.GeorgeandCampbellv.George,wasbasedonlyonresjudicata.Thetrialcourtmentionedthedoctrineofcollateralestoppelindictawhenitobserved: [_i]ssues_Ԁperhapscouldberaisedastowhethercollateralestoppelmightapply,butthosearenotraisedherein.Withoutalengthyexplanation,itwouldbetheopinionofthisCourt,thatcollateralestoppelalsowouldnotbarthesuitbetween_Milligan_ԀandGeorge.Laterintheopinion,thetrialcourtdisposedofthemotiontodismissthe_Campbells_complaintonthegroundsofresjudicatawithoutmentioningcollateralestoppel.NoconclusioncanbedrawnfromthisrecordotherthanthattheGeorgesdidnotassert,andthetrialcourtdidnotacton,acollateralestoppeldefenseineither_Milligan_Ԁv.GeorgeorCampbellv.George. Followingtheentryoftheorderdenyingthemotiontodismissthe_Milligans_claims,theGeorgesfiledamotionrequestingpermissiontoseekaninterlocutoryappeal.NotwithstandingthefactthattheGeorgesmotiontodismissdidnotinvokethedoctrineofcollateralestoppel,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingtheGeorgespermissiontoseekaninterlocutoryϜappeal,erroneouslyrecitingthattheGeorgesmotiontodismisscontainedacollateralestoppeldefense.Theorderalsorecitedthat:8 8  Thedoctrinesofresjudicataandcollateralestoppelareextremelyimportantinourjurisprudenceastheyprovidefinalityandclosuretoissuesandlawsuitswhichhavebeenpreviouslydecided,andtheypromoterespectforjudicialrulings;yettheCourthadconcernsthatthepriororderdidnotresolvetheissuesbetweentheparties..._ 4   _Ourordergrantingtheinterlocutoryappealrepeatedthislanguage.Afterwegrantedtheinterlocutoryappeal,thetrialcourtclerktransmittedonlytherecordin_Milligan_Ԁv.Georgetothiscourt.Despiteourrepeatedattemptstoobtainthefullrecordneededtoadjudicatethemeritsofthisappeal,wehavenotreceivedthecompleterecordin_Milligan_Ԁv.George,andwehavenotreceivedtherecordinCampbellv.George. Basedonthesecircumstances,wehavedeterminedthatitwouldbeinappropriatetoaddresstheeffectofthedoctrineof_collateral_Ԁestoppeloneitherthe_Milligans_claimsorthe_Campbells_claimsbecausetheGeorgesneverassertedacollateralestoppeldefenseinthetrialcourt.Wehavealsodeterminedthatweshouldnotconsidertheeffectofthedoctrineofresjudicataonthe_Campbells_claimsbecausetheGeorgeshaveperfectedaninterlocutoryappealonlyfromthedenialoftheirmotiontodismissin_Milligan_Ԁv.George.NoneofthemotionsorordersseekinganinterlocutoryappealrefertoanappealfromthedenialoftheGeorgesmotiontodismissinCampbellv.George,andtherecordinCampbellv.Georgehasnotbeenfiledwiththiscourt.Accordingly,theonlyissueripeforadjudicationonthisappealiswhetherthedoctrineofresjudicatabarsthe_Milligans__complaint_againsttheGeorges.@ III.@ TheResJudicataDefense  TheGeorgesassertthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedtheirmotiontodismissthe_Milligans_suitbecausethe_Milligans_ԀsoughttolitigateissuesthatweresimilartotheissuesraisedinGeorgev.Campbell.Withoutquestion,oneofthepivotalissuesinbothGeorgev.Campbelland_Milligan_Ԁv.Georgeistheclaimthat_Wilmouth_ԀCreeksuddenlychangeditscoursefollowingafloodbetween1925and1927.However,issueidentityisnottheonlyingredientofthedoctrineofresjudicata;identityofpartiesisalsonecessary. Resjudicataisaclaimpreclusiondoctrinethatpromotesfinalityinlitigation.Moultonv.FordMotorCo.,533S.W.2d295,296(Tenn.1976).Itbarsasecondsuitbetweenthesamepartiesortheirpriviesonthesamecauseofactionwithrespecttoalltheissueswhichwereorcouldhavebeenlitigatedintheformersuit.Richardsonv.TennesseeBd.ofDentistry,913S.W.2d446,459(Tenn.1995).Partiesassertingaresjudicatadefensemustdemonstratethat(1)acourtofcompetentjurisdictionrenderedthepriorjudgment,(2)thepriorjudgmentwasfinalandonthemerits,(3)thatthesamepartiesortheirprivieswereinvolvedinbothproceedings,and(4)bothproceedingsinvolvedthesamecauseofaction.Whitev.White,876S.W.2d837,839(Tenn.1994);Collinsv.GreeneCountyBank,916S.W.2d941,945(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). Identityofthepartiesortheirpriviesinthetwoactionsisindispensabletoresjudicatadefense.SeeShellv.Law,935S.W.2d402,408(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Stacksv.Saunders,812S.W.2d587,590(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Inthecontextoftheresjudicatadefense, privityrelatestothesubjectmatterofthelitigation,Harrisv.St.MarysMedicalCtr.,Inc.,726S.W.2d902,905(Tenn.1987);Shelleyv._Gipson_,218Tenn.1,7,400S.W.2d709,712(1966).Itrequiresamutualorsuccessiverelationshiptothesamerightsofproperty.Phillipsv.GeneralMotorsCorp.,669S.W.2d665,669(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Thus,partiestolitigationinvolvingthetitletorealpropertywillbeboundbyanearlierdecreeestablishingtitletothepropertyinwhichtheirsuccessorsintitleparticipated.See_Uhlhorn_ԛv._Keltner_,637S.W.2d844,848(Tenn.1982). ThefatalflawintheGeorgesresjudicatadefenseisthatthe_Milligans_arenotinprivitywiththe_Campbells_Ԁwithregardtothedisputedboundarylinebetweenthe_Campbells_propertyandtheGeorgesproperty.The_Campbells_Ԁandthe_Milligans_Ԁowndifferenttractsofproperty,andthe_Milligans_boundarylinewiththeGeorgesisdifferent.Thus,the_Campbells_arenotthe_Milligans_successorsintitle.Sincethe_Milligans_ԀwerenotpartiestoGeorgev.Campbell,thisearlierlitigationcannotprovideabasisforinvokingthedoctrineofresjudicata._Ԝ 5   כ_̛̛̜̜@ IV.  WeaffirmtheorderdismissingtheGeorgesmotiontodismissthe_Milligans_complaintandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoCurtisandWilmaJ.Georgeandtheirsuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.________________________________7dd7BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE    ќ