ÿWPCÀ ÛwoËÈ.sŒFÇ$6GºmŽXÆKéRùh‰J;ÆÒ‡ù€…î|éåIeCmEZ —‡bßÄfü#{o¼‡&j¼ú OÈ0ïµ[%¾¦ÆÆƒ¾ü4¾…@ù'SVgQ…d S`ãq¦¡¶8G7’§`Ù§ùw­<Ô±ø¸ªôsämÕMýÓUäŸüÝkÃ"BÉÚ‡à,«É1jÖpštˆ¥Ç©%¯‡>°¦lÒL G2^Zš˜ÖL=×Ýñ/MUù'b™1pGN2jC}WhíÒ©LÁ¿,ÛK hþ–ܤH±ÉèsG¦X !µhòY‡EO:,X¹Á`2¥Ô¥æfS™õ6<ÿ"ˆfÙã ìa€Ž„é !z»µ^üL‘™ï«ç4'¶ >É]fÝwzbðÂC`¶L¢J P¢^OSÙß­0,Ž,/Fy!C›˜kBFšRŒGCß}Öû‚‡8ý¡Ó´¯-R”òMYhÀ’‘ª~’±»´üpÎeäëî¼9’,{6Kéß!ŠŸ‡ˆÌ„ÑåŸdp÷‰úö×oÉÿ©k2} Á)ûð¡Z;=Šƒo2¹_Gß› [qe\Ðù9{?‚s›èyëÜH`¬ýN¨2߃®ö¤²Aâ]ö¾@”;õ8ïÙ² Áb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UIN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»Ršõ(L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì(P• ÈÆŸ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2†«$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¨óX»»Ô d(|3 $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼­ »»»Ôà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ È ÐÓ  ÓJune,€2000€SessionÐ à0 ÐÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔÌÓ*ÓÌò òÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó]#ÔÓ  ÓMETROPOLITAN€DEVELOPMENT€AND€HOUSING€AGENCYòòóó€v.Ð Ø ( ÐTRINITY€MARINE€NASHVILLE,€INC.òòóóÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ôó óÐ ð @ ÐÓ´ÓÌà@  ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ ø H Ðà@ª ª ìàNo.€97C„1469€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ç` A߈Ð È  ÐÌà@@ @ ìàNo.€M1999„02162„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€Ô_ÔJuly€21,€2000Ô_ÔˆÐ Ç  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¦` AßÐ §÷  Ðó óÌIn€this€eminent€domain€condemnation€proceeding,€the€Trial€Court€granted€partial€summary€judgment€Ð ¦ö Ðto€the€Ô_ÔcondemnorÔ_ÔÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó-#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€on€the€amount€of€relocation€expenses€to€be€awarded€the€property€owner€asÐ –æ Ðincidental€damagesÔ#†¼­ »XX¨óP#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€based€upon€deposition€testimony€of€an€officer€of€the€property€owner.Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€€TheÐ †Ö Ðproperty€owner€argues€on€appeal€that€summary€judgment€is€improper€in€condemnation€proceedings,Ð vÆ Ðand€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€excluding€from€incidental€damages€amounts€for€a€ð ðburden€rateðð€theÐ f¶ Ðproperty€owner€added€to€its€actual€hourly€labor€costs€incurred€in€relocating€from€the€condemnedÐ V¦ Ðproperty.€€As€the€issue€is€a€question€of€law€and€there€are€no€questions€of€disputed€material€fact,Ð F– Ðsummary€judgment€is€appropriate.€€As€the€ð ðburden€rateðð€claimed€by€the€property€owner€is€notÐ 6† Ðrecoverable€under€the€applicable€statute,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.Ð &v ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð V ÐAffirmed;€and€Case€Remandedó óÐ öF ÐÓƒ ÓÌÌòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.Ô#†¼­ »àX¨ó‰#ÔÔ‡X¨óX.¼­ Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ Æ  ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ¶!  ÐÌÌClark€H.€Ô_ÔTidwellÔ_Ô€and€Michael€J.€Ô_ÔPassinoÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Trinity€MarineÐ †$Ö# ÐNashville,€Inc.Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌGeorge€H.€Nolan,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Metropolitan€Development€and€HousingÐ V'¦"& ÐAgency.Ð F(–#' ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó‰ #ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ԈР&*v%) ÐÌÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó÷ #ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ôò òòòÓ  ÓBackgroundóóó óÐ ,V'+ ÐÓu ÓÌà  àà ` àAs€part€of€the€process€of€bringing€a€National€Football€League€franchise€to€Nashville,Ð æ-6)-ýb ÐÔ_Ôit€was€determined€that€a€stadium€be€constructed.€€To€obtain€land€suitable€to€this€purpose,€theÐ ° ÐMetropolitan€Development€and€Housing€Agency€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€on€May€7,€1997€filed€a€petition€forÐ  ð Ðcondemnation€of€a€parcel€of€property€located€on€the€bank€of€the€Cumberland€River.€€That€propertyÐ à Ðwas€owned€by€Trinity€Marine€Nashville,€Inc.€(ð ðDefendantðð),€a€Delaware€corporation€with€itsÐ €Ð Ðprincipal€place€of€business€in€Davidson€County,€Tennessee.€€On€June€27,€1997€Defendant€filed€itsÐ pÀ Ðanswer€to€the€condemnation€petition,€averring€that€the€amounts€of€$3,350,000.00€for€acquisition€ofÐ ` ° Ðits€property€and€$1,000,000.00€for€relocation€expenses€stated€in€the€petition€were€inadequate€toÐ P   Ðcompensate€Defendant€for€the€taking.€€Defendant€also€demanded€a€jury€of€view€under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„Ð @  Ð16„101,€et€seq.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àà ` àBy€order€of€possession€and€condemnation€filed€July€7,€1997,€the€Trial€Court€foundÐ `  Ðthat€Plaintiff€had€legal€authority€to€acquire€the€property€by€eminent€domain,€that€the€properÐ P  Ðprocedural€prerequisites€for€the€taking€had€been€met€by€Plaintiff,€that€the€taking€was€for€a€validÐ ð@  Ðpublic€purpose,€€and€that€an€amount€adequate€for€just€compensation€for€the€property€and€relocationÐ à0  Ðexpenses€had€been€deposited€with€the€Clerk€of€the€Trial€Court.€€Plaintiff€was€vested€with€title€in€feeÐ Ð  Ðsimple,€and,€among€other€procedural€details,€the€Trial€Court€ordered€that€the€Clerk€issue€a€ClerkððsÐ À ÐDeed€confirming€vesting€of€fee€simple€title€in€Plaintiff.€€The€Trial€Court€issued€an€order€for€writ€ofÐ ° Ðinquiry€March€9,€1999,€impaneling€a€jury€of€view€to€assess€damages€resulting€from€the€taking€byÐ  ð ÐPlaintiff.€€On€March€18,€1999,€Plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€as€to€theÐ à Ðamount€of€Defendantððs€reasonable€relocation€expenses.€€The€deposition€testimony€of€DefendantððsÐ €Ð Ðcorporate€representative,€John€R.€Tipton€(ð ðTipton€Depositionðð),€along€with€supporting€exhibits,€wasÐ pÀ Ðfiled€to€establish€as€undisputed€material€factÔ#†¼­ »XX¨óP #ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€that€Defendantððs€recoverable€relocation€expenses€totaledÐ `° Ð$816,203.00,€and€that€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€recoup€$183,797.00€of€the€$1,000,000.00€depositedÐ P  Ðfor€such€expenses€with€the€Clerk€of€the€Trial€Court.€€On€April€28,€1999,€Defendant€filed€its€response,Ð @ Ðclaiming€additional€funds€relating€to€the€relocation€for€a€total€relocation€expense€of€$1,597,631.00Ð 0€ Ðto€compensate€it€for€ð ð.€.€.ððoverheadðð€or€ððburden€rateðð€expenses€that€are€a€necessary€cost€of€doingÐ  p Ðbusiness,ðð€in€addition€to€the€actual€costs€incurred€in€relocating€its€business.€€Defendant€asserted€thatÐ ` Ðrelocation€expenses€were€not€appropriate€for€summary€judgment,€falling€under€the€exclusive€domainÐ P Ðof€the€jury€of€view.Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€a€hearing€on€May€3,€1999,€the€Trial€Court€entered€an€order€grantingÐ Ð  ÐPlaintiffððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€the€relocation€expenses€due€Defendant.€€The€TrialÐ À! ÐCourt€found€that€the€undisputed€testimony€in€the€Tipton€Deposition€along€with€the€related€exhibitsÐ °"  Ðestablished€reasonable€relocation€expenses€actually€incurred€by€Defendant€of€$816,203.00,€andÐ  #ð! Ðspecifically€denied€Defendantððs€additional€demand€for€ð ðburden€rateðð€expenses.€€The€order€grantedÐ $à" ÐPlaintiffððs€requested€recoupment€of€the€balance€of€the€$1,000,000.00€deposited€with€the€Clerk€of€theÐ €%Ð # ÐTrial€Court.€€After€hearing€evidence€on€August€17,€1999,€the€jury€of€view€filed€a€report€with€the€TrialÐ p&À!$ ÐCourt€finding€just€compensation€for€Defendantððs€property€and€improvements€to€be€$3,925,000.00.€Ð `'°"% ÐAn€agreed€final€judgment€was€filed€October€25,€1999,€confirming€the€finding€of€the€jury€of€view€asÐ P( #& Ðto€Defendantððs€compensation€for€the€property€and€improvements,€with€both€parties€waiving€appealÐ @)$' Ðof€the€finding€of€the€jury€of€view,€and€Plaintiff€agreeing€to€pay€an€additional€$391,203.00€plusÐ 0*€%( Ðprejudgment€interest€as€final€judgment.€€This€amount€reflects€the€$3,350,000.00€originally€depositedÐ  +p&) Ðby€Plaintiff€for€the€value€of€the€property€and€improvements,€plus€the€$1,000,000.00€deposited€forÐ ,`'* ÐDefendantððs€relocation€expenses,€minus€the€$183,797.00Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€recoupment€awarded€Plaintiff€by€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment,€plus€an€additional€$575,000.00€to€meet€the€value€of€Defendantððs€property€andÐ  ð Ðimprovements€as€found€by€the€jury€of€view€above€the€amount€Plaintiff€deposited€with€the€Clerk€ofÐ à Ðthe€Trial€Court.€€In€this€order€the€Trial€Court€granted€Defendantððs€appeal€as€to€the€entry€of€summaryÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€on€the€issue€of€recoverable€relocation€expenses,€but€it€is€before€this€Court€as€a€Tenn.€R.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€P.€Rule€3€appeal€of€right€€from€final€judgment.Ð ` ° ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓDiscussionó óóóÐ @  ÐÓ$ÓÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€precisely€as€stated€by€the€parties,€the€issues€presented€in€this€appeal€are:Ð  p  ÐÌà8  àI.€The€availability€of€summary€judgment€in€eminent€domain€condemnationÐ P  Ðproceedings;Ðð@ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àII.€The€propriety€of€summary€judgment€in€awarding€incidental€damages,€particularlyÐ Ð  Ðin€determining€whether€certain€manufacturing€costs€are€recoverable€relocationÐ À Ðexpenses€in€eminent€domain€condemnation€proceedings€as€a€question€of€law;€and,аРР ÐÌà8  àIII.€The€impact€of€T.R.C.P.€71€on€the€availability€of€summary€judgment€in€thisÐ à Ðeminent€domain€condemnation€proceeding.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€these€issues€arise€from€the€Trial€Courtððs€partial€summary€judgment,€with€theÐ `° Ðmaterial€facts€€underlying€the€judgment€undisputed,€our€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó.Ð P  ÐÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌà8  àOur€review€of€the€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€purely€a€question€of€law;€Ð 0€ Ðaccordingly,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó,€and€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€theÐ  p Ðlower€courts'€judgments.€€A€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€if€the€movingÐ ` Ðparty€shows€that€no€genuine€and€material€factual€issue€exists€and€that€he€or€she€isÐ P Ðentitled€to€relief€as€a€matter€of€law.€€In€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whetherÐ ð@ Ðsummary€judgment€requirements€have€been€met,€we€must€view€the€evidence€in€theÐ à0 Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€draw€all€reasonable€inferencesÐ Ð  Ðin€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210-11€(Tenn.1993).€Ð À! ÐA€summary€judgment€may€be€proper,€therefore,€only€"when€there€is€no€dispute€overÐ °"  Ðthe€evidence€establishing€the€facts€that€control€the€application€of€a€rule€of€law."Id.€atÐ  #ð! Ð214-15;€€Tenn.€€R.€Civ.€P.€56.Ð$à"Ð Ð  ÐÓ‰(ÓÌà8  àòòEyring€v.€Fort€Sanders€Parkwest€Medical€Centeróó,€991€S.W.2d€230,€236€(Tenn.Ð p&À!$ Ð1999).Ð`'°"%Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó’!#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€support€of€its€contention€that€summary€judgment€is€not€appropriate€inÐ @)$' Ðcondemnation€proceedings€in€general,€Defendant€argues€that€the€exercise€of€the€power€of€eminentÐ 0*€%( Ðdomain€derives€from€T.C.A.€ðð€29„17„401€et€seq.,€which€establishes€that€compensation€for€suchÐ  +p&) Ðtaking€is€determined€under€chapter€16€of€that€title.€€After€discussing€the€statutory€scheme€concerningÐ ,`'* Ðjuries€of€view,€Defendant€then€sets€forth€an€argument€that€under€Chapter€16€of€Title€29€of€the€Code,Ð ° Ðdetermination€of€compensation€in€eminent€domain€taking€lies€exclusively€with€the€jury€of€view,Ð  ð Ðrendering€it€inappropriate€for€summary€judgment.€€In€support€of€this€argument€Defendant€citesÐ à ÐT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a).Ð €Ð ÐÌÓã-ÓÓ  Óà8  àIn€estimating€the€damages,€the€jury€shall€give€the€value€of€the€land€or€rights€takenÐ ` ° Ðwithout€deduction,€but€incidental€benefits€which€may€result€to€the€owner€by€reasonÐ P   Ðof€the€proposed€improvement€may€be€taken€into€consideration€in€estimating€theÐ @  Ðincidental€damages.€€Whenever€any€person,€agency,€or€other€entity€acquires€interestÐ 0 € Ðin€any€parcel€of€real€property€and€such€acquisition€requires€the€removal€of€furniture,Ð  p  Ðhousehold€belongings,€fixtures,€equipment,€machinery,€or€stock€in€trade€of€anyÐ `  Ðperson€in€rightful€possession,€regardless€of€whether€such€person€has€a€legal€interestÐ P  Ðin€said€property,€the€reasonable€expense€of€the€removal€shall€be€considered€inÐ ð@  Ðassessing€incidental€damages.€€The€reasonable€expense€of€the€removal€of€suchÐ à0  Ðchattels€shall€be€construed€as€including€the€cost€of€any€necessary€disconnection,Ð Ð  Ðdismantling,€or€disassembling,€the€loading,€and€drayage€to€another€location€not€moreÐ À Ðthan€fifty€(50)€miles€distant,€and€the€reassembling,€reconnecting,€and€installing€onÐ ° Ðsuch€new€location.РðÐ Ð  ÐÓd1ÓÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­ »XX¨óÃ-#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ôà  àà ` àDefendant€argues€that€this€statute€ð ðstrongly€suggests€that€the€Tennessee€GeneralÐ €Ð ÐAssembly€perceives€the€Jury€of€View€to€be€a€core€procedural€check€on€the€exercise€of€the€power€ofÐ pÀ Ðeminent€domain.ðð€€First,€it€is€necessary€to€note€that€neither€the€power€to€condemn€nor€the€finding€ofÐ `° Ðthe€jury€of€view€as€to€the€compensation€for€the€property€and€improvements€is€on€appeal.€€It€is€onlyÐ P  Ðthe€incidental€damages€for€Defendantððs€relocation€that€is€on€appeal,€and€Defendantððs€argument€isÐ @ Ðbased€upon€construction€of€statutes.Ð 0€ ÐÓŒ6ÓÓ  ÓÌà8  àIn€the€present€case,€we€are€concerned€primarily€with€the€construction€of€a€statute€andÐ ` Ðthe€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts,€and€it€is€well€settled€that€we€review€suchÐ P Ðquestions€of€law€de€novo€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€the€lower€courts'Ð ð@ Ðjudgments.€We€review€questions€of€fact€"de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ð à0 Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,€unless€theÐ Ð  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."€€Tenn.€R.App.€P.€13(d).ÐÀ!Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ð °"  Ðà8  àòòNelson€v.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Incóó.,€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó»6#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô8€S.W.3d€625,€628„629€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ót<#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔР#ð!Ð Ð  ÐÌAs€Defendantððs€arguments€turn€on€statutory€application€and€interpretation,€its€argument€thatÐ €%Ð # Ðsummary€judgment€is€inappropriate€in€eminent€domain€condemnation€proceedings€is€self„defeating.€Ð p&À!$ ÐAs€noted€above,€these€are€questions€of€statutory€construction,€construction€of€statutes€is€a€questionÐ `'°"% Ðof€law,€and€questions€of€law€are€appropriate€for€summary€judgment.Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€addressing€the€second€issue,€Defendant€correctly€argues€that€T.C.A.€ðð€29„17„Ð 0*€%( Ð404(a),€which€reads,€ð ð[t]he€ultimate€amount€of€compensation€shall€be€determined€pursuant€to€chapterÐ  +p&) Ð16€of€this€title,ðð€requires€application€of€chapter€16€of€that€title€to€determine€damages.€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óÙ<#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€However,Ð ,`'* ÐDefendant€turns€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„16„113(a)€to€argue€that€the€jury€of€view€is€solely€responsible€forÐ ° Ðassessing€incidental€damages.€€The€statute€reads,€ð ð[t]he€jury€will€then€proceed€to€examine€the€ground,Ð  ð Ðand€may€hear€testimony,€but€no€argument€of€counsel,€and€set€apart,€by€metes€and€bounds,€a€sufficientÐ à Ðquantity€of€land€for€the€purposes€intended,€and€assess€the€damages€occasioned€to€the€owner€thereby.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐThe€damages€assessed€are€undisputed,€and€not€on€appeal.€€Defendant€argues€that€this€wording€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óM@#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔshowsÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€Legislature€intended€for€the€jury€of€view€to€assess€incidental€damages€as€well€asÐ ` ° Ðcompensation€for€the€property€and€improvements,€and€that€such€assessment€is€solely€a€question€ofÐ P   Ðfact€and€not€a€question€of€law.€€This€is€incorrect.Ð @  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€type€of€expenses€comprising€incidental€damages€properly€recoverable€in€eminentÐ  p  Ðdomain€proceedings€falls€under€T.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a)€and€is€a€question€of€law.€òòShelby€County€v.Ð `  ÐKingsway€Greens€of€America,€Incóó.,€706€S.W.2d€634,€638€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985)(discussingÐ P  Ðincidental€damages€in€a€partial€taking);€òòState€ex€rel.€Comððr€of€Transp.€v.€Edmondsóó,€614€S.W.2d€381,Ð ð@  Ð382€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981)(finding€that€relocation€expenses€must€be€actually€incurred€by€theÐ à0  Ðcondemnee€to€be€recoverable).€€The€relocation€expenses€at€issue€were€established€by€the€undisputedÐ Ð  Ðtestimony€of€the€Tipton€Deposition.€€The€only€question€of€material€fact€is€the€amount€of€incidentalÐ À Ðdamages€proved€by€Defendant,€and,€as€found€by€the€Trial€Court,€such€amount€as€allowed€by€statuteÐ ° Ðis€undisputed.€€The€Tipton€Deposition€testimony€established€that€Defendant€could€prove€theÐ  ð Ð$816,203.00Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óöB#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€in€incidental€damages€awarded€by€summary€judgment€by€the€Trial€Court,€but€that€theÐ à Ðremainder€of€the€$1,597,631.00,€the€ð ðburden€rateðð€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óµH#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ôdemanded€by€Defendant,€is€not€based€uponÐ €Ð Ðincidental€damages€recoverable€under€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó—I#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a)Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó;J#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô.€€According€to€the€undisputed€TiptonÐ pÀ ÐDeposition€testimony,€the€ð ðburden€rateðð€was€the€difference€between€the€average€hourly€wage€€for€theÐ `° Ðlabor€cost€related€to€relocation€actually€incurred€by€Defendant€and€the€much€higher€per€labor„hourÐ P  Ðrate€demanded€by€Defendant.€€This€additional€ð ðburden€rateðð€added€to€the€per€labor„hour€included:Ð @ ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€the€cost€of€utilities,€the€cost€of€health€insurance,€the€cost€of€retirement.Ð  p ÐEverything€associated€with€an€employee€and€a€facility,€that€would€be€the€cost.€And,Ð ` Ðnaturally,€the€less€youððre€producing,€the€more€that€costs.€Now,€if€you€had€an€ongoingÐ P Ðoutfit€that€you€were€„€instead€of€decreasing€man„hours,€that€cost€would€be€a€lot€less.Ð ð@ ÐBut€when€youððre€going€down€and€youððre€laying€off€people€every€week,€that€cost€justÐ à0 Ðcontinues€to€go€up.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌAs€noted€above,€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó•J#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a)Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óåN#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€allows€as€incidental€damages€the€reasonable€relocationÐ °"  Ðexpense€for€ð ð.€.€.€the€cost€of€any€necessary€disconnection,€dismantling,€or€disassembling,€the€loading,Ð  #ð! Ðand€drayage€to€another€location€not€more€than€fifty€(50)€miles€distant,€and€the€reassembling,Ð $à" Ðreconnecting,€and€installing€on€such€new€location.ðð€€The€additional€items€in€this€ð ðburden€rateððÐ €%Ð # Ðclaimed€by€Defendant€are€not€costs€of€necessary€disconnection,€dismantling,€disassembling,€loading,Ð p&À!$ Ðdrayage,€reassembling,€reconnecting,€or€installing€on€the€new€location,€and€thus€do€not€fall€under€anyÐ `'°"% Ðof€the€categories€for€incidental€expense€set€forth€in€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó?O#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a)Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ódR#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô.€€ð ðThe€Supreme€Court€hasÐ P( #& Ðpreviously€stated€the€policy€that€ðð(i)t€should€be€made€affirmatively€to€appear€that€the€property€ownerÐ @)$' Ðreceives€the€full€cost€of€removal€or€replacement,€but€no€more€than€the€full€cost€of€removal€orÐ 0*€%( Ðreplacement.ðððð€òòState€ex€rel.€Com'r€of€Transp.€v.€Edmondsóó,€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó¾R#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô614€S.W.2d€at€382€òòquoting€MemphisÐ  +p&) ÐHousing€Authority€v.€Memphis€Steam€Laundry-Cleaner,€Incóó.,€463€S.W.2d€677,€680€(Tenn.€1971).€Ð ,`'* ÐÔ#†¼­ »XX¨óhT#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔòòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€ex€rel.€Dept.€of€Transp.€v.€Cooperóó,€App.€No.€89„200„II,€1989€WL€130598,€3€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.,€MS,€Nov.€3,€1989)(no€Perm.€App.€filed)(ð ðAs€is€the€case€of€other€losses€caused€to€aÐ  ð Ðbusiness€by€reason€of€the€condemnation€of€the€land€on€which€it€is€conducted,€the€profits€of€whichÐ à Ðthe€owner€was€deprived€by€reason€of€the€necessary€interruption€of€such€business€by€theÐ €Ð Ðcondemnation€is,€under€the€prevailing€rule,€excluded€from€consideration€in€determining€damages€toÐ pÀ Ðwhich€the€owner€is€entitledðð).€€We€hold,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€ð ðburden€rateðð€claimed€byÐ ` ° ÐDefendant€is€not€recoverable€as€incidental€expense€in€this€condemnation€proceeding,€and€find€noÐ P   Ðerror€on€the€part€of€the€Trial€Court€in€denying€such€claim€by€summary€judgment.Ð @  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendantððs€last€issue€concerns€an€argument€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€71€precludes€theÐ  p  Ðuse€of€summary€judgment€in€condemnation€proceedings.€€The€rule€reads:Ð `  ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ‰9ÓÓ  Óà8  àThe€procedure€for€the€condemnation€of€both€real€and€personal€property€under€theÐ ð@  Ðpower€of€eminent€domain€shall€be€in€accordance€with€the€statutes€of€this€state.€Ð à0  ÐFurthermore,€to€the€extent€that€they€are€not€in€conflict€with€or€do€not€contradict€orÐ Ð  Ðcontravene€the€provisions€of€said€statutes,€these€Rules,€where€applicable,€shall€beÐ À Ðfollowed.Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óWU#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔаРР ÐÌDefendant€relies€upon€its€argument€that€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óï[#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔT.C.A.€ðð€29„16„113Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óy\#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ Ô€gives€the€jury€of€view€the€sole€authorityÐ à Ðto€determine€incidental€damages€to€try€to€create€a€conflict€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€71€between€T.C.A.€Ð €Ð Ððð€29„16„113€and€summary€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€As€previously€discussed,€Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óÐ\#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔtheÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€Defendantððs€right€to€recover€its€ð ðburden€rateðð€as€incidentalÐ `° Ðexpenses€is€in€accord€with€T.C.A.€ðð€29„16„114(a)€as€a€matter€of€law,€establishing€neitherÐ P  Ðcontradiction€nor€contravention€when€the€proper€statutes€are€applied.€€As€Tenn.R.Civ.P.56€does€notÐ @ Ðconflict€with€or€contradict€the€controlling€statutes,€it€was€not€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€apply€it.€Ð 0€ ÐDefendantððs€argument€is€without€merit.Ô#†¼­ »XX¨ó$^#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔÐ  p ÐÓZÓÌò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionóóó óÐ P ÐÓÓ`ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€is€affirmed,€and€this€causeÐ à0 Ðremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,Ð Ð  Ðand€for€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€Appellant,€TrinityÐ À! ÐMarine€Nashville,€Inc.Ô#†¼­ »XX¨óˆ`#ÔÔ‡X¨óX»¼­ ÔÐ °"  ÐÔ#†¼­ »XX¨ó·b#ÔÔ€X¨óX»¼­ ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð 0*€%( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE