WPCJ clTT6X>Jz@zwQ6Zzw~\1)48(!Z %zW+!I `^#9OFIܓ̴E[>%2ݦV?Ŷq%T&GYg a!AV*&5uggf7.56h^w l{'m'r E oV$c;ft-B}=OfQ;{yrPlհ?DbQL#*PQλlLˋ RUU{F$r^{_Ou?}b5吻+% v8nc . `#97!geحXRHg,G4JM_;ҟn>G:f$'KX`RTg{kw;>)x>U>@w@@UBAXAjC mlC 0DC D3CU:C)4D# ]ENhFjFUB,GU>nG 0DG 0DG D/4H BcHU:H*HU:IV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d'H%$(G.2ٗ$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONZIERERHUTCHINSDANDRIDGEMilesesTidwellDeventerAdkisonPrestonPanterDerryberryLedfordLamonsAngell LimLanierBurnettGastonCopelandMurpheyMcCammonHanesCatlettWhaleyPullenMoulton Iٗ$  XX     1     ` Theplatdoesnotshowthecallsforthesidelotlines. _PZcdeC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  Z"  \X XXX\t  X\X   Ad FILED\X X \t   December18,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.\  X\XAppellateCourtClerk  _  I$  VXX     2    b ` ThecaseofHanesv.Peck'sLessee,8Tenn.227(1827),isoneof `  thefirstTennesseecasestoenunciatetheruleof"presumingalossgrant"(whichisthepredecessorofpresumingalostdeed)bypossessingpropertyadverselyforaperiodof20years.#VTt#<( 9Z &Courier Regular +EӀ<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  Iٗ$  XX     2    _T ` Thecaseof_Hanes_Ԁv.Peck'sLessee,8Tenn.227(1827),isoneof `  thefirstTennesseecasestoenunciatetheruleof"presumingalossgrant"(whichisthepredecessorofpresumingalostdeed)bypossessingpropertyadverselyforaperiodof20years.#T̈́# U(3$ F!  GGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular  Z"  gX XXXgt  XgX   Ad FILEDgX X gt   December18,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.g  XgXAppellateCourtClerk HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL I$  aXX     1     ` Theplatdoesnotshowthecallsforthesidelotlines.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular(3$ F!  ($$   1  ff' dxdP Pd,cAZ"Arial Regular  Z"  iX XXXit  XiX   Ad FILEDiX X it   September30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.i  XiXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular FT!   _  71XXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A'redline3'T`   XTX1XXXG4rO][<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` rrOh[<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` r@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLEEVAL.MILES@*@@*)  JEFFERSONCOUNTY x  x    `     h   )  03A019711CH00500 @   PlaintiffAppellant@*) h    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.C.S.RAINWATER,JR., `  @*)  CHANCELLOR (  @*)  @*  @*) P  MARJORIEM.NELSON@*)   Ѐ@*)       DefendantAppellee@*)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED H  WILLIAMA._ZIERER_ԀOFMORRISTOWNFORAPPELLANTJAMESD.HUTCHINSOF_DANDRIDGE_ԀFORAPPELLEE@*@*   `    OPINION  p    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. $X#    ` InthiscasePlaintiffEvaL.MilessuesDefendantMarjorieM.Nelsontohavedecreedtoheratriangularstripoflandwhichisnotencompassedinthedeedtoherandherhusband.Itis,however,includedinthedeedtoMrs.Nelsonandherhusband.ThePlaintiffassertsthatbecauseshehasadverselypossessedthedisputedareaforaperiodofalmost39years,sheisentitledtoprevail._   ` TheTrialCourtfoundthatthePlaintiffdidnotproveherclaimbyclearandpositiveproofand,consequently,dismissedhersuit.  9p0>    ` Herappealinsiststhattheevidencepreponderates againsttheTrialCourt'sdeterminationthatshedidnotmeetherburdenofproof.   ` ThepartiesownadjoininglotsintheCherokeeLakesSubdivisioninJeffersonCounty.ThePlaintiffownsLot9andtheDefendantownslot10.Thedescriptionsinthedeedstobothlotsrefertoarecordedplatandalsodescribesthelotsbymetesandboundswhich,astothelengthofalllotlinesandastothecallsastothefrontandrearlines,isinconformitywiththerecordedplat.M` K   1      ׀ThePlaintiffandherhusbandacquired  herpropertyfromthedeveloperofthesubdivisionbydeeddatedAugust13,1958,andthePlaintiffsucceededtotheownershipofthepropertyuponthedeathofherhusband.TheDefendantandherhusbandacquiredthepropertybydeeddatedDecember27,1967,andshealsosucceededtotheownershipuponthedeathofherhusband.   ` ApparentlythepartieslivedsidebysideinharmonyfromthedatetheNelsonspurchasedthepropertyuntilMay1997,when,becauseoftheillnessoftheDefendant,herdaughter_andhersoninlawdecidedtomoveintothebasementofherhousesothattheymightbeinapositiontobettercareforherandseeafterherneeds.Incidenttothisplannedmovetheydecidedtoconstructadrivewayonthepropertytoservethebasementapartment.WhenasurveywasmadeoftheDefendant'sproperty,itwasdiscoveredthatatriangularstripoflandfrontingapproximately5.8feetontheroadandextendingbacksome160feetwasinfactapartoflot10,althoughboththePlaintiffandtheDefendanthadalwaysthoughtitwasapartoflot9. @8.<    ` TheDefendantandherhusbandthroughtheyearsevidencedownershipoftheareainquestionbyplantingflowers,shrubsandtrees,bothfruitandflowering.Theyhadmowedthearea,placedtheirmailboxonit,anddugadrainageditchneartheroad.Mr.MileshadalsocutatreewhichwasontheboundarylineofthepropertythePlaintiffclaims.Therestrictionsastothesubdivisionpreventedlotownersfromerectingafencehigherthantwofeet,butnofencewasevererectedbythe_Mileses_.Duringtheirownership,the_Mileses_Ԁhadneverpreventedanyonefromcrossingthepropertyindispute.   ` Asalreadynoted,theTrialCourtfoundthattheabovefactsofownershipshown,whichwereundisputed,didnotmeettherequirementsforadversepossession.   ` TheChancellorwascorrectinfindingthePlaintiffboretheburdenofprovingbyclearandpositiveproof,_McCammon_ `"  v.Meredith,830S.W.2d577(Tenn.App.1991);_Tidwell_Ԁv.Van #" Deventer,686S.W.2d899(Tenn.App.1984),thatshemetthe % $ requirementsnecessarytoestablishtitlebyadversepossession._WS K   2      _ '&      Theserequirementsaresetoutin_Catlett_Ԁv._Whaley_,731S.W.2d (@( 544,546(Tenn.App.1987),arecentopinionofthisCourt,asfollows: ` Toestablishtitlebyadversepossession,theremustbeanoccupationofthepropertyunderaclaimofrightortitleRN K   3      whichisopen,actual,continuous,exclusive,adverseandnotoriousfortheprescriptiveperiodof20years._Tidwell_Ԁv.VanDeventer,686 2(4 S.W.2d899(Tenn.App.1984);Smithv._Adkison_,622 2h)5 S.W.2d545(Tenn.App.1981);andPrestonv.Smith,41 30*6 Tenn.App.222,293S.W.2d51(1955). rOQ[<,(j 8` `@Ep.` ttx$- r  5+8  ` Thenatureandcharacterofthelandistakeninto considerationindeterminingwhethertheclaimant'spossessionhasbeensufficienttoestablishownership.(Citationsomitted.)   ` Ourresearchhasdisclosedcaseswhichholdthatastomountainlandandthelike,_Panter_Ԁv.Miller,698S.W.2d634 h  (Tenn.App.1985),orwheretheerectingofafencewoulddestroytheprincipalutilityofaparticularpieceofproperty,_Lamons_ (  v._Mathes_,33Tenn.App.609,232S.W.2d558(1950),afenceis   notrequired.   ` Beginningasearlyas1878,in_Pullen_Ԁv.Hopkins,69 h Tenn.741(1878),ourSupremeCourt,whenaddressingadversepossessionasitrelatestoourcoloroftitledefensivestatutestatesthegeneralrule,notesexceptions,andconcludesthatthegeneralrulerequiringenclosureshouldnotbeextended(atpage744): ` ItisgenerallyrecognizedasthelawinthisStatethatactualpossessionforsevenyearsisnecessarytogivetheyoungergranteethebettertitleunderouractof1819,andactualpossessionisgenerallyunderstoodtomeananenclosurebybuildingfences,orothersimilarimprovements.Thisgoesuponthetheorythatthepossessionmustbecontinuous,andopen,andnotorious;thatis,bysuchactsofpossessionasgivenoticetothepublicthatthepartyisholdingpossessionunderaclaimoftitle,andingeneralnothingshortofactualenclosurewillberegardedassufficientevidenceofthecontinuousoccupationofthelandastogivenoticetothepublicoftheadverseholding.Seethesubjectdiscussedin_Angell_ԀonLim.,sec.396.Someexceptionshavebeenmadetothisrule,andtheextenttowhichtheseexceptionshavegone,oroughttogo,isthequestionnowpresented. ` InWestv.Lanier,9Hum.,762,itappearedthatthelandwasonlyvaluableforthetimberandironoreuponit,andLanierplacedslavesuponthelandwhocuttimberandremovedironoretherefromfromtimetotimetosupplyafactorynearby,butdidnotresideupontheland,buildhousesfortheslaves,ormakeanyenclosures;hispossession,however,weheldequivalenttoactualpossession.ThecourtadoptedthelanguageusedinEwingv.Burnett,11Peters,asfollows:"Anentrybyonemanuponthelandofanotherisanouster :81? ofthelegalpossessionarisingfromthetitleornot,accordingtotheintentionwithwhichitisdone.Ifmadeunderclaimorcolorofright,itisanouster;otherwise,itisameretrespass.Inlegallanguage,theintentionguidestheentryandfixesitscharacter."Again,"neitheractualcultivationorresidenceisnecessarytoconstituteactualpossessionwhenthepropertyissosituatedasnottoadmitofanypermanentusefulimprovement,andthecontinuedclaimofthepartyhasbeenevidencedbypublicactsofownershipsuchashewouldexerciseoverpropertyheclaimedinhisownright,andwouldnotclaimoverpropertyhedidnotclaim."Inthatcasethepossessionconsistedofdiggingandremovingsandfrom_alotinCincinnati,anditwasheldsufficient,thelotnotbeingsusceptibleofanyusefulpermanentimprovement. ` ThecourtusesapprovinglythelanguageofJudgeGastoninWilliamsv.Buchanan,1Ire.L.R.,540: Possessionoflandisdenotedbytheexerciseofactsofdominionoverit,inmakingtheordinaryuseandtakingtheordinaryprofitsofwhichitissusceptibleinitspresentstate,suchactstobesorepeatedastoshowthattheyaredoneinthecharacterofowner,andnotofanoccasionaltrespasser.Thepossessioninthatcasewasofafishtrapanddaminasluiceofanunnavigablestream,andhavingbeencontinuous,washeldsufficient.JudgeGreenconcludes, Fromthesecasesitwillbeseenthataninclosureorresidenceonlandisnotnecessaryinordertoconstitutepossession,butthatsuchuseandoccupationofitasfromitsnatureandcharacterissusceptibleunderaclaimofownership,willbeanactualpossession. ` InthecaseofCassv.Richardson,2Col.,28,itwasheldthattheerectionanduseofawashplacetowashironorewasnotsufficient,thecourtsayingthatingeneralabuildingorinclosureofsomesortisnecessary,butthatexceptionsexistedwherethelandisunfittedforresidenceorcultivationas,forexample,anorebank,acoalravine,asandpit,astonequarry,orameadowbelowtidewater. ` ThecaseofCopelandv.Murphey,2Col.,64,seemstocarrytheprinciplestillfarther,asinthatcase,althoughitwassaidthatthetimberconstitutedtheprincipalsourceofvalueoftheland,itdidnotappearthatitwasnotsusceptibleofcultivation.However,inthatcase,althoughthecontinuedcuttingandusingofthetimberinthesightandhearingoftheplaintiffwasastrongconsideration,yetitfurtherappearedthatthedefendantclaimedthelandunderalostdeed,andhadthelinesurveyedandrunoutwhentheplaintiffwasalong,anditwasapparentthatthelatterwasfullyinformedthatthelandwasbeingclaimedandheldbythedefendantaspartofhishometractoflanduponwhichhelived. ` Casesmayarisewheretheactsofdomainandownershipoverunimprovedlandsmaybeofsuchacharacterastoleavenodoubtofthepartysclaimofownership,althoughthelandbesusceptibleofinclosureorcultivation,andinsuchcasetheclaimof :81? possession,itwouldseem,oughttoberecognized.Butingeneral,therulethatthepossessionmustbebyinclosure,ifthelandbesusceptibleofit,issowellunderstoodandrecognizedthatitisbetternottodepartfromit.Whatevermayhavebeentheruleastoanousterofthepossessionwhichattachestothelegaltitle,suchaswouldhaveauthorizedejectmentbythetrueowner,yetitisgenerallyconcededthatunderourstatuteoflimitationsthepossessionmustbeatthetimecontinuousandactualtoperfectaninferiortitle,andordinarilytheuseoftimberfromuninclosedlandisnotsufficient,assuchactsarenotregardedasgivingnoticetothepublicofthepartyspossessionandclaim. ` Theexception,asstated,iswheretheotheractsofpossessionhavebeensuchasthelandissusceptibleoffromitsnatureandcharacter.Theorebank,thesandbank,thefishtrap,thestonequarryandcoalravine,havebeeninstanced.Willitdotoestablishtherulethattheuseoftimberwillamounttoactualpossessioninallcaseswheretheland,orthegreaterpartofit,isnotfertileorlevelenoughtobeprofitablycultivatedinthepresentstateofpopulation?Forthisiswhatthedefendantstestimonyamountsto,althoughheusesthelanguageusedbythecourtinthecaseofEwingv.Burnett,thatthelandisnotsusceptibleofanyusefulpermanentimprovement.Yetfromhisdescriptionandthefactsstated,weseesimplythatatpresentitwouldnotbeprofitabletocultivatealargeportionofthisland,buthowitmaybewhenthecountrybecomesmoredenselypopulatedwecannotsay.Heconcedesthatpartofitmaybecultivated,andasmallpartinfacthassincebeeninclosed.Histestimonydoesnotshowabsolutelythatthelandisnotsusceptibleofcultivationorresidence. ` Ifthisrulebeestablisheditwouldintroduceinagreatnumberofcasesthequestionwhetherthelandorthegreaterpartofit,bevaluableenoughtoclearandcultivate;ifnot,thenitwouldbeclaimedthattheuseoftimberwouldbesufficientevidenceofpossession;butifsuitablelandtocultivate,thenadifferentruleofpossessionwouldprevail.Thiswouldintroducearuleofuncertainty,andonethatpracticablyitwouldbedifficulttofollow,whereastheotherruleisgenerallyunderstood,andofeasyapplication,andwethinkitbettertoexendtheexceptionstotherulerequiringactualinclosurenofarther.See2Smith,L.cases,6Am.Ed.,Marg.,p.561,etseq. 81'3  ` Weconcludethatthepossessioninthiscasewasnotofacharactertogivethedefendantthebettertitle,andthejudgmentwillbeaffirmed.   ` InthepresentcasethePlaintiffinsiststhatshrubberyplantedalongthelinesheclaimsnearthefrontofthe 09/= tractservedtomeettherequirementofafence.Oneofthephotographsintroduced,exhibitfour,would,attheangleitwastaken,seemtosupporthercontention.However,herownsurveyortestifiedthattheshrubberywasnotahedgeandnotrestrictive.   ` Uponourdenovoreviewoftherecordweconcludethe 0  evidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourt'sfindingsthatthePlaintiffhasnotbornetheburdenrequiredwhenassertingownershipbyadversepossession.   ` Inreachingtheforegoingconclusion,wearenotunmindfulofthecaseofHallmarkv.Tidwell,849S.W.2d787 0 (Tenn.App.1992).Inthatcaseitappearsthattheplaintiffandherhusbandhadclearedpropertynotincludedintheirdeedand"fencedapartofthenonownedclearedpropertyandcreatedagardenontheremainder."Theissueonappealastothiscase,however,wasnotwhethertheplaintiff'spossessionwassufficientlyaadverse,butwhetherMrs.Hallmarkwasrequiredtoshowthatthenonpossessoryholderofthelegaltitlewasnot"underanydisabilityatanytimeduringtheperiodofadversepossession."   ` Inconclusion,wehavenotoverlookedthealternativereliefsoughtinthePlaintiff'sbrief,towit,thatshewasentitled"toaperpetualexclusiveprescriptiveeasementforallencompassingsurfaceuses,suchasplanting,gardening,mowing,leisureactivities,etc."Thisisatheorythatwasnotadvancedbelowandcannotbeconsideredforthefirsttimeonappeal.Simpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion,810S.W.2d147  5+8 (Tenn.1991);BrooksideMills,Inc.v.Moulton,55Tenn.App.643, 6P-: 404S.W.2d258(1965). 9p0>    ` Oneadditionalmatterneedstobeconsidered.ItappearsthatastayorderwasenteredbythisCourtpendingdispositionofthisappeal,andthereafteramotionforcontemptwasfiledbythePlaintiffforactscommittedbyanagentoftheDefendantaffectingthedisputedstripofland.Becauseitisnecessarythatproofbeintroducedastothisissue,uponremanditisappropriatefortheTrialCourttoaddresstheissuesraisedbythePlaintiff'smotioninrespectthereto.   ` Finally,inordertomaintainthestatusquo,thestayheretoforeissuedwillremainineffectuntilourjudgmentbecomesfinaloranapplicationforappealisacceptedbytheSupremeCourtandtheproprietyofthestayresolvedbyit.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,includingdispositionofthemotionforcontempt,asmaybenecessary.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstthePlaintiffandhersurety.   `     h   _______________________________   `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.