WPC 3W`pu;,Jp2'[om&7!@l V'ItiCZ>O2) RdKMl5` qS^X`k T1*8)Sf$y@ѱ (Q%4,X@CӁpGZ;DX ٔܵTQ)+Qs [O) w5 6%bzfrV6+S W|=%tw)&>ZlIHZDǃd&]1._].q6$wbpWFZNXjָHNZ|4α-Z[ ~WSI(XUz75tY,$I=@%(Ž`xV؍I\fH"Va5Jq'4&r|xkE- 66ŖpŞ# F UNQ % 0( UF UP UFc w@ 4   0l 0D3UFwJUFiUFU:UF/unUFU:HHHHHH B D3 0D AOmm 0D3 D/w BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular DEDEӀRC&3|x   $    1    XpXXXXXpKernsalsotookthepositionattrialthattheplaintiffswereestopped P  fromenforcingthesubjectrestrictionbecausethesubdivisionownershadfailedtoobjecttopreviousviolationsofotherrestrictions.Thetrialcourtrejectedthisargument,however,andKernsdoesnotpursueitonappeal.Accordingtoherbrief,Kernsalsocontendedattrialthat12U.S.C.1715zpreemptsstatelawandlocalzoningordinancessoastoallowhomessuchastheoneatissueinthiscasetobeconstructedwheresinglefamilyhomesareallowed;thus,Kernsurgesustoadopt,asamatterofpublicpolicy,arulethatmanufacturedhomessuchashersarenot mobilehomes.However,shesupportsthispositionwithnoauthority;furthermore,evenif12U.S.C. 0  1715z##ԀhasthepurposethatKernssuggests,thisdoesnotmeanthatithasthe 0  effectofpreemptingprivatesubdivisionrestrictions.Wefindthisargumenttobewithoutmerit.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    2    X XXXXX SeeT.C.A.68126202(4).   $    3    X XXXXX SeeT.C.A.551105(1)( Mobilehomeorhousetrailermeansany P  vehicleorconveyance,notselfpropelled,designedfortraveluponthepublichighways,anddesignedforuseasaresidence,office,apartment,storehouse,warehouse,oranyothersimilarpurpose.) XOXXXՎ XXO   Ad FILED  Վ   April16,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.  AppellateCourt  Clerk <4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular XOXXXՎ XXO   Ad FILED  Վ   April15,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.  AppellateCourt  Clerk  d  $    4    X XXXXX Therelevantrestrictionsin BeaconHills wererecordedonOctober21, P  1977. Id. at737.Therestrictionsintheinstantcasewererecordedon   November17,1975.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P XpXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7r*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rr*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP r@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@$ATKNOXVILLEJOHNPAULNEAS,III,and h Wife,)C/ANO.03A019812CH00386 T PATRICIANEAS,etal., h   ) *    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffsAppellees,)   `     h   )   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.   `     h   )WASHINGTONCOUNTYCHANCERY ^     `     h   )COURT   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )HELENJANEKERNS,   h   ) < X   `     h   )HONONORABLE.ORABLETHOMASJ.SEELEY,JR.,X1   ` DefendantAppellant.)JR.,JUDGE,ByInterchangeForAppellant    h     ForAppellee f THOMASC.JESSEE   h     JOHNRAMBO   Jessee&Jessee   h     Herrin,Booze&Rambo   JohnsonCity,Tennessee h     JohnsonCity,Tennessee !n @$XXXXp  XXOPINIONXX  XpXXXԈ 1P'/ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  9>/8   ћ   ` JohnPaulNeas,III,hiswife,PatriciaNeas,andotherresidentsofTownandCountryEstatesinWashingtonCountysuedHelenJaneKerns( Kerns),seekingtoenforcerestrictionsprohibitingtheuseofamobilehomeortrailerasaresidenceinthesubdivision.Followingabenchtrial,thelowercourtheldthatKerns proposed[placement]ofamanufacturedhomeonherlotwouldviolatetheprotectivecovenantsandrestrictionsforTownandCountryEstates;itthereforeenjoinedKernsfromtakingsuchaction.Kernsappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterredininterpretingtheapplicablerestrictionsandinfindingthatthesubjectstructurewasa mobilehome.   ` KernsistheownerofalotinTownandCountryϜEstates.Uponitsestablishment,thesubdivisionwasmadesubjecttovariousrestrictions,includingthefollowing:  8 ` Nomobilehomeortrailershallbeusedaslivingquartersonanylotsortractsofsaidproperty. ` `  ThislitigationensuedafterKernsinformedsomeofherneighborsofherintentiontoplaceamanufacturedhomeonLot16Aofthesubdivision.Attrial,Kernscontendedthattheproposedhomewasnota mobilehomeortrailer,asevidencedbythefollowing:thehomewouldbeofhighqualityconstruction;itwouldbeplacedonapermanentfoundation;itwouldbefinancedfor30years;itwouldexceedthesubdivisionsminimumsquare footagerequirements;andonceplacedonthelotandfinanced,it 4*3 wouldloseitsvehicleidentificationnumber.   #  1      כThetrialcourt P  madethefollowingfindingswithrespecttothehome:   8 ` [Kerns]intendstoplaceadoublewide manufacturedhomeonherlot.Suchdoublewidehomeisconstructedoffsite.Itistransportedbyroadtoitsintendedlotintwosections.Thetwosectionsareflagged wideloadandgetarequired overwidthand overheightpermitfromtheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation.ThetwosectionseachhaveaVINnumberorserialnumber.Thesectionscontainahitchandwheelssothateachsectioncanbetowedtoitsplaceofinstallation.Occasionally,butinfrequently,theunitsareplacedonalowboyfortransportandareplaced[at]thesitebyuseofacrane.Themanufacturedhomecangenerallyberelocatedinonedayduetoitsincreasedmovability. ` `    8 ` TheownersofsuchmanufacturedhomecanreceiveconventionalfinancingfromFHA,VAandotherlendinginstitutionsjustas[theownersof]anormalonsiteconstructedhomecan. ` `    8 ` Itis[Kerns]intentiontoplacethemanufacturedhomeonaconcretefoundationandpossiblyattachagaragetoit. ` `  Relyingonthecaseof BeaconHillsHomeownersAssn,Inc.v. %T! PalmerProperties,Inc. ,911S.W.2d736(Tenn.App.1995),the l'# trialcourtheldthatKernsproposedhomefellwithintheϜdefinitionof mobilehomeortrailer,asthosetermsareusedintheapplicablesubdivisionrestrictions.  ,.#+    ` Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe P   recordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfindingsoffact,unless thepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.; Wrightv.CityofKnoxville , ` 898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); UnionCarbideCorp.v. ( Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourts   conclusionsoflawarenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbell h  v.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presley 0  v.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993). H     ` Generallyspeaking,restrictionsonthefreeuseofrealpropertyarenotfavoredandwillbestrictlyconstrued. Hicksv.Cox ,978S.W.2d544,548(Tenn.App.1998); BeaconHills ,  911S.W.2dat739.However,theoverridingconsiderationistheintentoftheparties. Hicks ,978S.W.2dat548; BeaconHills , x"( 911S.W.2dat739.   ` In BeaconHills ,weaddressedasituationsimilarto '@" thatintheinstantcase.Thesubjectrestrictionin X XXX Beacon X)$ Hills #X XXX 2#Ԁprohibited,amongotherthings,theuseofany structure  + & ofatemporarycharacter[or]trailerasaresidence.Wedescribedthemanufacturedhomeinquestionasfollows:  8 ` Thestructurehereconsistedoftwounits.EachunitwaspulledbyatractortruckoverthepublichighwaystodefendantslotinBeaconHillsSubdivision.Concretefooterswerepouredorproposedtobepouredatthesiteforthefoundation.Thetwounitsweretobeattachedtogetherandsecuredtothefoundation.TheassembledstructurewasconstructedonfourIbeamsrunningthelengthoftheunits.Thespacebetweenthefoundationorfootingandthestructurewastobeenclosed.Theonlydifference (:/8 betweenthecaseunderconsiderationand Albert P   [ v.Orwige ,731S.W.2d63(Tenn.App.1987)]is 4  that,here,theappellantproposedtoaddagarage,porchandusebrickonalargeportionoftheexteriorofthestructure. ` `    8 ` Followinginstallation,thewheels,axlesandtonguesweretoberemovedfromeachoftheunits.Asin X XXX Albert #X XXX _"#,thewheels,axlesandtonguescould  bereattachedtotheunits,whichcouldthenbeseparatedandtowedawayfromdefendantslotinthesamemannerastheyhadbeenbroughttodefendantsproperty.Acertificateoforiginforavehiclewasissuedbythemanufacturerandavehicleidentificationnumberwasassignedtoit. ` `   Id. at738.Afterconsideringthestatutorydefinitionsofa h  manufacturedhome  #  2      ׀anda mobilehomeorhousetrailer,L  #  3      ׀we 0 foundthatthestructureinquestionfellwithinbothϜdefinitions. Id. at737.Wethenheldasfollows: 0   8 ` Thecourt[in Albertv.Orwige ]notedthatthe ! mannerofconstructionbetweena modularhomeanda mobilehomewasadifferencewithoutadistinction.Weagreethatthesamereasoningcanbeappliedtoa manufacturedhomeanda mobilehome. ` `   Id. at738.Wealsofoundthattheterms mobilehomeand t)$%  trailerhadbeenusedinterchangeablyduringtherelevanttimeperiod.  #  4      ׀ Id. at739.Thus,weheldthatthetrialcourthad ,") properlyenjoinedtheappellantfromplacingtheproposedstructureinthesubdivision. Id.  T0&- Ї   ` Likewise,wereachedasimilarconclusioninthecaseof Albertv.Orwige ,731S.W.2d63(Tenn.App.1987).As   indicatedinthe BeaconHills opinion,whichreliesheavilyon  p  Albert ,thestructuresatissueinthetwocaseswere 8 substantiallysimilar. X XXX BeaconHills #X XXX +#,911S.W.2dat738.In P  X XXX Albert #X XXX +#,wenoted,amongotherthings,that [t]hemajorityof   courts...haveheldthatremovingthewheelsorrunninggearofamobilehomeandplacingitonapermanentfoundationdoesnotconvertthehomeintoapermanentstructure. Id. at67.We 0  thenfoundthestructureinquestiontobeamobilehome,despitethefactthatitwasa doublewideandwasconstructedofϜmaterialsdifferentfromthosefoundinmanymobilehomes. Id.  H at68.Notingthatthestructurewasreadily capableofbeingseparatedandtransportedtoandreassembledatanotherlot,weheldthatthetrialcourthadproperlyordereditsremovalfromthesubdivision. Id.  $    ` Uponreviewoftherecordintheinstantcase,weareoftheopinionthatthestructurewhichKernsproposestoplaceonherlotinTownandCountryEstatesissubstantiallythesameasthestructuresin BeaconHills and Albert. Theevidence p, "( doesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsregardingthepertinentcharacteristicsofKernsproposedhome.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Thehomesdistinguishingfeaturesitsoffsiteconstruction,itsconstructiononasteelIbeamframe,itstransportationbyroadintwosectionstothelot,theassignmentofavehicleidentificationorserialnumbertoeachsection,andthefactthatitcanberelocatedeasilyfollowingreattachmentofthewheelsandaxlesaresubstantiallysimilar 9/8 tothefeaturesexhibitedbythestructuresin X XXX BeaconHills and P   Albert. Thus,theprinciplessetforthinthosecasesare   controllinghere.#X XXX p2#      ` Inviewofitsaforementionedcharacteristics,itisclearthatthehomeatissueintheinstantcasefallswithintheϜtyperangeofstructuresthattheapplicablesubdivisionrestrictionswereintendedtoprohibit.󛀀Asexplainedabove,Kernsproposed (  homeisnotdistinguishablefromotherstructurespreviouslyfoundtobemobilehomesortrailers.See BeaconHills ,911 x( S.W.2dat73739; Albert ,731S.W.2dat6465.Accordingly,we @ holdthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthatthestructureinquestionisprohibitedbythesubdivisionrestrictionsapplicabletoTownandCountryEstates.ThetrialcourtthereforeproperlyenjoinedKernsfromplacingthemanufacturedhomeonherproperty.   ` Thejudgmentdecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion,andforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelowthere,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:_________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J._________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.