ÿWPC>  äuз°yÁˆáœ!·)IxE¡°SE!H–F÷žŽëï1ØÀi46aàiÅ.Ñt62xšÒk["™Çlrwðx‰?%Š(à ›ÿÃÄžð¾šLñí|¤+¨7ÿ¹)æ~¢×Ü.!Ÿú]0UO5û[wqÙ ±"t¤è]š…?_ Iõ¬X’JT¿yiôKŧ¬ê7nªm@®P¦kõÍ””ž¨ðQ6ÃÆ&vpSIú~Ûºw“Ø;쀛HŸ.¸t“@mS,äâ㌲ Cw°ÍêµâdØ»Îrn¡!\ù«=ƒžÝÉcC ù:3ùäxÙ¸g¿VŠ\Üå»4È6ܵ«ö‘£ˆóÆ\µiKFßhUµ#i¶\ ƒN£èèÆ¾>N`g rÌÁÐbèÓF³9+æ/õ94Ðø’¾“j—eü îvÑòW{^Tw; ³`hjy…ÄÐÀþ)îæöGáól½·”(k›F —¥¢|™cCåvÇΫ(QöÞ.ÖXè¬[±{š7Xfz1a}gÖq®õ3Îå[ó,F-_eVJ»êß?<¿3ÎúÒ´UÀ†]ln\~ ÓcQ=Ï­’iý i¶raL?ûœŠßJkDktho!¯­ÜŽ*# LU :W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 L.z‚U:…………………………………………………… AQ¿Æ 0DÖ 0D 0D^ ^ D/¢ BÑ Bî D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - [T\]^_`aDbDcdÓ€©yË&xÔôz¤¸f3|xmC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X/µXXXÔÔ€ ÄFX X/µÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X/µX ÄFÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€2,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñdñ›ñdñѰÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€/µXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼¼XXÔÓ  Óñdñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rß›ñdñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€X/µX¼¼ÔˆÐ  ÐÌÌÌÌBETTY€œNESMITH›€and€à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð È À ÐCECIL€œNESMITH›,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ® ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àœPlaintiffs/Appellees,›à 8 àà  àœ)›Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9809„CH„00509Ð F>  МVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRutherford€ChanceryÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96„CV„404Ð øð  ÐJOHN€œALSUP›,€II€andà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ÞÖ  ÐTERESA€œALSUP›,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Рļ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àœDefendants/Appellants.›à 8 àà  àœ)›Ð ˆ ÐÌÌà@¤¤êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYˆÌà@]]!êàAT€œMURFREESBORO›,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@  êàTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€œCORLEW›,€III,€CHANCELLORˆÌ̛̜ÌÌDARRELL€L.€œSCARLETT›Ì16€Public€Square€NorthÌœP.›€O.€Box€884ÌœMurfreesboro›,€Tennessee€37133„0884Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌFREDERICK€L.€CONRAD,€JR.Ì607€Market€Street,€Ninth€FloorÌP.€O.€œBox›€2466ÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37902Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppellantsÌÌ̛̜ÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌ̛̜Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌœCOTTRELL›,€J.ÌÐ  ´9¬28 ÐÓÓò òÔ€„ln„XX/µÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€X/µX„„lnԈР ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiff€petitioned€the€court€for€a€declaration€that€she€was€entitledÏto€a€one„half€interest€in€a€farm€that€had€been€part€of€her€fatherððs€estate.€€Her€brotherÏresponded€by€claiming€to€be€the€sole€owner€under€the€provisions€of€their€fatherððs€will,Ïor€in€the€alternative,€under€a€theory€of€adverse€possession.€€The€trial€court€œfound›€thatÏthe€effect€of€the€will€was€to€divide€the€property€equally€between€the€siblings,€and€thatÏthe€brother€failed€to€prove€ownership€by€adverse€possession.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ˆÐ 0( Ðó óÌà Ø àà 0 àJohn€œAlvis›€œAlsup›€executed€his€Last€Will€and€Testament€on€April€20,Ï1957.€€Item€II€of€the€will€devised€his€76€acre€farm€to€his€wife,€œñ]ñBlanche€Harrell€Alsup,Ïñ]ñas›€trustee€for€the€maintenance,€support€and€education€of€his€minor€son,€John€œAlvis›ÏœAlsup›€II€(hereinafter€referred€to€as€John€œAlsup›).€The€trustee€was€given€the€right€to€sellÏthe€farm,€if€necessary,€to€accomplish€the€purposes€of€the€trust.€€Upon€the€completionÏor€termination€of€the€sonððs€education,€the€residue€of€the€trust€was€to€be€divided€equallyÏbetween€the€testatorððs€wife,€his€son,€and€his€adult€daughter,€Betty€œMavity›€(now€BettyÏœNeSmith›).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€testator€died€on€May€3,€1957.€€John€Alsup€was€ten€or€eleven€yearsÏold€at€the€time.€€In€1968,€he€completed€his€education€by€graduating€from€MiddleÏTennessee€State€University.€€As€it€turned€out,€his€mother€œdid€not›€have€to€sell€the€farmÏto€finance€his€education.€€Mr.€Alsup€worked€nights€to€pay€his€college€expenses,€andÏattended€classes€during€the€day,€and€his€mother€supplemented€his€earnings€by€givingÏhim€money€from€time€to€time.Ìâ âÐ È6À/4 Ðà Ø àà 0 àWhile€John€Alsup€was€still€attending€MTSU,€his€mother€retired€fromÏâ âteaching€in€the€State€of€Tennessee,€and€moved€to€Dalton,€Georgia,€where€herÏdaughter,€Betty€NeSmith€was€living.€€Thereafter,€John€Alsup€took€control€of€the€farm.ÏHe€rented€it€out,€collected€the€rents,€and€paid€all€the€property€taxes.€€He€dealt€withÏlocal€officials,€and€at€one€point€he€executed€a€warranty€deed€transferring€3/10€of€anÏacre€to€the€City€of€Murfreesboro€for€an€easement€and€right„of„way€to€change€theÏroadbed€on€Sulphur€Springs€Road.€€He€also€met€with€potential€purchasers€of€theÏproperty,€including€the€school€board,€which€was€exploring€the€possibility€of€building€aÏhigh€school€on€the€land,€and€with€a€team€of€Texas€developers€who€presented€him€withÏa€plan€entitled€ð ðAlsup€Farms€„„€a€planned€76€acre€Residential€Sub„Division.ðð€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àBlanche€œHarrell›€Alsup€died€on€November€20,€1994,€when€she€was€overÏ90€years€of€age.€€Article€IV€of€her€will€devised€all€her€real€property€and€all€her€personalÏproperty€(except€for€two€bequests€not€relevant€here)€ð ðto€my€two€children,€Betty€AlsupÏœMavity›€NeSmith€and€John€A.€Alsup€II,€in€fee€simple,€share€and€share€alike.ððÌÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€March€27,€1996,€Betty€NeSmith€filed€a€petition€asking€the€court€toÏdeclare€that€upon€the€death€of€her€mother,€she€had€become€the€owner€of€an€undividedÏone„half€interest€in€the€farm€property.€€She€also€asked€the€court€to€order€that€it€beÏpartitioned€in€kind.€€John€Alsup€filed€a€response€and€counter„petition€on€June€4,€1996,Ïin€which€he€contended€that€by€virtue€of€his€fatherððs€will,€the€farm€was€his€sole€property.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMs.€NeSmith€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment.ÏIn€his€response,€John€Alsup€asserted€that€even€if€the€court€upheld€the€plaintiffððsÏinterpretation€of€the€will,€his€long€stewardship€of€the€land€made€him€its€owner€byÏadverse€possession.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€plaintiffððs€motion€for€partial€summaryÏjudgment.€€The€court€found€that€œñbñthe›€AñbññcñAñcñrticle›€II€of€the€will€of€John€Alvis€Alsup€œñ^ñhad€ñ^ñcreated›Ïa€tenancy€in€common€between€œñ_ñBlanche€Harrell€Alsup,€ñ_ñBetty›€NeSmith€and€John€Alsup,Ð ¨9 26 Ðand€that€œñ`ñJohn€Alsup€and€Betty€NeSmith€ñ`ññañeach›€party›€ñaññbñ›ñbñnow€owned›€an€undivided€one„half€interest€inÏthe€property.€€John€Alsup€was€permitted€to€develop€proof€on€his€claim€of€adverseÏpossession.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àFollowing€another€hearing,€the€court€dismissed€the€claim€of€adverseÏpossession€and€ordered€partition€in€kind€of€the€real€estate,€with€the€appointment€of€aÏjury€of€view€to€determine€the€division.€€After€the€jury€of€view€divided€the€property€intoÏtwo€parcels,€both€parties€requested€possession€of€parcel€#1.€€To€resolve€this€problem,Ïthe€court€ordered€the€Clerk€and€Master€to€conduct€an€auction€by€telephone€betweenÏthe€parties,€with€the€highest€bidder€to€pay€the€amount€of€his€or€her€last€bid€to€the€other,Ïfor€the€privilege€of€receiving€the€coveted€parcel.€The€auction€was€conducted€on€JulyÏ13,€1998.€€Ms.€NeSmith€made€the€winning€bid€of€$50,000€and€title€to€parcel€#1€wasÏvested€in€her.€€This€appeal€followed.Ìœñ_ñ›ñ_ññ`ñò òó óñ`ñ›Ìà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Alsup€œasserts›€œfour›€arguments€on€appeal€to€support€his€position€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€partitioning€the€property.€€These€arguments€œdeal›€respectivelyÏwith€the€interpretation€of€the€will,€Mr.€Alsupððs€claim€of€adverse€possession,€and€a€claimÏof€title€by€prescription€(which€was€not€argued€in€the€trial€court).€€He€also€œargues›€thatÏthe€Clerk€and€Master€terminated€the€auction€too€soon,€and€that€his€rights€wereÏprejudiced€thereby.€€We€will€discuss€each€of€these€arguments€in€turn.€ÌÌœñ[ñà@ÞÞ(êàñ[ññ\ñò òII.€€The€Willó óñ\ññZñˆÐ h.`'* ÐñZññ[ñ›ñ[ññZñÌñZñ›à Ø àà 0 àArticle€II€of€the€Last€Will€and€Testament€of€John€Alvis€Alsup€reads€in€itsÏentirety:€ÌÒ„ÒÓÓÒ0 €Òà ˆ àI€give€and€devise€to€my€wife,€Blanche€œHarrell›€Alsup,€asÏtrustee€for€my€minor€son,€John€Alvis€Alsup€II,€my€farm€locatedÏin€the€œ9th›€Civil€District€of€Rutherford€County,€Tennessee,Ïfronting€on€the€Sulphur€Springs€Road€about€3ðð€miles€NorthÏwest€of€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€and€containing€about€76Ð ¨9 26 Ðacres.€€The€terms€and€conditions€of€this€trust€are€that€thisÏfarm€be€held,€managed,€rented€or€sold€by€said€Trustee€or€herÏsuccessor,€if€any,€for€the€maintenance,€support€and€educationÏof€my€said€son,€John€Alvis€Alsup€II€as€herein€provided.€€SaidÏtrustee€is€expressly€authorized€and€directed€to€hold€orÏdispose€of€said€farm€according€to€her€sole€judgment€andÏdiscretion€with€the€view€of€accomplishing€the€purposesÏexpressly€herein;€also,€my€trustee€is€authorized€to€reinvestÏthe€proceeds€of€sale€from€said€farm€if€it€should€be€sold,€asÏshe€sees€fit,€subject€to€the€provisions€hereof€as€to€the€use€ofÏproceeds/€a€limit€or€maximum€of€Fifteen€thousand€dollars€isÏhereby€fixed€as€the€cost€or€expense€of€my€said€sonððsÏmaintenance€support€and€education€and€this€shall€alsoÏinclude€necessary€living€expenses€of€my€wife.€€At€such€timeÏas€my€said€sonððs€education€shall€be€completed,€terminated€byÏcircumstances€beyond€my€Trustees€control,€the€residue€ofÏsaid€trust€fund€shall€be€divided€equally€between€my€said€son,Ïmy€daughter€Mrs.€Betty€Alsup€œMavity›€(now€of€Hartford€Conn.),Ïand€my€wife,€Blanche€œHarrell›€Alsup,€if€living;€if€not,€then€herÏshare€shall€go€to€my€said€two€children,€share€and€share€alike.¼à ˆ àÌÌÒ€0 ÒÓÓÌÒ„Òà Ø àà 0 àJohn€Alsup€argues€that€since€the€first€part€of€Article€II€placed€the€land€inÏtrust€for€his€benefit,€he€was€therefore€entitled€to€receive€the€corpus€of€the€trust€uponÏits€termination.€€He€tries€to€explain€away€the€provision€for€the€division€of€the€land€afterÏthe€completion€of€his€education€by€giving€it€a€conditional€meaning€which€we€believeÏis€not€supported€by€the€text.€€He€argues€that€the€testator€intended€the€residue€of€theÏtrust€to€be€subject€to€division€only€if€the€land€was€sold€prior€to€the€completion€of€hisÏeducation.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€cardinal€rule€to€follow€in€construing€a€will€is€to€ascertain€and€giveÏeffect€to€the€intention€of€the€testator.€òò€Ashley€v.€œVolz›óó,€404€S.W.2d€œ239,€242›€(Tenn.Ð h.`'* Ð1966);€œòòMartin€v.€Tayloróó,›€œ521›€S.W.2d€œ581,€584›€(Tenn.€œ1975).›€€To€determine€thatÐ H0@), Ðintention,€the€court€will€look€to€the€instrument€as€a€whole€for€guidance,€gathering€theÏintention€from€the€tenor€and€scope€of€the€whole,€and€not€from€isolated€parts.€òòÐ 4-0 МPatterson›€v.€Alexanderóó,€œ509›€S.W.2d€œ834,€835›€(Tenn.€1974).€€Since€every€will€is€òòsuiÐ è5à.2 Ðgenerisóó,€the€use€of€other€cases€involving€the€intentions€of€testators€will€be€of€littleÐ È7À04 Ðassistance.€òò€Presley€v.€Hanksóó,€782€S.W.2d€482,€487€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ð ¨9 26 Їà Ø à€à 0 àIn€the€document€before€us,€the€testator€clearly€stated€his€intention€thatÐ  Ðhis€property€be€used€for€the€maintenance,€support€and€education€of€his€minor€son.€ÏHe€set€a€definite€limitation€upon€the€duration€of€the€trust€created€for€that€purpose,Ïstating€that€it€would€end€ð ðAt€such€time€as€my€said€sonððs€education€shall€be€completed,Ïterminated€by€circumstances€beyond€my€Trustees€control,ðð€and€he€gave€clearÏinstructions€for€the€division€of€the€property€after€the€termination€of€the€trust.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellant€argues€that€every€part€of€Article€II€which€follows€theÏexpression€ð ðif€it€should€be€soldðð€is€modified€by€that€expression,€including€the€provisionÏfor€the€division€of€the€residue€of€the€trust.€€We€believe,€however,€that€the€quotedÏexpression€refers€only€to€the€provisions€found€in€the€same€sentence,€which€involveÏreinvestment€of€the€proceeds€and€the€limitation€on€the€amount€that€could€be€used€forÏJohn€Alsupððs€education.€€We€acknowledge€that€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðthe€residue€of€saidÏtrust€fundsðð€rather€than€ð ðthe€residue€of€said€trustðð€in€the€following€sentence€lends€someÏsupport€to€Mr.€Alsupððs€theory.€€However,€the€dominant€and€controlling€intention€of€theÏtestator€must€govern,€even€if€it€is€in€conflict€with€some€word,€phrase,€or€expressionÏwhich€might€lead€to€a€different€conclusion.€òò€Davis€v.€Mitchellóó,€178€S.W.2d€889,€912Ð %  Ð(Tenn.€1943).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Alsup€argues€that€his€father€had€a€sentimental€attachment€to€theÏland,€and€that€he€intended€to€pass€the€family€farm€on€to€his€son.€€He€claims€that€hisÏfather€knew€that€he€was€the€only€one€likely€to€keep€it€intact€as€a€working€farm,€ratherÏthan€selling€it€off€for€residential€or€other€purposes.€€But€we€note€that€the€will€itselfÏcontains€no€language€supporting€these€assertions.€€The€testator€nowhere€states€thatÏhe€intended€or€hoped€that€his€son€would€eventually€become€the€sole€owner€of€theÏproperty,€to€the€exclusion€of€his€wife€and€his€daughter,€or€that€he€in€any€way€intendedÏto€favor€his€son€over€his€other€heirs,€once€the€sonððs€education€was€completed.€€In€ourÏopinion,€if€the€testator€had€intended€such€a€result,€he€would€not€have€expressed€it€asÐ ¨9 26 Ðobliquely€as€the€defendantððs€theory€requires,€but€as€clearly€as€he€expressed€hisÏintention€to€adequately€fund€his€sonððs€education.€€We€therefore€find€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€err€in€granting€the€plaintiff€summary€judgment€on€the€will.ÌÌà@ll"êàò òIII.€€Adverse€Possessionó óˆÐ ˆ€ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€adverse€possession,€the€plaintiff€must€make€outÏhis€claim€by€clear€and€positive€proof,€with€every€presumption€in€favor€of€possessionÏin€subordination€to€the€title€of€the€true€owner.€òò€Harrison€v.€œBeaty›óó,€127€S.W.2d€946Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1939).€€A€party€intending€to€claim€property€by€adverse€possession€must€remainÏin€possession€of€the€property€for€seven€years€under€a€claim€of€right.€€His€possessionÏmust€also€meet€all€the€following€requirements:€€it€must€be€open,€œactual,€continuous,›Ïexclusive,€adverse€and€notorious.€€œòòCatlett€v.€Whaleyóó,€731€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.Ð ˆ€ ÐApp.€1987).€€òòAlso€seeóó›€3€œAm.Jur.2d€›òòAdverse€œPossession.óó›Ð h` ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€requirements€that€the€possession€be€both€exclusive€and€adverseÏare€particularly€difficult€to€establish€when€a€cotenancy€is€involved.€€Every€cotenantÏretains€the€right€to€enter€into€and€occupy€the€common€property,€so€the€occupation€ofÏthe€property€by€one€cotenant€is€not€generally€regarded€as€adverse€to€the€claim€ofÏanother.€€Nor€is€it€generally€considered€to€be€exclusive,€since€possession€by€one€isÏregarded€as€possession€by€all,€unless€there€is€an€actual€ouster€of€one€tenant€byÏanother.€òò€Moore€v.€Coleóó,€289€S.W.2d€695€(Tenn.€1956).Ð h.`'* ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAn€ouster€does€not€necessarily€mean€a€physical€expulsion€of€one€partyÏby€another,€but€it€requires€the€party€claiming€adversely€to€perform€some€act€thatÏmakes€it€clear€to€his€cotenant€that€she€is€being€excluded€from€ownership.€€In€the€caseÏof€òòœDrewery›€v.€œNelms›óó,€132€Tenn.€254,€177€S.W.€946€(1915),€our€Supreme€CourtÐ È7À04 Ðexplained€the€ouster€requirement€this€way:Ð ¨9 26 ÐÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ àð ðThis€ouster€by€one€tenant€in€common€against€hisÏcotenant€may€occur,€but€it€takes€something€more€than€anÏappropriation€of€the€rents€without€an€accounting.€€The€mereÏsilent,€sole€occupation€by€one€of€the€entire€property,€thoughÏhe€be€claiming€the€whole€estate,€and€appropriating€the€wholeÏrents,€without€an€accounting€to€or€claim€by€the€others,€withoutÏnotice€of€his€cotenant€that€his€possession€is€adverse,€andÏunaccompanied€by€some€act€which€can€amount€to€anÏexclusion€and€ouster€of€the€cotenant,€cannot€be€construedÏinto€an€adverse€possession.€€This€ouster€and€exclusion€mayÏbe€effected€by€taking€possession€and€affording€actual€noticeÏof€a€claim€of€sole€ownership€or€other€positive€and€unequivocalÏact€that€must€by€its€nature€put€the€other€œcotenants›€uponÏnotice€that€they€are€excluded€from€the€possession.ððÌÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓœ132€Tenn.€at€262,€177€S.W.€at€948.Ì›Ìà Ø àà 0 àThis€much€is€undisputed:€that€Mr.€Alsup€managed€the€property€for€wellÏover€20€years;€that€he€did€not€live€on€the€land€(in€fact€he€never€lived€on€the€land);€thatÏhe€leased€the€farm€out€(one€tenant,€Thomas€œBecton›,€rented€the€land€from€him€for€22Ïyears);€that€he€collected€the€rents€and€paid€the€taxes,€without€offering€an€accountingÏto€his€mother€or€to€his€sister;€that€he€negotiated€with€the€City€of€Murfreesboro€for€anÏeasement€to€straighten€a€road;€and€that€he€represented€himself€as€the€sole€ownerÏwhen€he€spoke€to€developers€eager€to€buy€the€property.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àSome€facts€were€in€dispute,€or€were€at€least€uncertain.€€For€example,ÏMs.€NeSmith€states€that€she€asked€her€brother€for€an€accounting€several€times€(whichÏhe€denied).€€She€testified€on€direct€that€he€offered€to€buy€her€share€of€the€land€forÏ$100,000;€he€was€not€asked€on€rebuttal€whether€he€had€made€such€an€offer.€€Mr.ÏAlsup€testified€that€his€sister€asked€him€if€she€could€attend€the€meeting€with€theÏprospective€developers€of€Alsup€Farms;€she€testified€that€he€invited€her€without€beingÏasked.€€It€is€undisputed€that€she€did€not€object€to€the€fact€that€the€documentsÏsubmitted€by€the€developers€all€referred€to€him€as€the€owner,€and€did€not€mention€her.Ìâ âÐ Ø6Ð/3 Ðà Ø àà 0 àHowever,€even€if€we€resolved€all€the€factual€questions€in€such€a€way€asÏâ âto€be€most€favorable€to€Mr.€Alsupððs€theory,€we€still€do€not€believe€they€would€beÏsufficient€to€establish€an€ouster€under€the€standard€enunciated€in€òòœNelms›€v.€œDrewery›óó,Ð È À Ðsupra.€€Even€though€Mr.€œBecton›,€local€officials,€and€prospective€purchasers€may€allÏhave€believed€that€Mr.€Alsup€was€the€sole€owner€of€the€property€(and€there€is€someÏevidence€to€the€contrary€in€regard€to€all€three)€there€is€no€evidence€that€he€everÏperformed€the€sort€of€unequivocal€œact›€to€put€his€sister€on€sufficient€notice€that€she€wasÏbeing€excluded,€so€that€he€could€prevail€on€a€theory€of€adverse€possession.€€ÌÌà@ss!êàò òIV.€€Title€by€Prescriptionó óˆÐ èà ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€we€mentioned€above,€the€appellant€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€title€byÏprescription€at€trial.€€The€jurisdiction€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€appellate€only.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€16„4„108.€€Thus,€we€may€not€decide€questions€that€were€not€brought€upÏin€the€court€below.€€However,€we€believe€that€even€if€it€were€appropriate€for€us€toÏconsider€that€issue,€on€the€basis€of€the€evidence€in€the€record,€we€would€have€to€findÏthat€the€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€one€of€the€necessary€elements€forÏprescriptive€title.€€€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThese€elements€are€(1)€the€prescriptive€holder€has€been€in€exclusiveÏand€uninterrupted€possession€of€the€land€in€question€for€more€than€20€years,€claimingÏthe€same€as€his€own€without€any€accounting€to€his€co-tenants€or€claim€on€their€partÏ--€they€being€under€no€disability€to€assert€their€rights;€and€(2)€the€holder's€occupancyÏof€the€property€in€question€was€without€the€actual€or€implied€permission€of€the€otherÏco-tenants.€€Seeòò€œLivesay›€v.€Keatonóó,€611€S.W.2d€581,€583€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€€IfÐ 4-0 Ðeither€of€these€elements€is€not€proven,€the€doctrine€of€title€by€prescription€does€notÏapply.ÌÐ ¨9 26 Ðà Ø àà 0 à€In€the€present€case,€Ms.€NeSmith€testified€that€she€believed€her€brotherÏto€be€looking€after€the€land€on€behalf€of€her€mother,€and€that€she€was€content€to€letÏhim€do€so.€€She€herself€was€involved€in€looking€after€her€motherððs€other€needs€duringÏher€declining€years,€and€apparently€regarded€her€brotherððs€efforts€as€part€of€a€divisionÏof€labor€naturally€arising€from€practical€necessity.€€Under€these€circumstances,€itÏwould€be€hard€not€to€conclude€that€Mr.€Alsup€had€at€least€the€implied€permission€ofÏboth€his€sister€and€his€mother€to€occupy€the€land€in€the€manner€in€which€he€did.ÌÌà@'êàò òV.€€The€Auctionó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellant€argues€that€there€was€error€in€the€handling€of€theÏtelephone€auction,€but€does€not€state€in€what€respect€the€Clerk€and€Master€erred.ÏSummaries€of€the€auction€are€set€out€in€the€Clerk€and€Masterððs€report,€and€in€theÏappellantððs€objection€to€that€report,€which€differ€only€in€regard€to€their€accounts€of€theÏdegree€of€assent€Mr.€Alsupððs€attorney€gave€to€the€change€in€the€ground€rules€and€toÏthe€closing€of€the€auction.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€original€ground€rules€allowed€each€party€thirty€minutes€to€respondÏto€the€opposing€partyððs€bid.€€Ms.€NeSmithððs€attorney€opened€with€a€bid€for€$5,000€atÏ9:55€a.m.€€When€Mr.€Alsupððs€attorney€took€twenty„seven€minutes€to€increase€the€bidÏto€$5,100,€Ms.€NeSmithððs€attorney€took€exception,€and€asked€for€a€change€in€theÏrules.€€After€speaking€to€the€Chancellor,€the€Clerk€and€Master€limited€the€parties€to€tenÏminutes€for€subsequent€bids.€€The€auction€continued€for€the€rest€of€the€morning€andÏafternoon€under€the€new€rules,€and€was€ended€after€3:00€p.m.€when€Mr.€AlsupððsÏattorney€called,€and€was€told€that€the€bidding€was€closed€because€he€had€exceededÏthe€ten€minute€time€limit€to€respond€to€Ms.€NeSmithððs€bid€of€$50,000.€Mr.€AlsupððsÏattorney€does€not€deny€that€the€limit€was€exceeded,€but€claims€that€he€had€troubleÏgetting€through€on€the€phone.€Ð ¨9 26 Їà Ø àà 0 àThe€Chancellor€ordered€the€plaintiff€to€deposit€the€sum€of€$50,000€withÏthe€Court,€so€he€apparently€concurred€with€the€Clerk€and€Masterððs€handling€of€theÏauction,€and€with€the€result,€notwithstanding€the€appellantððs€objection.€€TheÏconcurrence€of€a€trial€court€with€the€findings€of€its€Clerk€and€Master€was€once€thoughtÏto€be€conclusive€on€appeal.€òò€Maddox€v.€Webb€Constructionóó,€562€S.W.2d€198€(Tenn.Ð ˆ€ Ð1978).€€While€the€presumption€of€correctness€is€perhaps€no€longer€quite€so€strong,€weÏbelieve€such€a€concurrence€should€be€affirmed€so€long€as€the€trial€court€has€notÏabused€its€discretion.€€We€do€not€believe€that€such€an€abuse€of€discretion€hasÏoccurred€in€this€case,€and€we€therefore€affirm€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€a€final€issue,€the€appellee€argues€that€she€is€entitled€to€damages€forÏfrivolous€appeal.€€Though€we€have€found€against€the€appellant€on€all€issues,€we€doÏnot€regard€his€appeal€as€frivolous,€and€we€decline€to€award€additional€damages.Ì€Ìà@oo-êàò òVI.ó óˆÐ H!@ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPATRICIA€J.€œCOTTRELL›,€JUDGE€ÌÐ  ¨9 26 ÐÑÜÑÑ„°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼—½¼XX¹RÔò òà@ú ú êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÌÌó óÔ‡X¹RX¼¼—½ÔBETTY€NESMITH€and€à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð J n ÐCECIL€NESMITH,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð : ^ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àœPlaintiffs/Appellees,›à 8 àà  àœ)›Ð > Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð  .  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9809„CH„00509Ð ú  МVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ê  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRutherford€ChanceryÐ Úþ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96„CV„404Ð Êî  ÐJOHN€ALSUP,€II€andà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ºÞ  ÐTERESA€ALSUP,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ªÎ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmed€andÐ š¾ Ðà Ø àœDefendants/Appellants.à 8 àà  à)›à è àRemandedÐ Š® МÔ#†¼—½¼XX¹R:_#ÔÔ€X¹RX¼¼—½ÔÌÌÔ€¼—½¼XX¹RÔò òòò›à@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ Z~ М̛ÌÓÓÔ€X¹RX¼¼—½Ôà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ œÀ ÐChancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€ChancellorÏthere€is€no€reversible€error.Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€the€enforcement€of€theÏdecree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€John€Alsup,€II€and€wife,€TeresaÏAlsup,,€Principals,€and€Ambrose,€Wilson,€Grimm€&€œDurand›,€Surety,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àPATRICIA€J.€œCOTTRELL›,€JUDGE€