ÿWPC& …#†VUNÜ %* 00U:L 4† š 0é 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1uU, 0d¹U,U>IU *‡ B±U*ÎB)øDC! AMd×±¼ˆ8Dv~| D3úvÓ- 0@" AO@"Æ" 08U# 0D% D/Ñ% B&˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0”Èo7>Ê'NÔÈŒ ç3Ê—;(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularU_A øð ÿÿ!3|xT(s(2lè$¤¤Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XèïXXXÔÓÓÑ7€%4XXdìdì7ÑÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ò—¾òXXèïÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌò òFebruaryÏ27,Ï1996ÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓThis€suit€was€originally€filed€by€Appellants€Frank€and€Joann€O'Leary,€owners€of€Tract€3.€€A€secondÏsuit€was€filed€by€Larry€and€Hazel€Brock,€owners€of€Tract€1,€the€servient€estate.€€The€suits€were€consolidatedÏfor€trial.Ì .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓAfter€the€Halls€purchased€the€middle€lot,€they€sold€.36€acre€to€James€and€Ruth€Clemons.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@!!!!'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Ì*$¢¢Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XèïXXXÔÓÓÑ7€%4XXdìXXdæ7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÑ7€èïXXdæXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌÌFRANK€O'LEARY€AND€WIFE,à àà à)ÌJOANN€O'LEARY,€AND€LARRYà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&$;+'h|Œ#` à. `€€LßJAMES€BROCK,€SR.,€AND€WIFE,à à)ÌHAZEL€CHADWICK€BROCK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€HamiltonÏChancery€No.€74428Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.Ï03A01„9507„CH„00235Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLEONARD€E.€HALL€AND€WIFE,à àà à)ÌANN€C.€HALL,€AND€JAMESà àà à)ÌCLEMONS€AND€WIFE,€RUTH€à àà à)ÌCLEMONS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERYÏCOURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CHATTANOOGA,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€R.€VANN€OWENS,ÏCHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌò òGARY€R.€PATRICKÌPATRICK,€BEARD,€RICHARDSON,€P.C.Ìó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌÌÌò òMICHAEL€A.€WAGNERÌWAGNER,€NELSON€&€WEEKSÌó óChattanooga,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌÑ7€èïXXdæXXdæ7Ñó óÓÓà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,€Frank€and€Joanne€O'Leary€and€Larry€J.€and€€Hazel€C.ÏBrock,× ƒ' ××  ×€filed€suit€requesting€an€injunction€to€prohibit€the€Defendants„Appellees,ÏLeonard€and€Ann€Hall€and€James€and€Ruth€Clemons,× ƒ( ××  ×€from€subdividing€the€Halls'€lot,Ïwhich€lies€between€the€O'Learys'€and€the€Brocks'€land.€€The€lower€court€deniedÏAppellants'€request€for€an€injunction.€ÌÌà àThe€property€that€is€the€subject€of€the€present€suit€was€originally€a€single,€17.75Ïacre€tract.€€€When€Lecta€O'Leary,€the€original€owner,€died€intestate,€the€tract€passed€toÏher€heirs€as€follows:€€4€acres€to€Ruth€Brock,€known€as€Tract€1;€8.75€acres€to€LouisÏO'Leary,€known€as€Tract€2;€and€5€acres€to€Frank€O'Leary,€known€as€Tract€3.€€When€theÏproperty€was€originally€subdivided,€the€deeds€provided€for€a€30€foot€easement€alongÍthe€southern€property€line€of€Tracts€1€and€2.€€The€purpose€of€the€easement€was€toÏprovide€Tracts€2€and€3€with€access€to€the€nearest€public€road,€€Anderson€Pike.€ÏSometime€after€the€division€on€the€original€17.75€acre€tract,€Ruth€Brock€deeded€herÏland,€Tract€1,€to€her€son,€Larry€Brock,€Appellant€herein.€€Louis€O'Leary€sold€his€land,ÏTract€2,€to€Leonard€and€Ann€Hall,€Appellees€herein.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€Halls€purchased€Tract€2,€they€sought€permission€from€theÏChattanooga„Hamilton€County€Planning€Commission€("Planning€Commission")€toÏfurther€subdivide€their€land.€€The€Halls€wanted€to€sell€.36€acre€and€the€existing€houseÏon€Tract€2€to€Ann€Hall's€parents,€James€and€Ruth€Clemons.€€€The€Halls€planned€toÏbuild€a€home€for€themselves€on€another€part€of€the€lot.€ÌÌà àPursuant€to€ðð€303.1€of€the€Chattanooga„Hamilton€County€Regional€SubdivisionÏRegulations€("Subdivision€Regulations"),€a€minimum€lot€size€of€20€acres€is€required€onÏprivate€roads.€€Additionally,€ðð€303.1.1€of€the€Subdivision€Regulations€requires€thatÏprivate€access€easements€be€at€least€15€feet€wide€for€each€lot€served.€€If€the€HallsÏdivided€their€property,€they€would€create€a€third€lot€€using€the€existing€30€foot€wideÏeasement;€Subdivision€Regulations€require€a€minimum€easement€width€of€45€feet.€ÏBecause€of€these€regulations,€the€Halls€needed€a€variance€in€order€to€subdivide.€€ÌÌà àRequests€for€variances€are€initially€investigated€by€the€Planning€CommissionÏstaff.€€In€a€letter€dated€December€6,€1993,€the€Planning€Commission€staff€Ïrecommended€that€the€Planning€Commission€deny€the€Halls'€request€for€a€variance.€ÍThe€staff's€reasons€for€denying€the€variance€were€that€"[a]pproval€of€this€varianceÏwould€allow€division€of€property€that€would€not€otherwise€be€allowed€by€State€Law."€ÏThe€staff€also€stated€that€approving€a€variance€would€set€a€precedent€for€anyoneÏwishing€to€develop€land€on€private€roads€in€Hamilton€County.€ÌÌ€€à àThe€Planning€Commission€unanimously€adopted€the€staff€recommendation€thatÏthe€variance€be€denied€in€its€December€13,€1993€meeting.€€The€meeting€minutesÏreflect€the€Planning€Commission's€opinion€that€the€Halls€could€come€before€theÏPlanning€Commission€at€a€later€date€should€they€be€unable€to€access€their€€propertyÏother€than€by€using€the€O'Learys'€easement.€ÌÌà àOn€January€10,€1994,€the€Planning€Commission€held€its€next€monthly€meeting.€ÏOnce€again,€the€Halls€sought€a€variance€and€the€staff€recommended€that€their€requestÏbe€denied.€€However,€the€Planning€Commission€approved€the€variance.€€AppellantsÏargue€that€the€Halls€were€granted€a€variance€only€after€Ms.€Killebrew,€a€PlanningÏCommission€member€and€the€Halls'€real€estate€agent,€advocated€on€behalf€of€theÏHalls.€€Appellants€contend€that€Ms.€Killebrew€had€a€personal€and€pecuniary€conflict€ofÏinterest€and€should€not€have€participated€in€the€vote.€€The€Planning€CommissionÏminutes€do€not€indicate€that€Ms.€Killebrew€spoke€at€the€meeting,€although€it€is€clearÏthat€she€seconded€a€motion,€made€by€another€member€of€the€Planning€Commission,€Ïto€grant€the€Halls'€variance.€ÌÌà àAppellants€first€and€second€issues€on€appeal€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€consider€if€theÌÌà0 àà àà0 àà àà0 àà àà8 àà8 àdecision€by€the€Hamilton€County€Planning€Commission€to€grantÏthe€Defendants'€subdivision€variance€was€tainted€by€the€improperÏinfluence€and€advocacy€of€a€commission€member€who€had€aÏsubstantial€conflict€of€interest.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€Planning€Commission€member€Lois€Killebrew,Ïwho€zealously€advocated€for€approval€of€the€Defendant'sÏvariance,€should€have€been€disqualified€from€anyÏparticipation€in€the€hearing€because€she€was€alsoÏDefendants'€real€estate€listing€agent€and€thereby€engagedÏin€a€conflict€of€interest€which€prejudiced€the€rights€of€theÏPlaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓWe€agree€with€Appellees€that€Appellants'€first€and€second€issues€are€not€properlyÏbefore€this€Court.€€ÌÌà àWhere€review€of€a€decision€rendered€by€a€board€or€commission€is€notÏspecifically€provided€for,€judicial€review€is€available€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€27„9„101€etÏseq.€(Michie€1980)€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWheeler€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€685€S.W.2d€4,€6€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1984).€€That€statute€requires€that€the€aggrieved€party€file€a€petition€for€certiorariÏeither€in€circuit€or€chancery€court€within€sixty€(60)€days€of€the€order€or€decisionÏbecoming€final.€€In€òòWheeleróó,€this€Court€stated€that€a€party's€failure€to€file€a€petition€forÏcertiorari€within€the€specified€time€period€makes€the€decision€of€the€board€orÏcommission€final.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòFairhaven€Corp.€v.€Tennessee€Health€Facilities€Comm'nóó,Ï566€S.W.2d€885,€886€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979)€(Drowota,€J.).€€ÌÌà àAppellants€argue€that€the€purpose€of€both€their€Complaint€for€Injunction€andÏAmended€Complaint€for€Injunction€was€to€appeal€the€Planning€Commission's€decision.€ÍAppellants€state€that€the€fact€that€a€party€may€mistakenly€entitle€an€action€does€notÏpreclude€a€court€from€proceeding€with€the€action€as€if€it€were€correctly€titled.€€òòFallin€v.ÏKnox€County€Bd.€of€Comm'rsóó,€656€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€òòFallinóó,€the€court€statedÏthat€an€action€for€declaratory€judgment€may€be€employed,€rather€than€a€petition€forÏcertiorari,€in€an€action€to€invalidate€zoning€legislation.€€òòIdóó.€at€342.€€€However,€even€ifÏAppellants€had€filed€an€action€for€declaratory€judgment,€which€they€did€not,€Appellants'Ïerror€was€not€only€their€failure€properly€to€entitle€the€Complaint.€€T.C.A.€ðð€27„9„102Ï(Michie€1980)€requires€the€petitioner€to€state€the€basis€for€relief€in€the€complaint.€ÏAppellants'€Amended€Complaint€states€that€the€Planning€Commission€granted€theÏHalls'€request€for€a€variance.€€The€Amended€Complaint€does€not€allege€anyÏimpropriety€with€regard€to€the€actions€of€the€Planning€Commission€or€Lois€Killebrew.€ÏSignificantly,€T.C.A.€ðð€27„9„104€(Michie€1980)€also€€provides€that€the€petition€"shallÏname€as€defendants€the€particular€board€or€commission€and€such€other€parties€ofÏrecord,€if€such,€as€were€involved€in€the€hearing€before€the€board€or€commission."€ÏAppellants€failed€to€name€the€Planning€Commission,€or€Ms.€Killebrew,€as€parties€to€theÏpresent€suit.€ÌÌà àWe€fail€to€see€how€Appellants€can€challenge€the€actions€of€the€PlanningÏCommission€where€no€representative€of€the€Planning€Commission€was€present€at€trial.€ÏDuring€closing€arguments,€the€judge€prohibited€counsel€for€the€Appellants€fromÏchallenging€the€Planning€Commission's€actions€in€granting€the€Halls'€request€for€aÏvariance,€stating€€"I€just€don't€think€that€in€a€separate€proceeding€that€you€should€beÏallowed€to€contaminate€the€action€of€the€Planning€Commission.€€It€could€have€beenÍappealed€and€should€have€been€appealed€if,€in€fact€someone€is€acting€in€a€conflict€ofÏinterest."€€We€agree.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€well€settled€that€matters€not€properly€before€the€trial€court€cannot€be€raisedÏfor€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€€€òòFoley€v.€Dayton€Bank€&€Trustóó,€696€S.W.2d€356,€359Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€T.C.A.€ðð€16„4„108€(1994).€€€In€bringing€the€present€action,ÏAppellants€failed€to€comply€with€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€27„9„101€et€seq.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€review€the€Planning€Commission's€actions.€€ThisÏCourt€cannot€consider€the€Planning€Commissions'€actions€for€the€first€time€at€theÏappellate€level.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€Appellants€first€and€second€issues€are€notÏproperly€before€this€Court.ÌÌà àAppellants'€third€issue€on€appeal€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhether€adding€another€home€in€the€area,€with€theÏcorresponding€increase€in€traffic€frequency€and€cost€forÏmaintenance€upon€the€easement,€constitutes€a€"materialÏincrease€upon€the€burden"€on€the€easement€as€granted€inÏthe€original€deeds€subdividing€the€O'Leary€homesteadÏproperty.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€lower€court€found€that€there€would€not€be€a€material€increase€in€the€burdenÏon€the€easement€due€to€the€creation€of€a€second€lot€on€Tract€2,€the€Halls'€property.€€ÌÌà àThis€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury;€thus,€we€review€the€caseÏòòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€theÏtrial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lower€court's€€findings,€weÍmust€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€ÌÌà àThe€law€of€easements€is€well€established.€€In€òòAdams€v.€Winnettóó,€156€S.W.2dÏ353,€357€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1941),€this€Court€stated€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àan€easement€for€the€benefit€of€a€particular€piece€of€landÏcannot€be€enlarged€and€extended€to€other€parcels€of€land,Ïwhether€adjoining€or€distinct€tracts,€to€which€the€right€is€notÏattached.€€In€other€words,€an€easement€appurtenant€to€aÏdominant€tenement€can€be€used€only€for€the€purposes€ofÏthat€tenement;€it€is€not€a€personal€right€and€cannot€be€used,Ïeven€by€the€dominant€owner,€for€any€purpose€unconnectedÏwith€the€enjoyment€of€his€estate.€€The€purpose€of€this€rule€isÏto€prevent€an€increase€of€the€burden€upon€the€servientÏestate,€and€it€applies€whether€the€easement€is€created€byÏgrant,€reservation,€prescription€or€implication.Ìà8 àà8 àà àA€principle€which€underlies€the€use€of€all€easementsÏis€that€the€owner€thereof€cannot€materially€increase€theÏburden€of€it€upon€the€servient€estate,€nor€impose€a€new€andÏadditional€burden€thereon.€ÓÓÌAlthough€an€owner€may€not€impose€new€or€additional€burdens€on€an€easement,€it€is€Ïestablished€that€"where€the€additional€burden€is€relatively€trifling,€the€user€will€not€beÏenjoined€.€.€.€[from€using€the€easement]."€€òòOgle€v.€Trotteróó,€495€S.W.2d€558,€566€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1972).€à àÌÌà àAppellants€cite€òòAdamsóó€as€authority€for€their€proposition€that€the€Appellees'€useÏof€the€easement€will€materially€increase€the€burden€on€Appellants'€estate.€€We€findÏòòAdamsóó€distinguishable.€€In€that€case€the€complainant,€Adams,€filed€suit€to€enjoinÏWinnett€from€interfering€with€Adams'€right€of€way€over€Winnett's€property.€€Winnett€hadÏpreviously€sold€Cummings€and€Melton€a€tract€of€land€which€adjoined€Winnett'sÏproperty.€€Winnett€granted€Cummings€and€Melton€a€right€of€ingress€and€egress€overÍhis€property.€€Adams€owned€a€lot€in€the€same€block,€the€rear€of€which€abutted€the€sideÏof€the€Cummings€and€Melton€property.€€Adams€proposed€to€erect€a€building€on€his€lotÏto€serve€as€a€United€States€Post€Office.€€Because€the€post€office€contract€requiredÏaccess€from€the€rear€of€the€building,€Adams€purchased€a€strip€of€land€from€CummingsÏand€Melton.€€That€deed€included€the€same€right€of€ingress€and€egress€over€Winnett'sÏland€that€the€grantors€had€enjoyed.€€When€Winnett€threatened€to€construct€a€fence€toÏprevent€Adams'€tenants€from€using€the€parcel€for€ingress€and€egress,€Adams€filed€suit.€ÏThe€òòAdamsóó€court€held€that€permitting€the€postal€trucks€to€use€the€easement€wouldÏmaterially€increase€the€burden€on€the€servient€estate,€far€exceeding€the€use€of€theÏeasement€contemplated€in€the€original€grant€from€Winnett€to€Adams'€grantors,ÏCummings€and€Melton.€òòÌÌóóà àWhether€a€change€in€the€use€of€an€easement€constitutes€a€material€increase€inÏthe€burden€on€the€servient€estate€is€a€question€of€fact.€€Unlike€the€òòAdamsóó€case,€theÏpresent€suit€does€not€involve€a€major€change€in€the€intended€use€of€the€easement.€ÏThe€Halls€do€not€propose€a€commercial€use€of€the€existing€easement,€as€in€òòAdamsóó.€ÏSubdivision€of€the€Halls'€lot€will€merely€result€in€one€additional€family€using€the€right€ofÏway.€€The€evidence€at€trial€revealed€that€this€easement€has,€in€the€past,€been€used€byÏmore€people€than€are€currently€using€it.€€€There€is€nothing€to€prevent€additional€use€ofÏthe€easement€in€the€future€by€the€Halls,€the€Clemons,€the€O'Learys,€or€the€Brocks,€evenÏif€the€land€is€not€further€subdivided.€€à àÌÌà àThe€actual€deed€creating€the€easement€is€not€a€part€of€this€Court's€record.€ÍHowever,€the€trial€court's€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€states€the€following:Ìà8 àÓÓà8 àIt€is€difficult€for€this€Court€to€find€that€the€parties€originallyÏintended€to€prohibit€each€other€from€subdividing€theÏproperty€into€reasonable€size€lots.€€The€holding€sought€byÏthe€Plaintiffs€herein€would€bar€any€of€the€owners€fromÏdividing€their€property€so€as€to€provide€a€lot€for€theirÏchildren.€€The€Court€does€not€find€such€an€intention€in€theÏdeed€executed€on€December€24,€1966.€€€òòÌÌÓÓóóThe€lower€court€found€that€the€original€deed€does€not€reflect€an€intention€to€prevent€theÏparties€from€subdividing.€€In€the€absence€of€language€in€the€original€deed€specificallyÏprohibiting€subdivision,€this€Court€will€not€find€a€restriction€by€implication.€€òòSeeóó€òòTurnleyÏv.€Garfinkelóó,€362€S.W.2d€921,€923€(Tenn.€1962).€€ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏfinding€that€the€burden€on€the€servient€estate€will€not€be€materially€increased€due€to€aÏfourth€family's€use€of€the€easement.€€òòÌÌóóà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€CostsÏare€taxed€one€half€to€Appellants€O'Leary€and€one€half€to€Appellants€Brock.€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.