ÿWPCž …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dG U,« U>× B)DC> AMU*Î Bø v~5vÓ³ D3† 0@¹ AOùÆH 0D D/R B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-MDNOŸePQDRÓ€\Gav üäÔôÔ3|x\2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMay€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€ænXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑœOAK›€HIGHLANDS€HOMEOWNERSððà à)ÌASSOCIATION,€INC.,€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€94„530„IIÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CH„00535ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|æÐ` ç `€€Lß›CONTINENTAL€DEVELOPMENT€ANDà à)ÌCONSTRUCTION,€INC.,€andà àà à)ÌNICHOLAS€S.€œPSILLAS›,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€C.€ALLEN€HIGH,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌJAMES€R.€œTOMKINS›ÌJennings€and€œTomkins›ÌSuite€2240„L€&€C€TowerÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌIRWIN€J.€KUHNÌœEisenstein›,€Moses€and€MossmanÌSuite€500,€One€Church€Street€œBldg›.ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÇOAK€HIGHLANDS€HOMEOWNERSððà à€)ÌASSOCIATION,€INC.,€à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€94„530„IIÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à01„A„01„9511„CH„00535ÌCONTINENTAL€DEVELOPMENT€ANDà à€)ÌCONSTRUCTION,€INC.,€andà àà à€)ÌNICHOLAS€S.€œPSILLAS›,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à€)ÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€captioned€plaintiff€has€appealed€from€the€non„jury€dismissal€of€its€suit€to€enforceÏrestrictions€and€has€presented€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€Continental€Development€&€Construction,€Inc.€everÏapplied€for€architectural€approval€as€to€the€nine€lots€upon€whichÏit€built€houses.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€Court€erred€in€allowing€the€testimony€ofÏNicholas€œPsillas›€about€the€Nashville€50€joint€ventureððs€responseÏor€lack€of€response€to€his€alleged€request€of€architecturalÏapproval.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€Oak€Highlands€Homeownersðð€Association,€Inc.€isÏentitled€to€injunctive€relief€and€a€judgment€against€ContinentalÏDevelopment€&€Construction,€Inc.€for€the€cost€of€removingÏoverhead€electrical€connections€and€replacing€them€withÏunderground€connections€at€the€nine€lots€upon€which€it€builtÏhouses.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPrior€to€October€17,€1992,€a€recorded€Declaration€of€Restrictive€Covenants€requiredÏapproval€of€plans€and€specifications€of€proposed€construction€by€the€developer€of€theÏsubdivision.€€Effective€October€17,€1992,€the€required€approval€was€that€of€the€Board€ofÏDirectors€of€plaintiff€Association.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Judge€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€.€.€.€Defendant€Continental€Development€and€Construction,€Inc.Ïsubmitted€a€request€for€architectural€approval€to€the€DeveloperÏwhen€it€still€maintained€the€right€to€grant€architectural€approvalÏunder€the€Declaration€of€Restrictive€Covenants,€that€theÏdeveloper€failed€to€reject€said€request€within€thirty€days,€and€thatÏtherefore,€the€approval€process€was€complied€with€byÏContinental€Development€and€Construction,€Inc.;€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€restriction€in€effect€before€October€17,€1992,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€[œn]o›€building,€fence,€wall,€or€other€structure€(including€aÏdetached€garage)€shall€be€commenced,€erected,€or€maintainedÏupon€the€Properties,€nor€shall€any€exterior€addition€to€or€changeÏor€alteration€therein€be€made€until€the€plans€and€specificationsÏshowing€the€nature,€kind,€shape,€height,€materials,€and€locationÏof€the€same€shall€have€been€submitted€to€and€approved€in€writingÏas€to€the€harmony€of€external€design€and€location€in€relation€toÏsurrounding€structures€and€topography€by€the€Developer.€€.€.€.ÏIn€the€event€said€Developer€.€.€.€fails€to€approve€or€disapproveÏsuch€design€and€location€within€thirty€(30)€days€after€said€plansÏand€specifications€have€been€submitted€to€it,€approval€will€not€beÏrequired€and€this€Article€will€be€deemed€to€have€been€fullyÏcomplied€with.ÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€insists€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€defendants€requested€approval€of€theirÏplans€prior€to€June€8,€1993.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€œPsillas›€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Before€you€entered€into€the€option€contract,€did€you€reviewÏthe€restrictive€covenants€that€were€filed€for€the€Oak€HighlandsÏSubdivision?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Are€you€aware€there€is€a€clause€in€there€requiringÏarchitectural€approval€of€homes€you€expected€to€built?€€(sic)ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€take€plans€to€Nashville€50€Joint€Venture€regarding€„Ïtake€the€plans€which€you€expected€to€obtain?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€did.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€these€were€the€plans€for€the€lots€that€you€wanted€toÏbuild€at€Oak€Highlands?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Thatððs€correct.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà8 àà8 à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€How€did€you€go€about€attempting€to€obtain€approval€of€theÏplans?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€By€just€giving€them€copies€of€floor€plans€of€the€houses.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€Where€did€this€take€place?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€It€took€place€at€Southeast€Titleððs€offices€in€Green€Hills.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€When€did€it€take€place?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Sometime€in€the€Spring€of€1992.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€After€you€submitted€those€plans,€did€any€one€from€NashvilleÏ50€Joint€Venture€object€to€the€plans?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€Not€at€all.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAt€this€point,€plaintiff€stated€the€following€objection:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMr.€œTomkins›:€€Objection,€your€Honor.€€Thatððs€hearsay.€ÏWhether€itððs€negative€or€positive€hearsay,€itððs€still€hearsay.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€Trial€Court€properly€overruled€the€objection.€€The€delivery€of€the€plans€to€theÏdeveloper€was€an€act,€of€which€the€witness€had€personal€knowledge.€€The€failure€of€theÏdeveloper€to€respond€was€a€negative€œfact›€of€which€the€witness€had€personal€knowledge.€ÏHearsay€was€not€involved€in€the€quoted€testimony.ÌÌœ›à àPlaintiff€relies€upon€other€testimony€that€the€plans€submitted€were€not€adequate€for€theÏpurpose,€but€no€evidence€is€cited€that€the€developer€made€any€objection€to€the€form€orÏsubstance€of€the€plans.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€also€relies€upon€plaintiffððs€action€in€submitting€plans€again€in€1993€toÏplaintiffððs€Board.€€If€the€rights€of€defendants€were€established€by€submission€of€plans€to€theÏdeveloper€and€lack€of€objection,€such€rights€were€not€necessarily€waived€as€a€matter€of€law€byÏresubmission€to€plaintiffððs€Board.€€Such€action€was€a€circumstance€to€be€considered€in€respectÏto€the€weight€to€be€given€the€quoted€testimony.€€However,€it€is€not€a€conclusive€circumstance,Ïand€the€Trial€Judge€saw€fit€to€believe€the€quoted€testimony€and€conclude€accordingly.ÌÌà àAny€conflict€in€testimony€requiring€determination€of€credibility€of€witnesses€is€for€theÏTrial€Court€and€binding€on€the€reviewing€court€unless€other€real€evidence€compels€a€contraryÏconclusion.€€òòState,€ex€rel€œBalsinger›€v.€Town€of€œMadisonville›,€óó222€Tenn.€272,€435€œS.W.2d›€803Ï(1968);€òòJackson€for€œBohan›€Group,€Inc.€v.€œBohan›óó,€Tenn.€1993,€861€œS.W.2d›€241.€€No€realÏevidence€is€found€to€compel€a€contrary€conclusion.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Judge€thatÏplans€were€submitted€to€the€developer€and€approved€by€failure€to€approve€or€disapprove€withinÏthirty€days.€€ÌÌà àThe€foregoing€disposes€of€plaintiffððs€first€two€issues€and€precludes€the€necessity€ofÏdiscussing€the€third€issue.ÌÌà àHowever,€there€is€another€ground€which€supports€the€conclusion€of€the€Trial€Court.€ÏThe€particular€complaint€of€plaintiff€€is€that€defendants€failed€to€conform€to€the€practice€of€mostÏbuilders€in€the€development€in€planning€and€arranging€for€electrical€service€to€be€delivered€byÏunderground€conductors.ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€reflect€who€had€the€power€to€determine€whether€wires€should€beÏoverhead€on€poles€or€underground.€€It€is€generally€known€that€electric€wires€and€supportingÏpoles€within€the€public€right€of€way€are€installed€by€and€are€the€property€of€the€electric€utilityÏwhich€would€presumably€have€the€power€and€authority€to€determine€their€location.€€It€is€notÏgenerally€known€who€installs€and€owns€the€wires€from€the€public€way€to€a€residence.€€There€isÏno€evidence€that€the€constructor€of€a€residence€has€any€control€over€the€manner€of€connecting€aÏresidence€to€the€wires€of€the€utility€in€the€public€way.ÌÌà àUnder€these€circumstances,€this€Court€is€unable€to€find€that€the€location€and€nature€ofÏconnections€from€a€residence€to€the€electric€utility€lines€is€comprehended€within€theÏphraseology€of€the€restriction,€i.e:€ð ðbuilding,€fence,€wall€or€other€structure€(including€aÏdetached€garage).€€„€plans€and€specifications€showing€the€nature,€kind,€shape,€height,€materialsÏand€location€of€same.ððÌÌà àThe€prohibition€of€overhead€wires€on€private€property€should€have€been€specificallyÏmentioned€in€the€restriction.€€Whether€the€Board€has€any€control€of€the€location€of€utilities€inÏthe€public€way€is€beyond€the€scope€of€this€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€theÏappellant.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€any€necessary€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àAffirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE