WPC # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D 0J@ 0T  0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U6B)DC& AMiU* D3 B0 0@1qbVv~v6 AO X 0D D/b BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular 89D:;D<=>D?D@ӀJD 3|xJ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G<  9p`(Arial++++'dxd d !#d#$  ))   YYY FILED)XMay21,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$     !#d#$   $       %%SeeT.C.A.282109. X !#d#$   $       %%Mr.Mooresubsequentlydisavowedtheaccuracyofhisfirstsurvey;butwhetheritisaccurateornotisadisputedfacttoberesolvedbythetrieroffact.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . $  P \RA'\%\RA'\7w8XXdd7  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEDOROTHYPATTERSON,   )C/ANO.01A019609CH00410      )  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )v.      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )PERRYCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      )CivilActionNo.3570      )      )GERALDB.AMOS,etux.,  )WILMAJ.AMOS,    )      )HONORABLEDONALDP.HARRIS,  DefendantsAppellants.)CHANCELLORForAppellants:     ForAppellee:̜W.LANDISTURNER     TOMMYE.DOYLEKeaton,Turner&Spitzer    Linden,Tennessee̜R(,'A1-j|`  `@RHohenwald,Tennessee @ OPINION%%XVACATEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  ThiscaseinvolvesadisputeregardingtheownershipofrealpropertyfrontingonTomsCreekinPerryCounty.Thetrialcourtgrantedtheplaintiffsummaryjudgment,findingthattheplaintiffsdeedconveyedtoherastripoflandfronting35feetonthewatersofTomsCreek.Thedefendants,adjacentpropertyowners,appealed,contendingthattherearedisputedmaterialfactsthatmakesummaryjudgmentinappropriate.Weagree.  Theplaintiffadvancedthreetheoriessupportingherrighttothedisputedlakefrontage.ShearguedbelowthatsheownedthepropertyindisputebyvirtueofawarrantydeeddatedMay7,1965;thatshe [had]beeninopen,continuous,notoriousandadversepossessionoftheentirestripinquestionundercoloroftitleformorethanseven(7)years;andthatshe,totheexclusionofallothers,hadpaidpropertytaxesonthesubjectproperty foraperiodinexcessoftwenty(20)years.Iftheplaintiffiscorrect,sheowns35feetoflakefrontage;if,ontheotherhand,thedefendantsarecorrect,thedisputedlakefrontagebelongstothem.  Thetrialcourtdidnotaddresstheplaintiffsalternativetheoriesofadversepossessionandentitlementbaseduponpaymentofthepropertytaxes. .   כBethatasitmay,wefindfactsintherecordbeforeusthatnegateplaintiffsclaimoneachofthesetwotheories.Eventhoughsummaryjudgmentwasnotgrantedoneithertheory,wedeemitappropriatetomaketheforegoingcommentbecauseofthewellestablishedpropositionthatatrialcourtwillnotbereversedwherethecorrectresulthasbeenreached,thoughpredicatedonanerroneousreason. Perlbergv.Jahn ,773S.W.2d925,928(Tenn.App.1989).  Thetrialcourtfoundthattheplaintiffsdeedestablishedherownershiptothedisputedpropertyfronting35feetonthelake.Itfoundthatthesedeedsmadeouta primafaciecaseandfurtherfoundthattherewasnocontraryproof.Wecannotagree.Forexample,therearedeedsinthedefendantschainoftitletheearliestofwhichpredatesthedeedtotheplaintiffthatcanbeinterpretedasreflectingthatthedefendantsown100feetoflakefrontage,aninterpretationthatappearstobeinconsistentwiththeplaintiffsownershipof35feetoflakefrontage.Furthermore,therearetworelevantsurveysofthedefendantspropertyintherecord,bothofwhichwerepreparedbySurveyorJayT.Moore. /   ׀Oneofthesurveysshowsthatthedefendantsown100feetoflakefrontage.Theothersurveyspecifiesthatthedefendantsownonly59.83feetoffrontage.Thelattersurveyclearlyreflectsthatifthedefendantsown100feetoffrontage,theplaintiffcannotownthe35feetoffrontageclaimedbyherinthislawsuit.Inaddition,severalwitnesseswhosedepositionsarebeforeustestifiedaboutthelocationofnaturalpointsofreferencethathavelongsincedisappeared.Inthiscase,theircredibilityshouldbetestedinthecourtroom.  Summaryjudgmentisnotasubstitute forthetrialofgenuineandmaterialfactualmatters. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).Inthiscase,therearedisputedmaterialfactsoneachoftheplaintiffstheoriesofrecoverythatprecludesummaryjudgment.SeeRule56.03,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Aplenarytrialisnecessarytoresolvethesedisputes.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee.Thiscaseisremandedfortrial.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:̜________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜________________________̜HerschelP.Franks