WPC 1#U>D % 0(4 B 0J 0T: 0^ 0hwT 0rj 0D 0|  0" 0 1ux AO 0D< U, 0d U, 0@< U6| D3 B) D/ DC= B AM U* e   v~5vIBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019,,,,0 P /j=Fg<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($1# x3|x d2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23    2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  (3$ !  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  ԃLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$(C<< C($$   1  <  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco("$    <  9p`(Courier New'dxd% Line 7 d**' dxd''''7Border 1ddP Pd$)C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#%  "  %  , eee FILED,X ,"US ,  - !  ,X CecilCrowson,Jr.%   %, eee AppellateCourtClerk   %%XPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco ! . &##Xd&###Xd#%   ` X X \RA'\7n|Xdd7  WILLIAMB.PEVEAR )and  )REBECCAPEVEAR, )  )#` XxX# Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019505CH00184v.  )  ) DavidsonChanceryL+.);+'h| `LEVANSHUNT,ANNIEIRENEHUNT, ) No.912716IIandMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENT, )  )  Defendants/Appellees. )  %COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEC.ALLENHIGH,CHANCELLOR ` XX   %XNORMANE.SOLOMON209TenthAvenueSouth,Suite205Nashville,Tennessee372034101 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSLANCEA.BAKER127SouthThirdStreetClarksville,Tennessee37040 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES EVANSHUNTANDANNIEIRENEHUNTSTEVENN.NUNN204MetroCourthouseNashville,Tennessee37201 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE METROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOFNASHVILLE  REVERSEDANDREMANDED  %SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  %O%ԀPINION   ` ` X % %XThisappealinvolvesaboundarylinedisputebetweentwoneighbors.TheAppellants,WilliamandRebeccaPevear,andtheAppellees,EvansandIreneHunt,ownrealestatewhichisseparatedbyanalleywhichisownedbytheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty. OnAugust16,1991,WilliamPevearandhiswifeRebeccaPevear,broughtanactionseekingtoestablisharight,bywayofaprescriptiveeasement,toutilizeaportionofdefendantHunt'spropertyfordrivewayandparkingpurposes.Theircontentionisthatasmallgraveledareainthealleyhasbeenusedforovertwentyyearsbytheplaintiffsandtheirpredecessorsintitleasadriveway.Thisgraveledareaislocatedpartiallyonthepublicrightofway,andpartiallyonthepropertyofthedefendantHunt's.PriortothefilingoftheComplaint,theAppelleesHunterectedpostsjustinsidetheboundarylineoftheirproperty,effectivelyrenderingtheremaininggraveledareatoonarrowforuseasadriveway.TheMetropolitanGovernmentclaimsithasnoobjectiontoeitherparty'suseofthealleybutisunwillingtoabandontheproperty. OnMarch8,1994,theHuntscounterclaimed,seekingdamagesfortrespassbythePevearsontothepropertyoftheHunts,andfurther,fordamagetotheHunt'spersonalty. OnMarch18,1994,thePevear'sfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentseekingadispositionoftheircase.OnMay27,1994,theHunt'sfiledaMotiontoDismisstheactionbroughtbythePevears.OnAugust31,1994,thetrialcourtenteredanOrdergrantingtheHunt'sMotiontoDismissanddenyingthePevear'sMotionsforSummaryJudgment.OnMay10,1995,thetrialcourtdesignateditsdecisioningrantingtheHunt'sMotiontoDismissanddenyingthePevear'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentasafinaljudgmentfromwhichthisAppealistaken.Weholdthatiterredandreverse. Aneasementisarightanownerhastosomelawfuluseoftherealpropertyofanother.Brewv.VanDeman,53Tenn.(6Heisk)433(1871).EasementscanbecreatedinseveralwaysinTennessee,including:(1)expressgrant,(2)reservation,(3)implication,(4)prescription,(5)estoppel,and(6)eminentdomain.Easementscanbedividedintotwobroadclasses,easementsappurtenant,andeasementsingross.Inaneasementappurtenant,thereare2tractsofland,thedominanttenement,andtheservienttenement.Thedominanttenementbenefitsinsomewayfromtheuseoftheservienttenement.Easementsingrossaresimplyapersonalinterestorrighttousethelandofanotherwhichdoesnotbenefitanotherproperty,ordominantestate,thuseasementsingrossusuallyinvolveonlyoneparcel.AneasementappurtenanttolandisfavoredoveraneasementingrossinTennessee.Goetzv.KnoxvillePower&LightCo.,290S.W409,154Tenn.545(Tenn.1926). Tocreateaprescriptiveeasement,theuseandenjoymentofthepropertymustbeadverse,underaclaimofright,continuous,uninterrupted,open,visible,exclusive,withtheknowledgeandacquiescenceoftheowneroftheservienttenement,andmustcontinueforthefullprescriptiveperiod.Keeblerv.Street,673S.W.2d154,(Tenn.App.1984).InTennesseetheprescriptiveperiodis20years.Callahanv.TownofMiddleton,292S.W.2d501(Tenn.App.1956). Inthiscase,ifaneasementwasgranted,itwouldbeconsideredaneasementappurtenant,astherearetwotractsoflandinvolved,withtheHunt'slandbenefitingthePevear'sland. Thetrialcourt'sfinalorder,whiledenyingtheAppellant'sMotionforSummaryJudgmentandgrantingtheAppellee'sMotiontoDismiss,didnotciteanyparticularauthorityforitsdecision.TheAppellee'sMotiontoDismisswaspredicatedonthephysicalseparationofthetwoproperties,thuswewillinferthatthetrialcourtfoundthisfactdeterminative.Therefore,wewillconsidertheprincipallegalissueinthismattertobewhethernoncontiguousnessbarstheestablishmentofprescriptiveeasementrightsinTennessee. Asthepartieshadindicatedintheirbriefs,thereisasplitofauthorityonthisquestionandTennesseeCourt'shavenotyetspoken.However,wedosonow.ToascertainourresponsethisCourthasreviewedtherulingsofotherjurisdictions,andfindsthatthemajorityposition,aswellasthetrendindecisionsonthisissue,isinfavorofarulewhichdoesnotrequiretheservienttenementtobeadjacenttothedominanttenement.Rather,wehold,astheSupremeCourtofPennsylvaniadidin1965,that:8 Themerefactthataneasement,tobeofanybenefittothedominanttenement,musttraverselandofanotherdoesnot,ofitself,destroytheeasement.Althoughtheexistenceofaservienttenementisaprerequisitetothecreationofaneasementappurtenant,itisnotnecessarythattheservientanddominanttenementsbecontiguousparcelsofland.WoodlawnTrustees,Inc.v.Michel,418Pa.398,211A.2d454,455456(1965),citingTidewaterPipeCo.v.Bell,280Pa.104,124A.351(1924). Wearepersuadedthat"theuseoftheeasementmustbesorelatedtotheuseofthedominanttenementthatitsparticularconnectionwiththebeneficialenjoymentofthattenementisnotmerelyconjectural,butdirectandapparent."Thomasv.Brooks,188Ky.253,221S.W.542,543(1920).Wedonotinsisttherebestrict,physical,contactbetweentheparcels. Webelievethisruletobelessmechanical,andmoreinharmonywiththemodernholdingsfoundinthemajorityofstatesonthisissue.SeeReissv.Maynard,170A.D.2d992,566N.Y.S.2d808,809(N.Y.App.Div.1991);NorthwesternImprovementCo.v.Lowry,104Mont.289,66P.2d792,795(1937);FreightwaysTerminalCompanyv.IndustrialandCommercialConstruction,Inc.,381P.2d977,982983(Alaska1963);Kaynorv.Fisch,230P.2d418,422(Calif.Ct.App.1951);Wetmorev.LadiesofLoretto,Wheaton,73Ill.App.2d454,220N.E.2d491,495(1966);SaundersPointAssociation,Inc.v.Cannon,1777Conn.413,418A.2d70,72(Conn.1979);Wagnerv.Fairlamb,379P.2d165,169(Colo.1963).  WeagreewiththecourtinHeardv.Bowen,whichwhenfacedwiththisdivisionofauthoritydeclared,8 [a]sthequestionisanopenoneinthisstate,wefeelatlibertytoadheretothemoreliberalrule,whichisfoundeduponjusticeandcommonsenseinpreferencetoonebasedupontheshadowinsteadofsubstance.184S.W.234,238(Tex.App.1916). Thereforethejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecaseremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellees.      __________________________________      SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S._________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.