ÿWPC  qÑÞGäV$S%„.zã7›)K9Tä†}ùr·÷|Ó¨l%s±¾ªœ|xÝ C¢áÊ  ª<¯Qw|ñÛ3ÌÔ &øó¿’JY™q¾Ì Hšý4 &¬Æá"Z@½¬C½QΠ(!ïJG‡a[(xRKå#ã£x¢ÖŒô!VZ Û\ 2û1*Þ¦7/nÕ2ÀXýzµM.Êû9ñÞÍøà9Ÿ( ³8œ èˆ$“t"ÔÊâu Î4 ,âö˜xkÁšbä!ñ™×«ék—áoº&£—žÓ 9oÙD Fª×FJè‘ތ҅šQõö™Ô‚d4eiž¤ë{VSBÇIèzù™VE;2AÎx5wë…Dðò˜´ÊRÏ•ª3ó¡$ýÆð!vÕÏßmwß´’Ô‡ñdÕÇÎĶ!I g¯Š¢›™ÏâÙ·Xí3[^à¼ß–vÓ„­§þ|–AŽsÊQÐ# žš–·±K¼OÃËc;èõ½[†;è­hʧ«t/SŽQßOv^Ú;š1“þ—ñJP-þ\º^­¼1À^æqœMÆŠ~J)²ØØŸ÷Ô¦{¼1ÿþÿýáðÖ9âIé Ñ>™Ð±±Z+®ŠCuw™Br·¸ÏrcBÞb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus,ð,,,,,ð0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬u_-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptä]ö,ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G28 $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÒ´ò»»Ô d(|3€"$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3€"$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»œ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»œ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»œ»»»ÔÑ8€¢+XXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îàO»œÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼»œ»îîàO #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓMAY€21,€2002€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¢+X»¼»œÔÌò òÔ#†¼»œ»XX¢+ï#ÔPIONEER€SUBDIVISION€HOMEOWNERS€ASSOCIATION,€INC.òòóó€v.Ð  ` ÐPROFESSIONAL€COUNSELING€SERVICES,€INC.òòóóÔ‡X¢+X»¼»œÔó óÐ ( x ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Dyer€CountyÐ 0 € Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00C438;€€The€Honorable€Ron€E.€Harmon,€ChancellorÐ  p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ï` AßÐ ð@  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„03053„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€31,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ï?  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Î` AßÐ Ï Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X½XXX¢+ÔThis€appeal€arises€from€the€Appellantððs€purchase€of€a€home€in€the€Appelleeððs€subdivision€which€theÐ Î ÐAppellant€intended€to€use€as€a€group€home€for€mentally€handicapped€persons.€€The€Appellee€filedÐ º  Ða€petition€against€the€Appellant€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Dyer€County€seeking€injunctive€relief.€€TheÐ ¦ö Ðpetition€alleged€that€the€subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenant€prohibited€any€business€use€or€other€useÐ ’â Ðof€property€in€the€subdivision€other€than€a€private€residence€or€single€family€dwelling.€€TheÐ ~Î ÐAppellant€filed€an€answer€and€counterclaim.€€Following€a€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€the€AppelleeððsÐ jº Ðrequest€for€an€injunction.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€Appellant€include€at€least€two€residents€ofÐ V¦ Ðthe€subdivision€on€the€selection€committee€used€to€select€residents€for€the€group€home.€€The€trialÐ B’ Ðcourt€stated€that€it€retained€jurisdiction€of€the€case€for€enforcement€of€the€judgment€as€needed€uponÐ .~ Ðpetition€of€either€party.€€Ð j ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€including€placing€at€least€two€residents€ofÐ òB Ðthe€subdivision€on€the€selection€committee.€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€in€part,€reverseÐ Þ. Ðin€part,€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð Ê ÐÔ#†X¢+XXX½ #ÔÔ#†¼»œ»XX¢+¯#ÔÔ‡X¢+X»¼»œÔÌÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð –"æ! ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ †#Ö" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»œ»àX¢+A #ÔÔ‡X¢+X.¼»œÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€joined€andÐ f%¶ $ ÐòòHolly€Kirby€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€concurred€separately.Ð V&¦!% ÐÌJohn€W.€Palmer,€Jason€L.€Hudson,€Ô_ÔDyersburgÔ_Ô,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ 6(†#' ÐÌDavid€A.€Ô_ÔRiddickÔ_Ô,€Jackson,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ *f%) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Pamela€A.€Hayden„Wood,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ö+F'+ ÐGeneral,€Nashville,€TN,€for€Amicus€Curiae,€State€of€TennesseeÐ æ,6(, ÐÓ ÓÐ Ö-&)-ý Ðò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»œ»XX¢+J #ÔÔ‡X¢+X»¼»œÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼»œ»XX¢+_#ÔÔ‡X¢+X»¼»œÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X½XXX¢+Ôà@ìàI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ à ÐÌà  àThe€Appellee,€Pioneer€Subdivision€Homeowners€Association,€Inc.€(ð ðHomeownersÐ h¸ ÐAssociationðð),€is€a€non„profit€corporation€which€consists€of€owners€of€lots€within€PioneerÐ T ¤ ÐSubdivision€in€Ô_ÔDyersburgÔ_Ô,€Tennessee.€€The€Appellant,€Professional€Counseling€Services,€Inc.Ð @  Ð(ð ðProfessional€Counselingðð)€purchased€a€home€located€on€lot€twenty„three€in€the€PioneerÐ , | ÐSubdivision.€€On€August€18,€2000,€Homeowners€Association€filed€a€petition€against€ProfessionalÐ  h ÐCounseling€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Dyer€County€to€enforce€a€restrictive€covenant.€€The€petitionÐ  T  Ðsought€injunctive€relief€to€prevent€Professional€Counseling€from€using€the€home€as€a€group€homeÐ ð @  Ðfor€mentally€handicapped€persons€and€guardians.€€The€petition€relied€on€a€Pioneer€SubdivisionÐ Ü,  Ðrestrictive€covenant€which€prohibits€any€business€use€or€other€use€of€property€in€the€subdivisionÐ È  Ðother€than€a€private€residence€or€single€family€dwelling.€€The€petition€also€relied€on€a€Ô_ÔDyersburgÔ_ÔÐ ´  Ðzoning€ordinance€which€prohibits€group€homes€and€nursing€homes€in€residential€areas.€Ð  ð  ÐÌà  àOn€September€5,€2000,€Professional€Counseling€filed€an€answer€and€counterclaim€allegingÐ xÈ Ðviolations€of€the€Fair€Housing€Act€and€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€TheÐ d´ Ðcounterclaim€sought€damages€and€an€injunction€restraining€€Homeowners€Association€fromÐ P  Ðinterfering€with€the€group€home.€€On€September€14,€2000,€Homeowners€Association€filed€an€answerÐ <Œ Ðto€the€counterclaim.€€On€October€31,€2000,€Professional€Counseling€submitted€interrogatories,Ð (x Ðrequests€for€admission,€and€requests€for€production€of€documents€to€Homeowners€Association.€Ð d ÐProfessional€Counseling€also€submitted€their€answers€to€interrogatories€and€requests€for€productionÐ P Ðof€documents.€€On€December€18,€2000,€Homeowners€Association€filed€a€motion€to€compel€discoveryÐ ì< Ðalleging€that€Professional€Counselingððs€answers€to€interrogatories€were€inadequate.€€Also€onÐ Ø( ÐDecember€18,€2000,€Professional€Counseling€filed€a€motion€for€a€protective€order€limiting€the€scopeÐ Ä Ðof€discovery€arguing€that€the€additional€discovery€information€sought€by€Homeowners€AssociationÐ ° Ðwas€irrelevant.€€On€December€19,€2000,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€two€motions.€€OnÐ œì ÐJanuary€16,€2001,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€limiting€the€scope€of€interrogatories€and€requestsÐ ˆØ Ðfor€production€of€documents€as€to€the€financial€status€and€records€of€Professional€Counseling.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€March€20,€2001,€the€trial€was€held.€€On€April€20,€2001,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÐ L!œ Ðdenying€Homeowners€Associationððs€request€for€an€injunction.€€òòóóThe€trial€court€ordered€ProfessionalÐ 8"ˆ  ÐCounseling€to€include€at€least€two€residents€of€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selection€committee€usedÐ $#t! Ðto€select€residents€for€the€group€home.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€retained€jurisdiction€of€the€caseÐ $`" Ðfor€enforcement€of€the€judgment€as€needed€upon€petition€of€either€party.€€On€May€18,€2001,Ð ü$L # ÐProfessional€Counseling€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment.€€On€July€23,€2001,€the€trial€courtÐ è%8!$ Ðentered€an€order€denying€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment.€€€On€August€23,€2001,€HomeownersÐ Ô&$"% ÐAssociation€filed€a€motion€requesting€the€trial€court€for€an€order€directing€how€members€of€theÐ À'#& Ðselection€committee€were€to€be€chosen.€€On€November€8,€2001,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€twoÐ ¬(ü#' Ðmembers€of€the€selection€committee€would€be€selected€by€Homeowners€Association.€€This€appealÐ ˜)è$( Ðfollowed.Ð „*Ô%) ÐÐ p+À&* ÐÔ_Ôà@ìàò òII.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€standard€of€review€for€a€non-jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record.€€òòSee€Wright€v.€CityÐ ˆØ Ðof€Knoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995).€€There€is€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€courtððs€factual€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.Ð `° ÐApp.€P.€óó13(d).€€For€issues€of€law,€the€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€Ð L œ Ðcorrectness.€€òòSee€Ridings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€1996).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@00ìàò òIII.€€Law€and€Analysisó óˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€following€issues€are€presented€for€our€review:Ð è 8  ÐÌ1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€limiting€the€scope€of€discovery€as€to€the€financial€status€andÐ À  Ðrecords€of€Professional€Counseling;Ð ¬ü  Ð2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€rule€that€the€proposed€use€of€the€home€violated€PioneerÐ ˜è  ÐSubdivisionððs€restrictive€covenant€and€that€the€proposed€use€of€the€home€fell€under€a€zoningÐ „Ô  Ðexemption€statute,€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.;Ð pÀ Ð3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€Professional€Counseling€to€include€at€least€two€residentsÐ \¬ Ðof€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selection€committee€used€to€select€residents€for€the€group€home;€andÐ H˜ Ð4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€retaining€jurisdiction€of€the€case€to€allow€the€parties€to€submitÐ 4„ Ðfuture€disputes€to€the€trial€court€for€hearing.Ð  p ÐWe€will€examine€each€issue€in€turn.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€limiting€the€scopeÐ ä4 Ðof€discovery€as€to€the€financial€status€and€records€of€Professional€Counseling.€€The€decision€to€limitÐ Ð  Ðthe€scope€of€discovery€ð ðlies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€its€decision€will€notÐ ¼  Ðbe€reversed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòLoveall€v.€American€Honda€Motor€Co.,€Inc.óó,€694€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð937,€939€(Tenn.€1985)€(citing€òòCenturion€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€Warren€Steurer€&€Assoc.óó,€665€F.2d€323,€326Ð ”ä Ð(10òòthóó€Cir.€1981)).€€From€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€toÐ €Ð Ðlimit€the€scope€of€discovery€regarding€Professional€Counselingððs€finances.€€Accordingly,€we€affirmÐ l¼ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€limit€the€scope€of€discovery€as€to€the€financial€status€and€records€ofÐ X ¨ ÐProfessional€Counseling.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€second€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€ruleÐ #l! Ðthat€the€proposed€use€of€the€home€violated€Pioneer€Subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenant€and€that€theÐ $X" Ðproposed€use€of€the€home€fell€under€a€zoning€exemption€statute,€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.€€The€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€stated€that€the€group€home€violated€Pioneer€Subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenant€and€theÐ à%0!$ ÐDyersburg€zoning€ordinance.€€The€trial€court€found,€however,€that€the€group€home€fell€within€theÐ Ì&"% Ðzoning€exemption€statute,€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€Pioneer€SubdivisionððsÐ ¸'#& Ðrestrictive€covenant€and€the€Dyersburg€zoning€ordinance€say€ð ðyou€cannot€operate€an€enterprise€suchÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€this€in€your€development.€€No€question€about€that.€€In€the€infinite€wisdom€of€our€elected€officials,Ð )à$( Ðâ âthat€has€been€changed€by€a€law€that€says€you€can€if€you€do€certain€things.€€And€that€statute€overridesÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€zoning.€€It€overrides€the€subdivision€restrictions.ðð€€We€must€decide€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ ° Ðby€finding€that€the€group€home€fell€within€the€zoning€exemption€statute,€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€purpose€of€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.€is€ð ðto€remove€any€zoning€obstacles€which€preventÐ tÄ Ðmentally€retarded,€mentally€handicapped€or€physically€handicapped€persons€from€living€in€normalÐ `° Ðresidential€surroundings.ðð€€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€óóðð€13„24„101(a)€(Supp.€2001).€€Section€13„24„102Ð L œ Ðclassifies€a€group€home€of€eight€or€fewer€mentally€retarded,€mentally€handicapped€or€physicallyÐ 8 ˆ Ðhandicapped€persons€and€two€guardians€as€a€ð ðsingle€family€residenceðð€for€zoning€purposes.€€òòTenn.Ð $ t ÐCode€Ann.€óóðð€13„24„102€(1999).€€Section€13„24„103€states€that€ð ð[t]his€part€takes€precedence€over€anyÐ  ` Ðprovision€in€any€zoning€law€or€ordinance€in€Tennessee€to€the€contrary.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€óóðð€13„24„Ð ü L  Ð103€(1999).€€Professional€Counseling€intends€to€use€the€home€in€Pioneer€Subdivision€as€a€groupÐ è 8  Ðhome€for€eight€or€fewer€mentally€handicapped€individuals€and€two€guardians.€€The€statute€clearlyÐ Ô$  Ðstates€that€a€use€of€a€home€in€this€manner€is€classified€as€a€ð ðsingle€family€residenceðð€which€is€exemptÐ À  Ðfrom€ð ðany€zoning€obstacles.ðð€€We€find€that€Professional€Counselingððs€proposed€use€of€the€home€fallsÐ ¬ü  Ðwithin€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.€which€overrides€the€Pioneer€Subdivision€restrictive€covenant€andÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Dyersburg€zoning€ordinance.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€proposedÐ „Ô  Ðuse€of€the€home€falls€within€section€13„24„101,€et€seq.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€third€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€orderingÐ H˜ ÐProfessional€Counseling€to€include€at€least€two€residents€of€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selectionÐ 4„ Ðcommittee€used€to€select€residents€for€the€group€home.€€We€agree€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ  p Ðordering€Professional€Counseling€to€include€at€least€two€residents€of€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€theÐ  \ Ðselection€committee€when€that€issue€was€not€submitted€to€the€trial€court€in€the€pleadings.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIt€is€a€fundamental€rule€of€law€that€in€order€to€receive€relief,€a€party€must€plead,€request,€andÐ Ð  Ðprove€the€relief€with€the€opposing€party€having€the€opportunity€to€offer€proof€opposing€the€requestedÐ ¼  Ðrelief.€€òòóóRule€54.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€states:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àA€judgment€by€default€shall€not€be€different€in€kind€from€or€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àexceed€in€amount€that€prayed€for€in€the€demand€for€judgment.€€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àExcept€as€to€a€party€against€whom€a€judgment€is€entered€by€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àdefault,€every€final€judgment€shall€grant€the€relief€to€which€the€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àparty€in€whose€favor€it€is€rendered€is€entitled,€even€if€the€party€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àhas€not€demanded€such€relief€in€the€partyððs€pleadings;€but€the€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àcourt€shall€not€give€the€successful€party€relief,€though€such€party€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àmay€be€entitled€to€it,€where€the€propriety€of€such€relief€was€not€Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àlitigated€and€the€opposing€party€had€no€opportunity€to€assert€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àdefenses€to€such€relief.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌòòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€54.03.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  à€In€addressing€the€necessity€for€matters€to€be€alleged€in€the€pleadings€and€supported€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€before€they€can€be€adjudicated€by€the€chancery€court,€Gibsonððs€Suits€in€Chancery€states:Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àA€Court€of€Chancery€has€no€jurisdiction€of€any€matter€not€submittedÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àto€it€in€a€pleading€for€adjudication;€nor€can€the€defendant€be€called€onÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àto€respond€to€anything€not€alleged€against€him.€€Neither€can€a€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àconsider€any€evidence€which€does€not€directly,€or€indirectly,€tend€toÐ tÄ Ðà  àà ` àprove€or€disprove€the€allegations€contained€in€the€pleadings.€€A€decreeÐ `° Ðà  àà ` àcan€neither€be€based€on€allegations€without€corresponding€proof,€nor€onÐ L œ Ðà  àà ` àproof€without€corresponding€allegations.€€All€decrees€must€be€the€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àconcurring€result€of€allegations€justified€by€proof,€and€proof€justified€byÐ $ t Ðà  àà ` àallegations.€€A€decree€based€on€pleadings€without€proof,€will€be€reversedÐ  ` Ðà  àà ` àon€appeal,€but€will€be€good€against€collateral€attack.€€A€decree€based€on€Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àproof,€without€pleadings,€will€not€only€be€reversed€on€appeal,€but€will€alsoÐ è 8  Ðà  àà ` àyield€to€a€collateral€attack€because€such€a€decree€is€òòcoram€non€judiceóó,€andÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àabsolutely€void.€€The€jurisdiction€of€the€Court€is€circumscribed€by€the€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àpleadings,€and€the€pleadings€are€circumscribed€by€the€Law.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌGibsonððs€Suits€in€Chancery€ðð€218€(7th€ed.€1988).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThis€fundamental€rule€of€law€has€been€upheld€by€the€courts€of€Tennessee.€€In€the€case€ofÐ \¬ ÐòòCardwell€v.€Hackettóó,€579€S.W.2d€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978),€the€plaintiff€sued€the€defendant€forÐ H˜ Ðimplied€warranty€of€a€mobile€home€purchased€by€the€plaintiff€from€the€defendant.€€The€trial€courtÐ 4„ Ðrendered€a€judgment€for€the€return€of€the€purchase€price€of€the€mobile€home€to€the€plaintiff€and€aÐ  p Ðreturn€of€the€mobile€home€to€the€defendant.€€In€reversing€the€judgment€on€appeal,€this€Court€stated,Ð  \ Ðð ðThus,€his€judgment€is€a€rescission€of€the€contract€and€an€effort€to€restore€the€parties€to€status€quo.€Ð øH ÐIt€seems€to€us€that€this€is€error€.€.€.€because€the€pleadings€do€not€encompass€a€suit€for€rescission.ðð€Ð ä4 ÐòòId.óó€at€191.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€of€òòFidelity„Phenix€Fire€Ins.€Co.€of€New€York€v.€Jackson,€et€al.óó,€181€S.W.2d€625Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€1944),€our€supreme€court€stated,€ð ðNo€rule€is€better€settled€than€that€both€allegations€and€proofÐ ”ä Ðare€essential€to€a€decree€or€judgment€and€that€there€can€be€no€valid€decree€unless€the€matter€on€whichÐ €Ð Ðthe€decree€is€rested€is€plainly€within€the€scope€of€the€pleadings.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€629.Ð l¼ ÐThe€court€also€noted€with€approval:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€give€a€judgment€the€merit€and€finality€of€an€adjudicationÐ 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àbetween€the€parties,€it€must€be€responsive€not€only€to€the€proof€butÐ #l! Ðà  àà ` àto€the€issues€tendered€by€the€pleadings,€because€pleadings€are€the€Ð $X" Ðà  àà ` àvery€foundation€of€judgments€and€decrees.€€A€judgment€will€be€voidÐ ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àwhich€is€a€departure€from€the€pleadings,€and€based€upon€a€case€notÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àaverred€therein,€since€if€allowed€to€stand€it€would€be€altogetherÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àarbitrary€and€unjust€and€conclude€a€point€upon€which€the€parties€hadÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` ànot€been€heard€.€.€.€.€€Therefore,€the€rule€is€firmly€established€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àirrespective€of€what€may€be€proved€a€court€cannot€decree€to€anyÐ )à$( Ðà  àà ` àplaintiff€more€than€he€claims€in€his€bill€or€other€pleadings.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòÓÓId.óó€(citation€and€internal€quotations€omitted).Ð ° ÐÓÓà  àThe€relief€requested€by€Homeowners€Association€in€their€pleadings€was€based€upon€aÐ ˆØ Ðviolation€of€Pioneer€Subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenant€and€Dyersburgððs€zoning€ordinance.€Ð tÄ ÐHomeowners€Association€requested€the€trial€court€to€order€an€injunction€enjoining€ProfessionalÐ `° ÐCounseling€from€using€the€property€as€a€group€home.€€Homeowners€Association€did€not€request€orÐ L œ Ðoffer€evidence€in€support€of€placing€residents€of€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selection€committee€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€group€home.€€The€trial€court€ordered€Professional€Counseling€to€include€at€least€two€residentsÐ $ t Ðof€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selection€committee.€€This€relief€granted€was€not€within€the€scope€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€pleadings.€€Under€the€state€of€the€record€before€us,€the€relief€granted€should€have€been€confinedÐ ü L  Ðto€the€relief€sought€in€the€pleadings.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decision€orderingÐ è 8  ÐProfessional€Counseling€to€include€at€least€two€residents€of€Pioneer€Subdivision€on€the€selectionÐ Ô$  Ðcommittee.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€fourth€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€retainingÐ ˜è  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€case€to€allow€the€parties€to€submit€future€disputes€to€the€trial€court€for€hearing.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€recitation€by€the€trial€court€that€it€was€retaining€jurisdiction€of€the€case€was€mere€surplusageÐ pÀ Ðbecause€the€parties€have€the€right€to€submit€future€disputes€related€to€the€original€judgment€to€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€retaining€jurisdiction€of€the€case€to€allowÐ H˜ Ðthe€parties€to€submit€future€disputes€to€the€trial€court€for€hearing.Ð 4„ ÐÌà@SS#ìàò òIV.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,Ð ä4 Ðand€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÐ Ð  Ðequally€against€the€Appellant,€Professional€Counseling€Services,€Inc.,€and€its€surety,€and€theÐ ¼  ÐAppellee,€Pioneer€Subdivision€Homeowners€Association,€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ ¨ø Ðnecessary.Ð ”ä ÐÔ#†X¢+XXX½ë#ÔÔ#†¼»œ»XX¢+½#ÔÔ€X¢+X»¼»œÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð @"  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE