ÿWPC¤ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ ð 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9B)w B DC½ AMU*Mwª‘v~;vÓ¹ D3Œ 0@¿ AOÿÆN 0D D/X B‡˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¶·¸D¹º»D¼D½¾Ó€Êz!3|xÊ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d!!!!7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òNovember€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ  ÓRule€10€(Rules€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee).€„„€(b)ò ò€Memorandum€Opinion.ó ó€ÏThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€orÏmodify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€haveÏno€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designatedÏð ðMEMORANDUM€OPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€anyÏreason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò""""'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€53XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌTYRUS€C.€RAGLAND€AND€BONNIEà à)à àó óFrom€the€Chancery€Courtò òÌS.€RAGLAND,€Husband€and€Wife,€à à)à àó ófor€Shelby€County,€Tennesseeò òÌand€GUY€TREECE€AND€MARLA€€€€à à)ÌTREECE,€Husband€and€Wife,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,€à àà à)à àó óThe€Honorable€C.€Neal€Small,€Chancellor€Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€County€Chancery€No.€103686„1ò òÌSIDNEY€FEUERSTEIN€AND€BETSYà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9506„CH„00140ò òÌÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|ñR` Å `€€LßFEUERSTEIN,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)à àó óM.€Anderson€Cobb,€Jr.ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óW.€Marshall€Pearson€€ò òÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àó óMemphis,ÏTennnesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àPlaintiffs/AppelleesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óJack€F.€Marlow€€€€ò ò€ó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellantsò òÌòòÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóó óÌÌà@ àò òRULE€10€ORDER€AND€OPINIONÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€matter€appears€appropriate€for€consideration€pursuant€to€Rule€10(b)€of€the€Rules€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee.× ƒ' ××  ×Ìà àDefendant„Appellants€Sidney€and€Betsy€Feuerstein€(ð ðœFeuersteins›ðð)€appeal€the€œChanceryÏCourtððs›€order€in€favor€of€Plaintiff„Appellees€Tyrus€Ragland€and€other€neighbors€enjoining€theÏFeuersteins€from€building€a€greenhouse€on€their€property€in€violation€of€a€restrictive€covenant.€Ìà àThe€Feuersteins€and€the€plaintiff€neighbors€own€residences€in€the€Greentrees€SubdivisionÏin€Memphis,€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.€€The€deeds€to€the€partiesðð€residences€are€subject€to€theÍfollowing€restriction:ÌÓÓà8 àNo€structure€shall€be€erected,€placed,€altered,€or€permitted€to€remain€on€any€lot€inÏthe€subdivision,€other€than€one€detached€single„family€dwelling€of€not€more€thanÏtwo€stories€in€height,€with€one€private€garage€for€not€more€than€three€(3)€cars€andÏone€servantððs€house€having€not€more€than€two€rooms€and€inside€toilet.€€Garage€Ìà àand€servantððs€house€shall€not€be€more€than€one€story€in€height.ÌÌÓÓAfter€the€Feuersteins€began€constructing€a€greenhouse€beside€their€home,€the€plaintiff€neighborsÏobjected€and€ultimately€filed€this€lawsuit.€€œAt€the›€bench€œtrial,€the›€Feuersteins€noted€that€they€œhadÏhad›€an€existing€greenhouse€in€the€back€corner€of€their€yard€for€fifteen€years€and€asserted€that€theÏrestrictive€covenant€should€not€be€enforced€in€light€of€the€existing€greenhouse€and€other€non„conforming€structures€in€the€neighborhood.€€The€Feuersteins€also€argued€that€the€plaintiffÏneighbors€should€be€denied€relief€based€on€the€doctrine€of€laches,€because€they€waited€to€file€theirÏlawsuit€until€the€Feuersteins€had€already€expended€considerable€monies€on€the€greenhouse.€€FinallyÏthe€Feuersteins€maintained€that€the€greenhouse€did€not€violate€the€restrictive€covenant€because€itÏwould€be€attached€to€the€residence€by€a€covered€walkway€and€would€therefore€be€an€addition€to€theÏhouse,€rather€than€a€separate€structure.€€œÌà àThe›€trial€court€rejected€the€œFeuersteinsðð€argument›€that€the€restrictive€covenant€should€not€beÏenforced€because€of€the€existing€greenhouse,€noting€that€the€greenhouse€built€fifteen€years€ago€wasÏon€the€back€corner€of€the€lot,€obscured€by€vegetation,€while€the€proposed€greenhouse€was€to€beÏbeside€the€œFeuersteinsðð›€home,€in€a€location€much€more€visible€and€likely€to€affect€the€value€ofÏneighborsðð€property.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€neighbors€acted€œin€a€reasonably›€œtimely€mannerÏin›€detecting€the€building€of€the€greenhouse€and€complaining€about€it,€and€found€the€FeuersteinsððÏlaches€argument€without€merit.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€found€that€simply€building€a€coveredÏwalkway€between€the€greenhouse€and€the€residence€did€not€change€the€character€of€the€greenhouseÏas€a€separate€structure€which€violated€the€restrictive€covenant.€€Consequently,€the€trial€court€œenteredÏan€order€requiring›€the€Feuersteins€to€remove€the€portion€of€the€proposed€greenhouse€that€hadÏalready€been€constructed€and€permanently€enjoining€them€from€constructing€any€other€structures€onÏtheir€property€which€were€not€in€compliance€with€the€subdivision€restrictions.€Ìà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Feuersteins€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€existence€ofÏthe€greenhouse€in€the€back€corner€of€the€property€and€other€alleged€non„conforming€uses€did€notÏbar€enforcement€of€the€restrictive€covenant€as€to€the€proposed€greenhouse.€€The€Feuersteins€alsoÏcontend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€doctrine€of€laches€did€not€apply.€€Finally€theÏFeuersteins€maintain€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€finding€that€the€proposed€covered€walkwayÏmade€the€greenhouse€an€addition€to€the€residence,€not€subject€to€the€restrictive€œcovenant.›€€ÌœÇ›à àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€œR.€App.›€œP.›€13(d).€€In€addition,€theÏœChancellorððs›€determination€on€questions€of€laches€and€estoppel€œð ð€ððwill›€not€be€reversed€on€appealÏœunless€.›€.€œ.€clearly›€shown€to€be€œwrong.ðð€ð𛀀ò òòòœHannewald›€v.€Fairfield€Communities,€Inc.ó óóó,Ï651€œS.W.2d€222,›€œ€228›€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€(quoting€ò òòòFreeman€v.€Martin€Robowash,€Inc.ó óóó,€61ÏTenn.€App.€677,€690„91,€457€S.W.€2d€606,€612€(1970)).Ìà àFrom€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€cause,€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€existence€of€the€greenhouse€in€the€back€corner€of€the€Feuersteinsðð€propertyÏdoes€not€bar€the€plaintiff€neighbors€from€enforcing€the€restrictive€covenant.€€Further,€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€in€favor€of€the€œChancellorððs›€finding€that€the€plaintiff€neighbors€acted€in€a€timelyÏmanner€to€detect€the€construction€of€the€greenhouse,€object€to€it€and€file€this€lawsuit.€€Therefore,Ïthe€doctrine€of€laches€is€inapplicable.€€Finally,€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€determination€that€the€proposed€greenhouse€œwould€violate›€the€restrictive€covenant,Ïregardless€of€whether€a€covered€walkway€œconnects›€the€greenhouse€and€the€residence.€€Therefore,Ïthe€trial€œcourt€appropriately›€œordered›€œremoval›€of€the€partial€construction€of€the€greenhouse€and€œanÏinjunction€against›€construction€of€any€other€structures€in€violation€of€the€subdivision€œrestriction.›Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó