WPC{K  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\8>8 0@9 D3$:w@W: 0J: 0T: 0^5; 0h; 0r; 0|m< 0< 0o= 1u=U,t> 0d>U,?U60?B)f?DC? AM?U*@*I@sAv~BvD AOI%J 0DJ D//K B^KV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d~| $(G.2i$ FT!   4XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMSRobersonWassonRobersonsSnyderSnydersCottrellUPCHURCHPIKEVILLEMATHEWBROWNFIELDC.F.W.("$    GGGG'dxd DDDDVӀ2 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  XYZ[\]^_ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dkkkk7Border 1ddNlC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#aj  nn   YYY FILEDnX May6,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.nAppellateCourtClerk   F!#d#aj  I$j         Mrs.WassoncontractedwithMs.Martintosellherproperty.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco NC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . a&iiXd&#iiXd#j    7XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  k u` Lmol;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION@ ) RHEACOUNTYGILESE.ROBERSONandwife@ ) 03A019509CH00299HAZELB.ROBERSON@ )@ ) PlaintiffsAppellants@ )@ )@ ) v.@ ) HON.JEFFREYF.STEWART, @ ) CHANCELLOR̀@ ) MARYMARGARET(DARWIN)@ )̜WASSONandPUGMARTIN,@ ) Individually,andd/b/a@ ) CENTURY21PUGMARTINREALTY@ )andSTEPHENN.SNYDERand@ )wife,BARBARAL.SNYDER@ )@ ) DefendantsAppellees@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDHOWARDL.UPCHURCHOFPIKEVILLEFORAPPELLANTSMATHEWD.BROWNFIELDandJOHNR.ANDERSONOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLEESSTEPHENN.SNYDERandwifeBARBARAL.SNYDER@ OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThissuitwasfiledbyPlaintiffsGilesE.RobersonandhiswifeHazelB.RobersonagainstDefendantsMaryMargaret(Darwin)WassonandPugMartin, p   כindividually,andd/b/aCentury21PugMartinRealty.ThePlaintiffssoughttohavetheCourtdeclarethatastripoflandapproximately18feetinwidth,titledinthenameofMrs.Wasson,whichlaybetweentwoseparatetractsownedbythem(seeappendix)"tohavebeenabandonedandtobenonexistent."Thecomplaintwaslateramendedtoadvancethetheoryofadversepossession,andstilllatertoaddaspartiesDefendantStephenN.SnyderandwifeBarbaraL.Snyder,whohadpurchasedthepropertyfromMrs.Wasson.  TheTrialCourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendantsastotheadversepossessiontheoryandattheconclusionofthePlaintiffs'proofsustainedtheDefendants'motiontograntajudgmentintheirfavor,whichatthatpointwaspredicatedonlyupontheabandonmenttheory.  ThePlaintiffsappealinsistingthattheTrialCourtwasinerroringrantingsummaryjudgmentbecausethereisadisputeofmaterialfacts,andinlaterdismissingtheirsuitbecausetheevidencepreponderatesagainsthisfindings.  Astotheissuesraised,wearedealingwithtwoseparatestandardsofreview.InreviewingtheactionoftheTrialCourtingrantingsummaryjudgment,wearerequiredtotakethestrongestlegitimateviewofalltheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingpartiesandtoindulgeallreasonableinferencesintheirfavor.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).  TheSupremeCourt,inCityofColumbiav.C.F.W.Const.Co.,557S.W.2d734,740(Tenn.1977),articulatesthestandardtobeusedinnonjurycasesfordismissalattheconclusionoftheplaintiff'sproof,whichweequatewithamotionforjudgmentindeclaratoryjudgmentcases,anddistinguishesthatstandardfromtheonetobeusedinjurycases:     MotionsfordismissalinnonjurycasesunderRule41.02(2),TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,andmotionsfordirectedverdictsinjurycasesunderRule50,TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,aresomewhatsimilar,but,thereisafundamentaldifferencebetweenthetwomotions,inthat,inthejurycase,thejudgeisnotthetrieroffactswhileinthenonjurycaseheisthetrierofthefacts.Inthejurycasehemustconsidertheevidencemostfavorablyfortheplaintiff,allowallreasonableinferencesinplaintiff'sfavoranddisregardallcounteractingevidence,and,soconsidered,ifthereisanymaterialevidencetosupportaverdictforplaintiff,hemustdenythemotion.Butinthenonjurycase,whenamotiontodismissismadeatthecloseofplaintiff'scaseunderRule41.02(2),thetrialjudgemustimpartiallyweighandevaluatetheevidenceinthesamemannerasthoughheweremakingfindingsoffactattheconclusionofalloftheevidenceforbothparties,determinethefactsofthecase,applythelawtothosefacts,and,iftheplaintiff'scasehasnotbeenmadeoutbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,ajudgmentmayberenderedagainsttheplaintiffonthemerits,or,thetrialjudge,inhisdiscretion,maydeclinetorenderjudgmentuntilthecloseofalltheevidence.Theactionshouldbedismissedifonthefactsfoundandtheapplicablelawtheplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief.      TheTrialCourt,ingrantingasummaryjudgmentastothetheoryofadversepossession,statedthefollowing:     TheCourtisoftheopinionthatapartialSummaryJudgmentshouldbegrantedinfavoroftheDefendant,StephenN.andBarbaraSnyderontheissueofadversepossession.TheissueofadversepossessionwouldrequirethePlaintiffstoestablishthatovertheyearstheyhavebyopen,hostileandnotorioususeofthepropertyinquestionpossessedittotheexclusionoftherightfulowner.ThePlaintiffscannotassertasamatteroflawtohavecoloroftitletothestripoflandinquestion.Theirdeedspecificallyreferredtotheirpropertylinesbeingboundedbya"privatelane"whichisalsothestripoflandinquestioninthiscase.Further,theDefendantsandtheirpredecessorsintitlethroughthevariousdeedsofconveyance,grantedtheuseofsaidstripoflandtothePlaintiffsandtheirpredecessorsintitle.ThisgrantoftheuseofthisstripoflandtothePlaintiffsandtheirpredecessorintitlewoulddefeataclaimtoadversepossessioninandofitself.Noneofthegrantsallowingtheuseinanywayplacesarestrictionontheuse,otherthantosayitcannotbeanexclusiveuseandthestripoflandisthereforthebenefitofthePlaintiffandotherlandownersservicedbythestripofland.      NoevidencewasintroducedbythePlaintiffstocontradicttheTrialCourt'sfindingsoffact,whicharesupportedbyevidenceintroducedbytheDefendants.  Afterahearingastotheabandonmenttheory,theTrialCourtgrantedtheDefendants'motionforjudgmentattheconclusionofthePlaintiffs'proofbecauseit"hadnotrisentothestandardthatisrequiredbyclearorconvincingproofofanabandonment."ThisstandardwasmandatedbyCottrellv.Daniel,30Tenn.App.339,205S.W.2d973(1947),whereinthisCourt,quotingfromaSupremeCourtcase,stated,"theremustbesomeclearandunmistakableaffirmativeactindicatingapurposetorepudiatetheownership."  OurreviewoftherecordpersuadesusthatastoboththeTrialCourt'sactions(grantingasummaryjudgmentastotheadversepossessiontheory;grantingtheDefendantsjudgmentastotheabandonmenttheory)thisisanappropriatecaseforaffirmanceunderRule10(a)ofthisCourt.    FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainsttheRobersonsandtheirsurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜ǛCONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sp.J.