ÿWPCb 0#†°UN6 %„ 0(Š4²Æ BÕò 0Jò 0T< 0^ 0hî 0rVwÈ 0|Þ 0DZ 0†ž 0$Æ´ 1uzU,ï AO 0Dj 0d® U, U>> 0@| B)¼ D3å DC D/[ AMŠ B× U*ô e ò v~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0®ØP g4š 7Lk æP(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡1# New Ro3|xú d2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d 'ÿÿdxd%%%%7Border 1dd**'÷ÿ dxd$'Cþÿ << GÿÿüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial èÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€+ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔó óÌò òÔ€+¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ, ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€+XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€#Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€#ÂÔÔ€+ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€#XÔPtPtHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑCARL€E.€SMITH€and€wife,à àà àà à)ÌVADA€SMITH€and€à àà àà àà à)ÌLUCILLE€CROCKETT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9412„CH„00555Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àTrial€Court€No.€€93€1386€IÌÙ€ÙßL€)-';+'h|“4â `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€R.€REED€and€wifeà àà à)ÌLINDA€GAIL€REED,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€KILCREASE,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€C.€BINKLEYÌC.€BRIAN€JACKSONÌTRABUE,€STURDIVANT€&€DeWITTÌ25th€Floor,€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219„1738Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÌÌTHOMAS€L.€WHITESIDEÌSuite€214Ì172€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€€37201Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÑ#€ Xÿÿd#ÑMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓCARL€E.€SMITH€and€wife,à àà àà à)ÌVADA€SMITH€and€à àà àà àà à)ÌLUCILLE€CROCKETT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9412„CH„00555Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àTrial€Court€No.€€93€1386€IÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€R.€REED€and€wifeà àà à)ÌLINDA€GAIL€REED,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓÓóóó óà àFrom€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€establishing€a€boundary€line€dividing€tracts€of€landÏowned€by€the€parties,€the€Defendants€appeal.€€Ìà àThe€facts€are€not€seriously€disputed.€€€The€Plaintiffs€and€the€Defendants€are€owners€ofÏadjoining€tracts€of€land€on€Brush€Hill€Road€in€Davidson€County,€Tennessee.€€The€AppellantsÏassert€that€the€Chancellor,€in€determining€the€boundary€line€between€the€parties,€inappropriatelyÏapplied€the€law€applicable€to€settlement€of€boundary€disputes.€€After€careful€consideration€of€all€ofÏthe€evidence,€we€find€that€the€Court€properly€determined€the€issues,€and€affirm.Ìà àThe€facts€show€that€the€Plaintiffs,€husband€and€wife€and€mother€of€the€wife,€all€reside€atÏ4000€Brush€Hill€Road,€premises€where€they€have€resided€since€1972.€€The€Defendants,€husbandÏand€wife,€purchased€an€adjoining€tract€of€land€located€at€4004€Brush€Hill€Road€at€auction€in€1989.€ÏNeither€parcel€of€land€had€been€surveyed€during€the€time€any€of€the€parties€owned€the€real€estate.€ÍInitially,€a€hedge€separated€the€tracts€of€land€owned€by€the€parties,€but€shortly€after€the€DefendantsÏpurchased€their€tract,€the€Plaintiffs€cut€the€hedge.€€The€evidence€shows€that€for€some€period€of€timeÏthe€Plaintiffs€had€maintained€responsibility€for€the€care€of€the€hedge,€and€Carl€Smith,€one€of€theÏPlaintiffs,€suffered€a€heart€attack,€which€limited€his€outdoor€activity.€€Evidence€was€introducedÏwhich€shows€that,€historically,€the€former€owners€of€the€tracts€of€land€now€owned€by€the€parties€toÏthis€suit€always€considered€the€hedge€to€be€the€boundary€between€the€two€tracts.€€Unfortunately,Ïafter€the€hedge€was€removed,€disputes€arose€as€to€the€location€of€the€boundary€between€the€tracts.€ÏProblems€between€the€parties€heightened€after€the€Plaintiffs€purchased€a€metal€storage€buildingÏwhich€they€placed€on€a€spot€which€the€Plaintiffs€assert€was€the€edge€of€their€property,€and€whichÏthe€Defendants€assert€crossed€the€boundary€and€was€placed€partially€on€the€Defendants'€land.€ÏAfter€the€Defendants€sought€the€removal€of€the€shed,€with€the€assistance€of€an€attorney,€to€no€avail,ÏPlaintiff€Vada€Smith€developed€a€flower€garden€which€the€Plaintiffs€also€asserted€was€on€the€edgeÏof€their€property€and€the€Defendants€asserted€was€partially€on€the€Defendants'€land.€€TheÏDefendants€then€employed€a€surveyor,€David€Allen€Crawford,€apparently€a€very€respectedÏsurveyor€with€fifteen€years€experience,€who€owned€his€own€surveying€company€with€elevenÏemployees.€€Crawford€personally€came€to€the€land,€conducted€measurements,€and€developedÏcalculations.€€He€found,€in€fact,€that€the€boundary€between€the€parties€was€as€the€DefendantsÏasserted,€and€placed€stakes€along€the€boundary€which€he€determined.€€One€of€those€stakes€wasÏinside€the€flower€bed€cultivated€by€Plaintiff€Vada€Smith.€€Troubled€by€the€presence€of€the€stakes,Ïparticularly€the€stake€in€her€flower€bed€which€she€testified€she€felt€was€particularly€unattractive,ÏPlaintiff€Vada€Smith€removed€the€stakes,€causing€the€boundary€marked€by€Crawford€no€longer€toÏbe€determinable.€€Defendants€then€hired€Crawford€to€return€again€to€mark€the€boundary,€andÏerected€a€fence€along€that€boundary€line.€€€Lawsuits€were€then€filed€by€each€of€the€parties,€whichÏultimately€were€consolidated€for€purposes€of€trial.€€€Each€party€initially€filed€motions€for€immediateÏrelief,€which€the€Trial€Court€wisely€denied,€ordering€that€the€status€quo€should€be€maintainedÏpending€the€conclusion€of€all€litigation.€€Ìà àDeeds€to€the€two€tracts€of€land€provided€distances€of€the€boundaries€on€all€sides€for€bothÏtracts.€€In€fact,€there€is€little€or€no€dispute€as€to€the€boundary€between€the€parties€at€the€front€of€eachÏtract,€where€the€tracts€adjoin€the€road,€and€the€parties€agree€that€a€pin€near€the€roadway€establishesÏthe€boundary€between€the€parties€at€that€point.€€The€parties€disagree,€however,€as€to€the€course€ofÏthat€boundary,€such€that€a€triangle€of€land€which€widens€at€the€rear€of€the€properties€is€in€question.€ÏA€number€of€problems€were€identified.€€€First,€the€surveyors€had€difficulty€determining€the€locationÏof€the€boundary€line€between€the€Plaintiffs€and€their€adjoining€landowner€to€the€South,€away€fromÏthe€land€of€the€Defendants.€€Next,€the€distance€stated€in€the€Defendants'€deed€for€their€rearÏboundary€is€significantly€longer€than€is€their€tract€of€land.€€€€All€parties€agree€that€this€distance€callÏis€inaccurate,€and€provides€more€land€to€the€Defendants€than€is€present.€€A€further€problem€is€thatÏthese€tracts€of€land€are€bounded€on€the€East€by€the€Cumberland€River,€controlled€by€the€Corps.€ofÏEngineers.€€The€lots€in€question€are€greatly€elevated€above€the€river,€such€that€a€cliff€or€bluff€existsÏseparating€these€tracts€of€land€from€the€river.€€€Rather€than€being€a€sheer€bluff,€a€steep€butÏsomewhat€gradual€descent€exists€from€the€level€of€the€lots€to€the€river.€€Surveyors,€who€testified€inÏthis€suit,€had€some€difficulty€determining€the€location€of€the€rear€or€East€boundary€of€the€tracts,€andÏthe€points€at€which€these€tracts€adjoined€the€river,€thus€affecting€the€calculated€distances€of€theÏNorth€and€South€boundaries,€being€the€distances€of€the€tracts€from€front€to€rear,€or€from€BrushÏHill€Road€on€the€West€to€the€Cumberland€River€on€the€East.€Ìà àOlder€deeds€to€the€properties€in€question€reference,€in€addition€to€distances,€a€surveyÏconducted€by€a€W.€B.€Southgate,€in€1931,€and€more€recent€deeds€reflect€a€survey€by€James€A.ÏHamilton,€Jr.,€in€1949.€€These€references€cloud€the€descriptions,€rather€than€clarifying€them,€whenÏit€is€considered€that€the€findings€of€Southgate€and€Hamilton€are€not€in€agreement.€€Further,ÏHamilton's€work,€it€appears,€was€what€would€appropriately€be€described€as€a€loan€inspection,Ïrather€than€a€complete€survey,€and€Southgate's€work,€conducted€apparently€in€1931,€is€not€inÏaccordance€with€modern€standards.€€€The€problem€is€further€heightened€when€it€is€discovered€thatÏnone€of€these€works€were€recorded,€and€that€three€separate€drawings,€all€apparently€made€byÍSouthgate,€with€slight€differences,€are€all€in€existence.€€Ìà àIn€addition€to€the€now€non„existent€hedge,€three€further€landmarks€exist.€€€One€is€a€patioÏnear€the€river;€€second€is€a€steep€flight€of€stairs€leading€from€the€surface€of€the€lots€in€questionÏtoward€the€river;€and€third€is€a€rock€wall.€€Evidence€introduced€at€the€hearing€presented€by€personsÏfamiliar€with€the€tracts€of€land€as€early€as€the€decade€of€the€1950s,€shows€that€both€the€patio€andÏthe€stairs€historically€were€considered€to€be€a€part€of€the€tract€of€land€now€owned€by€the€Plaintiffs.€ÏThe€stairs,€however,€are€now€in€a€state€of€disrepair,€and€the€evidence€shows€that€no€one€hasÏrepaired€the€stairs€in€more€than€a€decade.€€Ìà àEach€of€the€parties€hired€surveyors€who€testified€before€the€Trial€Court.€€€David€AllenÏCrawford€testified€for€the€Defendants,€while€Roger€H.€Fuqua€testified€for€the€Plaintiffs.€€FuquaÏtestified€that€he€has€been€a€surveyor€for€forty€years,€and€now€works€with€Ragan€Smith€andÏAssociates,€a€large€Nashville€firm.€€Fuqua€testified€that€he€relied€heavily€upon€the€SouthgateÏsurvey.€€Crawford,€however,€testified€that€he€relied€almost€entirely€upon€the€descriptions€providedÏin€the€deeds,€and€then€subsequently€compared€his€survey€to€the€Southgate€survey€and€HamiltonÏsurvey.€€Fuqua€presented€his€opinion€of€the€location€of€the€boundary€between€the€parties,€whichÏshowed€the€patio,€staircase,€and€rock€wall€all€on€the€land€owned€by€the€Plaintiffs.€€€Fuqua€alsoÏfound€the€metal€storage€building€and€flower€garden€which€initially€precipitated€this€action€to€be€onÏthe€land€owned€by€the€Plaintiffs.€€Crawford,€however,€found€the€property€line€to€divide€theÏstaircase,€so€that€it€was€partially€on€the€property€of€each€of€the€parties,€and€also€found€the€patio€andÏrock€wall€to€be€partially€owned€by€the€Defendants.€€Additionally,€he€found€the€flower€garden€andÏmetal€storage€shed€to€be€partially€on€the€Defendants'€tract.€€Crawford€testified€that€he€foundÏremnants€of€hedge€along€the€line€which€he€determined€to€be€the€boundary,€although€the€PlaintiffsÏcontend€that€the€hedge€found€by€Crawford€was€near€the€front€of€the€tracts,€where€the€boundariesÏcontended€by€the€parties€are€closer€together.€€€Fuqua,€referencing€the€Southgate€survey,€extendedÏone€of€the€boundaries€of€the€Smith€property€to€a€point€which€the€Defendants€contend€is€in€mid„air,Ïsome€distance€behind€the€edge€of€the€bank,€and€behind€the€Smith€property,€altering€the€angle€of€theÍboundary€line€which€Fuqua€found€between€the€two€tracts€in€question.€€The€Plaintiffs,€however,Ïsuggests€that€Crawford's€shorter€boundary€leaves€a€"no€man's€land"€between€the€tracts€of€land€andÏthe€river.€€Ìà àGiven€the€evidence€presented,€the€Trial€Court€had€little€choice€but€to€adopt€the€position€ofÏone€of€the€parties,€and€approve€the€work€of€one€of€the€two€surveyors€who€testified.€€€The€TrialÏCourt€determined€to€accredit€the€work€of€Fuqua,€repudiating€the€Crawford€survey.€€While€we€haveÏserious€questions€concerning€the€validity€of€sixty€year€old€unrecorded€surveys,€particularly€whenÏthe€authenticity€of€those€surveys€is€questioned,€we€also€have€difficulty€accepting€a€survey€whichÏdivides€immovable€landmarks€upon€a€tract€of€land€which€the€evidence€is€undisputed€historicallyÏhave€always€been€considered€to€be€exclusively€upon€the€land€of€one€of€the€two€property€owners.Ìà àWe€must€recognize€that€the€issue€of€boundary€disputes€is€one€of€the€more€difficult€matters€aÏTrial€Court€must€decide.€€Deeds€to€real€estate€in€question€often€contain€distances€or€calls€which€areÏeither€very€approximate€or€in€error.€€Often€persons€who€are€familiar€with€the€lands€in€questionÏhistorically€have€different€memories€of€the€ownership€of€the€property€in€question.€€€òòSee,ÏChapdelaine€v.€Tennessee€State€Board€of€Examiners€for€Land€Surveyorsóó,€541€S.W.2d€786,€788Ï(Tenn.€1976).€€We€must€consider€that€the€Trial€Court€had€the€opportunity€to€hear€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witnesses,€and€to€watch€them€testify,€and€to€form€his€opinion€of€the€competence€and€credibilityÏof€the€witnesses,€and€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€the€Trial€Judge€will€not€be€overturned€except€whenÏthe€Court€finds€that€compelling€evidence€exists€to€the€contrary.€€€òòFielder€v.€Lakeside€Enterprises,ÏInc.óó,€871€S.W.2d€157,€160€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòBrewer€v.ÏBreweróó,€869€S.W.2d€928,€934€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòDoniheÏv.€Tennessee€Department€of€Safetyóó,€865€S.W.2d€903,€905€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€Trial€Court€heard€the€testimony€of€the€parties,€their€surveyors,€andÏothers€who€testified€briefly€concerning€their€memory€of€the€boundary€between€the€parties€in€pastÏyears.€€After€hearing€all€of€the€evidence,€the€Trial€Court€found€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiffs,Ïestablishing€the€boundary€line€in€accordance€with€their€contentions,€and€in€accordance€with€theÍtestimony€of€the€surveyor€who€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Plaintiffs.€€€Ìà àThe€Trial€Court€also€found,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€natural€objects,€artificial€monuments,Ïand€adjacent€boundaries€should€take€precedence€over€courses€and€distances€stated€in€deeds.€€InÏmaking€this€finding,€the€Court€cited€òòThornburg€v.€Chaseóó,€606€S.W.2d€672€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1980).€€The€Appellants€contend€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€applying€this€law.€€€We€disagree.€€€WeÏhave€consistently€applied€the€principals€set€forth€in€òòThornburgóó€for€the€past€fifteen€years.€€òòSee,ÏMarye€H.€Markum€and€Dorothy€Pritchard€v.€Dean€Kellyóó€[unpublished],€Appeal€No.€02A01„9309„CH„00202€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€„„€Western€Section,€January€26,€1995);€€òòMaria€F.€Zenner€v.€DuncanÏC.€Kingóó€[unpublished]€Appeal€No.€02A01„9101„CH„00197€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€„„€Western€Section,ÏJuly€2,€1992);€òòBramblett€v.€Runyanóó,€631€S.W.2d€129,€131€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981)€òòperm.€app.Ïdenied.€€€óóIn€fact,€this€principle€of€law€was€first€established€in€1916.€€òòPritchard€v.€Reborióó,€186€S.W.Ï121,€122€(Tenn.€1916).€€Natural€objects€or€landmarks€are€first€considered€because€of€their€veryÏpermanent€character.€€Artificial€monuments€are€then€considered€because€of€their€definite€location.€ÏBoundaries€of€adjoining€property€owners€are€next€considered,€and€calls€and€distances€next.€ÏòòPritchard€v.€Rebori,€supraóó,€at€122.€€We€find€no€reason€that€this€principle€of€law€should€not€beÏapplied€in€this€cause.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€must€be€affirmed.€€An€additional€matter,€which€is€not€raisedÏon€appeal,€but€which€we€feel€compelled€to€address,€is€the€issue€of€damages€awarded€by€the€TrialÏCourt.€€The€Trial€Court€awarded€more€than€$10,000€in€damages,€the€majority€of€which€was€inÏpayment€for€attorney's€fees.€€An€award€of€attorney's€fees€is€not€appropriate€absent€a€contractualÏagreement€between€parties,€or€statutory€authorization.€€€òòHannewald€v.€Fairfield€Communities,€Inc.,Ïóó651€S.W.2d€222,€230€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó;€€òòState€ex€rel€Orr€v.€Thomasóó,€585ÏS.W.2d€606,€607€(Tenn.€1979).€€No€authorization€has€been€shown€for€the€payment€of€attorney'sÏfees.€€$1,212.25€has€been€awarded€for€"replacement€costs€for€property€damage€(flowers,€trees,Ïetc.)."€€While€we€find€the€record€silent€as€to€any€explanation€as€to€these€expenses,€except€for€anÏentry€in€an€exhibit€which€was€received€without€exception,€we€find€this€issue€to€have€been€withinÍthe€discretion€of€the€Trial€Court,€and€find€that€it€was€properly€awarded.€€€Over€$100€has€beenÏawarded€to€the€Plaintiffs€for€film€costs€and€developing€costs,€and€additional€dollars€in€courtÏreporter's€expenses,€costs€for€copies€of€surveys€and€maps€have€also€been€charged.€€€Additionally,Ï$2,311.88€has€been€awarded€for€survey€costs.€€Respectfully,€we€find€these€to€be€inappropriateÏelements€of€damages.€€Legitimate€costs€of€trial€preparation,€may€of€course€be€considered€asÏdiscretionary€costs€as€provided€by€Rule€54.04€of€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedureóó€(1995).€ÏThese€expenses€do€not€include€attorney's€fees,€but€may€include€reasonable€and€necessary€courtÏreporter's€expenses€and€reasonable€and€necessary€expert€witness€fees€for€trials€(as€contrasted€withÏthe€actual€investigation€performed€by€that€expert).€€€Ìà àWe€find€it€proper€to€modify€the€award€of€the€Trial€Court€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiffs,€allowingÏonly€the€$1,212.25€for€replacement€costs€for€"property€damage"€found€by€the€Court.€€€Costs€ofÏthis€appeal€must€be€paid€by€the€Defendants.€€Ìà àWe€therefore€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court,€modifying€the€amount€of€the€award,Ïand€remand€this€cause€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€matters,€including€consideration€ofÏdiscretionary€costs,€should€such€motion€be€filed€by€the€Plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÑ7€ž½XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌCARL€E.€SMITH€and€wife,à àà àà à)ÌVADA€SMITH€and€à àà àà àà à)ÌLUCILLE€CROCKETT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9412„CH„00555Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àTrial€Court€No.€€93€1386€IÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌWILLIAM€R.€REED€and€wifeà àà à)ÌLINDA€GAIL€REED,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òJUDGMENTÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àóóó óThis€cause€came€on€further€to€be€considered€by€the€Court€upon€the€notice€of€appeal€filed€byÏthe€Defendants,€and€upon€the€briefs€of€both€parties,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€and€upon€the€entireÏrecord€in€this€cause,€from€all€of€which€the€Court€finds€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€shouldÏbe€affirmed€as€modified,€the€Court€finding€that€the€financial€compensation€to€be€awarded€to€theÏPlaintiff€should€be€reduced€to€$1,212.25.€€Ìà àIT€IS€THEREFORE€ORDERED€that€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court,€as€modified,€isÏhereby€affirmed.€€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€Appellants.€€€€This€cause€is€remandedÏto€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€the€opinion€of€this€Court.Ìà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHENRY€F.€TODD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóSAM€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGE