ÿWPC­" …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ 0Jð 0T: 0^Ž 0hì 0rT 0|Æ 0†B 0È 1uX 0dÍ U>1B)oDC˜ AMÛU*(ìR`>›ž¬9Våì;v~'vÓ¥ D3x B« 0@È AO!ÆW! 0D" D/a" B"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ˆ ‰Š£‹ŒDÓ€™š›œBÊ °\Ôô3|xœ((3üÝ$¤¤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 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òNovember€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTY€Farmingððs€complaint€also€named€Dallas€and€Mattie€Sue€Castleman,€the€owners€ofÏcertain€lots€within€the€subdivision.€€The€suit€against€the€Castlemans€was€later€dismissed€by€consentÏorder€and€they€are€not€parties€to€this€appeal.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€this€limited€use€of€the€road€by€the€adjoining€landowners€does€not€preclude€aÏfinding€of€abandonment.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòHargis€v.€Collieró óóó,€578€S.W.2d€953,€958€(Tenn.€App.€1978);Ïò òòòaccordó óóó€òòò òLumpkin€v.€Hughesó óóó,€1989€WL€70768,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ì ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTY€Farming€also€contends€that€an€effective€abandonment€of€the€road€could€not€occurÏbecause€the€County€failed€to€comply€with€the€statutory€procedures€for€closing€the€road.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏT.C.A.€ðððð€54„10„201€to€„215€(1993).€€We€note,€however,€that€previous€decisions€of€this€courtÏhave€rejected€this€argument.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòHargis€v.€Collieró óóó,€578€S.W.2d€953,€958€(Tenn.€App.€1978);Ïò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€1994€WL€12617,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€1994);€ò òòòLumpkin€v.ÏHughesó óóó,€1989€WL€70768,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€1989).Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€precise€location€of€the€thirty„foot€easement€through€Lot€5€was€changed€in€aÏsubsequent€order€of€the€trial€court€entered€on€Belewððs€motion€for€clarification,€but€this€change€isÏnot€relevant€to€any€issues€on€appeal.€Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTY€Farming€also€requested€damages€for€the€diminution€in€value€of€its€property€due€to€theÏclosing€of€the€public€road.€€As€we€previously€discussed,€however,€the€public€road€was€abandonedÏwell€before€development€of€the€Bluff€View€Subdivision;€therefore,€neither€the€Countyððs€approvalÏnor€Belewððs€recordation€of€the€subdivision€plat€resulted€in€the€closing€of€the€road.ÌPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ šStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌó óà à)ò òÌTY€FARMING€COMPANY,€INC.€,ó óà à)à àDyer€County€Circuit€CourtÌà à)à àNo.€93„285Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant,à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€02A01„9510„CV„00232Ìà à)Ìò òGEORGE€BELEW€and€THEó óà à)Ìò òCOUNTY€OF€DYER,€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÙ€€ÙßL€ ";+'h|Òÿb` Å `€€LßÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Dyer€County€at€Dyersburg.Ìò òHonorable€Joe€G.€Riley,€Judge€€ó óÌÌÌÌò òRalph€I.€Lawsonó ó,ÌLAWSON€&€LANNON€ATTORNEYS,€Dyersburg,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellant.ÌÌÌò òJames€S.€Wilkesó ó,ÌWILKES€&€DYER,€Dyersburg,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellee€George€Belew.ÌÌÌò òDouglas€W.€Wilkersonó ó,Ìò òJ.€Michael€Gauldin,€ó óÌWILKERSON€GAULDIN€&€HAYES,€Dyersburg,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant€Appellee€County€of€Dyer.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àPlaintiff„Appellant,€TY€Farming€Company,€Inc.€(ð ðTY€Farmingðð),€appeals€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€TY€Farmingððs€claims€against€Defendants„Appellees€DyerÏCounty€(ð ðDyer€Countyðð)€and€George€Belew€(ð ðBelewðð)€relative€to€a€dirt€road€which€crossedÏproperties€owned€by€TY€Farming,€Belew,€and€other€landowners€in€Dyer€County.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€dirt€road€had€been€abandoned€by€the€County€and€the€general€public,€that€the€roadÏwas€no€longer€a€public€road,€and,€therefore,€that€the€County€had€no€obligation€to€maintain€the€road.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€denied€TY€Farmingððs€claim€for€damages€against€the€County€andÏdismissed€the€County€from€the€lawsuit.€€With€regard€to€TY€Farmingððs€claim€against€Belew,€theÏjudgment€granted€TY€Farming€an€easement€across€the€property€of€Belew.€€The€trial€court€furtherÏfound€that€Belew€had€deprived€TY€Farming€of€its€previously€existing€easement€of€ingress€andÏegress€to€its€property,€but€the€court€found€that€TY€Farming€had€suffered€no€damages€because€it€hadÏcontinuous€access€to€its€property€by€another€route.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€denied€TYÏFarmingððs€claim€for€damages€against€Belew€and€dismissed€TY€Farmingððs€complaint€in€its€entirety.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Backgroundó óóóÌÌà àTY€Farming,€which€is€solely€owned€by€Tom€Yarbro,€owns€a€165„acre€tract€of€landÏin€Dyer€County.€€The€only€access€to€TY€Farmingððs€property€is€over€the€dirt€road€that€is€the€subjectÏof€this€lawsuit.€€The€road€crosses€TY€Farmingððs€property€and€other€properties€before€connectingÏwith€Harris€Road,€a€paved€County€road€to€the€east.€€At€trial,€TY€Farming€traced€the€existence€of€theÏdirt€road€back€to€1888,€the€year€a€Dyer€County€Chancery€Court€declared€the€road€to€be€a€CountyÏroad.€€In€the€late€1800's€and€early€1900's,€a€number€of€families€lived€along€the€dirt€road,€and€theÏroad€was€well„traveled.€€Over€the€years,€residents€reached€their€homes€by€traveling€the€dirt€road€byÏfoot,€mule,€horseback,€wagon,€buggy,€and,€later,€automobile.€€To€maintain€the€dirt€road,€theÍCounty€periodically€graded€the€road€with€County€equipment.€ÌÌà àBy€1950,€no€families€remained€living€along€the€dirt€road€and€Charles€Yarbro,€TomÏYarbroððs€uncle,€had€purchased€the€property€which€now€belongs€to€TY€Farming.€€In€the€early€toÏmid€1950's,€the€County€graded€the€road€at€the€request€of€Tom€Yarbroððs€grandfather,€Guy€Yarbro,Ïto€enable€the€Yarbros€to€drive€a€truck€on€the€road€when€they€cut€fence€posts€on€the€property.€€AtÏone€point€during€his€ownership€of€the€property,€Charles€Yarbro€erected€an€ornamental€gate€acrossÏthe€road.€€He€testified,€however,€that€the€gate€was€not€permanent€and€secure€because€it€was€ð ðjustÏwired€up€on€one€end,ðð€and€that€the€gateððs€purpose€was€merely€to€mark€the€property€line.ÌÌà àMost€of€the€witnesses€who€testified€could€not€remember€using€the€road€after€theÏ1930's€or€1940's.€€Tom€Yarbro€remembered€traveling€the€road€in€the€1960's€but€acknowledgedÏthat€maintenance€on€the€road€by€that€time€was€ð ðvery€minimal.ðð€€Use€of€the€road€in€the€1970's€andÏ1980's€was€limited€to€adjoining€landowners,€who€used€the€road€to€haul€timber€off€their€properties.€ÏTroy€Moody,€a€former€road€grader€for€the€County,€testified€that€he€last€graded€the€road€in€1952.€ÏBilly€Hall,€a€foreman€with€the€County€road€department,€testified€that€the€road€may€have€beenÏgraded€as€late€as€the€early€1970's.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€was€undisputed,€however,€that€since€the€early€1970's,€the€County€hadÏperformed€no€maintenance€on€the€road,€with€the€exception€of€a€portion€of€the€road€which€led€to€aÏgravel€pit€on€a€neighboring€landownerððs€property.€€The€testimony€revealed€that€the€CountyÏperformed€this€maintenance,€including€grading€and€gravel€work,€in€the€1970's€and€early€1980's€forÏthe€sole€purpose€of€allowing€the€County€access€to€the€gravel€pit€to€withdraw€gravel.€€AlthoughÏadjoining€property€owners€were€permitted€to€continue€using€this€portion€of€the€road€to€gain€accessÏto€their€properties,€the€County€placed€a€cable€or€gate€across€the€road€near€the€gravel€pit€toÏdiscourage€members€of€the€public€from€using€the€road.€€In€the€early€1980's,€the€County€wasÏrequired€to€submit€a€map€identifying€all€County€roads€to€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÍTransportation.€€The€map€submitted€by€Dyer€County€in€April€1983€did€not€include€the€subject€road,Ïand€the€current€County€road€map€also€failed€to€include€the€road.ÌÌà àWhen€Tom€Yarbro€purchased€the€property€in€1988,€he€believed€that€the€road€wasÏstill€a€public€road,€and€he€contacted€County€road€commissioner€Jeff€Jones€to€ask€about€requiringÏthe€County€to€maintain€the€road.€€Taking€the€position€that€the€road€had€not€been€a€public€road€inÏover€forty€years,€the€County€road€committee€declined€to€perform€any€maintenance€on€the€road.€€AÏsurveyor€hired€by€TY€Farming€in€1991€described€the€road€as€a€ð ð[m]uddy€unimproved€track,ððÏapproximately€ten€to€fifteen€feet€in€width.€€According€to€some€witnesses,€portions€of€the€road€wereÏimpassable€except€by€foot€or€four„wheel€drive€vehicle.€€Since€filing€this€lawsuit,€TY€Farming€hadÏimproved€the€road€considerably€by€doing€grading€and€gravel€work€on€the€road.ÌÌà àIn€1992,€the€County€approved€a€subdivision€plat€for€Bluff€View€Subdivision€whichÏwas€submitted€by€Defendant€Belew.€€The€dirt€road€crossed€the€southern€part€of€Belewððs€property,Ïand€Belewððs€plat,€as€recorded,€effectively€subsumed€or€blocked€portions€of€the€road€which€TomÏYarbro€had€been€using€to€gain€access€to€TY€Farmingððs€property.€€The€only€accommodation€madeÏin€the€plat€for€TY€Farming€was€a€thirty„foot€easement€shown€across€Lot€5€of€the€subdivision;Ïhowever,€the€testimony€showed€that€the€easement€was€impassable€because€it€led€into€a€deep€gullyÏor€ravine.€€One€of€the€subdivisionððs€new€streets,€Cane€Creek€Lane,€paralleled€the€dirt€road€for€aÏdistance€before€ending€in€a€cul„de„sac€or€dead„end.€€Instead€of€crossing€Belewððs€property€by€usingÏthe€easement€shown€on€the€plat,€Tom€Yarbro€traveled€on€Cane€Creek€Lane€until€it€ended€in€the€cul„de„sac,€and€then€traveled€across€Lot€5€at€a€passable€location€to€reach€TY€Farmingððs€property.€ÏAlthough€he€believed€that€he€was€trespassing€on€Belewððs€property,€Tom€Yarbro€has€continued€toÏhave€uninterrupted€access€to€TY€Farmingððs€property€in€this€manner.ÌÌà àIn€April€1993,€TY€Farming€filed€this€lawsuit€against€the€County€and€Belew.× ƒ# ××  ×€€In€itsÏamended€complaint,€TY€Farming€alleged€that€it€had€suffered€damages€as€a€result€of€the€DefendantsððÏð ðunauthorized,€illegal€and€wrongful€closing€and€blocking€of€a€long€existing€county€publicÏroadway.ðð€€On€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€judgments€rejecting€its€claims,€TY€Farming€presentsÏthe€following€issues€for€review:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€ruling€that€there€was€aÏpreponderance€of€evidence€to€support€the€holding€that€the€subjectÏroad€had€been€abandoned€by€the€County€and€the€general€public,Ïthereby€refusing€to€declare€the€road€to€be€an€existing€county€publicÏroadway.ÌÌà8 àà àII.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€holding€that€there€wasÏno€obligation€or€responsibility€on€the€County€to€maintain€the€road.ÌÌà8 àà àIII.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€[TYÏFarming]€had€never€been€deprived€of€access€to€its€property€as€aÏresult€of€the€acceptance€and€approval€by€the€County€of€[Belewððs]ÏBluff€View€Subdivision€Plat€in€1992.ÌÌà8 àà àIV.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€holding€[TY€Farming]Ïcould€not€recover€damages€from€the€County€thereby€dismissing€theÏCounty€from€the€action€without€a€hearing€on€damages.ÌÌà8 àà àV.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€holding€[TY€Farming]Ïhad€access€to€its€property€across€other€lands€of€Defendant,€Belew.ÌÌà8 àà àVI.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€establishing€the€widthÏand€the€location€of€the€thirty€(30)€foot€easement€across€DefendantÏBelewððs€lands,€considering€existing€county€regulations.ÌÌà8 àà àVII.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€holding€[TY€Farming]Ïsuffered€no€damages€as€a€result€of€Defendant€Belewððs€actions.€€ÌÌÌÓÓÌòòò òà@ àII.€€Abandonment€of€the€Roadó óóóÌÌà àWe€first€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÍfinding€that€the€subject€road€had€been€abandoned.€€This€court€affirmed€a€finding€of€abandonmentÏunder€similar€circumstances€in€ò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€1994€WL€12617€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€whereinÏwe€stated€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àTennessee€courts€have€held€that€evidence€of€mere€nonuse€alone€doesÏnot€establish€abandonment,€ò òòòJacoway€v.€Palmeró óóó,€753€S.W.2dÏ675,€677„78€(Tenn.€App.€1987),€nor€will€a€city€or€countyððs€failureÏto€maintain€a€public€road€when€it€is€being€used€by€the€public.€Ïò òòòCartwright€v.€Belló óóó,€418€S.W.2d€463,€469„70€(Tenn.€App.Ï1967).€€There€must€be€a€positive€showing€of€an€intention€toÏabandon.€€ò òòòJacowayó óóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€679.€€[Footnote€omitted].€€TheÏtime€of€nonuse€is€of€no€importance€except€as€indicative€of€intent.€Ïò òòòId.ó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€1994€WL€12617,€at€*3.€€Further,€ð ð[t]he€abandonment€of€a€public€road€mustÏbe€established€by€clear€and€unequivocal€evidence€of€decisive€and€conclusive€acts.ðð€€ò òòòCockroft€v.ÏClaunchó óóó,€1992€WL€69621,€at€*4€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€we€examined€evidence€of€several€factors,€including€use€ofÏthe€road€by€the€public,€the€condition€of€the€road,€maintenance€of€the€road€by€the€county€or€by€theÏparties,€and€any€activity€inconsistent€with€the€use€of€the€property€as€a€public€road.€€ò òòòFarr€v.ÏPentecostó óóó,€1994€WL€12617,€at€*3.€€In€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€abandonment,€weÏreasoned:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€the€instant€case,...€there€is€clear€and€unequivocal€evidence€thatÏJackson€Avenue€has€not€been€used€as€a€public€road€for€many€yearsÏand€has€been€in€no€condition€to€be€used€as€such,€that€the€county€hasÏnever€maintained€the€road,€that€the€parties€do€not€maintain€it€as€aÏÔ&  Ôroad,€and€that€activity€inconsistent€with€the€use€of€the€property€as€aÏpublic€road€has€occurred€on€the€property€for€many€years.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€1994€WL€12617,€at€*3.Ô'  ÔÌÌà àAs€in€ò òòòFarr€v.€Pentecostó óóó,€we€conclude€that€the€clear€and€unequivocal€evidence€inÍthis€case€establishes€that€the€subject€road€had€been€abandoned.€€The€evidence€was€undisputed€thatÏall€residents€living€along€the€road€had€left€by€the€year€1950€and€that€the€public€ceased€using€theÏroad€around€that€time.€€The€Countyððs€maintenance€of€the€road€since€the€1950's€was€minimal;€and,Ïwith€the€exception€of€the€portion€of€the€road€leading€to€the€gravel€pit,€the€County€had€notÏperformed€any€maintenance€on€the€road€in€at€least€twenty€years.€€When€the€County€improved€theÏportion€of€the€road€leading€to€the€gravel€pit,€the€County€placed€a€cable€across€the€road€to€preventÏmembers€of€the€public€from€using€the€road,€although€the€County€permitted€adjoining€landowners€toÏcontinue€using€the€road.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€The€Countyððs€official€road€map,€created€in€the€early€1980's,€did€notÏinclude€the€subject€road.€€When€Tom€Yarbro€requested€the€County€to€maintain€the€road,€the€roadÏwas€a€muddy€unimproved€track€which€was€impassable€in€some€places€except€by€foot€or€four„wheelÏdrive€vehicle.€€In€light€of€this€evidence,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€road€had€beenÏabandoned€and,€thus,€was€no€longer€a€public€road.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Consistent€with€our€holding,€we€likewiseÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€County€has€no€obligation€to€maintain€the€road.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏò òòòTempleton€v.€Sumner€Countyó óóó,€1992€WL€207763,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(noting€thatÏstatute€requires€county€to€maintain€only€public€roads€and€bridges,€citing€T.C.A.€ðð54„8„102Ï(1988)).ÌÌà àòòò òà@ àIII.€€The€Easement€Across€Belewððs€Propertyó óóóÌÌà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€TY€Farmingððs€easement€for€ingress€and€egress€to€andÏfrom€its€property€was€along€Cane€Creek€Lane€to€the€cul„de„sac.€€From€the€cul„de„sac,€the€trial€courtÍawarded€TY€Farming€a€thirty„foot€easement€running€through€another€portion€of€Lot5€of€BluffÏView€Subdivision€at€a€passable€location.× ƒ& ××  ×€€On€appeal,€TY€Farming€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€establishing€the€width€of€its€vehicular€easement€at€only€thirty€feet€because€such€a€rulingÏprecludes€any€future€development€of€TY€Farmingððs€property.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€TYÏFarming€points€to€Dyer€Countyððs€subdivision€regulations,€which€require€residential€streets,€as€wellÏas€vehicular€easements€serving€more€than€one€lot,€to€be€at€least€fifty€feet€wide.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Dyer€County,ÏTenn.,€Subdivision€Regs.€art.€IV€(1992).€€With€only€a€thirty„foot€easement,€TY€Farming€asserts,€itÏwill€be€unable€to€subdivide€or€further€develop€its€property.€€We€believe€TY€Farmingððs€contentionÏon€this€point€to€be€without€merit€because,€if€this€court€were€to€accept€TY€Farmingððs€position€andÏgrant€the€relief€requested,€this€court€in€effect€would€be€awarding€TY€Farming€a€greater€right€ofÏaccess€than€it€had€previous€to€Belewððs€development€of€the€subdivision.ÌÌà àThe€law€is€clear€that,€even€after€a€public€road€is€abandoned,€the€abutting€landownersÏcontinue€to€have€a€private€easement€of€access€to€their€premises€over€the€old€road.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòKnierimÏv.€Leatherwoodó óóó,€542€S.W.2d€806,€810€(Tenn.€1976);€ò òòòCartwright€v.€Belló óóó,€418€S.W.2d€463,Ï470„71€(Tenn.€App.€1967);€ò òòòPaschall€v.€Valentineó óóó,€321€S.W.2d€568,€570€(Tenn.€App.€1958);Ïò òòòaccordó óóó€ò òòòBuckingham€v.€Thomasó óóó,€1996€WL€20527,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€ò òòòMcClure€v.ÏHurdleó óóó,€1993€WL€151342,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€The€landownerððs€easement,€however,€isÏlimited€to€such€streets€or€ways€as€are€necessary€to€the€landownerððs€ingress€or€egress.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏò òòòKnierem€v.€Leatherwoodó óóó,€542€S.W.2d€at€811;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòMason€v.€Stateó óóó,€656€P.2d€465,Ï469€(Utah€1982)€(concluding€that€abutting€property€ownerððs€right€to€preserve€status€quo€entitlesÏowner€to€easement€over€abandoned€public€road€only€where€and€to€extent€necessary€for€ingress€andÏegress€to€and€from€property);€39€Am.€Jur.€2d€ò òòòHighways,€Streets,€and€Bridgesó óóó€ðð€185€(1968)Ï(indicating€that€private€easements€of€access€which€survive€abandonment€of€public€road€ð ðare€onlyÍsuch€as€are€required€for€reasonable€means€of€ingress€and€egressðð).ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€authorities,€after€the€subject€road€in€this€case€wasÏabandoned,€TY€Farming€still€had€a€private€easement€of€access€to€its€premises€over€the€old€road.€ÏThis€private€right€survived€Belewððs€later€recordation€of€the€plat€for€Bluff€View€Subdivision,€evenÏif,€as€TY€Farming€urges,€approval€and€recordation€of€the€plat€effectively€closed€the€road.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏò òòòCartwright€v.€Belló óóó,€418€S.W.2d€463,€470€(Tenn.€App.€1967)€(noting€that€closing€of€countyÏroad€could€not€affect€private€rights€of€abutting€landowners€to€easements€of€access).€€Contrary€toÏTY€Farmingððs€contention€on€appeal,€however,€this€right€did€not€entitle€TY€Farming€to€an€easementÏof€greater€access€than€TY€Farming€had€before€Belewððs€recordation€of€the€subdivision€plat.ÌÌà àAs€the€trial€court€found,€the€subject€road€was€abandoned€well€before€BelewððsÏdevelopment€of€Bluff€View€Subdivision.€€In€1991,€before€the€subdivision€plat€was€approved€andÏrecorded,€TY€Farming€had€an€easement€of€access€in€the€abandoned€road.€€TY€Farmingððs€surveyorÏtestified€that,€at€that€time,€the€old€road€bed€which€TY€Farming€was€using€to€access€its€property€wasÏat€most€fifteen€feet€in€width.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€establishingÏthirty€feet€as€the€width€for€TY€Farmingððs€easement€of€access.€€TY€Farming€has€cited€no€authorityÏfor€the€proposition€that,€in€recording€his€subdivision€plat,€Belew€was€required€to€provide€TYÏFarming€with€any€greater€right€of€access€than€TY€Farming€had€previously.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIV.€€TY€Farmingððs€Claims€for€Damagesó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àFinally,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€TY€Farmingððs€claims€for€damagesÏagainst€ÌÌÌÌthe€County€and€Belew.€€Specifically,€TY€Farming€claimed€$43,750€in€damages€for€a€lost€gravelÏsale€Ìand€$37,000€in€nuisance€damages€on€the€ground€that€the€Defendants€effectively€blocked€TYÏFarmingððs€access€to€its€property.× ƒ' ××  ×€€The€trial€court€denied€TY€Farmingððs€claims€for€damages€basedÏon€the€courtððs€finding€that€TY€Farming€had€never€been€deprived€of€access€to€its€property€and,€inÏfact,€had€enjoyed€continuous€access€across€another€portion€of€Lot€5.€€We€conclude€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€such€a€finding.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€the€evidence€was€undisputed€that€TY€Farmingððs€owner€had€enjoyedÏcontinuous,€uninterrupted€access€to€the€property€by€traveling€down€Cane€Creek€Lane€and€crossingÏLot€5€at€a€more€passable€location€than€that€shown€on€the€subdivision€plat.€€Tom€Yarbro€testifiedÏthat,€after€development€of€the€subdivision,€he€was€able€to€access€TY€Farmingððs€property€in€thisÏmanner€without€experiencing€any€problems.€€The€Defendants€have€never€attempted€to€interfere€withÏYarbroððs€access€to€the€property.€€Although€Yarbro€feared€that€he€was€trespassing,€he€never€wasÏstopped€for€trespassing,€and€he€never€was€warned€that€he€was€trespassing.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€TY€Farmingððs€claims€forÏdamages€against€the€Defendants€based€on€any€interference€with€TY€Farmingððs€use€of€the€old€road.€Ïò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòMason€v.€Stateó óóó,€656€P.2d€465,€469€(Utah€1982)€(noting€that€abutting€property€ownerÏcannot€recover€damages€for€deprivation€of€access€to€public€road€ð ðso€long€as€there€is€someÏalternative€means€of€access€to€his€property€that€is€ððadequate€and€reasonableðð).ÌÌà@ àòòò òV.€€Conclusionó óóóÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€judgments€denying€TY€Farmingððs€claims€against€the€County€and€ÌBelew€are€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€TY€Farming,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)