WPC ^3(5!-50-z f+|d|$89 7bDnۜ.\u#bxjzr}Cp}s.V/2@sy߲+(zRnk+~0`)7zW/k *xwWJ SrR0.[XlTt_+f[8NmS"ʛ (9{1jHDw{i{mC{GrI*M+ (HV )d˸q+|NNnJk)*ܧ ꆀ\?Zث3842T0>O ZAa֙4GyK:%^`U)DA(d NwCܞJPU?GvEqv SĒ\'41b#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m  l 0D2Nv*xEb 0 B 0 D3S D- 0K ASQ 0 0D A\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0y/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+00 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.wpt3|xU w Rj$      1    _Theotherplaintiffsappellees,MonteBoundsandwife,PamelaBounds,accordingtothecomplaint,have  contractedtopurchasetheappellees_Bozeman_sproperty,towhichtheeasementisattached.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    Rj$      2    _Theappellantapparentlyabandonedherdefenseofadversepossession.Inanyevent,shemakesnoissueon  thisappealregardingthisdefense.  Rj$      3    _Rule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppealsprovidesasfollows:  8  8`   ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm, 8 reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhena L formalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedby  memorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shall  notbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninanyunrelated H  case.- -(|G2j$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3G}$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G}$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8VqXXdd8  @ \INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\ #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsOctober17,2003 L XVqX #XXVq#MONTEBOUNDS,etal.v._ZELLA_Ԁ_CUPP_XVqX  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.1537063SharonBell,_Chancellor  6 FILEDNOVEMBER25,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200300692_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Theappelleesfiledsuitagainsttheappellant,allegingthattheappellees,LawrenceR._Bozeman_Ԁand x  wife,_Imogene_Ԁ_Bozeman_Ԁ( theappellees_Bozeman_),_  #  1      _Ԁowneda12footwideeasement_accross_Ԁthe d propertyoftheappellant.Theappellantfiledananswer,relyingupon theaffirmativedefenseof P abandonmentplusadversepossessionbythe[appellant].Followingaplenarytrial,thecourtbelow < foundthattheappellees_Bozeman_Ԁhadanexpresseasementacrossthepropertyoftheappellantand (x thatthey _ha[d_]nottakenactionofclearandunmistakablecharacterindicatinganabandonmentof d theeasement. #  2      ׀Theappellantcontendsonthisappealthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtofind P abandonmentoftheeasement.Sincethereisnotranscriptorstatementoftheevidenceintherecord < beforeus,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. (    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded   #XVq#XVqX.  CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand t D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined. ` JamesD.Hutchins,_Dandridge_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Zella_Ԁ_Cupp_. 8!  JohnM.Norris,StrawberryPlains,Tennessee,fortheappellees,MonteBoundsandwife,Pamela #`" Bounds,andLawrenceR._Bozeman_Ԁandwife,_Imogene_Ԁ_Bozeman_. #L#  @  !MEMORANDUMOPINION #XXVq #XVqXԈ %$!%   &"&z   Ineffect,theappellantsissueasksustoholdthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrial   courtsdeterminationthattheappellantfailedtoshowanabandonmentoftheeasement.SeeTenn.  R.App.P.13(d).Insupportofherposition,theappellantrefersinherbrieftothetestimonyofa  numberofwitnesseswhoapparentlyappearedbeforethetrialcourt.Withoutatranscriptor t statementoftheevidence,wecannotmakethispreponderanceoftheevidencejudgment.Aswe ` saidin _Sherrod_Ԁv._Wix_ ,849S.W.2d780(Tenn.Ct.App.1992), L    8 ` [_w]hen_Ԁatrialcourtdecidesacasewithoutajury,its[sic]findingsof $ t factarepresumedtobecorrectunlesstheevidenceintherecord  ` preponderatesagainstthem.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Thiscourt  L  cannotreviewthefactsdenovowithoutanappellaterecord  8  containingthefacts,andtherefore,wemustassumethattherecord, $  haditbeenpreserved,wouldhavecontainedsufficientevidenceto   supportthetrialcourtsfactualfindings. ` x` x  Id .at783.     PursuanttotheprovisionsofRule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppeals, #  3      ׀weaffirmthe \ judgmentofthetrialcourt.Costsonappealaretaxedto_Zella_Ԁ_Cupp_.Thiscaseisremandedtothe H trialcourtforenforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow, 4 allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.#XXVq#XVqX  p    `     h     _______________________________       `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE     `