ÿWPC/ …# VUNa %¯ 04µ 0³ébœ w@¤ 4ä ø 0D "K jm N× ^ Ù å mç 0Jþ 0TH 0^œ 0hú 0rbNÔ 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh BÝ 0dúU >^B)œ D3ÅDCø AM; 0@ˆU*È.ò v~9vÓ· AOŠÆÙ 0DŸ D/ã B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó(c(2‹u$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÞ“X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ë Eì ceí î Dï ð ñ ò Uó Ó€ý ¥Hœ$-D3|xý (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóórelitigateBradley v. McLeod - opinion Î  '  0 .   f ø$ˆ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌAugust€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€contains€James€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ôððs€affidavit€referring€to€the€quitclaim€deed€and€statingÏthat€a€copy€of€the€deed€is€attached€to€the€affidavit.€€The€copy€is€not€attached€to€the€affidavit,€and€weÏhave€been€unable€to€locate€one€anywhere€else€in€the€record.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ „ ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ô_ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€¶º¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€(„Ôò òÞ ÞÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÔ€(¼ÔÌÙ€€ÙœßR€,/+A1-j|2ÿ<` ç `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌDANIEL€SCOTT€BRADLEY,à àà àà à)Ìet€ux€LINDA€BRADLEY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€23111Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGENEVA€LYNN€Ô_ÔMcCORDÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcLEODÔ_Ô,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìet€Ô_ÔvirÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRODRICKÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcLEODÔ_Ô,à àà àà à)à à01A01„9702„CH„00062Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àFOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs/Appelleesóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendants/Appellantsóó:ÌÌM.T.€Taylor,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àà àE.€Covington€Johnston,€Jr.ÌFranklin,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€(„Ôò òà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÔ€(¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇÓ€ÓÔ€(„Ôò òòòà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌóóó óÔ€(¼Ôà àThis€case€involves€a€dispute€between€two€neighbors€in€the€FairviewÏcommunity€of€Williamson€County€concerning€the€use€of€a€gravel€driveway.€ÏThree€years€after€purchasing€a€tract€of€land€on€which€portions€of€the€drivewayÏwere€located,€the€property€owners€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€forÏWilliamson€County€to€quiet€title€to€the€portions€of€the€driveway€they€believed€toÏbe€on€their€property.€€Their€neighbors€responded€that€the€driveway€was€theirÏonly€access€to€a€pubic€road€and€that€they€had€acquired€a€right€to€use€the€drivewayÏby€adverse€possession.€€After€the€trial€court€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€uncontestedÏmotion€for€summary€judgment,€the€defendants€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04Ïmotion€asserting€that€they€had€an€ð ðeasement€of€presumptionðð€to€use€the€driveway.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€the€post„judgment€motion€on€the€ground€that€the€newÏdefense€had€not€been€timely€raised.€€On€this€appeal,€the€losing€property€ownersÏtake€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€summary€judgment€and€toÏdeny€their€post„judgment€motion.€€We€affirm€the€summary€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àAgnes€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€lived€on€a€tract€of€land€adjoining€Brush€Creek€Road€inÏFairview.€€She€gained€access€to€the€road€from€her€house€using€a€gravel€driveway.€ÏIn€September€1988,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€conveyed€two€acres€of€her€property€to€Paul€andÏTeresa€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô,€her€son€and€daughter„in„law.€€Even€though€the€conveyedÏproperty€contained€portions€of€her€gravel€driveway,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€did€notÏexpressly€reserve€an€easement€for€the€driveway€in€the€deed.€€However,€sheÏcontinued€to€use€the€driveway€without€objection.ÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€died€in€1989,€her€two€sons€conveyed€their€interests€inÏher€property€to€their€sister,€Geneva€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ô.€€While€their€deed€isÏinexplicably€not€in€the€record,Ô_Ô× ƒ0 ××  ×Ô_Ô€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€quitclaim€deedÏprepared€by€the€two€brothers€recognized€an€ingress€or€egress€easement€for€theÏgravel€driveway€serving€the€house€and€the€property.€€Nevertheless,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_ÔÏcontinued€to€use€the€gravel€driveway€to€access€the€public€road€just€as€her€motherÏhad€done.ÌÌà àShortly€after€acquiring€the€property,€Paul€and€Teresa€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€used€it€asÏsecurity€on€a€promissory€note.€€They€defaulted€on€the€note€in€1991,€and€theÏcreditor€foreclosed€on€the€mortgage€and€sold€the€property€to€Jim€Walter€Homes,ÏInc.€€The€substitute€trusteeððs€deed€to€Jim€Walter€Homes€€contained€no€reference€toÏan€ingress€or€egress€easement€for€the€gravel€driveway€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ôððs€house.€€InÏFebruary€1992,€Daniel€and€Linda€Bradley€acquired€the€property€from€Jim€WalterÏHomes.€€Their€deed€ð!ð€consistent€with€the€preceding€deeds€ð!ð€does€not€mention€orÏrecognize€an€ingress€and€egress€easement€for€the€gravel€driveway€to€the€houseÏnow€owned€by€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ô.ÌÌà àFor€a€time€after€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€moved€onto€their€property,€both€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_ÔÏand€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€used€the€gravel€driveway€as€their€common€access€to€BrushÏCreek€Road.€€However,€differences€between€the€neighbors€eventually€erupted€intoÏan€open€dispute€over€the€use€of€the€driveway.€€In€January€1995,€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€filedÏsuit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€County€seeking€to€quiet€title€to€theÏportions€of€the€driveway€on€their€property.€€They€sought€a€declaration€that€theÏportions€of€the€driveway€on€their€property€belonged€to€them€and€an€injunctionÏpreventing€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€from€using€the€portions€of€the€driveway€on€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_ÔððÍproperty.€€The€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€responded€that€the€gravel€driveway€was€their€onlyÏmeans€of€access€to€Brush€Creek€Road€and€that€they€had€acquired€the€right€toÏcontinue€to€use€the€gravel€driveway€by€adverse€possession.ÌÌà àThe€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€filed€a€fully€supported€summary€judgment€motion€€assertingÏthat€they€were€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€because€the€undisputedÏfacts€showed€that€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€were€not€entitled€to€an€easement€of€necessity.€€TheÏÔ_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€filed€nothing€in€response€to€the€Bradleysðð€motion.€€Following€a€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€granted€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€after€findingÏthat€the€material€facts€were€not€disputed€and€that€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€were€not€entitledÏto€an€easement€over€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð€property.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€enteredÏa€judgment€ordering€title€to€the€disputed€property€quieted€in€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô,€givingÏthe€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€the€exclusive€right€to€possess€the€disputed€property,€and€enjoiningÏthe€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€and€their€heirs€and€assigns€from€coming€onto€the€property€for€anyÏpurpose.€Ìà àIn€September€1996,€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€ð ðor€inÏthe€alternative€to€set€asideðð€the€trial€courtððs€order.€€For€the€first€time,€they€arguedÏthat€they€had€an€ð ðeasement€of€presumptionðð€entitling€them€to€use€the€disputedÏportions€of€the€gravel€driveway.€€They€supported€the€motion€with€affidavits€fromÏPaul€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€and€his€brother€discussing€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ôððs€unwritten€intentionsÏconcerning€the€driveway€when€she€conveyed€the€property€to€Paul€and€TeresaÏÔ_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€in€1988.€€These€affidavits€also€stated€that€the€gravel€driveway€had€beenÏin€existence€for€more€than€twenty€years.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_ÔððÏpost„judgment€motion.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€had€failed€to€file€aÏresponse€contesting€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_ÔÏinformation€now€submitted€by€[the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô]€is€not€newly„discovered.€€It€simplyÏcomes€too€late.ðð€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àWe€turn€first€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï59.04€motion€because€the€outcome€of€this€issue€materially€affects€our€€scope€ofÏreview€of€the€decision€to€grant€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð€motion€for€summary€judgment.€ÏWhile€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€do€not€directly€challenge€the€denial€of€their€motion,€they€relyÏheavily€on€the€evidentiary€material€filed€with€the€motion.€€The€denial€of€theÏÔ_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€had€the€legal€effect€of€excluding€thisÏevidence€from€consideration.€€Thus,€if€we€affirm€the€denial€of€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_ÔððÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion,€we€will€not€consider€the€evidentiary€materialsÏattached€to€it€when€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà àSummary€judgment€proceedings€are€not€disfavored€procedural€shortcuts,Ïòòsee€Ô_ÔByrdÔ_Ô€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòMansfield€v.€ColonialÏFreight€Ô_ÔSysÔ_Ô.óó,€862€S.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1993),€but€rather€are€usefulÏproceedings€that€provide€an€expeditious€and€inexpensive€means€to€concludeÏlitigation€when€there€are€no€material€factual€disputes.€€òòSee€Alexander€v.€MemphisÏIndividual€Practice€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ôóó,€870€S.W.2d€278,€280€(Tenn.€1993);€òòFoley€v.€St.ÏThomas€Hosp.óó,€906€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€The€practicing€barÏhas€now€been€on€notice€for€more€than€two€decades€that€summary€judgmentÏmotions€should€not€be€taken€lightly.€€òòSee€Poling€v.€Ô_ÔGoinsÔ_Ôóó,€713€S.W.2d€305,€308Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòFowler€v.€Happy€Goodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€They€have€also€been€admonished€repeatedly€that€parties€facing€a€summaryÏjudgment€motion€cannot€rest€on€the€mere€allegations€or€denials€in€their€pleadingsÏbut€rather€must€respond€with€appropriate€evidentiary€materials€demonstratingÏthat€there€is€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€€òòSeeóó€œTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.06;›€òòFowler€v.ÍHappy€Goodman€Familyóó,€575€S.W.2d€at€498;€òòÔ_ÔDellingerÔ_Ô€v.€Pierceóó,€848€S.W.2dÏ654,€656€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àUnfortunately€not€all€lawyers€heed€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.06's€clear€warning.€ÏWith€increasing€frequency,€they€do€not€take€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏseriously€until€after€it€has€been€granted.€€Then,€relying€on€òòSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó,Ï688€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)€and€its€progeny,€they€file€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€59.04€motion€seeking€to€set€aside€the€summary€judgment€using€evidentiaryÏmaterials€that€should€have€been€submitted€to€the€trial€court€before€the€summaryÏjudgment€was€granted.€€In€some€instances,€these€lawyers€have€been€successful€inÏoverturning€a€previously€granted€summary€judgment,€òòsee€Ô_ÔRichlandÔ_Ô€County€Club,ÏInÔ_Ôc.€v.€CRCÔ_Ô€Equities,€Inc.óó,€832€S.W.2d€554,€557„58€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);ÏòòSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€433„34,€but€in€other€instances€they€have€not.€ÏòòSee€Ô_ÔMarrÔ_Ô€v.€Montgomery€Elevator€Co.óó,€922€S.W.2d€526,€528€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995).€ÌÌà àOftentimes,€lawyers€seeking€to€overturn€a€summary€judgment€after€it€hasÏbeen€granted€overlook€the€fact€that€the€trial€courts€may€deny€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï59.04€motion€seeking€to€introduce€new€evidence€if€there€is€no€particularizedÏshowing€of€due€diligence€or€of€the€reasons€why€the€new€evidence€could€not€haveÏbeen€discovered€and€presented€prior€to€the€initial€consideration€of€the€summaryÏjudgment€motion.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMarrÔ_Ô€v.€Montgomery€Elevator€Co.óó,€922€S.W.2d€at€528.€ÏWhile€the€panel€that€decided€òòSchaefer€v.€Larsenóó€expressed€some€inclination€toÏrelax€the€strict€requirements€associated€with€motions€for€new€trial€based€on€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence,€no€court€has€held€that€the€issues€of€diligence€and€availabilityÏcannot€or€should€not€be€considered€when€a€party€seeks€to€alter€or€amend€aÏsummary€judgment€using€new€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€purpose€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motions€is€to€prevent€unnecessaryÏappeals€by€providing€trial€courts€with€an€opportunity€to€correct€errors€before€aÏjudgment€becomes€final.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔRupeÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔDurbinÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDurcoÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€557€S.W.2d€742,€748Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds,€Ô_ÔCrosslynÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAlsupÔ_Ôóó,€594ÏS.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1980).€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motions€may€be€grantedÏ(1)€when€the€controlling€law€changes€before€a€judgment€becomes€final,€(2)€whenÏpreviously€unavailable€evidence€becomes€available,€or€(3)€when,€for€sui€generisÏreasons,€a€judgment€should€be€amended€to€correct€a€clear€error€of€law€or€toÏprevent€injustice.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHeltonÔ_Ô€v.€ACS€Groupóó,€964€F.€Supp.€1175,€1182€(E.D.ÏTenn.€1997)€(construing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(e)).€€They€should€not,€however,€beÏgranted€if€they€are€simply€seeking€to€Ô_ÔrelitigateÔ_Ô€matters€that€have€already€beenÏadjudicated.€€òòSee€Windsor€v.€A€Fed.€Executive€Agencyóó,€614€F.€Supp.€1255,€1264Ï(M.D.€Tenn.€1983)€(construing€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(e)).€€Thus,€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï59.04€motion€should€not€be€used€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment€if€itÏseeks€to€raise€new,€previously€untried€legal€theories,€to€present€new,€previouslyÏÔ_ÔunassertedÔ_Ô€legal€arguments,€or€to€introduce€new€evidence€that€could€have€beenÏadduced€and€presented€while€the€summary€judgment€motion€was€pending.€€òòSeeÏÔ_ÔHeltonÔ_Ô€v.€ACS€Groupóó,€964€F.€Supp.€at€1182;€òòÔ_ÔMcCorkleÔ_Ô€v.€Dyer€Countyóó,€No.Ï02A01„9701„CV„00020,€1998€WL€155437,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€6,€1998)Ï(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€ÌÌà àThe€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€contains€two€flaws.€€First,€itÏseeks€to€introduce€a€new€legal€defense€that€was€not€presented€to€the€trial€courtÏbefore€it€granted€the€summary€judgment.€€Second,€it€seeks€to€present€evidence€notÏintroduced€prior€to€the€original€summary€judgment€hearing.€€Both€Paul€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_ÔÏand€James€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€have€been€aware€of€this€evidence€since€1988,€and€thus€theÏÔ_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€have€not€demonstrated€even€the€minimal€diligence€needed€in€order€to€beÏentitled€to€relief€from€a€summary€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04.€ÍAccordingly,€the€trial€œcourt€did›€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€denied€theÏÔ_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€€As€a€consequence,€we€will€review€theÏpropriety€of€the€summary€judgment€without€considering€the€affidavits€submittedÏby€Paul€Ô_ÔÔ_Ôand€James€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àWe€turn€now€to€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€assertion€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏgranted€the€summary€judgment€because€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€have€not€demonstrated€thatÏthey€are€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€based€on€the€undisputed€facts.€ÏTheir€argument€must€be€confined€to€their€easement€of€necessity€and€adverseÏpossession€defenses€because€we€have€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€theirÏð ðeasement€of€presumptionðð€defense€came€too€late.€€Based€on€the€record€before€theÏtrial€court€at€the€time€of€the€summary€judgment€hearing,€we€have€concluded€thatÏthe€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ô€are€entitled€to€a€summary€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àSummary€judgments€enjoy€no€presumption€of€correctness€on€appeal.€€òòSeeÏNelson€v.€Martinóó,€958€S.W.2d€643,€646€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔTullahomaÔ_Ô€v.ÏBedford€Countyóó,€938€S.W.2d€408,€412€(Tenn.€1997).€€Accordingly,€reviewingÏcourts€must€make€a€fresh€determination€concerning€whether€the€requirements€ofÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€satisfied.€€òòSeeóó€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,Ï50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMason€v.€Ô_ÔSeatonÔ_Ôóó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472€(Tenn.€1997).€ÏSummary€judgments€are€appropriate€only€when€there€are€no€genuine€factualÏdisputes€with€regard€to€the€claim€or€defense€embodied€in€the€motion€and€when€theÏmoving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Í56.04;€òòÔ_ÔBainÔ_Ô€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòÔ_ÔCarvellÔ_Ô€v.€Bottomsóó,Ï900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àCourts€reviewing€summary€judgments€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobinson€v.€Ô_ÔOmerÔ_Ôóó,€952€S.W.2dÏ423,€426€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMike€v.€Po€Group,€Inc.óó,€937€S.W.2d€790,€792€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€Thus,€a€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€the€undisputedÏfacts€reasonably€support€one€conclusion€„„€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMcCarleyÔ_Ô€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960ÏS.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998);€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€ÌÌà àThe€party€seeking€the€summary€judgment€has€the€burden€of€satisfying€theÏcourt€that€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔShadrickÔ_ÔÏv.€Ô_ÔCokerÔ_Ôóó,€963€S.W.2d€726,€731€(Tenn.€1998);€òòÔ_ÔJenneÔ_Ô€v.€Snyder„Ô_ÔFalkinhamÔ_Ôóó,€967ÏS.W.2d€327,€331€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Once€a€moving€party€has€met€itsÏburden,€the€opposing€party€must€come€forward€with€specific€facts€creating€aÏmaterial,€triable€factual€dispute.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔBraswellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCarothersÔ_Ôóó,€863€S.W.2d€722,€728Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòMasters€v.€Ô_ÔRishtonÔ_Ôóó,€863€S.W.2d€702,€705€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1992).€€A€failure€by€the€opposing€party€to€respond€precludes€factual€disputes,€òòseeÏUnion€Serv.€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€Sloanóó,€œNo.€88„127„II,›€1988€WL€99722,€at€*2€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€Sept.€28,€1988)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed),€and€if€theÏmaterial€facts€are€left€undisputed,€the€trial€court€may€grant€a€judgment€if€the€law,Ïas€applied€to€the€undisputed€facts,€mandates€a€judgment€for€the€moving€party.€ÏòòSee€Parker€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.óó,€767€S.W.2d€412,€418€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àAn€easement€is€an€interest€in€property€that€confers€on€its€holder€anÏenforceable€€right€to€use€anotherððs€property€for€a€specific€purpose.€€òòSee€Brew€v.ÏVan€Ô_ÔDemanÔ_Ôóó,€53€Tenn.€(6€Ô_ÔHeiskÔ_Ô.)€433,€436€(1871);€òòClayton€v.€Wiseóó,€1€Tenn.€Civ.ÏApp.€(Higgins)€620,€638„39€(1910).€€Parties€may€create€an€easement€by€expressÏgrant€or€reservation€by€including€language€in€their€deed€reserving€for€certainÏidentified€parties€a€limited€right€to€use€some€or€all€of€the€land€conveyed.€€òòSeeÏLong€v.€Ô_ÔMayberryÔ_Ôóó,€96€Tenn.€378,€382,€36€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1040,€1041€(1896);€òòÔ_ÔReiderÔ_Ô€v.ÏÔ_ÔOrmeÔ_Ôóó,€17€Tenn.€App.€497,€500„01,€68€S.W.2d€960,€962€(1933).ÌÌà àEasements€may€also€be€created€by€implication,€prescription,€estoppel,€orÏeminent€domain.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔPevearÔ_Ô€v.€Huntóó,€924€S.W.2d€114,€115„16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1996).€€Easements€by€implication€are€not€favored€and€are€exceptions€to€theÏgeneral€rule€that€easements€must€be€created€either€by€an€express€writing€or€byÏprescription.€€òòSeeóó€òòCole€v.€Ô_ÔDychÔ_Ôóó,€535€S.W.2d€315,€318€(Tenn.€1976);€òòLively€v.ÏÔ_ÔNoeÔ_Ôóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€218,€222,€460€S.W.2d€852,€854€(1970).€€Unlike€expressÏeasements,€they€take€into€account€the€prior€use€made€of€conveyed€land.€€TheyÏordain€the€perpetuation€of€that€use€on€the€general€principle€that€property€isÏusually€passed€€along€with€its€burdens€and€that€the€parties,€as€evidenced€by€theirÏactions,€understood€that€their€property€was€thus€conveyed.€€òòSeeóó€Roger€A.ÏCunningham,€et€al.,€òòThe€Law€of€Propertyóó€ðððð€8.4€„€8.5€(1984);€2€òòAmerican€LawÏof€Propertyóó€ðððð€8.31„8.38€(1952).€€Courts€may€find€an€easement€by€implication€asÏa€matter€of€practical€necessity€when€refusing€to€recognize€such€an€easement€leavesÏa€tract€of€property€otherwise€inaccessible.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€54„14„101,€„Ï117€(1993);€òòÔ_ÔCiancioloÔ_Ô€v.€Chapmanóó,€49€Tenn.€App.€33,€41,€350€S.W.2d€80,€83Ï(1961).€ÌÌà àAn€easement€by€prescription€(or,€at€it€is€sometimes€called,€by€adverseÏpossession)€also€differs€from€an€express€easement€in€that€it€is€not€based€on€theÏlanguage€in€a€deed€but€rather€on€the€use€of€the€property.€€An€easement€byÏprescription€arises€when€a€person,€acting€under€an€adverse€claim€of€right,€makesÏuninterrupted,€open€and€visible€use€of€anotherððs€property€for€at€least€twenty€yearsÏwith€the€ownerððs€knowledge€and€acquiescence.€€òòLong€v.€Ô_ÔMayberryÔ_Ôóó,€96€Tenn.€atÏ382,€36€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€at€1041;€òòÔ_ÔPevearÔ_Ô€v.€Huntóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€116.ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àThe€undisputed€facts€before€the€trial€court€demonstrated€conclusively€thatÏMs.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€did€not€reserve€an€express€easement€for€the€gravel€driveway€whenÏshe€conveyed€a€portion€of€her€property€in€1988€to€her€son€and€daughter„in„law.€ÏHer€deed€neither€creates,€recognizes,€nor€reserves€any€right€to€continue€using€theÏconveyed€property€for€ingress€and€egress.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€correctlyÏconcluded€as€a€matter€of€law€that€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€have€no€easement€by€express€grantÏor€reservation€over€the€Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð€property.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€correctly€that€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€have€no€impliedÏeasement€by€necessity.€€Thomas€Whiteððs€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€affidavit€shows€that€theÏÔ_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€could€easily€make€another€driveway€wholly€on€their€own€land.€€In€Mr.ÏWhiteððs€words,€this€driveway€ð ðwould€be€as€good€and€convenient€as€the€allegedÏeasement€over€the€[Ô_ÔBradleysÔ_Ôðð]€land.ðð€€Such€was€the€case€in€òòAllison€v.€Allisonóó,€29ÏTenn.€App.€99,€104„05,€193€S.W.2d€476,€478€(1945).€€Just€as€we€declined€toÏimply€an€easement€of€necessity€€for€a€driveway€in€that€case,€we€see€no€basis€toÏimply€one€here€under€the€undisputed€facts.€€ÌÌà àWe€need€not€consider€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ôðð€implied€easement€argument€because€weÏhave€already€determined€that€they€asserted€this€theory€too€late.€€The€recordÏbefore€the€trial€court€contained€nothing€about€the€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€familyððs€unwrittenÏintentions.€€All€that€the€trial€court€had€were€the€first€and€successive€recordedÏdeeds€on€the€two„acre€tract€and€the€survey€evidence.€€Where€a€grantor€gives€aÏwarranty€deed€without€expressly€reserving€any€easement,€ð ðthere€can€be€noÏreservation€by€implication€unless€the€easement€is€strictly€one€of€absoluteÏnecessity.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔLaRueÔ_Ô€v.€Greene€County€Bankóó,€179€Tenn.€394,€406„07,€166€S.W.2dÏ1044,€1049€(1942).€€Based€on€the€undisputed€evidence€before€it,€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€declined€to€find€the€existence€of€an€implied€easement.€€Ìà àLikewise,€the€Ô_ÔMcLeodsÔ_Ô€have€no€easement€by€prescription€or€adverseÏpossession.€€Based€on€the€undisputed€facts,€neither€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€nor€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_ÔÏhave€used€the€driveway€openly€and€notoriously€against€the€owners€of€the€propertyÏfollowing€the€1988€conveyance.€€Prior€to€the€conveyance,€Ms.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€owned€theÏdriveway€and,€therefore€could€not€have€been€using€the€driveway€adversely€toÏherself.€€The€doctrine€of€prescriptive€easement€cannot€apply€when€there€is€noÏevidence€that€anyone€has€adversely€used€the€property€for€the€required€period€ofÏtime.€€òòSee€Town€of€Benton€v.€Peoples€Bankóó,€904€S.W.2d€598,€602€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).€€The€trial€court€was€impregnably€right€in€concluding€that€noÏeasement€by€prescription€exists€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€thisÏappeal€to€Geneva€Lynn€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ô€and€Roderick€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ô,€jointly€andÏseverally,€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€ÌÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€œJUDGE›