’WPC #ķRnē€ź~ķ[{r‹„æ#[sĪ’@2Ā& µį~ö[`krŻīå–%ŸÅÓŠ\ić3 <Äąŗ±`”5ĀUE ń¼ Ŗįæā‚e‹Ś[U‚MS oøōč ¢Quošīw×¼ZDI@¬@Ž‚’k»čīÆy14•É`€éxz啃÷čolˆ2“’c¹ØŖy7³–/Īy%µ§ų’„®q°q“āh3÷+0Ķ·„4ÜB<”Gš‡łv®d,‰4ŗśVrfōõ׎“Æö/[ Ÿ86.5§c'ģ …ķįNśżZ-œ+;YÓØ‰6%±Tś_FÆ·Ų žwŲĆwq&…SB“tń:ŽżärĒņńł'ƒt4]æ+ż"ėķįéĪkw2ģz+\žo” ¢³-Ó Ö#ĪdŌōIɐlįŠāĪALé{īö=–āC`t4¢¬%s”Łž;é‘|vki ¾į;ўęęųŻŲNBw‡ˆėö 4.u „W 6ķ;LQĶī‚Xu ds0Ė™±Ė°cjÜĶłiQG.LŁw?¦…—™ūИØāöŃZķJ?°éÕy~{æWi>>§4A0!’^Ō€$rD6 m"CöĻš–W#ÉĀU N‹ %Ł 0:ß U N ^ g ws 4‰  ¬ m® bÅ ^Ķ Ķ Ķ Ķ Ķ 0D++++Eoo’qŠ 0ÓÓÓÓ Bp˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACČČ,,,,ČČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$””ŌUSUS.,Ō(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularz›A1Ļ E6hö0B013C13|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄ- ł- BERNADINEHardeman R.D.Brasfield P.J. W.S.McKinnieHatchieAventsdrivable A]ndt]hereEubanksWilbanksMcCammonLevandowskiRidingsPevearservient T]heAssnHollingsworth COAReider OrmeBlakemore S.W.Brickey I]ntenemantLamonsMathes"acknowledgementunrebuttedAvent F]orLaRue DychC]ourtsBlankenship suaspontew]henn]ecessity(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó ˆŻ ƒR‹k$ŻŌUSUS.,Ōą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō ņXXŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌTrial€Exhibit€5€is€a€map€of€the€properties€involved€in€this€lawsuit.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€š š[Ō_Ōi]tŌ_Ō€will€beŠ ° Šnecessary€to€have€copy€of€Exhibit€5€at€hand€in€order€to€understand€the€layout€of€the€property€.€.€.€.šš€€We€agree€thatŠ qĮ Šseeing€the€layout€of€the€various€tracts€of€land€in€Exhibit€5€is€helpful€to€an€understanding€of€this€case.€€Therefore,€weŠ 2‚ Šhave€included€a€map€of€the€properties€involved€as€š šExhibit€A.šš ĘŻ ƒR‹k$ŻŌUSUS.,Ōą  ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō ņXXŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€court€also€granted€the€plaintiffs€an€easement€by€prescription.(.G2‹k$¤¤Ż ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō ņXXŌ dŻ ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŌ‡XŃ×XXXŌŌ‡¼…é»XXŃ×ŌŃ€ ŃŃ8€uĪXXdéXXdé8ŃŃ  ŃŃ  Ńą@ņ ņ ģąŌ#†XŃ×X»¼…é\#ŌŌ‡īŽīXXŃ×ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@ņņ%ģąAT€JACKSONŌ#†XŃ×XīīŽ#ŌŌ‡¼…é»XXŃ×ԈŠ Ó# ŠÓ  ÓApril€20,€2004€SessionŠ öF ŠŌ#†XŃ×X»¼…éØ#ŌĢņ ņŌ‡¼…é»XXŃ×ŌDAVID€L.€BUCK€ņņandóó€CHRISTOPHER€L.€BUCK€Š ļ? Šņņv.€óóŠ  P ŠJAMES€W.€AVENT€ņņand€wifeóó,€BERNADINE€AVENT,Š  a Š€ņņandóó€TIMMY€AVENTŠ " r ŠŌ#†XŃ×X»¼…é;#Ōó óĢą@@½½ģąņ ņAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hardeman€CountyŠ l  Šą@@ųųģąNo.€12756€R.D.€€€€€Martha€Brasfield,€ChancellorŠ V  ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ć` Aߊ Ä  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€W2003„00934„COA„R3„CVńń€Ō_Ō„€Filed€ńńńńńńSeptember€ńńńńńńOctober€1,€2004ńńŌ_ŌŠ ½  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<` Aߊ ‘į Šó óĢÓ  ÓThis€is€an€action€to€establish€an€easement.€€The€plaintiffsšš€property€adjoins€the€northern€boundaryŠ ‰Ł Šof€the€defendantsšš€property.€€The€plaintiffsšš€property€is€landlocked.€€To€access€the€property,€theŠ rĀ Šplaintiffs€historically€used€an€old€logging€road€on€the€northeastern€corner€of€the€defendantsššŠ [« Šproperty.€€In€1998,€the€defendants€made€improvements€that€effectively€blocked€the€plaintiffsššŠ D” Špassage€over€the€old€logging€road.€€The€plaintiffs€filed€this€lawsuit€to€establish€an€easement€over€theŠ -} Šold€logging€road€and€to€enjoin€the€defendants€from€further€impeding€their€use€of€the€easement.€€AfterŠ f Ša€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€plaintiffs€had€established€prescriptive€easement€andŠ ’O Šan€implied€easement€over€the€defendantsšš€property.€€The€trial€court€directed€the€plaintiffsšš€expert,Š č8 Ša€surveyor,€to€establish€the€exact€property€lines€between€the€partiesšš€properties,€and€ordered€theŠ Ń! Šdefendants€to€restore€the€plaintiffsšš€property€to€its€original€state€according€to€those€boundaries.€€FromŠ ŗ  Šthat€order,€the€defendants€now€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€conclusion€that€the€plaintiffsŠ £ó Šestablished€a€prescriptive€easement€and€an€implied€easement,€and€reverse€in€part€and€remand€for€theŠ ŒÜ Štrial€court€to€allow€the€parties€an€opportunity€to€submit€further€evidence€on€the€exact€boundary€lineŠ u Å Šbetween€their€properties.€€Š ^!®  Š€€€€€€€€Š G"—! ŠÓ Óņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Š 0#€" ŠAffirmed€in€part,€Reversed€in€Ō_ŌpartŌ_Ō€and€Remandedó óŠ $j# ŠĢņņÓ  ÓHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóŠ ķ%=!% Šand€ņņDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Š Ö&&"& ŠĢT.€Holland€McKinnie,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€James€W.€Avent€and€wife,€BernadineŠ Ø(ų#( ŠAvent,€and€Timmy€Avent.Š ‘)į$) ŠĢH.€Morris€Denton,€Bolivar,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€David€L.€Buck€and€Christopher€L.€Buck.Š c+³&+ ŠĢÓz Óņ ņŠ  5-…(- ŠOPINIONŠ ° Šó óĢÓ  Óą  ąThis€lawsuit€involves€six€tracts€of€property€located€in€Hardeman€County,€Tennessee,€nearŠ ƒÓ Šthe€Hatchie€River.€€Originally,€the€six€tracts€constituted€one€piece€of€property.€€In€1933,€the€largeŠ l¼ Štract€was€divided€into€six€smaller€tracts.€€The€property€is€used€for€hunting,€farming€row€crops,€andŠ U„ Šharvesting€timber.€€Defendants/Appellants€James€W.€Avent€(š šAventšš)€and€his€wife,€BernadineŠ > Ž ŠAvent,€own€one€tract,€referred€to€herein€as€Tract€3.€€€Avent€and€Defendant/Appellant€Timmy€Avent,Š ' w Šthe€Aventsšš€son,€own€Tract€6,€which€is€not€involved€in€this€lawsuit.€€James,€Bernadine,€and€TimmyŠ  ` ŠAvent€will€be€referred€to€collectively€as€š šthe€Avents.šš€€Plaintiffs/Appellees€David€L.€Buck€(š šDavidšš)Š ł I Šand€his€son,€Christopher€L.€Buck€(š šChristopheršš)€(collectively,€š šthe€Bucksšš),€own€fourŠ ā 2  Šnoncontiguous€tracts€of€real€estate€š!š€Tracts€1,€2,€4,€and€5€š!š€adjoining€the€Aventsšš€property.€€TractŠ Ė   Š4€lies€on€the€northern€border€of€the€Aventsšš€Tract€3,€and€does€not€adjoin€any€of€the€other€tractsŠ “  Šowned€by€the€Bucks.€€Tract€5€lies€to€the€east€of€Tract€3,€and€does€not€adjoin€any€of€the€other€tractsŠ ķ  Šowned€by€the€Bucks.€€Tract€4€is€landlocked,€but€Tract€5€is€not.€€To€access€Tract€4,€the€Bucks€mustŠ †Ö  Štravel€to€the€northwest€corner€ofņ ņó ó€Tract€5,€and€then€use€an€old€logging€road€located€at€the€northeastŠ oæ  Šcorner€of€the€Aventsšš€Tract€3.€€The€old€logging€road€leads€to€and€continues€on€through€Tract€4.€€The€Š XØ  ŠBucksšš€right€to€use€of€the€old€logging€road€to€access€Tract€4€is€the€subject€of€this€lawsuit.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ A‘ ŠĢą  ąA€further€description€of€the€route€of€the€old€logging€road€is€helpful€to€an€understanding€ofŠ c Šthe€issues€in€this€case.€€The€road€begins€as€a€public€road€running€north€and€south€along€the€sharedŠ üL Šborder€of€the€Bucksšš€Tract€2€and€the€Aventsšš€Tract€6.€€At€some€point,€it€becomes€a€private€road€andŠ å5 Šmost,€if€not€all,€of€the€road€is€located€on€the€southeastern€border€of€the€Aventsšš€Tract€3.€€The€roadŠ Ī Šthen€heads€in€a€northeasterly€direction€until€it€comes€to€a€point€just€west€of€the€common€line€betweenŠ · Šthe€eastern€line€of€Tract€3€and€the€western€line€of€Tract€5,€and€is€approximately€450.5€feet€south€ofŠ  š Šthe€northwest€corner€of€lot€5.€€The€road€then€heads€north€just€west€of€the€common€line€to€the€veryŠ ‰Ł Štip€of€the€northwest€corner€of€Tract€5.€€At€this€point,€the€road€splits.€€On€one€side€of€the€split,€theŠ rĀ Šroad€turns€east€through€property€referred€to€as€š šthe€Story€tract,šš€owned€by€the€Avents,€toward€theŠ [« ŠHatchie€River.€€On€the€other€side€of€the€split,€the€road€veers€just€over€the€northeast€corner€of€TractŠ D” Š3€to€the€southeast€corner€of€Tract€4€and€on€through€Tract€4.€€The€part€of€the€road€on€Tract€3€thatŠ -} Šleads€to€Tract€4€is€the€portion€of€the€old€logging€road€that€is€in€dispute.€Š f ŠĢą  ąPrior€to€1998,€the€old€logging€road€was€flat€and€even€with€the€ground.€€In€1998,€the€AventsŠ č 8 Šmade€modifications€to€the€road€along€the€portion€of€it€that€turned€to€the€east€toward€the€HatchieŠ Ń!!  ŠRiver.€€As€part€of€the€modifications,€they€dug€a€ditch€along€the€west€side€of€the€road.€€This€causedŠ ŗ" ! Šthe€road€to€act€as€a€levee,€resulting€in€water€collecting€on€the€Bucksšš€property€rather€than€drain€offŠ £#ó" Šas€it€had€done€prior€to€installation€of€the€ditch.€€The€level€of€the€road€was€then€raised€approximatelyŠ Œ$Ü# Šfour€feet.€€The€raising€of€the€road€bed€combined€with€the€installation€of€the€ditch€made€it€such€thatŠ u%Å $ Šthe€road€could€not€be€crossed€by€vehicle.€€This€blocked€the€Bucksšš€use€of€the€old€logging€road€toŠ ^&®!% Šaccess€Tract€4€from€Tract€5.Š G'—"& Їą  ąOn€December€21,€1999,€the€Bucks€filed€the€instant€lawsuit,€seeking€to€enjoin€the€Avents€fromŠ ° Štaking€action€to€deny€them€access€to€Tract€4.€€The€Bucks€alleged€that€by€raising€the€road€bed€andŠ ™é Šinstalling€the€ditch,€the€Avents€in€essence€had€built€a€levee,€partly€on€the€Bucksšš€side€of€the€propertyŠ ‚Ņ Šline,€and€that€the€levee€prevented€the€Bucks€from€using€the€old€logging€road€on€the€Aventsšš€propertyŠ k» Što€access€the€Bucksšš€Tract€4.€€The€Bucks€claimed€that€the€blocking€of€the€old€roadway€violated€theirŠ T¤ Šš šright€by€prescription€to€use€said€roadway,šš€and€that€they€and€their€predecessors€in€title€has€used€theŠ =  Šroadway€š šfor€more€than€twenty€(20)€continuous€years.šš€€The€Bucks€also€sought€damages,€claimingŠ & v Šthat€the€Avents€used€topsoil€from€the€Bucksšš€property€to€construct€the€levee.€€The€Bucks€sought€toŠ  _ Šhave€their€property€restored€to€the€condition€it€was€in€prior€to€the€Avents€building€of€the€levee.€€InŠ ų H Šresponse,€the€Avents€denied€the€allegations€and€denied€that€the€Bucks€had€an€easement€or€wereŠ į 1  Šentitled€to€any€relief.Š Ź   Š€Ģą  ąOn€October€3,€2001,€the€matter€went€to€trial.€€James€Wiles€(š šWilesšš),€a€surveyor,€testifiedŠ œģ  Šon€behalf€of€the€Bucks.€€Wiles€explained€the€boundaries€of€the€tracts€of€land€involved€in€this€lawsuit,Š …Õ  Šoutlining€the€Bucksšš€and€the€Aventsšš€properties€and€showing€the€location€of€the€old€logging€road€inŠ n¾  Šquestion,€at€the€northeast€corner€of€Tract€3.€€He€stated€that€he€had€surveyed€the€same€property€inŠ W§  Š1977€and€again€in€1998.Š @ ŠĢą  ąAs€background,€Wiles€explained€that,€prior€to€1933,€when€the€land€was€subdivided,€it€wasŠ b Šowned€by€David€Buckššs€great„great„grandfather,€Joel€A.€Parker.€€As€the€Bucks€did€in€theirŠ ūK Šcomplaint,€Wiles€called€the€raised€road€and€the€ditch€a€levee,ņņņ ņó óóó€explaining€that€the€road€turned€eastŠ ä4 Štoward€the€river.€€He€said€that€some,€but€š šnot€a€whole€lot,šš€of€the€levee€was€on€the€Bucksšš€property,Š Ķ Šand€that€dirt€was€taken€from€the€Bucksšš€property€to€build€the€levee,€leaving€the€deep€ditch€on€its€westŠ ¶ Šside.€€Wiles€testified€that,€consequently,€€it€was€š šsimply€impossiblešš€to€cross€over€the€levee€to€accessŠ Ÿļ ŠTract€4€without€building€some€type€of€bridge.€€Wiles€maintained€that€he€was€not€aware€of€any€otherŠ ˆŲ Šway€to€access€the€Bucksšš€Tract€4€except€by€using€the€old€logging€road€over€the€Aventsšš€Tract€3.Š qĮ ŠĢą  ąDavid€Buck€also€testified€at€trial.€€He€explained€that€the€tracts€he€owned€had€previously€beenŠ C“ Šowned€by€his€grandfather,€Guy€Parker,€and€that€he€(Buck)€actually€lived€on€the€property€until€aboutŠ ,| Š1947,€when€he€was€five€years€old.€€He€said€that,€in€the€twenty€years€prior€to€the€trial,€he€had€madeŠ e Šfrequent€trips€to€the€property€š šexcept€for€the€last€six€years.šš€€Buck€submitted€photographs€to€showŠ žN Šthat€the€modified€portion€of€the€Aventsšš€road€was€too€high€and€the€surrounding€ditch€too€deep€forŠ ē 7 Šsomeone€to€drive€over€it.€€He€also€stated€that€this€š šleveešš€was€built€partially€on€his€property€with€dirtŠ Š!   Štaken€from€his€Tract€5.€€Buck€maintained€that,€contrary€to€assertions€by€James€Avent,€he€did€not€giveŠ ¹" ! ŠAvent€permission€to€dig€on€the€Bucksšš€land€to€build€up€the€road.€Š ¢#ņ" ŠĢą  ąBuck€also€testified€about€his€familyššs€use€of€the€old€logging€road.€€Buck€said€that€he€and€hisŠ t%Ä $ Šfamily€had€been€using€the€old€logging€road€to€access€Tract€4€š šas€long€as€it€has€been€there€.€.€.€[since]Š ]&­!% Ššš38,€back€in€the€šš30s€when€Mr.€Ray€surveyed€it.šš€€He€testified€that€in€the€1950s,€when€he€hunted€asŠ F'–"& Ša€young€boy€with€his€grandfather,€he€used€the€old€logging€road€to€keep€from€getting€lost.€€HeŠ /(#' Šexplained€that,€prior€to€1977,€vehicles€could€not€be€driven€on€the€road,€and€that€they€traversed€it€onŠ )h$( Šfoot€or€by€mule€to€access€Tract€4.€€In€1977,€he€said,€the€road€became€drivable.€€At€that€time,€BuckŠ *Q%) Šā āinherited€his€one„half€of€the€property€and€sold€timber€and€cleared€the€land.€€Buck€said€that,€duringŠ ź*:&* Šall€of€this€time,€they€used€the€road€without€a€problem€until€1998,€when€the€Avents€beganŠ ° Šconstructing€the€levee.€€Buck€testified:Š ™é Šā āĢą8  ąI€didnššt€ever€know€we€were€having€a€problem.€€I€started€seeing€the€levee€going€upŠ k» Šand€couldnššt€get€across.€€As€far€as€having€any€words€about€it€[with€Avent]€we€neverŠ T¤ Šdid.€€I€went€and€asked€[Avent]€about€getting€a€right„of„way€and€what€he€told€me€wasŠ =  Šthat€š šyeah,€go€ahead€but€you€stay€off€that€road€when€it€is€wet[.]šš€[A]nd€after€that€theŠ & v Šlevee€started€going€up.Š _Š Š  ŠĢBuck€later€clarified€that€Aventššs€comment€regarding€staying€off€the€wet€road€was€made€after€AventŠ į 1  Šbegan€building€the€levee.€€When€he€was€asked€whether€he€and€Avent€ever€actually€discussed€whetherŠ Ź   Šhe€could€use€the€roadway,€Buck€said,€š šNo,€sir,€I€just€always€took€it€for€granted€that€I€could€use€it€andŠ ³  Šnever€had€any€problem.šš€€On€cross„examination,€Buck€was€asked€whether€he€had€ever€requestedŠ œģ  Špermission€from€Avent€to€bring€š šlogging€equipment€and€such€as€thatšš€across€the€old€logging€roadŠ …Õ  Šleading€to€Tract€4.€€Buck€said€that€personally€he€did€not€ask€for€permission,€but€that€he€š šhad€a€timberŠ n¾  Šcruiser€who€took€care€of€that€part€of€itšš€by€clearing€it€up€with€Avent.€€Buck€conceded€that€š š[t]hereŠ W§  Šwas€no€doubt€between€[Avent€and€him]€that€the€road€belonged€to€[Avent].šš€€Buck€agreed€that€it€wasŠ @ ŠAventššs€road,€and€that€Avent€š šwas€giving€him€the€right€to€use€it.šš€€Buck€said€that€he€was€unawareŠ )y Šof€any€other€way€to€access€Tract€4,€and€that€he€has€been€blocked€from€accessing€Tract€4€since€theŠ b Šlevee€was€built.Š ūK ŠĢą  ąBuck€also€called€as€a€witness€Jimmy€Eubanks€(š šEubanksšš),€who€hunted€and€fished€withŠ Ķ ŠBuck€and€his€family€on€the€Bucksšš€property€between€1958€and€1965.€€Eubanks€testified€that€whenŠ ¶ Šhe€hunted€on€Tract€4,€he€and€the€others€walked€onto€the€property€over€the€old€logging€road€at€issue.€Š Ÿļ ŠWhen€asked€if€he€had€permission€to€do€so,€he€replied,€š šWell,€you€know€back€then€you€really€didnšštŠ ˆŲ Šhave€to€have€permission€back€then.€€Pretty€much€everybody€hunted€on€everybody.šš€€Harris€DavidŠ qĮ ŠClark€(š šClarkšš)€testified€on€Buckššs€behalf€as€well.€€Clark€said€that€he€worked€with€Buck€on€hisŠ ZŖ Šproperty€in€1995,€helping€him€trap€beavers€on€Tract€4.€€He€said€that€he€and€Buck€used€the€oldŠ C“ Šlogging€road€to€access€the€property€for€several€years€until€Avent€began€building€up€his€road.€€ClarkŠ ,| Šsaid€that,€in€1998,€Avent€began€building€the€levee€partly€on€the€Bucksšš€property.€€Clark€testified€that,Š e Šwhen€the€levee€was€built,€he€and€Buck€could€no€longer€use€the€old€logging€road,€and€that€Avent€saidŠ žN Šthat€they€could€not€cross€his€property.€€Clark€also€said€that€he€knew€of€no€other€way€to€access€TractŠ ē 7 Š4.Š Š!   Š€Ģą  ąJames€Avent€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€Avent€said€that€he€purchased€Tract€3€in€1975€orŠ ¢#ņ" Š1976.€€At€that€time,€Avent€was€aware€that€the€Bucks€and€their€friends€had€in€the€past€used€the€oldŠ ‹$Ū# Šlogging€road€to€access€Tract€4.€€Avent€recalled€when€Buck€was€selling€timber€off€of€Tract€4,€and€theŠ t%Ä $ Štimber€company€sought€permission€to€use€the€old€logging€road.€€Avent€said€that€he€would€not€allowŠ ]&­!% Šthe€bull€dozers€to€š štear€upšš€his€road,€and€told€the€timber€company€to€make€their€own€road€on€theŠ F'–"& ŠBucksšš€field.€€Eventually,€the€timber€company€paid€Avent€$2,000€for€use€of€the€road€to€access€TractŠ /(#' Š4.Š )h$( Šą  ąAvent€also€testified€about€his€construction€of€the€š šlevee.šš€€Avent€stated€that€in€approximatelyŠ *Q%) Š1998€he€began€building€up€his€road,€and€that€he€was€not€building€a€levee,€as€had€been€described€byŠ ź*:&* Šothers.€€Avent€explained€that€a€levee€is€higher€than€a€road€and€is€built€for€blocking€water.€€He€saidŠ Ó+#'+ Šthat€he€built€up€the€road€in€order€to€widen€it€and€keep€it€dry€so€that€it€would€be€more€useful€to€him.€Š ° ŠAvent€stated€that€he€may€have€used€š ša€little€bitšš€of€dirt€from€the€Bucksšš€property€to€build€up€theŠ ™é Šroad,€but€he€did€not€think€that€any€of€the€road€lay€on€the€Bucksšš€property.€€He€acknowledged€thatŠ ‚Ņ Šhe€had€put€a€ditch€on€the€side€of€the€road,€in€order€to€help€drain€water€off€the€field.€€He€conceded€thatŠ k» Šbuilding€up€the€road€made€it€difficult€for€the€Bucks€to€use€the€road€to€access€Tract€4.€€Avent€said€thatŠ T¤ Šhe€knew€that€the€Bucks€had€been€using€his€road,€and€that€they€used€the€road€with€his€permission.€Š =  ŠHe€said€he€had€no€problem€with€the€Bucks€using€the€road€š šexcept€when€they€would€go€down€whenŠ & v Šit€was€muddy€and€slide€off€and€get€stuck.šš€€Avent€claimed€that€he€allowed€the€Bucks€to€use€the€roadŠ  _ Šš šas€long€as€they€used€it€when€it€was€dry.šš€Š ų H Š€Ģą  ąAt€the€conclusion€of€trial,€the€trial€court€took€the€matter€under€advisement.€€On€NovemberŠ Ź   Š25,€2002,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€a€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Bucks.€€The€trial€courtŠ ³  Šheld€that€the€Bucks€had€proven€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€they€had€both€an€easement€byŠ œģ  Šimplication€and€an€easement€by€prescription€over€the€old€logging€road€on€the€northeast€corner€ofŠ …Õ  ŠTract€3.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€Avents€to€reconstruct€the€improved€road€to€allowŠ n¾  Šthe€Bucks€to€use€the€old€logging€road€to€gain€access€to€Tract€4.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€theŠ W§  ŠAvents€to€restore€the€Bucksšš€property€to€the€condition€it€was€in€prior€to€the€modifications€made€toŠ @ Šthe€road.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€Bucksšš€surveyor,€Wiles,€had€testified€that€part€of€the€modifiedŠ )y Šroad€was€on€the€Bucksšš€property,€but€that€he€had€not€determined€exactly€how€much.€€To€remedy€theŠ b Šproblem,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€Wiles€š šreturn€to€the€property€and€shoot€the€line€.€.€.€and€set€upŠ ūK Šstakes€setting€out€the€boundary€line€between€the€[Bucksšš]€and€the€[Aventsšš]€property.€€The€[Avents]Š ä4 Šwill€be€required€to€move€[their]€road€so€that€it€lies€entirely€on€[their]€property€and€does€not€encroachŠ Ķ Šupon€the€[Bucksšš]€property.šš€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€all€future€surveying€costs€be€paid€by€theŠ ¶ ŠAvents.€€The€Avents€filed€various€post„trial€motions,€which€were€denied.€€The€Avents€now€appeal.Š Ÿļ ŠĢą  ąOn€appeal,€the€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€the€Bucks€had€aŠ qĮ Šprescriptive€easement€and€an€implied€easement€over€their€property.€€The€Avents€first€allege€that€theŠ ZŖ Štrial€court€erred€in€determining€that€the€Bucks€had€established€a€š šclaim€of€rightšš€to€a€prescriptiveŠ C“ Šeasement€when€the€evidence€showed€that€the€Bucksšš€use€of€the€Aventsšš€property€was€permissive.€Š ,| ŠThey€also€argue€that€the€Bucks€did€not€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€the€other€elementsŠ e Šof€a€prescriptive€easement.€€Next,€the€Avents€maintain€that€the€elements€of€an€implied€easement€wereŠ žN Šnot€established€at€trial.€€Finally,€the€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€that€Wiles€actŠ ē 7 Šas€a€Special€Master€in€determining€for€the€court€the€boundary€line€between€the€partiesšš€properties,Š Š!   Šasserting€that€giving€Wilesšš€findings€the€force€of€law€is€impermissible.Š ¹" ! Š€€Š ¢#ņ" Šą  ąThe€trial€courtššs€decision€is€reviewed€ņņde€novoóó,€presuming€the€trial€courtššs€findings€of€fact€toŠ ‹$Ū# Šbe€correct,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€€ņņņ ņSee€Fowler€v.€Wilbanksó óóó,€48€S.W.3d€738,Š t%Ä $ Š740€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);ņņņ ņ€McCammon€v.€Meredithóóó ó,€830€S.W.2d€577,€580€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€Š ^&®!% ŠQuestions€of€law€are€reviewed€ņņde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ō#†XuĪXXXŃ×=#Ōņ ņņņSeeóóó ó€ņņņ ņState€v.Š H'˜"& ŠLevandowskió óóó,€955€S.W.2d€603,€604€(Tenn.€1997);€ņ ņņņRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.,óóó ó€914€S.W.2dŠ 2(‚#' Š79,€80€(Tenn.€1996).Ō‡XŃ×XXXuĪŌŠ )l$( ŠĢą  ąA€brief€discussion€of€the€law€of€easements€is€helpful€for€the€analysis€in€this€case.€€š šņ ņņņóóó óAnŠ ī*>&* Šeasement€is€a€right€an€owner€has€to€some€lawful€use€of€the€real€property€of€another.šš€€ņņņ ņŌ#†XuĪXXXŃ×°T#ŌPevear€v.Š ×+''+ ŠHuntó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€114,€115€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€Tennessee,€courts€have€recognized€manyŠ ° Šways€in€which€an€easement€can€be€created.€€In€ņņņ ņPevearó óóó,€the€court€recognized€six€such€ways:€(1)€byŠ šź Šexpress€grant,€(2)€by€reservation,€(3)€by€implication,€(4)€by€prescription,€(5)€by€estoppel,€and€(6)€byŠ „Ō Šeminent€domain.€€ņ ņņņId.ó óóó€at€115„16.€€Generally,€easements€fall€into€one€of€two€categories,€easements€inŠ m½ Šgross€or€easements€appurtenant.€€š šEasements€in€gross€are€simply€a€personal€interest€or€right€to€useŠ W§ Šthe€land€of€another€which€does€not€benefit€another€property,šš€and€such€easements€usually€involveŠ @  Šonly€one€parcel€of€land.€€ņ ņņņId.ó óóó€at€116.€€In€the€case€of€an€easement€appurtenant,€two€tracts€of€land€areŠ ) y Šinvolved,€and€the€owner€of€the€dominant€tracts€seeks€to€use€the€servient€tract€for€his€own€benefit.€Š  c ŠThis€case€involves€an€easement€appurtenant,€in€that€the€Bucks,€the€owners€of€the€dominant€tract,Š ü L Šseek€an€easement€over€the€Aventsšš€servient€tract€for€the€Bucksšš€benefit.Š å 5  ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€here€found€that€the€Bucksšš€easement€appurtenant€was€created€by€prescriptionŠ ·  Šand€also€by€implication.€€We€shall€first€discuss€the€easement€by€prescription,€then€the€easement€byŠ  š  Šimplication.Š ‰Ł  Š€€Ō‡XŃ×XXXuĪŌŠ rĀ  Šą  ąIn€order€to€establish€a€prescriptive€easement,€or€an€easement€by€prescription,€a€plaintiff€mustŠ [«  Šshow€the€following:€Š D” Š€€€€€€€Š -} ŠŌ#†XuĪXXXŃ×ė[#Ōą8  ą[T]he€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€property€must€be€adverse,€under€a€claim€of€right,Š f Šcontinuous,€uninterrupted,€open,€visible,€exclusive,€with€the€knowledge€andŠ ’O Šacquiescence€of€the€owner€of€the€servient€tenement,€and€must€continue€for€the€fullŠ č8 Šprescriptive€period.€.€.€.€€€In€Tennessee€the€prescriptive€period€is€20€years.€ŠŃ!Š Š  ŠĢņņņ ņId.ó óóó€€Thus,€a€prescriptive€easement€arises€when€a€person€acts€under€an€adverse€claim€of€right€in€usingŠ £ó Šthe€property€of€another€for€the€full€twenty€(20)€year€period€with€the€ownerššs€š šknowledge€andŠ Ż Šacquiescence.šš€€ņ ņņņSee€Laurel€Valley€Prop.€Owners€Assššn€v.€Hollingsworthóóó ó,€No.€E2003„01936„COA„Š vĘ ŠR3„CV,€2004€WL€1459404,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€29,€2004).€€The€elements€required€to€showŠ `° Šan€easement€by€prescription€are€š šsubstantially€the€same€in€quality€and€characteristics€as€the€adverseŠ I™ Špossession€which€will€give€title€to€real€estate.šš€€ņ ņņņHouse€v.€Closeó óóó,€346€S.W.2d€445,€448„49€(Tenn.€Ct.Š 2‚ ŠApp.€1961).Š l ŠĢą  ąIf€the€owner€of€the€dominant€tract€enjoys€the€use€of€the€servient€tract€with€theņņ€permissionóó€ofŠ ī > Šthe€owners€of€the€servient€tract,€then€the€use€is€not€under€an€adverse€claim€of€right.€€The€use€is€thenŠ ×!'  Šcharacterized€as€permissive,€and€cannot€be€the€basis€of€an€easement€by€prescription.€€š šAn€inceptionŠ Ą"! Šof€the€right€in€mere€permission€stamps€the€character€of€the€use€as€permissive,šš€and€š šunless€someŠ ©#ł" Šdistinct€and€positive€assertion€of€a€right€hostile€to€the€owner€of€the€servient€estate€appears,€the€useŠ ’$ā# Šcannot€ripen€into€an€easement€by€prescription,€no€matter€how€long€the€permission€may€continue.šš€Š {%Ė $ Šņņņ ņReider€v.€Ormeó óóó,€68€S.W.2d€960,€962€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1933).€€The€burden€is€on€the€party€seeking€theŠ d&“!% Šprescriptive€easement€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€all€of€the€elements€of€theŠ N'ž"& Šeasement.€€ņ ņņņBlakemore€v.€Matthewsó óóó,€285€S.W.€567,€567„68€(Tenn.€1926);€ņ ņņņStone€v.€Brickeyó óóó,€70Š 7(‡#' ŠS.W.3d€82,€86€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).Š !)q$( Š€€€Š  *Z%) Šą  ąThe€Avents€argue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€used€the€wrong€legal€standard€in€concludingŠ ó*C&* Šthat€the€Bucks€demonstrated€an€adverse€claim€of€right€to€the€prescriptive€easement.€€The€AventsŠ Ü+,'+ Šclaim€that€the€standard€used€by€the€trial€court€is€too€narrow€to€give€proper€meaning€to€the€š šadverseŠ ° Šclaim€of€rightšš€requirement.€€They€contend€that€a€legal€presumption€arises€that€the€use€is€permissive,Š ™é Šnot€adverse.€€ņ ņņņBlakemoreó óóó,€285€S.W.€at€567„68.€€The€evidence€submitted€at€trial,€the€Avents€argue,Š ‚Ņ Šdid€not€overcome€the€legal€presumption€that€the€Bucksšš€use€of€Tract€3€was€permissive,€rather€thanŠ l¼ Šadverse.Š U„ Š€€Š > Ž Šą  ąIn€analyzing€the€Bucksšš€adverse€claim€of€right€to€a€prescriptive€easement,€the€trial€courtŠ ' w Šstated€that€š š€ššpermissionšš€is€not€the€equivalent€to€ššknowledge€and€acquiescencešš€coupled€with€theŠ  ` Šfailure€to€object€to€the€use€of€the€easement.šš€€Quoting€from€ņņņ ņHouse€v.€Closeó óóó,€ņņņ ņsupraó óóó,€the€trial€courtŠ ł I Šnoted:Š ć 3  ŠĢą8  ą[I]n€discussing€the€use€that€is€adverse,€it€is€stated€that€to€be€adverse,€the€use€must€beŠ µ  Šunder€a€claim€of€right€inconsistent€with€or€contrary€to€the€interest€of€the€owner€andŠ žī  Šof€such€a€character€that€it€is€difficult€or€impossible€to€account€for€it€except€on€theŠ ‡×  Špresumption€of€a€grant;€or€use€under€a€claim€of€right€known€to€the€owner€of€aŠ pĄ  Šservient€tenement;€or€use€whenever€desired€without€license,€or€permission€asked,€orŠ Y©  Šobjection€made€such€as€the€owner€of€an€easement€would€make€of€it,€disregardingŠ B’ Šentirely€the€claims€of€the€owner€of€the€land.Š+{Š Š  Š€€€€€€€€€€€Š d Šņņņ ņHouseó óóó,€346€S.W.2d€at€448.€€The€trial€court€recognized€that€the€term€š šwith€knowledge€andŠ żM Šacquiescence€of€the€owneršš€appears€to€conflict€with€š šadverse€usešš€versus€š špermissive€use.šš€€TheŠ ē7 Štrial€court€then€noted€that€if€permission€were€simply€š šknowledge€and€acquiescencešš€coupled€withŠ Š  Šthe€failure€to€object,€then€š šthe€holder€of€the€legal€title€could€always€defeat€an€adverse€claimant€byŠ ¹  Šmerely€showing€that€he€had€never€objected€to€the€use€of€his€property.ššņņņ ņ€€Lamons€v.€Mathesó óóó,€232Š ¢ņ ŠS.W.2d€558,€553€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1950).€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€correctly€stated€the€standardŠ ŒÜ Šfor€an€adverse€claim€of€right€to€a€prescriptive€easement.Š uÅ ŠĢą  ąThe€Avents€maintain€that€there€is€a€presumption€that€the€adverse€use€was€permissive,€and€thatŠ G— Šthe€Bucks€failed€to€overcome€this€presumption.€€The€presumption€of€permissive€use€was€discussedŠ 0€ Šin€ņ ņņņBlakemore€v.€Matthewsó óóó,€285€S.W.€567€(Tenn.€1926).€€In€ņ ņņņBlakemoreó óóó,€the€court€said€that€such€aŠ i Špresumption€arose€when€š špersons€travel€the€private€road€of€a€neighbor€ņņin€conjunction€with€suchŠ  S Šneighbor€and€other€persons€óó.€.€.€.šš€€ņ ņņņBlakemoreó óóó,€285€S.W.€at€567„68.€€In€the€instant€case,€there€is€noŠ ģ < Ševidence€that€the€Bucks€ever€traveled€the€old€logging€road€with€the€Avents.€€Therefore,€theŠ Ö!&  Špresumption€of€permissive€use€claimed€by€the€Avents€is€inapplicable€here.Š æ"! Š€ĢŠ  ‘$į# Šą  ąEven€if€the€trial€court€correctly€stated€the€standard€for€an€adverse€claim€of€right,€the€AventsŠ ° Šargue,€the€Bucks€did€not€sustain€their€burden€of€proving€that€they€used€the€old€logging€road€underŠ ™é Šan€adverse€claim€of€right.€€On€this€issue,€the€trial€court€held:€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢą8  ą[T]here€is€no€proof€that€the€[Bucks]€or€their€predecessors€in€title€asked€permissionŠ T¤ Što€use€the€road€from€the€[Avents]€or€that€the€[Aventsšš]€predecessors€in€title,€or€thatŠ =  Šthe€[Avents]€or€[their]€predecessors€in€title€gave€permission€to€the€[Bucks]€to€use€theŠ & v Šroad.€€Mr.€Buck€did€state€that€Mr.€Avent€was€š šnice€enoughšš€to€let€him€use€the€road,Š  _ Šbut€there€is€no€proof€that€the€[Bucks]€ever€asked€permission€.€.€.€€€[T]he€[Bucks]€usedŠ ų H Šthe€old€logging€road€whenever€they€wanted.€€€Šį 1 Š Š  ŠĢThus,€because€the€Bucks€used€the€land€whenever€they€wanted,€without€obtaining€permission€fromŠ ³  Šthe€Avents,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Bucks€had€demonstrated€an€adverse€claim€of€right.Š œģ  ŠĢą  ąThe€Avents€argue€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€shows€that€Buck€never€claimed€anyŠ n¾  Šlegal€entitlement€to€use€of€the€land.€€They€cite€to€the€following€colloquy:Š W§  ŠĢą8  ąą0` Š Š ąą  ą[Question]:€There€was€no€doubt€between€the€two€of€you€all€that€the€road€belongedŠ )y Što€[the€Avents]€at€that€time,€was€it?Šb` Š ` Š  Šą8  ą[Buck]:€That€is€correct.ŠūKŠ Š  Šą8  ą[Question]:€It€was€his€road?Šä4Š Š  Šą8  ą[Buck]:€It€was€his€property.ŠĶŠ Š  Šą8  ą[Question]:€And€he€was€giving€you€the€right€to€use€it,€is€that€right?жРР Šą8  ą[Buck]:€I€would€agree€with€that.ŠŸļŠ Š  Šą8  ą[Question]:€Okay.ŠˆŲŠ Š  Šą8  ąą0` Š Š ąą  ą[Buck]:€But€there€was€also€a€road€bed€through€there€before€he€bought€it€but€in€myŠ qĮ Šeyes€the€property€belonged€to€him€when€he€bought€it€[and]€he€had€the€say€soŠ ZŖ Šof€who€went€across€it.€€That€is€what€I€am€trying€to€do€here€today,€is€get€aŠ C“ Šlegal€right€to€go€some€way€to€it.€€€Š,|` Š ` Š  ŠĢBased€on€Buckššs€acknowledgment€that€he€owned€no€part€of€the€Aventsšš€property,€coupled€with€hisŠ žN Štestimony€that€Avent€was€š šnice€enoughšš€to€let€them€use€his€road,€the€Avents€argue€that€the€evidenceŠ ē 7 Šshows€that€the€Bucksšš€use€of€the€old€logging€road€was€permissive.Š Š!   ŠĢą  ąOf€course,€Buckššs€acknowledgement€that€the€old€logging€road€was€on€Aventššs€property€andŠ ¢#ņ" Šbelonged€to€Avent€is€not€contrary€to€Buckššs€claim€of€an€easement.€€Nevertheless,€as€pointed€out€byŠ ‹$Ū# Šthe€Avents,€portions€of€Buckššs€testimony,€taken€out€of€context,€could€be€read€to€indicate€that€theŠ t%Ä $ ŠAvents€had€given€the€Buckššs€š špermissionšš€to€use€the€old€logging€road€to€access€Tract€4.€€From€ourŠ ]&­!% Šreview€of€his€entire€testimony,€however,€it€is€clear€that€Buck€and€his€family€assumed€that€they€hadŠ F'–"& Ša€right€to€use€the€road,€and€that€Avent€had€never€disturbed€that€right,€i.e.,€he€did€not€object.€€€Indeed,Š /(#' ŠBuck€testified€that€he€and€his€family€and€friends€used€the€old€logging€road€for€years€withoutŠ )h$( Šanyoneššs€permission,€even€before€Avent€ever€purchased€the€property€in€the€mid€1970s.€€BuckŠ *Q%) Šasserted€that€he€and€his€family€and€friends€had€been€using€the€road€š šas€long€as€it€has€been€there,ššŠ ź*:&* Šsince€1933€when€the€property€was€divided,€and€that€he€used€it€in€the€1950s€when€he€hunted€with€hisŠ Ó+#'+ Šgrandfather.€€Moreover,€Buck€submitted€the€testimony€of€other€witnesses€in€support€of€this€assertion.€Š ° ŠBuckššs€friend,€Jimmy€Eubanks,€testified€that€he€and€others€used€the€old€logging€road€as€a€matter€ofŠ ™é Šcourse€in€the€late€1950s€and€early€1960s€to€gain€access€to€Tract€4,€albeit€on€foot€until€1977.€€All€ofŠ ‚Ņ Šthis€testimony€was€unrebutted.€€Moreover,€the€Bucks€use€of€the€road€continued€uninterrupted,Š k» Šwithout€first€seeking€permission€from€Avent€or€any€other€owner,€until€the€problems€arose€in€1998.€Š T¤ ŠAvent€admits€that€he€knew€the€Bucks€were€using€his€road,€but€claims€that€they€used€it€with€hisŠ =  Špermission.€€However,€Avent€failed€to€identify€a€time€prior€to€1998€when€he€discussed€it€with€theŠ & v ŠBucks€or€gave€them€permission€to€use€the€road.€€Avent€testified€that€he€objected€to€the€timberŠ  _ Šcompanyššs€request€€to€bring€large€equipment€over€his€road€in€1977.€€However,€he€acknowledged€thatŠ ų H Šthe€timber€company€cut€across€his€property€and€did€not€use€the€old€road€for€the€logging€project.ņ ņó ó€Š į 1  ŠThus,€the€incident€with€the€timber€company€does€not€undercut€the€trial€courtššs€finding.€€Under€theseŠ Ź   Šcircumstances,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€Buck€used€the€easement€under€an€adverseŠ ³  Šclaim€of€right,€with€the€knowledge€and€acquiescence€of€the€Avents.Š œģ  ŠĢą  ąThe€Avents€next€argue€that€the€Bucks€failed€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatŠ n¾  Šthey€enjoyed€the€use€of€the€old€logging€road€for€the€prescriptive€period€of€at€least€twentyŠ W§  Šconsecutive,€uninterrupted€years.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€twenty€year€prescriptive€period€hadŠ @ Šbeen€proven,€because€the€evidence€showed€that€the€Bucks€used€the€road€without€interruption€fromŠ )y Šthe€1950s€until€1998,€when€Aventššs€modification€to€the€road€blocked€the€Bucks€from€using€it.€Š b Š€Ģą  ąThe€Avents€allege€that€the€Bucks€cannot€claim€adverse€possession€prior€to€1977,€when€theŠ ä4 Štimber€company€asked€permission€to€cross€the€Aventsšš€property€to€haul€timber,€because€the€timberŠ Ķ Šcompanyššs€request€for€permission€is€inconsistent€with€the€Bucksšš€claim€of€adverse€use.€€The€AventsŠ ¶ Šassert€that€the€prescriptive€period€ended€no€later€than€1995.€€They€point€out€that€Buck€testified€thatŠ Ÿļ Šhe€had€some€timber€cut€from€Tract€5€in€1995€to€get€money€to€move€his€mother€into€a€nursing€home.€Š ˆŲ ŠAt€that€time,€Buck€said,€Avent€expressed€displeasure€to€Buck€and€the€timber€company€about€theŠ qĮ Šdamage€the€trucks€were€doing€to€the€road.€€Therefore,€the€Avents€apparently€argue€that€theŠ ZŖ Šprescriptive€period€was€from€1977€to€1995,€shorter€than€the€requisite€twenty€years.€Š C“ Š€Ģą  ąThe€evidence,€however,€clearly€showed€the€Bucksšš€uninterrupted€use€of€the€property€for€overŠ e Štwenty€years.€€Buck€offered€unrebutted€testimony€that€he€and€his€predecessors€had€been€using€theŠ žN Šroad€to€access€Tract€4€since€1933,€when€the€property€was€divided.€€Both€Buck€and€Eubanks€testifiedŠ ē 7 Šthat€they€used€the€road€throughout€the€1950s€and€1960s€when€they€were€hunting€or€otherwise€on€theŠ Š!   Šproperty.€€The€Bucks€used€the€property€to€access€Tract€4,€uninterrupted,€until€1998,€when€theŠ ¹" ! ŠAventsšš€modifications€to€the€road€interfered€with€their€use.€€Under€all€of€these€circumstances,€theŠ ¢#ņ" Ševidence€supports€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€the€easement€had€been€used€for€the€whole€twenty„yearŠ ‹$Ū# Šprescriptive€period.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€conclusion€that€the€Bucks€showed€by€clearŠ t%Ä $ Šand€convincing€evidence€a€prescriptive€easement€in€the€old€logging€road€over€the€Aventsšš€property.Š ]&­!% ŠĢ€Š  /(#' Š€ņņņ ņó óóóą  ąThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€Bucksšš€easement€appurtenant€in€the€old€logging€road€aroseŠ ° Šby€implication.€€An€easement€by€implication€has€four€elements:Š ™é ŠĢą8  ąš š(1)€A€separation€of€the€title;€(2)€[n]ecessity€that,€before€the€separation€takes€place,Š k» Šthe€use€which€gives€rise€to€the€easement€shall€have€been€so€long€continued€andŠ T¤ Šobvious€or€manifest€as€to€show€that€it€was€meant€to€be€permanent;€.€.€.€(3)€[n]ecessityŠ =  Šthat€the€easement€be€essential€to€the€beneficial€enjoyment€of€the€land€granted€orŠ & v Šretainedšš;€and€(4)€š šcontinuous,€as€distinguished€from€temporary€or€occasionalššŠ  _ Šservitude.€Šų HŠ Š  Š€Ģņņņ ņLaurel€Valleyó óóó,€2004€WL€1459404,€at€*7€(quoting€ņņņ ņJohnson€v.€Headrickó óóó,€237€S.W.2d€567,€570Š Ź   Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1948));ņņņ ņ€see€Fowleró óóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€741.€€š š[F]or€an€easement€to€arise€by€implication,Š “  Šit€must€ššbe€of€such€necessity€that€it€must€be€presumed€to€have€been€within€the€contemplation€of€theŠ žī  Šparties.šš€ššņņņ ņ€Laurel€Valleyó óóó,€2004€WL€1459404,€at€*7€(quoting€ņņņ ņJohnsonó óóó,€237€S.W.2d€at€570);€ņņņ ņLaRueŠ ‡×  Šv.€Greene€County€Bankó óóó,€166€S.W.2d€1044,€1049€(Tenn.€1942).€€Implied€easements€š šare€not€favoredŠ qĮ  Šin€the€law.šš€€ņņņ ņCole€v.€Dychó óóó,€535€S.W.2d€315,€318€(Tenn.€1976).ņ ņņņ€€ó óóóThe€party€asserting€the€easement€hasŠ [«  Šthe€burden€to€show€the€elements€of€his€claim.€€ņ ņņņLine€v.€Milleróóó ó,€309€S.W.2d€376,€377€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š E• Š1957).Š / Š€€€€€€€Š h Šą  ąIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€held€that€separation€of€title€was€shown€because€the€larger€tract€wasŠ Q Šdivided€in€1933.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€use€of€the€road€was€reasonably€necessary,Š ź: Šbecause€Tract€4€is€landlocked,€and€the€testimony€at€trial€established€that€use€of€the€road€was€neededŠ Ó# Šfor€access.€€The€trial€court€held€that€š šthe€route€across€the€northeast€corner€of€lot€number€3€isŠ ¼  Šreasonably€necessary€for€the€[Bucks]€to€enjoy€the€use€of€lot€number€4.šš€€On€appeal,€the€Avents€argueŠ „õ Šthat€the€Bucks€failed€to€show€separation€of€title,€that€even€if€there€was€separation€of€title€there€wasŠ ŽŽ Šno€evidence€that€the€use€before€the€separation€of€title€was€continuous€or€obvious,€and€finally€that€theŠ wĒ ŠBucks€failed€to€show€that€the€easement€is€essential€to€their€beneficial€enjoyment€of€the€land.Š `° Š€€Š I™ Šą  ąThe€trial€court€held€that€separation€of€title€was€established,€because€š šthe€proof€shows€that€theŠ 2‚ Šproperty€of€the€[Bucks]€and€[the€Avents]€.€.€.€was€once€owned€by€Joel€Parker,€and€that€it€was€dividedŠ k Šin€1933.šš€€The€Avents€argue€that,€although€separation€of€title€may€have€been€established€with€respectŠ  T Što€the€six€main€tracts€owned€by€Joel€Parker,€the€Bucks€were€also€required€to€establish€separation€ofŠ ķ = Štitle€with€respect€to€the€Story€tract,€the€parcel€of€the€Aventsšš€property€over€which€the€improved€roadŠ Ö!&  Šturns€and€continues€east.€€Because€the€Story€tract€was€not€part€of€the€1933€division€of€the€larger€six„Š æ"! Štract€piece€of€property€once€owned€by€Joel€Parker,€the€Avents€argue,€the€Bucks€failed€to€establishŠ Ø#ų" Šthis€element€of€its€claim.€€In€our€view,€none€of€the€easement€claimed€by€the€Bucks€lies€on€or€evenŠ ‘$į# Šadjoins€the€Story€tract.€€In€fact,€that€tract€of€land€appears€to€have€no€bearing€on€the€issues€in€thisŠ z%Ź $ Šcase.€€Its€only€connection€lies€in€the€fact€that,€when€the€logging€road€turns€east,€it€continues€onŠ c&³!% Šthrough€the€Story€tract€to€the€Hatchie€River.€€Because€no€part€of€the€claimed€easement€lies€on€thatŠ L'œ"& Šproperty,€the€Bucks€were€not€required€to€show€separation€of€title€to€that€property.€€Thus,€the€trialŠ 5(…#' Šcourt€did€not€err€in€concluding€that€separation€of€title€was€established.€Š )n$( Š€€€€€€Š *W%) ŠŠ  š*@&* Šą  ąWith€respect€to€the€second€element€of€an€implied€easement,€the€trial€court€concluded:Š ° ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąAs€to€the€second€requirement,€Exhibit€5€indicates€that€lot€number€4€isŠ ‚Ņ Šlandlocked€and€that€the€only€access€to€lot€number€4€was€and€is€across€lot€number€3.€Š k» ŠAccording€to€the€testimony,€there€were€many€field€roads€on€the€original€Joel€ParkerŠ T¤ Štract,€which€were€used€before€and€after€the€division€in€1933.€€Mr.€Buck€and€hisŠ =  Šgrandfather€crossed€the€northeast€corner€of€lot€number€3€on€the€old€logging€roadŠ & v Šwhen€they€were€hunting.€€In€the€mid€1950ššs€to€the€mid€1960ššs,€other€people€(hunters)Š  _ Šused€the€old€logging€road€to€access€[Tract]€4.€€In€1977,€the€logging€company€used€theŠ ų H Šold€logging€road€to€haul€timber.Šį 1 Š Š  Š€€€Š Ź   ŠThe€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€these€factors€satisfied€the€BucksššŠ ³  Šburden€of€showing€that€the€use€giving€rise€to€the€easement€had€long€continued€š šbefore€the€separationŠ œģ  Š[took]€place.šš€€The€Avents€claim€that€the€trial€courtššs€findings€regarding€post„1933€use€of€the€oldŠ …Õ  Šlogging€road€were€irrelevant,€and€that€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€a€finding€about€how€the€oldŠ n¾  Šlogging€road€was€used€before€the€separation€of€title€in€1933.€€In€response,€the€Bucks€contend€thatŠ W§  Šthe€proof€at€trial€established€the€use€of€the€road€prior€to€1933,€because€Ō‡XŃ×XXXuĪŌBuck€testified€that€he€and€hisŠ @ Šfamily€had€been€using€the€road€to€access€Tract€4€š šas€long€as€it€has€been€there€.€.€.€[since]€šš38,€backŠ )y Šin€the€šš30s€when€Mr.€Ray€surveyed€it.šš€€The€Bucks€argue€that,€if€the€Bucksšš€predecessors€in€title€didŠ b Šnot€use€the€road€to€access€Tract€4€prior€to€1933,€there€would€have€been€no€access€to€the€property€atŠ ūK Šall.€€It€defies€logic,€the€Bucks€maintain,€to€find€that€Joel€Parker€would€have€conveyed€a€tract€toŠ ä4 Šsomeone€if€there€was€no€access€road€to€reach€the€property.€€Therefore,€the€use€of€the€record€givingŠ Ķ Šrise€to€the€easement€had€been€necessary€for€so€long,€it€was€obvious€that€it€was€meant€to€be€aŠ ¶ Špermanent€easement.€Š Ÿļ Š€€€Š ˆŲ Šą  ąAt€the€trial,€Buck€testified€that€his€family€had€been€using€the€old€logging€road€since€š šbeforeŠ qĮ Šthe€separation€took€place.šš€€The€land€was€owned€by€his€great„great€grandfather,€and€Buck€lived€onŠ ZŖ Šthe€property€for€the€first€few€years€of€his€life.€€He€was€familiar€with€the€land€and€with€his€familyššsŠ C“ Šuse€of€the€property.€€The€Avents€proffered€no€evidence€to€rebut€Buckššs€testimony.€€This€testimonyŠ ,| Šis€sufficient€to€establish€that€the€road€was€used€prior€to€the€separation€of€title.€€In€addition,€severalŠ e Šwitnesses€testified€that€there€was€no€access€to€Tract€4€other€than€over€the€old€logging€road.€€ThisŠ žN Štestimony€was€likewise€unrebutted.€€š š[C]ourts€in€Tennessee€have€interpreted€the€term€ššnecessityšš€asŠ ē 7 Šmeaning€ššreasonably€necessaryšš€for€the€enjoyment€of€the€dominant€tenement.šš€€ņņņ ņFowleró óóó,€48€S.W.3dŠ Š!   Šat€741.€€The€testimony€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€establish€that€use€of€the€old€logging€road€isŠ ŗ" ! Šš šreasonably€necessaryšš€for€the€access€and€enjoyment€of€Tract€4.€€Because€it€was€reasonablyŠ £#ó" Šnecessary,€š šit€must€be€presumed€to€have€been€within€the€contemplation€of€the€partiesšš€at€the€timeŠ Œ$Ü# Šthe€separation€of€title€took€place.€€ņ ņņņJohnsonóóó ó,€237€S.W.2d€at€570;€ņ ņņņsee€Harris€v.€Grayó óóó,€188€S.W.2d€933,Š u%Å $ Š935€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1945).€€Therefore,€the€Bucks€have€shown€that,€before€the€separation,€the€useŠ _&Æ!% Šgiving€rise€to€the€easement€was€so€long€continued€and€obvious€that€it€was€intended€to€be€permanent.Š H'˜"& ŠĢ€€ą  ąThe€Bucks€were€also€required€to€establish€the€third€element,€that€the€easement€is€essentialŠ )j$( Što€the€enjoyment€of€the€land.€€Again,€the€trial€court€noted€the€overwhelming€evidence€that€the€onlyŠ *S%) Špracticable€way€to€access€Tract€4€is€over€the€old€logging€road€on€Tract€3.€€In€this€sense,€this€case€isŠ ģ*<&* Šsimilar€to€the€situation€in€ņņņ ņFowler€v.€Wilbanksó óóó,€ņ ņņņsupraóóó ó.€€In€ņņņ ņFowleró óóó,€the€plaintiffs€purchasedŠ Õ+%'+ Šundeveloped€property€in€1996,€and€in€the€same€year€the€defendants€purchased€property€that€adjoinedŠ ° Šthe€northern€border€of€the€plaintiffsšš€property.€€Both€parcels€were€once€part€of€a€larger€piece€ofŠ ™é Šproperty€owned€by€the€father€of€one€of€the€plaintiffs.ņņņ ņ€€Fowleró óóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€739.€€The€plaintiffsŠ ‚Ņ Šsought€an€easement€over€a€gravel€driveway€located€on€the€defendants€property€in€order€to€accessŠ l¼ Štheir€own€property.€€The€road€had€been€in€existence€for€at€least€thirty„five€(35)€years,€and€there€hadŠ U„ Šnever€been€a€dispute€over€the€driveway€until€the€lawsuit.€€ņ ņņņId.óóó ó€at€740.€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtššsŠ > Ž Šgrant€of€an€easement€by€implication€was€affirmed.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€In€reaching€that€conclusion,€the€appellate€courtŠ ( x Šnoted€several€factors€that€are€also€present€in€the€instant€case:Š  a ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąIn€this€case,€the€record€indicates€that€[the€plaintiffššs]€father[]€owned€the€entireŠ ć 3  Štract€of€land€at€one€time.€[The€plaintiff]€testified€that€the€disputed€road€has€been€inŠ Ģ   Šexistence€for€35€years,€and€that€she€knew€of€no€other€access€to€her€parcel€but€by€wayŠ µ  Šof€the€drive.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€the€road€was€plainly€visible€when€heŠ žī  Špurchased€his€property,€and€he€conceded€that€the€road€has€been€in€existence€for€aŠ ‡×  Šlong€time.€€Finally,€the€trial€court,€in€its€opinion,€noted€that€the€Plaintiffsšš€parcel€isŠ pĄ  Šš šland„lockedšš,€rendering€use€of€the€road€š šreasonably€necessaryšš€to€the€enjoyment€ofŠ Y©  ŠPlaintiffsšš€land.€ŠB’Š Š  Š€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ō#†XuĪXXXŃ׊¬#Ō€€€Š +{ Šņņņ ņId.ó óóó€at€741.€€Similarly,€in€the€instant€case,€the€Bucksšš€Tract€4€is€landlocked,€and€the€proof€at€trialŠ d Šestablished€that€the€old€logging€road€is€the€only€means€of€access€that€there€has€ever€been€to€theŠ žN Šproperty.€€The€road€has€been€in€existence€for€many€years,€and€the€Avents€knew€of€its€existence€andŠ ē7 Šknew€it€was€being€used€to€access€Tract€4.Š Š  Š€€Š ¹  Šą  ąThe€Avents€argue€that€there€are€alternate€means€of€accessing€Tract€4,€other€than€the€oldŠ ¢ņ Šlogging€road€on€their€property.€€They€claim€that,€although€some€of€the€alternate€means€of€accessŠ ‹Ū Šinvolve€using€wet€or€swampy€areas,€all€of€the€property€at€issue€is€near€the€river€and€the€claimedŠ tÄ Šeasement€itself€is€in€wet€or€swamp€land.€€The€Avents€point€out€that€the€Bucks€have€admitted€thatŠ ]­ Šthey€have€obtained€access€to€Tract€1€through€passage€over€another€personššs€property€and€that,€fromŠ F– ŠTract€1,€the€Avents€would€give€permission€for€the€Bucks€to€cross€over€the€northņņwestóó€corner€of€TractŠ / Š3€to€access€Tract€4.€€A€similar€argument€was€made€and€rejected€in€ņņņ ņFowleró óóó.€€The€ņ ņņņFowleró óóó€courtŠ h Šreasoned€that,€using€the€proposed€alternate€route,€the€š šPlaintiffs€would€still€be€required€to€crossŠ  R Šproperty€which€does€not€belong€to€them€in€order€to€access€the€nearest€public€road.šš€€ņņņ ņIdó óóó.€€€Moreover,Š ė ; Šthe€alternate€routes€on€which€the€Avents€rely€would€likely€be€š šunreasonablešš€alternatives,€€in€lightŠ Õ!%  Šof€the€fact€that€it€would€require€the€Bucks€to€have,€in€effect,€two€easements,€or€permission€from€twoŠ ¾"! Šservient€tenements.€€Under€these€circumstances,€€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialŠ §#÷" Šcourtššs€conclusion€that€the€Bucksšš€use€of€the€road€is€reasonably€necessary€for€the€enjoyment€of€theirŠ $ą# Šproperty.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€grant€of€an€implied€easement.Š y%É $ ŠĢņņņ ņó óóóą  ąFinally,€the€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€appoint€Wiles,€the€Bucksšš€expert,Š K'›"& Što€set€the€exact€boundary€between€the€properties€was€an€improper€abrogation€of€the€trial€courtššs€dutyŠ 4(„#' Što€determine€contested€facts€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€courtššs€orderedŠ )m$( Šremedy€was€similar€to€the€trial€courtššs€decision€in€ņņņ ņBlankenship€v.€Blankenshipó óóó,€No.€02A01„9603„Š ° ŠCH„00051,€1997€WL€15241€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€17,€1997),€another€boundary€dispute.€€InŠ šź Šņ ņņņBlankenshipó óóó,€the€appellate€court€vacated€the€trial€courtššs€adoption€of€a€Special€Masterššs€report,Š ƒÓ Šbecause€it€was€apparent€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€exercise€independent€judgment€in€adopting€theŠ m½ Šreport.€€In€ņ ņņņBlankenshipó óóó,€before€the€parties€had€rested€their€cases,€the€trial€court€ņņsua€sponteŠ V¦ Šóóannounced€that€a€Special€Master€would€determine€where€the€disputed€boundaries€lay,€because€theŠ @  Štrial€court€could€not€š šmake€heads€or€tails€out€of€this.šš€€After€the€masterššs€report€was€submitted,€theŠ ) y Štrial€court€denied€further€argument,€stating€that€š šif€[the€master€is]€wrong,€heššs€just€wrong€and€youŠ  b Šhave€a€right€to€appeal€it.šš€€ņņņ ņId.ó óóó€at€*2.€€The€Special€Masterššs€reported€was€adopted€ņņin€totoóó.€€TheŠ ū K Šappellate€court€in€ņ ņņņBlankenshipó óóó€reversed€the€trial€courtššs€decision,€finding€that€the€trial€court€hadŠ å 5  Šfailed€to€exercise€independent€judgment€in€adopting€the€Special€Masterššs€report.€€It€remanded€theŠ Ļ   Šcase€with€instructions€to€the€trial€court€to€consider€the€matter€independently€and€to€permit€the€partiesŠ ø  Što€offer€additional€evidence.€€ņņņ ņId.ó óó󀀀The€court€stated€that,€š š[w]hen€the€role€of€the€master€is€to€deal€withŠ ”ń  Šcases€that€are€unusually€complicated,€the€Court€is€not€justified€in€refusing€to€hear€and€consider€bothŠ ‹Ū  Špartiesšš€relevant,€competent€evidence€on€the€issue.šš€€ņ ņņņId.óóó óŠ tÄ  ŠĢą  ąIn€this€case,€the€Avents€argue€that€the€trial€courtššs€decision€suffers€from€the€same€infirmityŠ G— Šas€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€ņņņ ņBlankenshipó óóó.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€instructed€WilesŠ 0€ Što€survey€the€property€and€to€š šplace€stakes€to€show€the€location€of€the€line.šš€€Then€the€trial€courtŠ j Šordered€the€Avents€to€restore€the€Bucksšš€property€in€accordance€with€the€lines€established€by€Wiles.€Š S ŠWe€agree€with€the€Avents€that€the€trial€courtššs€pre„approval€of€Wilesšš€placement€of€the€partiesššŠ ģ< Šboundary€lines€precluded€the€trial€court€from€making€an€independent€decision€on€the€location€of€theŠ Õ% Šboundary€lines,€and€foreclosed€the€parties€from€having€the€opportunity€to€present€objections€orŠ ¾ Šcontrary€evidence€regarding€the€exact€property€line.€€Therefore,€this€portion€of€the€trial€courtššsŠ §÷ Šdecision€must€be€reversed,€and€the€cause€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€objections€to€WilesššŠ ą Šreport,€permit€the€parties€to€offer€additionaņņņ ņó óóól€evidence,€and€to€make€an€independent€decisionŠ yÉ Šregarding€the€boundary€lines.Š b² ŠĢą  ąThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part€as€set€forth€above,€andŠ 4„ Šremanded€for€further€proceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€to€be€taxedŠ m Šequally€toņ ņó ó€Appellants€James€Avent€and€wife,€Bernadine€Avent,€and€Timmy€Avent,€and€their€surety,Š  V Šand€Appellees€David€L.€Buck€and€Christopher€L.€Buck,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€Š ļ ? Š€€€€€€€€€Ō‡XŃ×XXXuĪŌŠ Ų!(  ŠĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š “$ć# Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEŌ#†XuĪXXXŃׯŲ#Ō