ÿWPC¿ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) AQ< Æ 0DS 0@— 0D× DC D/^ B Bª D3Ç AMú U*G ýq v~n vÓì˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ 9D:;U<U=U>V?D@ADBÓ€ê‚_#3|xK2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌNovember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€*,%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌEDWIN€HAROLD€BURNETTand€wife,à à)à àÌCAROL€HOFFMAN€BURNETT,à àà à)Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiffs/€Appellees,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óRutherford€Chancery€No.€96CV„113Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9610„CH„00452ò òÌCHARLES€HAMBY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€œCORLEW€III,›€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellees:à àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellant:ÌóóÌDarrell€L.€Scarlett€à àà àà àà àLarry€K.€Tolbert€€€€€€€€€ÌMurfreesboro,€Tennesseeà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Tracey€ParksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€̼XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€case€involves€a€restrictive€covenant€in€a€subdivision.€€The€Appellant€sought€toÏconstruct€a€ð ðdrivewayðð€across€a€residential€subdivision€lot€to€provide€ingress€and€egress€toÏproperty€located€outside€the€subdivision.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€proposed€driveway€wouldÏviolate€a€restrictive€covenant€forbidding€the€use€of€any€subdivision€lot€for€any€purpose€notÏresidential,€and€permanently€enjoined€construction€of€the€driveway.€€We€affirm.Ìà àEl€Rancho€Estates€is€a€residential€subdivision€in€Rutherford€County,€Tennessee.€€SanfordÏDrive€is€the€only€road€through€the€subdivision€and€connects€on€one€end€of€the€subdivision€toÏCompton€Road€and€on€the€other€end€to€Betty€Ford€Road.€€The€subdivision€contains€twenty„threeÏlots,€three€of€which€have€not€had€houses€built€on€them.€€The€lots€range€in€size€from€two„acre€lots€toÏone€containing€six€or€seven€acres.€€Appellees€Edwin€and€Carol€Burnett€(ð ðthe€Burnettsðð)€own€LotÏ12.Ìà àAppellant€Charles€Hamby€(ð ðHambyðð)€owns€approximately€one€hundred€acres€of€landÏadjacent€to€El€Rancho€Estates.€€He€has€a€home€on€this€land€and€uses€part€of€it€for€agriculturalÏpurposes.€€Hambyððs€home€is€accessed€by€Lakebrook€Drive,€a€public€road€which€passes€throughÏthe€Lakebrook€subdivision.€€In€years€prior€to€the€instant€litigation,€Hamby€had€his€land€surveyed€toÏdetermine€its€potential€as€a€residential€development.€€He€€also€œspoke›€œto›€residents€of€El€RanchoÏEstates€œin€attempts€to›€gain€access€across€their€lots€to€his€property,€explaining€that€he€wanted€a€moreÏaesthetic€route€to€his€œhouse.€€His€efforts€were€unsuccessful.€€Hamby›€finally€purchased€Lot€13,€theÏlot€adjacent€to€the€Burnettsðð€home.€€He€then€contracted€to€sell€the€lot,€reserving€a€fifty„foot„wideÏeasement€from€Sanford€Drive€to€his€property.€€The€easement€takes€up€.65€acres€of€Lot€13.€€ThisÏeasement€is€located€next€to€the€Burnettsðð€property.€€Hamby€indicated€that€he€planned€to€use€theÏeasement€for€a€ð ðdrivewayðð€to€his€home.€€Ìà àEl€Rancho€Estates€is€subject€to€several€restrictive€covenants.€€The€relevant€restrictiveÏœcovenants€state,›€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à àNo€lot€shall€be€used€except€for€residential€purposes.ÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 à3.à àNo€objectionable€nor€offensive€trade€or€business€of€any€kind€shall€be€carriedÏœon€upon›€any€lot,€nor€shall€anything€be€done€thereon€which€may€be€or€become€aÍnuisance€or€annoyance€to€the€neighborhood.ÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 à5.à àNo€lot€shall€be€resubdivided€into€smaller€lots€and€not€more€than€oneÏresidence€may€be€erected€or€maintained€on€any€lot.ÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 à8.à àA€perpetual€easement€or€right„of„way€for€underground€installation€andÏmaintenance€of€telephone€lines,€electric€lines€or€cables,€under€the€rear€five€(5)€feetÏof€each€lot€and€the€side€five€(5)€feet€of€each€lot€is€reserved€in€the€grantor€on€all€lots.ÌÌà8 à9.à àThese€covenants€are€to€run€with€the€land€and€shall€be€binding€on€all€partiesÏand€all€persons€claiming€under€them€for€a€period€of€twenty„five€(25)€years€from€theÏdate€these€covenants€are€recorded,€after€which€time€said€covenants€shall€beÏautomatically€extended€for€successive€periods€of€ten€(10)€years€unless€an€instrumentÏsigned€by€a€majority€of€the€then€owners€of€the€lots€has€been€recorded,€agreeing€toÏchange€the€said€covenants€in€whole€or€in€part.ÌÌÓÓThese€restrictive€covenants€were€in€effect€when€Hamby€purchased€Lot€13.Ìà àThe€Burnetts€filed€suit€in€Chancery€Court,€alleging€that€the€proposed€ð ðdrivewayðð€wouldÏviolate€the€applicable€restrictive€covenants€and€would€constitute€a€nuisance.€€They€obtained€aÏtemporary€restraining€order€prohibiting€Hamby€from€constructing€a€ð ðroadwayðð€across€Lot€13.€€AÏhearing€was€later€held€to€determine€if€the€injunction€should€be€made€permanent.€€€€Ìà àAt€the€hearing,€several€residents€testified€that€the€proposed€ð ðdrivewayðð€would€constitute€aÏnuisance€and€violate€the€restrictive€covenants.€€Many€testified€that€they€feared€Hamby€wouldÏdevelop€his€land€as€a€residential€subdivision€and€use€the€ð ðdrivewayðð€as€a€road€to€the€newÏsubdivision.€€Several€witnesses€testified€to€past€conversations€with€Hamby€in€which€he€discussedÏhis€plans€to€develop€his€property.€€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€Burnetts€introduced€into€evidence€recently€adopted€amendments€to€theÏrestrictive€covenants,€signed€by€a€majority€of€the€residents.€€One€of€these€amendments€provided,Ïð ðNo€lot€shall€be€utilized€to€provide€access€to€any€property€not€located€in€El€Rancho€EstatesÏSubdivision€and€subject€to€the€Restrictive€Covenants€contained€in€Deed€Book€161,€page€361€of€theÏRegisterððs€Office€of€Rutherford€County,€Tennessee€or€this€additional€restriction.ðð€€The€BurnettsððÏcounsel€informed€œthe€trial›€court€that€the€amendments€would€be€recorded€the€day€following€theÏhearing.Ìà àHamby€testified€that€he€had€no€plans€to€develop€his€land€or€use€the€easement€to€build€a€roadÍfor€any€use€other€than€a€personal€driveway.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€told€some€people€that,€as€ð ðaÏworst€case€scenario,ðð€he€might€eventually€have€to€develop€his€land€into€a€residential€subdivision€ofÏsingle„residence,€five„acre€lots.€€Hamby€stated€that€ð ð[t]here€[would]€never€be€a€public€road€putÏthere.ðð€€He€was€then€asked:ÌÓÓà8 àQ:à àAre€you€willing€then€to€have€this€Court€order€that€you€may€never€use€thisÏroad€or€right„of„way€for€anything€other€than€access€just€to€your€house?ÌÌà8 àA:à àIððll€not€do€that.ÌÌà8 àQ:à àOkay.€€You€donððt€want€to€limit€it€to€not€being€able€to€use€by€others€whenÏyou€might€sell€lots€off,€do€you?ÌÌà8 àA:à àWell,€never€is€a€long€time.ÌÌà8 àQ:à àBut€you€donððt€want€to€make€that€limitation,€do€you?ÌÌà8 àA:à àNo,€sir.ÌÌÓÓHamby€admitted€that€the€county€required€a€width€of€fifty€feet€for€a€public€œroad,€precisely€the€widthÏof€his€easement,›€but€insisted€that€he€did€not€plan€œto›€œbuild›€such€a€road.€€He€testified€that€he€did€notÏnecessarily€intend€to€use€the€entire€fifty€feet€for€a€roadway,€that€he€intended€to€construct€a€driveÏwith€just€enough€room€for€two€cars€to€pass€each€other.€€He€stated€that€a€fifty„foot€easement€wouldÏallow€him€enough€room€to€deviate€the€drivewayððs€course€around€trees€and€to€slope€the€drive€inÏsuch€a€way€as€to€minimize€any€run„off€problems€from€rainfall.Ìà àAfter€hearing,€the€trial€court€issued€an€order€converting€the€temporary€restraining€order€intoÏa€permanent€injunction.€€The€order€enjoined€Hamby€ð ðfrom€constructing€a€roadway€over€and€acrossÏLot€13€of€El€Rancho€Estates€Subdivision.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€ruled€that€the€amendments€to€theÏrestrictive€covenants€would€ð ðonly€take€effect€at€the€expiration€of€the€ten€(10)€year€renewal€periods,Ïwith€the€next€renewal€period€being€July€2,€2000.ðð€€The€trial€court€issued€an€Opinion,€in€which€itÏexplained€the€basis€for€the€œruling€on€the€injunctive€relief:›ÌÓÓà8 àà àA€literal€interpretation€of€the€covenants€indicate€to€the€Court€that€the€settingÏaside€of€a€fifty€foot€easement€across€the€Defendantððs€[Hambyððs]€lot€andÏconstructing€a€roadway€thereon€is€contrary€to€the€restrictive€covenants.€€TheÏprovisions€of€paragraph€one€of€the€restrictive€covenants€appear€to€be€veryÏrestrictive.€€While€a€number€of€activities€may€be€encompassed€by€the€termÍð ðresidential€purposesðð€and€while€this€term€may€not€be€extremely€well€defined,€it€isÏapparent€to€the€Court€that€utilization€of€the€lot€as€a€roadway€for€ingress€and€egressÏto€land€outside€of€the€subdivision€is€not€embraced€within€the€term€ð ðresidentialÏpurposes.ðð€.€.€.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  ÓÌà8 àà àIt€is€impossible,€of€course,€for€the€framers€of€restrictive€covenants€to€stateÏwith€specificity€every€possible€scenario€which€may€subsequently€arise.€ÏNonetheless,€it€appears€to€the€Court€in€the€present€cause€that€the€restrictiveÏcovenants€are€significantly€specific€in€their€requirement€that€the€lots€in€question€inÏthis€subdivision€should€be€used€only€in€the€traditional€manner€in€which€residentialÏsubdivision€lots€are€used.€€These€restrictions,€then,€appear€to€preclude€the€use€of€aÏresidential€lot,€or€portion€thereof,€for€purposes€of€an€easement,€roadway,€or€accessÏway€to€other€property€not€bound€by€the€restrictions,€separate€and€apart€from€theÏresidence€located€on€that€lot.Ìœ›à8 àà àThus€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€terms€of€the€restrictive€covenants€areÏsufficiently€specific€to€prevent€the€construction€of€the€roadway€planned€by€theÏDefendant.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€roadway€could€become€an€œannoyance€to€the€other€residents€of€theÏsubdivision.€€It€determined€that€the€eighth€restrictive€covenant,€while€not€expressly€forbiddingÏother€easements,€made€it€ð ðapparent€certainly€that€no€easement€for€further€streets€or€areas€of€ingressÏand€egress€are€contemplated€within€the€restrictive€covenants.ðð€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€easement,€while€not€a€technical€resubdivision€of€Lot€13,€would€violate€the€spirit€of€the€fifthÏrestrictive€covenant,€which€it€found€indicated€ð ðthat€each€lot€should€be€used€together€with€theÏremaining€portions€of€that€lot,€and€for€a€common€purpose€with€the€balance€of€the€lot.ððÌà àAs€to€the€recent€amendment€to€the€restrictive€covenants,›€the€œtrial€court›€held€that€the€properÏinterpretation€of€the€ninth€restrictive€covenant€was€that,€after€the€initial€twenty„five€years€from€theÏdate€of€their€filing,€the€covenants€could€only€be€modified€at€the€end€of€each€successive€ten„yearÏperiod.€€This€meant€that€the€recent€amendments€recorded€by€the€Burnetts€would€not€becomeÏeffective€until€July€2,€2000,€and€then€only€if€the€same€landowners€still€owned€the€lots,€or€if€a€newÏmajority€of€landowners€signed€the€amendments.Ìà àHamby€now€appeals€to€this€Court,€arguing€that€the€proposed€ð ðdrivewayðð€would€constitute€aÏð ðresidential€purpose,ðð€would€not€be€a€nuisance€or€annoyance,€would€not€be€a€resubdivision€of€theÏlot,€and€would€not€violate€the€utilities€easement.€€The€Burnetts€appeal€the€courtððs€ruling€that€theÍrecent€amendments€to€the€restrictive€covenants€will€not€take€effect€until€July€2,€2000.Ìà àOur€review€of€this€case€is€ò òòòde€novoóóó ó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€ofÏthe€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Absent€error€of€law,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€will€beÏaffirmed,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€factual€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);Ïò òòòsee€alsoóóó ó€ò òòòBeacon€Hills€Homeowners€Assððn€v.€Palmer€Properties,€Inc.óóó ó,€911€S.W.2dÏ736,€737€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ìà àRestrictive€covenants€are€valid€in€Tennessee€but,€as€limitations€on€the€unrestrictedÏenjoyment€of€land,€they€are€not€favored.€€ò òòòWaller€v.€Thomasóóó ó,€545€S.W.2d€745,€747€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1976).€€Restrictive€covenants€should€be€strictly€construed,€with€any€ambiguities€resolvedÏagainst€the€restriction.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€Restrictive€covenants€ð ðare€to€be€interpreted€as€any€other€writing,€òòi.e.óó,Ïin€construing€documents€words€must€be€given€their€ordinary€and€customary€meaning€and€not€aÏstrained€or€unnatural€interpretation.ðð€€ò òòòAldridge€v.€Morganó óóó,€912€S.W.2d€151,€153€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995).€€Finally,€ð ðonce€the€intention€of€the€parties€is€ascertained,€the€covenant€will€be€enforced,Ïprovided€it€serves€a€legitimate€purpose€and€does€not€constitute€a€nuisance€per€se.ðð€€ò òòòWalleró óóó,€545ÏS.W.2d€at€747.Ìà àSeveral€Tennessee€decisions€are€instructive€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€proposedÏð ðdrivewayðð€would€violate€the€first€restrictive€covenant,€which€states€that€ð ð[n]o€lot€shall€be€usedÏexcept€for€œÌÌÌresidential›€purposes.ðð€€The€first€is€ò òòòLaughlin€v.€Wagneróóó ó,€146€Tenn.€647€(1922).€€In€ò òòòLaughlinó óóó,Ïa€restrictive€covenant€limited€the€use€of€the€lots€on€one€street,€Belvedere€Street,€to€residentialÏpurposes.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€649„50.€€Belvedere€intersected€with€Madison€Avenue,€which€was€not€subject€toÏthe€Belvedere€restrictive€covenant.€€At€the€corner€of€Belvedere€and€Madison,€Lot€34€fronted€fiftyÏfeet€œon›€Belvedere€and€fifty€feet€œon›€Madison,€forming€an€ð ðL,ðð€€with€another€lot€containing€a€drugÏstore€situated€between€the€legs€of€the€ð ðL.ðð€€A€mercantile€store€was€on€one€leg€of€the€ð ðL,ðð€frontingÍonto€Madison,€and€the€other€leg,€fronting€onto€Belvedere,€was€undeveloped,€except€for€a€smallÏmetal€garage.€€The€owner€of€the€lot€planned€to€extend€the€drug€store€six€feet€onto€the€BelvedereÏside€of€the€lot€and€pave€the€remainder€of€the€Belvedere€side,€presumably€as€an€entrance€to€both€theÏmercantile€building€and€the€drug€store.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€649„52.€€The€trial€court€had€issued€an€injunctionÏprohibiting€the€implementation€of€this€plan.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€œ652„53.›Ìà àThe€Tennessee€œSupreme›€Court€found€that€the€Belvedere€side€of€the€lot,€except€for€a€portionÏextending€from€Madison€to€ð ða€point€opposite€the€extension€of€the€west€[back]€boundary€line€of€thatÏportion€of€the€lot€which€fronts€on€Madison€avenue,ðð€was€subject€to€the€restrictive€covenant.€€ò òòòSeeÏid.ó óóó€at€656.€€The€Court€ruled€that€the€restrictive€covenant€prevented€the€Belvedere€side€of€the€lotÏfrom€being€used€for€any€purpose€incident€to€a€commercial€use,€including€the€construction€of€aÏdriveway€into€an€adjacent€commercial€lot€outside€the€subdivision.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€657„59.€€The€œCourt›Ïpermitted€the€lot€to€be€used€for€purposes€other€than€the€construction€of€a€residence,€so€long€as€theÏuse€was€incident€to€a€residential€purpose:€ð ð[I]f€there€be€no€building€at€all,€[the€lot]€could€be€used€forÏpurposes€consistent€with€and€incident€to€its€use€for€residential€purposes.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€658.€€The€CourtÏconcluded:ÌÓÓà8 àà àFrom€this€interpretation€it€follows€that€the€Belvedere€side€of€this€lot€couldÏnot€be€made€use€of€in€such€a€way€as€that€the€manifest€purpose€would€be€to€serve€theÏbusiness€houses€adjacent€to€it.€€For€example,€it€could€not€be€used€as€affording€anÏintentional€passageway€or€entrance€into€the€business€house.€€Any€structure,€whetherÏstrictly€a€house€or€not,€such€as€a€concrete€driveway,€which€devotes€the€use€of€theÏproperty€to€the€carrying€on€of€a€business,€would€be€violative€of€this€clause,€but€theÏuse€of€the€lot€for€decorative€purposes,€such€as€flower€beds€or€as€a€walkway€on€theÏlot€itself,€would€not€violate€the€manifest€intent€and€purpose€of€this€clause.Ìà8 àà àIn€other€words,€any€use€of€this€lot€which€might€be€reasonably€incident€to€itsÏuse€for€residential€purposes€is€permissible,€but€it€is€not€permissible€to€put€the€lotÏinto€service€as€an€incident€to€the€business€houses€on€the€adjacent€portion€of€the€lot.ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.ó óóó€at€658„59.̜Ǜà àHamby€argues€that€his€proposed€driveway€is€incident€to€a€residential€purpose,€that€it€isÏmerely€œÌintended›€to€be€a€driveway€or€access€road€allowing€him€ingress€to€and€egress€from€his€home.€€ThisÏissue€is€addressed€in€ò òòòLapray€v.€Smithóóó ó,€804€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€ò òòòLaprayóóó ó,€theÏdefendant€owned€a€lot€in€a€subdivision€which€œhad›€restrictive€covenants€forbidding€use€of€the€lotsÏfor€anything€other€than€single„family€homes.€€The€restrictive€covenants€expressly€forbade€their€useÏfor€mobile€homes.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€88„89.€€The€œdefendantððs›€parents€owned€œland›€adjacent€to€the€subdivision.€ÏThey€allowed€the€defendant€to€set€up€a€mobile€home€on€œthis›€œland.›€€The€defendant€then€created€anÏopening€in€the€curb€around€òòò òhisó óóó€lot€in€the€subdivision€and€used€it€œto€gain›€access€to€his€residence,€theÏmobile€home.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€He€argued€that,€under€ò òòòLaughlinóóó ó,€he€was€using€the€lot€in€conformity€with€theÏrestrictive€covenants€because€he€was€using€it€as€a€driveway€and€front€yard€to€a€single„familyÏœresidence,€the€mobile€home.›€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€89.Ìà àThe€Court€in€ò òòòLaprayó óóó€disagreed,€stating€that€ð ðòòò òLaughlinó óóó€does€not€support€the€DefendantððsÏimplied€argument€that€residential€use€of€unrestricted€property€is€the€only€important€concern€inÏdetermining€whether€such€unrestricted€property€may€be€used€in€conjunction€with€adjoiningÏrestricted€property.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€The€Court€found€that€the€defendantððs€mobile€home€did€not€conform€withÏthe€restrictive€covenants€and€that,€consequently,€use€of€the€subdivisionððs€lot€as€a€driveway€to€thatÏð ðresidenceðð€also€violated€œthe›€œcovenants:ÌÓÓà8 àJust›€as€the€òòò òLaughlinó óóó€Court€did€not€allow€restricted€property€to€be€used€inÏconjunction€with€adjoining€unrestricted€and€non„conforming€property,€so€theÏpresent€Defendant€must€not€be€permitted€to€subvert€the€plain€restrictions€of€theÏWhite€Oak€Covenant€by€using€Lot€26€merely€as€a€ððfront€yardðð€to€unrestricted€andÏnon„conforming€adjoining€œproperty.›€€œòòò òÌÌÓÓId.ó óóó›€at€90.€€Therefore,€even€if€a€restricted€lot€is€used€to€benefit€an€adjoining€residence,€that€use€stillÏmay€be€disallowed€if€the€adjoining€residence€does€not€otherwise€conform€with€all€the€restrictionsÏplaced€on€the€restricted€lot.Ìà àHamby€argues€that€òòò òLaprayó óóó€is€distinguishable€in€that€the€defendant€in€that€case€did€not€haveÏthe€œability›€to€make€the€adjoining€property€conform,€because€he€was€not€œthe›€owner.€€Hamby€notesÍthat€he€has€the€ability€to€conform€to€the€restrictive€covenants.€€Hamby€points€to€the€followingÏlanguage€in€òòò òLaprayó óóó:€ð ðPerhaps,€if€the€Defendant€had€both€the€authority€and€the€willingness€toÏrestrict€the€property€outside€the€subdivision€to€the€same€extent€as€Lot€26€is€restricted,€a€differentÏquestion€would€be€presented.ðð€€òòò òLaprayó óóó,€804€S.W.2d€at€90.€€After€discussing€an€Ohio€case€whichÏheld€that€a€restricted€lot€could€be€used€to€reach€adjoining€land€if€that€adjoining€land€were€subject€toÏthe€same€restrictions,€òòò òLaprayó óóó€notes:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Defendant€in€the€instant€case€has€not€subjected€the€property€adjoiningÏLot€26€to€the€same€restrictions€that€apply€within€White€Oak€Subdivision.€€Indeed,Ïeven€if€the€Defendant€were€willing€to€do€so,€he€does€not€have€the€power€to€subjectÏthe€adjoining€property€to€such€restrictions,€since€he€does€not€own€the€adjoiningÏproperty,€but€only€has€a€revocable€beneficial€interest€in€it.ÌÌœòòò òÓÓId.ó óó󛀀Hamby€contends€that,€because€he€is€able€and€willing€to€restrict€his€property€to€development€asÏa€residential€neighborhood,€he€should€be€able€to€build€his€driveway.Ìà àThe€Burnetts€observe€that€the€statements€relied€on€by€Hamby€in€òòò òLapray€œó óóóare€dicta.›€€It€isÏalso€noteworthy€that€Hamby€has€not€yet€placed€his€property€under€the€same€restrictive€covenants€asÏEl€Rancho€œEstates.›Ìà àAnother€instructive€case€is€unpublished,€ò òòòProffitt€v.€Sullivanóóó ó,€C.A.€No.€27,€1986€WLÏ2642€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€28,€1986).€€œIn›€òòò òProffittó óóó,€this€Court€upheld€an€injunction€against€building€aÏroad€across€two€lots€in€a€subdivision€which€restricted€the€use€of€its€lots€to€residential€uses,€evenÏthough€the€road€would€merely€serve€to€join€two€subdivisions.€€The€Court€reasoned€that€using€lotsÏas€a€connecting€street€could€not€be€considered€a€residential€use,€and€that€such€a€street€wouldÏdestroy€the€privacy€and€security€of€the€restricted€subdivision.€€òòò òProffittó óóó,€1986€WL€2642,€at€œ*1„2.€ÏThis€reasoning€is€persuasive.›Ìà àHamby€asserts€that€he€does€not€plan€to€build€an€access€road€or€connecting€street,€just€aÏdriveway.€€However,€several€witnesses€testified€that€Hamby€had€told€them€he€might€build€aÏsubdivision€on€his€tract€of€land.€€Hamby€admitted€that€he€had€said€that€he€might€do€so€as€ð ða€worstÏcase€scenario.ðð€€Coincidentally,€the€easement€on€lot€13€is€fifty€feet€wide,€the€width€required€by€theÏcounty€for€public€roads.€€Although€Hamby€testified€that€his€ð ðdrivewayðð€would€never€be€a€publicÍroad,€he€refused€to€agree€to€let€the€court€fashion€an€order€prohibiting€the€use€of€the€easement€forÏsuch€a€purpose.€€From€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€œcould€reasonably›€conclude€that€Hamby€has€notÏforeclosed€the€possibility€of€turning€his€ð ðdrivewayðð€into€an€access€road€for€a€future€subdivision€onÏhis€property.€€œWhile›€the€trial€court€did€not€make€an€express€finding€to€this€effect,€it€consistentlyÏreferred€to€the€drive€as€a€ð ðroadway.ðð€€This€implies€that€the€œtrial€court›€may€not€have€found€credibleÏHambyððs€testimony€that€he€would€never€use€the€ð ðdrivewayðð€as€a€public€road.€€The€trial€court€is€in€aÏbetter€position€to€judge€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€and€thus€its€findings€involving€questions€ofÏcredibility€receive€great€deference€on€appeal.€€ò òòòRandolph€v.€Randolphóóó ó,€937€S.W.2d€815,€819Ï(Tenn.€1996).€Ìà àIn€addition,€while€Hambyððs€property€is€adjacent€to€Lot€13,€his€residence€is€not.€€HisÏeasement€would€connect€Sanford€Drive€to€a€road€through€his€property,€the€road€which€leads€toÏHambyððs€home.€€Therefore,€Hambyððs€proposed€use€of€the€easement€is€much€closer€to€that€of€anÏaccess€road€than€a€driveway,€even€if€Hamby€never€develops€his€property€as€a€residentialÏsubdivision.€€Ìà àIn€addition,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€restrictive€covenants€precluded€use€of€any€lot€ð ðforÏpurposes€of€an€easement,€roadway,€or€access€way€to€other€property€not€bound€by€the€restrictions,Ïseparate€and€apart€from€the€residence€located€on€that€lot.ðð€€This€is€in€accord€with€ò òòòLaprayóóó ó€andÏsupports€the€conclusion€that€even€a€personal€driveway€would€violate€the€restrictive€covenants.€€AsÏnoted€earlier,€Hamby€has€not€bound€his€property€to€the€same€restrictive€covenants€governing€ElÏRancho€Estates.Ìà àIn€sum,€œwe›€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€Hambyððs€proposed€use€of€theÏeasement€would€not€be€for€a€residential€purpose€and€would€therefore€violate€the€restrictiveÏcovenant.€€The€decision€œof€the›€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€that€basis.€€Therefore,€the€other€issuesÏraised€by€Hamby€on€appeal€are€pretermitted.Ìà àThe€Burnetts€argue€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€œtheir€recently›€recordedÏamendments€to€the€restrictive€covenants€cannot€become€effective€until€the€year€2000.€€The€languageÍof€the€ninth€restrictive€covenant€is€straightforward.€€The€œtrial€court›€interpreted€it€according€to€itsÏð ðordinary€and€customary€meaning.ðð€€The€holding€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.€€€ò òòòSeeÏAldridge€v.€Morganóóó ó,€912€S.W.2d€151,€153€(Tenn.€App.€1995).Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìœ›œ›ÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÌ