WPC tb^1NuLaDof<0܊-IY,Rx.b訿q9fBW_\J=y (|'1*Fni[,(գ9W47mD- 1tcg;j0/؍]Ӽ;xzY ]Kp@܀C4b<0e PqCʖiO1m;![! 44&4^sGaP!+r̩zgZ o2Ml-bP\zY\O,Pc)I)b},3Z㰛qQEU(q4e*T095UaY]4VYuفM ɿu81REMU/;u@"(x zlB?;ƎHu#݋bIoKfb\Sb#\ % UN# 0q U.N jG 0D zoU@A^ wi/4NE mb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ` RpJ$      2  ˴  _Ordinarilythethirdpartycomplaintwouldnotariseunlessjudgmentwasenteredagainstthethirdparty  plaintiffbytheoriginalplaintiffinthecase.Here,however,thethirdpartycomplaintwasdismissedbythetrialcourt x basedonthestatuteoflimitations.Thecourtsrulingmeantthatnomatterwhatoccurredwithregardtotheoriginal @ suit,thethirdpartydefendantwouldnotbesubjecttoliabilityunderanycircumstances.Theoriginalsuitcould X continuewithoutthirdpartydefendantbecausetheclaimagainsthimwastimebarred.Thetrialcourtmadethisorder   finalpursuantto_T.R.Civ.P._Ԁ54.02whichallowsacourttoenterafinaljudgmentastoany claim,counterclaim,cross  claim,orthirdpartyclaimwhen thereisnojustreasonfordelay,evenifotherclaimsremain(emphasisadded).(#$  0   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(hH  Z(Times New Roman yO-s   RpJ$      1  ˴  _ԀMr.BradenandMs.Bradenwereeventuallydivorcedandasaresult,Mr.Braden_quitclaimed_Ԁhisinterest  inthepropertytoMs.Braden.Further,althoughMs._Bradens_lastnameisnow_Agresta_,foreasierreferenceweshall x refertoherasMs.Braden.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5],3|xU- -(|G2pJ$ !.8<dd8         0  ˴ d(|3$ !.8<dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8<dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8<dd8     _  <8XXdd8  @ <INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#< #Ԉ ,   MAY23,2002Session X XX< #<XX#RONNIELYNNCARROLLv.NANCYGAYBRADEN(_AGRESTA_)v.  ` JAMESPALMERXX<  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDyerCounty 0  @@No.00C450;TheHonorableJ.StevenStafford,Chancellor  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200101901_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober15,_2002_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A     X!XXXThisappealinvolvesadisputedtractoflandthatthethirdpartyplaintiffallegedlypurchasedin1983  andreceivedadeedforin1987.Thetrialcourtheldthatplaintiffsstatutesoflimitationhadexpired#XXXX!#X!XXX   andgrantedamotionforsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthethirdpartydefendantwhoexecutedthe  deed.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirm.   p     #XXXX!C##<XX۶#XX<  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  ^   #<Xۙ#XX.<AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., > andHollyKirbyLillard,J.,joined. .~ Greg_Alford_,_Dyersbug_,TN,forAppellant ^ _Marianna_ԀWilliams,_Dyersburg_,TN,forAppellee > 8 OPINION #<XXg#XX< !  #<XXۆ #XX<  X!XXX@FactsandProceduralHistory  #"   JamesH.andDebbieD.PalmerownedseveraladjoiningtractsoflandinDyerCounty, % $ Tennessee.ThreeoftheseadjoiningtractsweredesignatedLot11,Lot12,andLot13.Itappears r&!% fromtherecordthatLots11and13hadhouseslocatedonthem,butthatLot12,whichwaslocated ^'"& betweentheothertwolots,wasvacant. J(#'   OnJanuary25,1986,awarrantydeedwasexecutedwhereinthePalmersconveyedLot11 "*r%) andthenorthernonehalfofLot12toRonnieL.andBettyR.Carroll.Thedeed,whichcontainsa +^&* detaileddescriptionofthepropertyconveyed#XXXX! #X!XXX,wasrecordedonJanuary30,1986. +J'+  #XXXX!X#X!XXX ,6(,   Approximatelyoneyearlater,onApril6,1987,thePalmersexecutedasecondwarrantydeed   whereintheyconveyedthesouthernonehalfofLot12andaportionofLot13toEarlLynnand  NancyGayBraden._  #  1      _Ԁ#XXXX!#X!XXXThisdeed,whichalsocontainsadetaileddescriptionofthepropertyconveyed,  wasrecordedonApril20,1987. t #XXXX!#X!XXX  AlthoughthetwodeedsclearlydefinetheportionsofLot12receivedbyeachparty,adispute L  aroseastoownershipofthelot.Initially,Mr.CarrollfiledsuitagainstMs.Braden.Inresponse,on 8  November1,2000,Ms.BradenfiledathirdpartycomplaintagainstMr.Palmer.Ms.Bradensthird $ t partycomplaintisthesubjectmatterofthisappeal._ #  2      _Ԁ  `   InthefirstcountofMs.BradensthirdpartycomplaintagainstMr.Palmer,sheallegesthat  8  shepaidforallofLot12andthatthedeedbetweenherandMr.Palmercontainedanerrorinthe $  description.#XXXX!#X!XXXFurther,sheallegesthatbecauseMr.PalmerhadalreadysoldaportionofLot12tothe   _Carrolls_,Mr.PalmersactionsinagreeingtoconveyallofLot12toherresultedinmisrepresentation   and/orfraud.#XXXX!#X!XXXԀInthesecondcountofhercomplaint,sheallegesthatMr.Palmerbreachedthe   agreementtoconveycorrectlydescribedproperty.#XXXX!n#X!XXXFordamages,Ms.Bradenaskedthecourtto   reformherdeedastoincludeallofLot12or,inthealternative,awardhermonetarydamagesfor p misrepresentation,fraud,orbreachofcontract. \   Alongwithhercomplaint,Ms.BradenattachedanotedatedFebruary29,2000allegedly 4 signedbyMr.Palmer.#XXXX!G#X!XXXThenotestatesasfollows:  p 8  I,JamesPalmer,sold3lotsinAtkinsSub.toNancyBraden_Agresta_.H     Lot12south&north 4   Lot13north.#XXXX!#X!XXX      `    [signed]JamesPalmer     Mr.PalmersoonfiledananswertoMs.Bradensthirdpartycomplaintandacounterclaim  againstMs.Braden.Inhisfiling,Mr.PalmerassertednumerousdefensestoMs.Bradenscomplaint  includingthestatutesoflimitationasprovidedinsections283110(3)and283109ofthe l  TennesseeCode.Withrespecttohiscounterclaim,Mr.PalmerallegedthatMs.Bradenwas X  engaginginfraud,becausesheknewthatJamesPalmerneversignedthenoteindicatedaboveand  demandeddamages.     OnMay7,2001,Mr.PalmerfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentastoMs.Bradensthird t partycomplaint.Inhismotion,Mr.Palmerallegedthattherewerenogenuineissuesofmaterialfact ` andthathewasentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawduetotheexpirationoftherelevantstatutes L  oflimitation. 8    InresponsetoMr.Palmersmotionforsummaryjudgment,Ms.Bradenfiledaresponse  ` alongwithacorrespondingaffidavit.Inherresponse,Ms.Bradenpointedoutseveralissuesoffact,  L  whichsheallegesaregenuineandmaterialtothecase.First,Ms.Bradenstatedthatshehasbeen  8  inpossessionofthedisputedtractascontemplatedunderthetheoryofadversepossessionfor $  eighteenyears.Further,Ms.BradenstatedthatshereasonablyreliedupontheassertionsofMr.   Palmersfather,whoallegedlywasactingashisagent,whenshepurchasedthedisputedtract.     Inheraffidavit,Ms.BradenagainassertedthatMr.Palmersfatherhadalwaysactedashis   sonsagentandthathisfatherhadindicatedthatshewaspurchasingthedisputedtract.Ms.Braden p alsoassertedthatthenoteabovewasinfactnotsignedbyMr.Palmer,butinstead,wassignedby \ hisfather.Further,sheindicatedthatshehadoriginallypurchasedthedisputedtractfromMr. H Palmerunderawritteninstallmentnoteexecutedin1983,butthatnorecordoftheconveyancecan 4 befound.Finally,shestatedthatMr.Palmerhadnotintentionallysoldthedisputedtracttothe  p _Carrolls_.  \   Ms.Bradenalsoattachedtoherresponsetothemotionforsummaryjudgmentaffidavits 4 fromMr.Palmersexwifeandherexhusband.BothoftheseaffidavitsstatethatMs.Bradendid   indeedpurchasethepropertyin1983.TheaffidavitofMr.Palmersexwifefurtherindicatesthat   sheaccompaniedMs.BradentoMr.Palmershousewhereheagreedwiththenoteallegedlywritten  byhisfather.    OnJuly6,2001,thetrialcourtgrantedMr.Palmersmotionforsummaryjudgmentand l declareditsdecisiontobeafinaljudgmentastoMr.Palmer.Thecourtstatedinitsrulingthatthe X  decisionwasbasedontheexpirationoftherelevantstatutesoflimitationaswellassection6626 D! 102oftheTennesseeCode,whichstatesthattherecordingofadeedstandsas noticetoallthe 0"  world.Tenn.CodeAnn.6626102.#XXXX!h#X!XXXԀMs.Bradenfiledatimelynoticeofappealandthiscause #l! isnowproperlybeforethisCourt. h  $X" #XXXX!=)#X!XXX   Issue  $D # ;*#XXXX!*#X!XXX  Ms.Bradenhasraisedoneissue,asstatedinherbrief,forourreview: &"% 8  Whetherthetrialcourterredinholdingthat_T.C.A._Ԁ6626102placesacurrent,not (#' subsequent,buyerunderageneralwarrantydeeduponnoticeofbreachasofthedate )$(  ofthewarrantydeedisrecordedforthepurposesofthestartingdateforthestatutes |*%) oflimitationforbreachofcontract,_T.C.A._Ԁ283109,andreformation,_T.C.A._Ԁ28  3110;regardlessofanyfraud/fraudulentconcealmentbytheseller.      StandardofReview  t -  #XXXX!*#X!XXXOurstandardofreviewforthisissueiswellsettled.Atrialcourtsgrantofsummary L  judgmentisnotentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal._McClung_Ԁv.DeltaSquareLtd. 8  Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn.1996).Ratherwemustreviewdenovotodetermine $ t whethertherequirementsofTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56havebeenmet.Masonv._Seaton_,  ` 942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).Summaryjudgmentiswarrantedonlywhentherearenogenuine,  L  materialfactualdisputeswithregardtotheclaimordefenseassertedinthemotionandthemoving  8  partyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw._Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn. 1997). $  Inmakingourdetermination,wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthe   nonmovingparty,allowingallreasonableinferencesinhisorherfavoranddiscardingall   countervailingevidence._Shadrick_Ԁv._Coker_,963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv.Hall,   847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993)). #XXXX!5.#X!XXX      LawandAnalysis  ` <4  ThemostlogicalplaceforthisCourttobeginitsreviewiswiththestatutesoflimitation 8 relieduponbythetrialcourt.Thecourtfirststatedthatsection283109oftheTennesseeCode $t barredMs.Bradensbreachofcontractclaim.Next,thecourtrelieduponsection283110ofthe ` TennesseeCodeindismissingallofMs.Bradensclaims.Section283109directsthat contracts L nototherwiseexpresslyprovidedforinthecode shallbecommencedwithinsix(6)yearsafterthe 8 causeofactionaccrued.Tenn.CodeAnn.283109(a)(3).Similarly,section283110provides $ that, allothercasesnotexpresslyprovidedforinthecode shallbecommencedwithinten(10)  yearsafterthecauseofactionhasaccrued.Tenn.CodeAnn.283110(3).#XXXX!4#X!XXX    Ms.Bradennowarguesthatthestatutesoflimitationsshouldnotstandasabartoherclaim.  Specifically,Ms.BradenstatesthattheactionsofMr.Palmersfather,asanagentforMr.Palmer, p constitutefraudinthatheattemptedtoconcealthefactthatherdeedsdescriptiondidnotinclude \  thedisputedproperty.Becausefraudwaspresent,Ms.Bradenargues,thestatutesoflimitations H! shouldhavetolled. 4"    Insupportofherargument,Ms.BradencitestheTennesseeSupremeCourtsopinionin  $\" Barnesv.Barnes,8S.W.2d481(Tenn.1928)anditprogeny.InBarnes,thesupremecourtheld, $H # 8  Theeffectofourstatuteisthatacontractingparty,injuredbyamistakeinthe & "% draftingofhiscontract,shallhavetenyearswithinwhichtoascertaintheexistence ' #& ofthemistake,andtocommencehissuitforredress;butifthetenyearselapse (#' withoutdiscoveryandsuit,intheabsenceoffraudulentconcealment,theactionis )$( barred.*%)    l+&* Id.at48283.Basedonthislanguage,Ms.Bradenarguesthatthecourterredbecauseshealleged  sufficientfactstosupportherassertionthatMr.Palmerorhisagenttookstepstoconcealfromher  thefactthatherdeeddidnotincludeaportionofthelandsheagreedtopurchasein1983.    Wedisagree,however,withMs.Bradensargument.Althoughitisobviousthatunder ` Barnesthestatutesoflimitationscouldbetolledwherefraudulentconcealmentwaspresent,that L  situationisnotapplicablehere.Inthecasesubjudice,Ms.Bradenwasputonnoticeofthealleged 8  defectwhenthedeedwassignedanddeliveredtoherin1987. $ t   Further,assuming_arguendo_thatMr.Palmersfatherwasalsohisagent,nostatementsthat  L  hemadetoMs.BradencouldhaveconcealedtheallegeddefectgiventhefactthatMs.Bradenhad  8  thedescriptioninherdeedatherdisposal.Simplyput,Ms.Bradenischargedwiththeknowledge $  ofthecontentsofherdeed.Thus,herclaims,ifany,wouldhavearisenwhenthepropertywas   actuallyconveyedbythedeedin1987.BecauseMs.BradensclaimwasnotbroughtagainstMr.   PalmeruntilNovember1,2000,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterringrantingMr.Palmers   motionforsummaryjudgment.   Ѐ  p   Conclusion  \ D  #XXXX!l8# XXXXBasedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Costs 4 onappealareassessedagainstNancyGayBradenandhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueif $t necessary.#XXX XۉD#X!XXX d    ` #XXXX!E##<XX #XX<   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE