ÿWPCØI g<ÝNC-gÍ»³+E% 0Ìÿ2óî†s‰úî^?¡FæúQº ,àÔ`x] æ]Žr0ñ¶5£xbÆIý^žõVšJ®×jûœ-Û9 ]m¤—Y0­Xê®8¿bœ85–™G…Õ­w¼ØÔa1xÒ?ÏÿàˆÊ©ÀáÒÓ´“»–vÌ]¸pŠ«{"}òcöSúðAGg>£ÊÔG5^ít]>ðg¸%ã¬Röð®O„ÝT­È±ü¬ÖÞD¬½›5/²Dzðq=ÄÄœÈÚ÷ Ö Û}aðt˜áFLØò”.«0Òž4 6žr²v‹Á+?WÊüo÷íe+[Âè«~8ÙjÔø¥2§êú~ ‹°Ò}Óʶ^¯Ž6¾¿Ÿ¸ØÇv#±êoÁ8aIŽ»Ðº'/þ Œwj"ý(l×µŠwöTðxf ˜X=Tå—ý–ðLVÔÞ?89·¡šö‘l˜Z£­]p½†bì—R•Ðí\Ä0™‰¿`è‰À+Žq7Yv—Õ„ga­ T×”£§ŽÿïsÍ7a渒<ÙÉ•S*€–ּŗ1î&”Ã]>£{À8òeÆka#óT£¹×?D£Ëzo³£}A ¸4mO:¥ ðDýpU$N  %n 0ˆt#Áü Œ½ ÚI ^ # z/ Ò© © { m} w” Ƙ Æ^Æ$Æê4°NÄ Æ &ÌEòôU N bQ ^³ 0D U 0ô] 0ñQ 0îB 0ë0 0è 0å 0âè Ê 0ßÒ 0ܱ  UN—˜å 0â} 0ß_ 0Ü> 0Ù!bó! 0Öû! 0ÓÑ" 0Ф# 0Ít$ 0ÊA% 0á & 0Þì& 0ÛÊ' 0Ø¥( 0Õ}) 0ÒR* 0Ï$+ 0Ìó+ 0É¿, 00ˆ- 0<¸- 0¾ô- 0>². 0vð. 0`f/ 0`Æ/ 0`&0 0`†0 0`æ0 08F1 0Ò~1 02P2 0ü‚2 0:~3 0Y¸3 0_4 0 p4 0jz5 0„ä6 B*h8 0 ’8 D/œ9 0„Ë9 D/O; B~; 0Λ; 0¤i< D5 = D-B= 0Ko= 06º= ASð=ÆC> 0¤ ? 0D­? A«ñ? 0œ@ 0:¤A 0^ÞA 0<ûBU*9CÐcC3E3E†JHJHÐI(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptcx+s  ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Æyÿ*´¥¡H\Opinion Summary3|x(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó12J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó925+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó12(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ŽÝ ƒR/†$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôÿüò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿüòòôÿüÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€deed€to€Mr.€Ball€from€Stearns€also€conveys€rights€of€ingress€or€egress€acquired€by€Stearns€in€litigationÐ ° Ðagainst€Chloe€Buck.€€There€was€a€great€deal€of€testimony€regarding€whether€a€road€found€to€exist€in€the€òòChloe€Buckóó€caseÐ tÄ Ðextended€into€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€tract.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€òòBuckóó€case€did€not€involve€the€property€conveyedÐ 8ˆ Ðto€the€Smiths€and€later€to€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€or€any€easements€thereon.€€On€appeal,€Mr.€Ball€no€longer€asserts€that€the€ChloeÐ üL ÐBuck€language€in€the€deed€gives€him€any€rights€of€access€across€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€property.2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡g<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡g<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡g<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€S(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡i%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d d(›G2/†$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÔ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôÿüò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿüòòôÿüÔQ)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€U(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡i%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓQ)2dxd d0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡g<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|3IW$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÔ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IW$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÔ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡g<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡hô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  ÔX[ZA<< cÿÿ<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial ÆÝ ƒR/†$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôÿüò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿüòòôÿüÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€it€is€not€entirely€clear€from€the€testimony,€it€appears€that€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€also€paid€Mrs.€Ô_ÔConatserÔ_ÔððsÐ ° Ðbrother€$75,000€for€his€interest€in€a€larger€tract,€which€included€the€150€acre€tract€in€question.€€ Ý ƒR/†$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôÿüò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿüòòôÿüÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€some€testimony€about€Mr.€Ballððs€consultation€with€an€attorney€prior€to€his€purchase.€€He€attempts€toÐ ° Ðargue€that€after€that€consultation,€ð ðsince€the€granting€language€of€the€deed€as€quoted€did€not€include€a€specific€descriptionÐ tÄ Ðof€a€route,€Ball€took€reasonable€and€prudent€steps€to€assure€himself€of€what€rights€he€had€before€consummating€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtransaction€[by€talking€to€Mrs.€Ô_ÔConatserÔ_Ô].ðð€€However,€his€testimony€is€not€consistent€with€such€an€argument€with€regardÐ üL Ðto€use€of€the€Rocky€Creek€route. |Ý ƒR/†$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôÿüò»»Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿüòòôÿüÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Ball€had€sued€his€predecessor€in€title€regarding€representations€of€the€rights€conveyed€in€his€deed.€€TheseÐ ° Ðissues€were€not€tried,€and€the€Third€Party€Complaint€was€eventually€dismissed€by€agreement. Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÔ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÔ»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îO¥î»¼VÔÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼VÔ»îîO¥ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€3,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼VÔÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÔ»XXô#ÔÔ% ‡ ÔBILLY€CONATSERÔ%†:Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€L.D.€(JOE)€BALLÔ‡XX»¼VÔÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Pickett€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1784€€€€€€Vernon€Neal,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00583„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€3,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¹  Ðó óÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓÔ%†°ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÔ#†¼VÔ»XX‡#ÔÔ€XX»¼VÔÔThis€case€involves€a€dispute€over€the€scope€of€the€right€of€the€defendant€to€use€the€plaintiffsðð€propertyÐ ŒÜ  Ðas€a€means€of€ingress€and€egress€to€various€sections€of€the€defendant's€property.€€The€deed€toÐ xÈ  Ðdefendantððs€1,600€acre€tract,€which€surrounds€plaintiffsðð€151€acre€tract€on€3€sides,€included€a€26€footÐ d´ Ðwide€north„south€easement€over€plaintiffsðð€property.€€Plaintiffs€alleged€that€defendant€refused€toÐ P  Ðconfine€his€activities€within€the€easement,€thereby€trespassing€and€committing€waste€upon€their€land.€Ð <Œ ÐThe€trial€court€determined€that€defendant€was€entitled€to€use€the€26€foot€wide€easement€running€inÐ (x Ða€north€and€south€direction€on€the€Conatsersðð€property€and€a€second€20€foot€wide€route€of€ingress€andÐ d Ðegress€branching€off€of€the€26€foot€easement€in€a€northwesterly€direction.€€The€court€rejectedÐ P Ðdefendantððs€claim€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€third€easement€along€another€east€and€west€direction€routeÐ ì< Ðand€awarded€plaintiffs€$2,500€in€damages€for€trespass.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€theÐ Ø( Ðscope€of€defendantððs€easement€and€modify€the€damages€to€the€$5000€originally€awarded€by€the€trialÐ Ä Ðcourt.Ô#†XXXXÚ#ÔÐ ° ÐÓ½ÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ%†$Ð Ô;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ˆØ ÐAffirmed€as€Modified€and€Remandedó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen.€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,Ð L œ Ðand€òòÔ% ‡' ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.òòóóÔ%†' Ôóó,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔPhillips€M.€Smalling,€Byrdstown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€L.D.€(Joe)€Ball.Ô%†s ԀР#`" ÐÌJames€P.€Romer,€Jamestown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Billy€Conatser€and€Pat€Conatser.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†f ÔÓ… ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐòòóóÔ% € ÔÌÓ  Óà  àBilly€and€Pat€Conatser€own€a€150€plus€acre€tract€of€bottom€land€running€along€Rotten€Fork,Ð „)Ô$) Ða€branch€of€the€Wolf€River€near€the€Tennessee„Kentucky€border.€€Their€tract€is€surrounded€on€itsÐ p*À%* Ðwestern€and€northern€boundaries€by€1,600€acres€belonging€to€L.D.€(Joe)€Ball,€who€runs€a€loggingÐ \+¬&+ Ðoperation€on€his€land.€€The€1,600€acre€tract€is€mountainous€and€of€a€rather€rough€topography,Ð H,˜', Ðwhereas€a€large€portion€of€the€Conatser€tract€is€flatter€bottom€land.€€Both€partiesðð€tracts€wereÐ 4-„(-ý Ðoriginally€purchased€from€Stearns€Coal€and€Lumber€(ð ðStearnsðð),€the€predecessor€of€StearnsÐ ° ÐCompany,€Ltd.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àPat€Conatserððs€parents€(the€Smiths)€purchased€the€tract€of€land€from€Stearns€in€1965.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðdeed€reserved€to€Stearns€a€26€foot€wide€easement€running€north€and€south€to€be€a€used€as€a€meansÐ `° Ðof€ingress€and€egress€to€the€surrounding€property.€€This€easement€more€or€less€follows€the€bed€ofÐ L œ ÐRotten€Fork€Creek.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àRotten€Fork€curves€in€a€north€and€south€crescent€through€the€length€of€the€Conatsersðð€tractÐ  ` Ðon€the€eastern€side.€€Rotten€Fork€branches€at€the€northern€end€of€the€Conatsersðð€property€withÐ ü L  ÐBuckeye€Lick€Creek€running€northwesterly€and€Falling€Water€Creek€running€northeasterly.€€At€theÐ è 8  Ðsouthern€end€of€the€Conatsersðð€tract,€Rocky€Creek€(or€Rocky€River)€runs€east€and€west.€€The€variousÐ Ô$  Ðroutes€of€access€discussed€at€trial€were€generally€referred€to€by€the€names€of€these€creeks.Ð À  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ball,€a€retired€extension€service€agent,€obtained€an€option€to€purchase€his€tract€in€1992.€Ð ˜è  ÐShortly€thereafter,€he€met€with€Pat€Conatser€at€her€office€to€discuss€his€plans€for€use€of€his€property.Ð „Ô  ÐMr.€Ball€purchased€the€1,600€acre€tract€from€Stearns.€€The€same€easement€which€was€reserved€forÐ pÀ ÐStearns€in€the€conveyance€to€the€Smiths,€and€later€to€the€Conatsers,€was€given€to€Mr.€Ball€in€hisÐ \¬ Ðdeed.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMr.€Ball€began€logging€his€property€by€use€of€a€route€along€Rocky€Creek.€€He€departed€fromÐ  p Ðthe€creek€and€bulldozed€a€road€approximately€1600€to€1700€feet€long€by€cutting€up€a€mountain€in€theÐ  \ Ðlower€southwest€corner€of€the€Conatsersðð€property.€€According€to€plaintiffs,€he€also€bulldozed€aÐ øH Ðnorth„south€road€down€almost€the€entire€length€of€their€tract€nearly€parallel€to€the€original€easementÐ ä4 Ðalong€the€Rotten€Fork€creek€bed,€built€another€northeast„northwest€road€along€Buckeye€Lick€CreekÐ Ð  Ðon€the€north€end€of€their€tract,€and€piled€logs€on€the€Conatsersðð€property€after€being€asked€not€to€doÐ ¼  Ðso.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Conatsers€filed€the€underlying€action€alleging€that€Mr.€Ball€refused€to€confine€hisÐ €Ð Ðactivities€to€the€north„south€easement€and€committed€waste€and€trespass€on€their€land.€€TheirÐ l¼ Ðcomplaint€alleged€that€Mr.€Ball€was€cutting€trees,€constructing€roads,€and€piling€wood€on€their€landÐ X ¨ Ðafter€being€asked€to€desist.€€They€claimed€that€Mr.€Ball's€actions€had€caused€erosion€and€€sought€anÐ D!” Ðinjunction€and€damages.€€They€did€not€contest€Mr.€Ball's€right€to€use€the€easement€along€Rotten€ForkÐ 0"€  Ðas€stated€in€the€deeds.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Mr.€Ball€had€nothing€other€thanÐ ô$D # Ðthe€26€foot€easement€reserved€in€the€deed,€a€north„south€route€generally€along€Rotten€Fork.€€Thus,Ð à%0!$ ÐMr.€Ball€had€no€rights€to€use€the€east„west€route€along€Rocky€Creek€or€to€cut€a€road€up€a€hillside€onÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€Conatsersðð€property€from€the€Rocky€Creek€route.€€The€court€granted€the€Conatsers€$5,000€inÐ ¸'#& Ðdamages€for€the€injuries€resulting€from€the€trespass.€€The€court€memorialized€this€holding€in€its€firstÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfinal€decree€filed€September€19,€1994.€€In€that€order,€the€court€found€that€Mr.€Ball€had€certain€routesÐ )à$( Ðâ âof€ingress€according€to€the€deed€reservation.€€Because€the€parties€had€disagreed€as€to€the€exactÐ |*Ì%) Ðlocation€or€path€of€this€route,€the€court€suggested€and€the€parties€agreed€that€the€Stearns€land€agent,Ð ° Ðwho€had€testified,€establish€the€route.€€A€survey€to€memorialize€the€route€was€agreed€to.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAfter€Mr.€Ball€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€modify€final€judgment€or€for€a€new€trial,€and€afterÐ tÄ Ða€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€court€entered€another€order€on€July€21,€1995.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÐ `° ÐMr.€Ball€was€entitled€to€the€26€foot€easement€and€specified€exactly€where€the€easement€was€located,Ð L œ Ðbased€on€the€survey.€€The€court€also€found€that€Mr.€Ball€had€a€20€foot€wide€right€of€ingress€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðegress€along€Buckeye€Lick€Creek€running€in€a€northwesterly€direction€from€the€original€easementÐ $ t Ðto€be€used€ð ðfor€the€reasonable€uses€associated€with€logging€and€timber€operations€exclusively€andÐ  ` Ðfor€no€other€purpose.ðð€€The€court€again€affirmed€that€Mr.€Ball€had€trespassed€by€ð ðpiling€logs,Ð ü L  Ðbulldozing€a€roadway,€and€destroying€trees€and€bushes,ðð€but€reassessed€the€damages€at€$2,500.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðcourt€enjoined€Mr.€Ball€from€straying€from€the€indicated€easement,€gave€him€90€days€to€remove€theÐ Ô$  Ðtimber€he€had€already€cut€by€way€of€the€Rocky€Creek€route,€and€determined€that€Mr.€Ball€should€payÐ À  Ðtwo„thirds€and€the€Conatsers€one„third€of€the€costs€of€the€survey.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThis€court€twice€dismissed€notices€of€appeal€filed€in€this€case€because€no€final€order€resolvingÐ „Ô  Ðall€the€issues€had€been€entered.€€The€trial€court€issued€its€last€final€order€which€disposed€of€all€theÐ pÀ Ðissues€including€a€third€party€complaint€by€Mr.€Ball€against€Stearns.׃m×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€order,€entered€April€28,Ð \¬ Ð1999,€stated€that€the€last€decree€would€become€the€final€order,€but€additionally€noted€that€the€claimsÐ H˜ Ðagainst€Stearns€contained€in€the€third€party€complaint€were€dismissed,€thereby€disposing€of€all€theÐ 4„ Ðissues€in€the€case.€€Mr.€Ball€then€commenced€his€appeal.Ð  p ÐÌà@,,ìàò òIó ó.€€ò òStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€decision€made€following€a€bench€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€familiarÐ Ô$ Ðstandard€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€governs€our€review.€€We€must€review€the€record€òòde€novoóóÐ À Ðunder€the€presumption€that€the€findings€of€fact€are€correct€ð ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ ¬ü Ðis€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€No€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððsÐ ˜è Ðconclusions€of€law.€€òòHansel€v.€Hansel,óó€939€S.W.2d€110,€111€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Additionally,Ð „Ô Ðthe€weight€given€to€a€witnessððs€testimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€of€fact,€and€this€courtÐ pÀ Ðmust€accord€great€weight€to€the€trier€of€factððs€decisions€on€issues€of€credibility.€€òòRandolph€v.Ð \ ¬ ÐRandolph,óó€937€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€1996);€òòMays€v.€Brighton€Bankóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€352€(Tenn.Ð H!˜ ÐCt.€App.€1992);€òòSisk€v.€Valley€Forge€Ins.€Co.óó,€640€S.W.2d€844,€849€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).Ð 4"„  ÐÌà@ÀÀìàò òII.€€Issues€Regarding€Easementó óˆÐ  $\" ÐÌà  àThis€lawsuit€involved€the€scope€of€Mr.€Ballððs€rights€to€use€the€Conatsersðð€land€to€access€hisÐ ä%4!$ Ðlarge€timber€tract.€€The€scope€and€location€of€the€26€foot€wide€north„south€right€of€way€along€RottenÐ Ð& "% ÐCreek€and€along€the€two€creek€branches€at€its€northern€end€are€no€longer€at€issue.€€What€is€at€issueÐ ¼' #& Ðis€Mr.€Ballððs€right€to€use€other€routes€across€the€Conatsersðð€property€to€access€his€land.€€SpecificallyÐ ¨(ø#' Ðat€issue€is€his€right€to€use€the€east„west€Rocky€Creek€route€and€to€build€a€road€northward€from€theÐ ° Ðcreek€up€the€mountainside,€all€on€the€Conatsersðð€property.€€He€took€those€actions€and€was€found€toÐ œì Ðhave€trespassed€in€doing€so.€€He€was€also€enjoined€from€using€any€route€across€the€Conatsersðð€landÐ ˆØ Ðexcept€the€one€described€in€the€order.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMr.€Ballððs€position€prior€to€and€throughout€this€litigation€has€been€that€he€had€a€right€to€crossÐ L œ Ðthe€Conatsersðð€land€and€build€roads€wherever€and€to€the€extent€he€needed€in€order€to€gainÐ 8 ˆ Ðeconomically€reasonable€access€to€his€land€for€logging€purposes.€€He€asserts€and€has€asserted€thatÐ $ t Ðhe€is€not€limited€to€one€route€for€access€and€egress.€€He€explained€his€large€tract€could€reasonablyÐ  ` Ðbe€described€as€up€to€five€tracts,€each€requiring€a€different€route€of€access.€€He€also€asserts€that,Ð ü L  Ðalthough€he€is€entitled€to€an€apparently€unlimited€number€of€access€routes€if€they€are€needed,€€he€onlyÐ è 8  Ðwants€one€route€to€access€each€distinct€area€of€his€tract€ð ðand€no€more.ðð€€He€bases€his€theory€on€hisÐ Ô$  Ðinterpretation€of€the€deed€to€him€from€Stearns€and€the€Conatsersðð€deed.€€He€testified€that€he€did€notÐ À  Ðask€permission€from€the€Conatsers€for€the€work€he€did€in€building€or€improving€passageways€acrossÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€Conatsersðð€land,€including€the€road€along€Rocky€Creek€and€up€their€hillside,€because€he€had€theÐ ˜è  Ðright€to€make€such€improvements.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhile€he€maintains€he€has€the€right€to€as€many€routes€of€access€as€he€needs,€he€specificallyÐ \¬ Ðclaims€the€right€to€the€Rocky€Creek€route€and€the€right€to€cut€a€road€from€the€creek,€across€theÐ H˜ ÐConatsersðð€land,€up€their€less€steep€slope€to€get€to€his€land.€€In€addition€to€relying€on€hisÐ 4„ Ðinterpretation€of€the€deeds€for€these€rights,€he€also€claims€the€Conatsers€are€estopped€from€denyingÐ  p Ðhim€access€along€Rocky€Creek.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Conatsers€describe€Mr.€Ballððs€original€position€as€maintaining€he€could€access€hisÐ ä4 Ðproperty€through€the€Conatsersðð€property€more€or€less€at€will€as€he€determined€he€needed.€€The€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€shared€that€impression€of€Mr.€Ballððs€original€arguments,€stating,€ð ðI€donððt€understand€where€heððsÐ ¼  Ðgot€this€idea€that€he€can€just€go€off€in€about€any€direction€he€wants€to.ðð€€Mr.€Ball€says€he€got€that€ideaÐ ¨ø Ðfrom€the€deeds.Ð ”ä ÐÌà@ ìàò òIII.€€à@@c c ìàEasement€According€to€Conveyance€in€the€Deedsó óˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àAn€easement€is€an€interest€in€anotherððs€real€property€that€confers€on€the€easement€holder€anÐ D!” Ðenforceable€right€to€use€that€real€property€for€a€specific€use.€€òòBradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984€S.W.2d€929,Ð 0"€  Ð934€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(citing€òòBrew€v.€Van€Demanóó,€53€Tenn.€(6€Heisk.)€433,€436€(1871)).€€InÐ #l! ÐTennessee,€easements€can€be€created€in€several€ways:€ð ð(1)€express€grant,€(2)€reservation,€(3)Ð $X" Ðimplication,€(4)€prescription,€(5)€estoppel,€and€(6)€eminent€domain.ðð€€òòPevear€v.€Huntóó,€924€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ð114,€115„116€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Mr.€Ball€relies€upon€the€grant€to€him€by€Stearns€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðeasement€it€reserved€in€its€earlier€deed€to€the€Conatsersðð€predecessor€in€title.€€When€an€easementÐ Ì&"% Ðarises€from€a€grant€or€reservation€in€a€deed,€the€extent€of€the€easement€is€determined€by€the€languageÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€grant€or€reservation.€€òòFoshee€v.€Brigmanóó,€174€Tenn.€564,€567,€129€S.W.2d€207,€208€(Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1939).€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€deed€from€Stearns€to€Mr.€Ball€stated€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àThe€Grantor€hereby€conveys€to€the€Grantees€such€rights€of€ingress€and€egress€as€itÐ ˆØ Ðacquired€in€the€case€of€òòThe€Stearns€Company€and€Charles€Beaty€vs.€Chloe€Buckóó,׃)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ Ðbeing€Civil€Action€No.€1512€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County,€Tennessee,Ð `° Ðalong€with€such€òòrights€as€it€may€have€reserved€in€a€deed€from€Stearns€Coal€andÐ L œ ÐLumber€Company€to€Ô_ÔJ.E.Ô_Ô€Smith€and€wife,€Georgia€Smithóó,€by€deed€recorded€in€DeedÐ 8 ˆ ÐBook€16,€Page€274€of€the€Registerððs€Office€of€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County,€Tennessee€as€may€beÐ $ t Ðòònecessary€for€ingress€and€egressóó€to€the€above„described€tract€of€land,€however,Ð  ` Ðreserving€unto€the€Grantor€so€much€of€that€easement€that€Grantor€reserved€in€saidÐ ü L  Ðdeed€from€Stearns€Coal€and€Lumber€Company€to€Ô_ÔJ.E.Ô_Ô€Smith€and€wife,€GeorgiaÐ è 8  ÐSmith,€for€purposes€of€ingress€and€egress€across€the€lands€of€Ô_ÔJ.E.Ô_Ô€Smith€and€wife,Ð Ô$  ÐGeorgia€Smith,€as€Grantor€may€need.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ball€argues€that€this€deed€gives€him€the€right€to€access€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€property€ð ðasÐ pÀ Ðnecessary€for€ingress€and€egressðð€to€the€tract€of€land€conveyed€in€the€deed,€his€1600€acre€parcel.€ThatÐ \¬ Ðinterpretation€overlooks€the€words€of€grant,€however,€which€purport€to€convey€only€those€rightsÐ H˜ ÐStearns€had€reserved€in€the€deed€to€the€Smiths.€€It€is€axiomatic€that€the€Grantor,€here€Stearns,€canÐ 4„ Ðconvey€no€greater€rights€or€interests€than€it€owns.€€òòSloan€v.€Sloanóó,€182€Tenn.€162,€165,€184€S.W.2dÐ  p Ð391,€392€(1945);€òòÔ_ÔLisenbeeÔ_Ô€v.€Parróó,€62€Tenn.€App.€518,€525,€465€S.W.2d€361,€365€(1970).€€The€deedÐ  \ Ðfrom€Stearns€to€the€Smiths,€and€later€to€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô,€stated€in€pertinent€part:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àReserving,€however,€unto€the€grantor,€its€successors€and€assigns,€and€excluding€fromÐ Ð  Ðthis€conveyance,€a€òòright„of„wayóó€over€and€across€the€above€described€tract€of€landÐ ¼  Ðòòextending€from€the€south€boundary€line€thereof€to€the€north€boundary€line€thereofóó,Ð ¨ø Ðrunning€òòin€general€the€same€direction€and€course€as€the€present€Ô_ÔpasswayÔ_Ô€or€roadwayÐ ”ä Ðused€over€sameóó,€and€so€as€òòto€provide€ingress€and€egressóó€to€other€lands€owned€by€theÐ €Ð Ðgrantor€adjacent€to€the€above€described€tract,€which€said€right„of€„way€so€reservedÐ l¼ Ðshall€beòò€twenty„six€(26)€feet€in€widthóó,€which€shall€be€used€by€grantor,€its€successorsÐ X ¨ Ðand€assigns,€free€of€obstruction€or€cost€for€a€Ô_ÔpasswayÔ_Ô€or€road,€for€persons,€trucks€orÐ D!” Ðother€vehicles€as€and€when€desired,€.€.€.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAgain,€Mr.€Ball€interprets€this€language€as€giving€him€the€right€to€access€his€tract€by€crossingÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€land€ð ðas€and€when€desired.ðð€€Mr.€Ball€asserts€that€these€deeds€reserve€to€him€the€rightÐ Ì&"% Ðto€access€any€of€his€property€through€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€land.€€Relying€on€the€phrases€which€allow€theÐ ° Ðuse€of€the€easement€ð ðfor€persons,€trucks€or€other€vehicles€as€and€when€desiredðð€and€ð ðas€necessaryÐ œì Ðfor€ingress€and€egress,ðð€Mr.€Ball€essentially€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€use€Ô_ÔpasswaysÔ_Ô€across€theÐ ˆØ ÐConatsersðð€land€to€reach€his€land€if€that€is€desired€or€necessary.€€He€defines€necessary€in€terms€of€theÐ tÄ Ðeconomic€feasibility€of€Ô_ÔuseÔ_Ô€of€his€tract.€€He€describes€his€1,600€acre€tract€as€being€able€to€be€dividedÐ `° Ðinto€five€distinct€areas€surrounding€the€Conatsersðð€property€in€a€rainbow€like€fashion.€€He€maintainsÐ L œ Ðthat€he€ð ðwanted€one€route€to€access€each€distinct€area€of€his€1,600€acre€tract€and€no€more.ðð€€HeÐ 8 ˆ Ðexplained€at€trial€it€would€not€be€economically€feasible€to€get€logs€from€the€area€on€the€far€south„Ð $ t Ðwest€of€his€parcel€and€remove€them€by€having€to€go€through€the€other€areas€of€his€tract€to€the€north„Ð  ` Ðsouth€easement€entry€point.€€Mr.€Ball€conclusively€asserts,€not€citing€any€evidence€in€the€record,€thatÐ ü L  ÐStearns€intended€to€maintain€access€to€the€vast€area€of€land€surrounding€the€Conatsers€so€that€StearnsÐ è 8  Ðor€its€successor€could€log€such€property,€or€divide€the€property€and€sell€it.€€We€share€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ô$  Ðwonderment€at€this€interpretation.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àStearns€owned€all€of€the€property€Mr.€Ball€purchased€surrounding€the€Conatsers€on€the€west,Ð ˜è  Ðnorth€and€east€side€and€reserved€only€one€access€route€to€that€property€when€it€conveyed€a€parcel€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Smiths.€€The€ð ðas€and€when€desiredðð€language€does€not€mean€that€the€holder€of€the€easement€mayÐ pÀ Ðcreate€entirely€new€ones€as€and€when€desired,€but€instead€means€that€Mr.€Ball€may€use€the€singleÐ \¬ Ðeasement€reserved€as€and€when€desired€consistent€with€its€purpose.Ð H˜ ÐÔ‡XXXXÔÌÔ#†XXXXŸV#Ôà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€reservation€and€grant€convey€a€26€foot€wide€right€of€wayÐ  p Ðfor€ingress€and€egress€running€in€a€north€to€south€direction€over€an€area€where,€at€the€time€of€theÐ  \ Ðconveyance€from€Stearns€to€Smith,€a€roadway€or€passway€existed.€€This€easement€is€not€restrictedÐ øH Ðin€nature€and€may€be€used€by€ð ðgrantor,€its€successors€and€assigns€.€.€.€for€persons,€trucks€or€otherÐ ä4 Ðvehicles€as€and€when€desired.ðð€€The€deed€cannot€be€read€to€allow€for€any€new€and€additionalÐ Ð  Ðeasements,€such€as€the€east„west€easement€along€Rocky€Creek€which€Mr.€Ball€created€and€used.€€AsÐ ¼  Ðthe€trial€court€noted,€Mr.€Ball€ð ðcanððt€just€run€off€in€every€direction€on€other€peopleððs€land€becauseÐ ¨ø Ðit€makes€it€more€convenient€to€log€his€particular€land.ððÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€owner€of€an€easement€ð ðcannot€materially€increase€the€burden€of€it€upon€the€servientÐ l¼ Ðestate€or€impose€thereon€a€new€and€additional€burden.ðð€€òòMcCammon€v.€Meredithóó,€830€S.W.2d€577,Ð X ¨ Ð580€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(citing€òòAdams€v.€Winnettóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€276,€156€S.W.2d€353,€357Ð D!” Ð(1941)).€€In€òòMcCammonóó,€Mr.€Meredith€owned€an€easement€over€Ms.€McCammonððs€property€toÐ 0"€  Ðaccess€a€specific€tract€of€land.€€He€built€another€road€outside€that€easement€to€access€a€different€tractÐ #l! Ðhe€owned,€destroying€fences€and€vegetation,€erecting€gates,€and€paving€over€a€spring.€€This€courtÐ $X" Ðfound€Mr.€Meredith€did€not€have€a€prescriptive€easement€for€the€new€road€he€built,€and€could€notÐ ô$D # Ðincrease€the€burden€on€Ms.€McCammonððs€land€from€the€easement€he€had€been€granted.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€the€deeds€granted€Mr.€Ball€only€one€defined€right€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðway.€€The€extent€and€location€of€that€right€of€way€is€no€longer€in€dispute.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* Їà@‚‚ìàò òIV.€€Easement€by€Estoppeló óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAlternatively,€Mr.€Ball€argues€that€in€his€logging€operation€he€was€entitled€to€use€the€RockyÐ ˆØ ÐCreek€route€through€the€Conatsersðð€property€under€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel.€€Relying€onÐ tÄ ÐòòMalloy€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€191€Tenn.€173,€232€Ô‡(XXXXÔS.W.2dÔ#†XXX(X¨`#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€24€(1950),€he€maintains€that€only€afterÐ `° ÐPat€Conatser€agreed€that€he€could€use€the€route,€he€bought€the€1,600€acre€piece€of€property€andÐ L œ Ðupgraded€and€built€roads€on€the€Conatser€tract€in€reliance€on€her€assent.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àEquitable€estoppel€is€the€effect€of€the€voluntary€conduct€of€a€party€whereby€he€isÐ  ` Ðabsolutely€precluded,€both€at€law€and€in€equity,€from€asserting€a€right€which€mightÐ ü L  Ðperhaps€have€otherwise€existed,€either€of€property,€of€contract,€or€of€remedy,€asÐ è 8  Ðagainst€another€person,€who€has€in€good€faith€relied€upon€such€conduct,€and€has€beenÐ Ô$  Ðled€thereby€to€change€his€position€for€the€worse,€and€who€on€his€part€acquires€someÐ À  Ðcorresponding€right,€either€of€property,€of€contract,€or€of€remedy.€.€.€.€It€is€notÐ ¬ü  Ðabsolutely€necessary€that€the€conduct€mentioned€in€the€first€subdivision€should€beÐ ˜è  Ðdone€with€a€fraudulent€purpose€or€intent,€or€with€an€actual€and€fraudulent€intentionÐ „Ô  Ðof€deceiving€the€other€party.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòChurch€of€Christ€v.€McDonaldóó,€180€Tenn.€86,€171€S.W.2d€817,€821€(1943)€(quoting€òòPomeroyððsÐ H˜ ÐEquity€Juris.óó,€Vol.€3,€p.€193„94);€òòDouglass€v.€Rowlandóó,€540€S.W.2d€252,€254„55€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 4„ Ð1976).Ð  p ÐÌà  àTherefore,€at€a€very€minimum,€estoppel€requires€ð ð(1)€reliance€upon€the€statement€or€actionsÐ øH Ðof€another€without€opportunity€to€know€the€truth€and€(2)€action€based€on€that€reliance€which€resultsÐ ä4 Ðin€detriment€to€the€one€acting.ðð€€òòWerne€v.€Sandersonóó,€954€S.W.2d€742,€746€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)Ð Ð  Ð(citing€òòCampbell€v.€Precision€Rubber€Prod.€Corp.óó,€737€S.W.2d€283,€286€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987)).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Mr.€Ball€was€unable€to€prove€that€he€detrimentally€relied€on€the€conversationÐ ”ä Ðwith€Pat€Conatser.€€Determinative€of€this€is€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Ball€himself€regarding€what€wasÐ €Ð Ðdiscussed€at€the€meeting€with€Pat€Conatser:€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àQ:€Did€you€specifically€discuss€the€route€of€Rocky€Creek?ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€No,€sir,€we€did€not.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà@òò(ìÐ Ð à*****ˆÐ #l! Ðà8  àQ:€Now,€Mrs.€Conatser€testified€about€a€discussion€wherein€she€interpreted€theÐ $X" Ðdiscussion€to€say€that€you€wanted€to€swap€your€way€to€get€to€Falling€Water€for€thisÐ ô$D # Ðroute€to€Rocky€Creek.€€What€do€you€remember€about€that€conversation?Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€I€donððt€recall€any€specifics€about€a€route€to€Rocky€Creek.€€I€did€meet€with€Mr.€andÐ Ì&"% ÐMrs.€Conatser€at€their€home€in€their€back€yard€and€told€them€that€I€would€like€to€rentÐ ¸'#& Ða€plot€of€ground€adjacent€to€the€gate€going€into€the€Conatser€property€for€the€purposeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€storing€logs.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àLater,€when€describing€the€route€taken€and€how€he€went€about€constructing€the€roadwayÐ ° Ðâ âalong€Rocky€Creek€and€up€the€hillside,€Mr.€Ball€testified:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àQ:€And€you€didnððt€tell€the€Conatsers€that€you€were€going€to€do€that?ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA:€I€did€not€tell€the€Conatsers€that€I€was€going€to€go€through€their€property€anywhere.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€I€see.ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA:€I€didnððt€ask€them€could€I€go€through€their€property.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€I€see.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA:€Because€I€had€an€easement.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà@òò(ìÐ Ð à*****ˆÐ ü L  Ðà8  àQ:€You€say€you€went€and€talked€to€Pat€about€going€up€the€mountainside€there?Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA:€No,€sir.€€Not€in€a€specific€location€up€the€mountain.Ô#†XXXXð`#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€testimony€is€consistent€with€Mr.€Ballððs€position,€evident€elsewhere€in€his€testimony€andÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€brief,€that€he€interpreted€the€deeds€as€giving€him€the€right€to€access€routes€across€the€ConatsersððÐ ˜è  Ðproperty€as€he€needed€them.€€He€did€not€think€he€needed€the€Conatsersðð€permission€to€create€roadsÐ „Ô  Ðor€passageways€across€such€routes€or€to€improve€them.€€He€testified€he€was€aware€he€needed€to€beÐ pÀ Ðsensitive€to€the€Conatsersðð€interest,€and€that€he€went€to€talk€to€Ms.€Conatser€to€assure€her€he€wouldÐ \¬ Ðuse€environmentally€sound€methods€and€would€act€in€both€their€interests.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTherefore,€based€upon€his€own€statements,€Mr.€Ball€cannot€show€that€he€relied€on€anyÐ  p Ðpermission,€assent,€or€grant€of€access€from€the€Conatsers.€€In€deciding€to€purchase€the€1600€acreÐ  \ Ðtract,€he€relied€on€his€own€interpretation€of€the€rights€granted€him€in€the€deed.׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð øH ÐÌà  àAlthough€Mr.€Ball€was€certain€he€never€spoke€to€either€of€the€Conatsers€about€using€theÐ Ð  ÐRocky€Creek€route,€Pat€Conatser€testified€to€such€a€conversation.€€She€interpreted€Mr.€Ballððs€remarksÐ ¼  Ðabout€the€Rocky€Creek€route€being€ð ðless€trouble,€it€was€shorter€to€his€land,€and€less€damage€to€me,Ð ¨ø Ðif€he€went€along€the€side€of€the€creekðð€and€as€a€request€to€swap€the€Rotten€Fork€easement€set€out€inÐ ”ä Ðthe€deed€for€one€along€Rocky€Creek.€€Although€she€admitted€Mr.€Ball€did€not€specifically€state€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€was€asking€to€trade€one€route€for€the€other,€that€was€her€interpretation€of€the€conversation.€€BasedÐ l¼ Ðon€that€understanding,€she€agreed,€she€thought,€to€his€use€of€the€Rocky€Creek€route.€€Such€agreement,Ð X ¨ Ðhowever,€did€not€include€giving€Mr.€Ball€the€right€to€leave€the€route€by€the€creek€and€cut€a€roadÐ D!” Ð1600„1700€feet€up€a€slope€on€her€land.€€She€testified€Mr.€Ball€agreed€to€ð ðstaying€close€to€the€creekÐ 0"€  Ðbank.€€I€would€never€have€agreed€if€he€had€said€to€go€out€in€the€fieldðð€and€up€the€side€of€theÐ #l! Ðmountain.Ð $X" ÐÌÔ#†XXXX’q#Ôà  àBecause€Mr.€Ball€is€the€party€attempting€to€use€the€defense€of€estoppel,€he€has€the€burden€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðproving€all€the€elements.€€òòJenkins€Subway,€Inc.€v.€Jonesóó,€990€S.W.2d€713,€723€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ì&"% Ð1998);€òòÔ_ÔBokorÔ_Ô€v.€Holderóó,€722€S.W.2d€676,€680€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€By€his€own€testimony,€he€hasÐ ° Ðfailed€to€establish€that€he€relied€on€any€grant€of€permission€to€use€the€Rocky€Creek€route.€€EvenÐ œì Ðconsidering€Ms.€Conatserððs€testimony,€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€an€assent€to€his€use€of€the€RockyÐ ˆØ ÐCreek€route€in€addition€to€the€north„south€route€established€in€the€deed.€€There€is€absolutely€no€proofÐ tÄ Ðof€any€assent€to€his€cutting€a€new€road€from€the€Rocky€Creek€route€up€a€slope€on€the€ConatsersððÐ `° Ðproperty.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àTherefore,€Mr.€Ball€has€failed€to€establish€the€elements€required€to€establish€estoppel.€Ð $ t ÐConsequently,€the€Conatsers€are€not€estopped€from€denying€him€the€right€to€use€or€create€an€accessÐ  ` Ðroute€along€Rocky€Creek€or€across€their€land€from€the€creek€northward.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@ÖÖ%ìàò òV.€€Damagesó óˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àBecause€Mr.€Ballððs€rights€to€ingress€and€egress€across€the€Conatsersðð€property€were€limitedÐ ˜è  Ðto€the€north„south€easement€granted€in€the€deeds,€his€entry€on,€use€of,€and€improvement€to€any€otherÐ „Ô  Ðportion€of€their€land€was€trespass.€€òòMcCammon€v.€Meredithóó,€830€S.W.2d€at€580.€€ð ðIf€an€easement€isÐ pÀ Ðput€to€any€use€inconsistent€with€the€purpose€for€which€it€is€granted,€the€grantee€becomes€a€trespasserÐ \¬ Ðto€the€extent€of€the€unauthorized€use.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(quotingòò€Adams€v.€Ô_ÔWinnettÔ_Ôóó,€156€S.W.2d€at€357).€Ð H˜ ÐTherefore,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€Mr.€Ball€was€liable€for€damage€caused€by€hisÐ 4„ Ðtrespass.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€record€establishes€that€Mr.€Ball€created€a€road€for€logging€which€left€the€east„west€RockyÐ øH ÐCreek€route€and€headed€north€through€the€Conatsersðð€land,€crossing€a€field€and€going€up€aÐ ä4 Ðmountainside,€eventually€reaching€his€tract.€€In€building€that€road€he€bulldozed€trees€and€removedÐ Ð  Ðother€vegetation.€€He€testified€he€took€precautions€by€putting€in€water€bars€to€lessen€erosion€andÐ ¼  Ðplanted€grass€and€corn.€€Others€testified€that€erosion€would€occur,€damaging€the€slope€and€the€fieldsÐ ¨ø Ðbelow€if€the€damage€was€not€restored.Ð ”ä ÐÌÔ‡(XXXXÔà  àMr.€Parris€testified€as€to€the€work€which€would€need€to€be€done€to€restore€the€land€to€itsÐ l¼ Ðprevious€condition.€€He€testified€that€if€the€damage€were€not€addressed€soil€would€wash€down€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðfield€below€and€erosion€would€continue.€€The€Conatsers€also€called€Rodney€Foy,€a€registered€landÐ D!” Ðsurveyor,€to€testify€to€the€condition€of€their€property€and€the€extent€of€damage.€€He€testified€that€aÐ 0"€  Ðtrail€had€been€bulldozed€out€and€that€erosion€will€occur.Ð #l! ÐÔ#†XXX(Xl†#ÔÌà  àThe€fact€there€was€damage€to€the€Conatsersðð€property€was,€therefore,€proved.€€MoreÐ ô$D # Ðproblematic,€however,€is€the€question€of€whether€the€proof€supports€the€courtððs€award€of€damagesÐ à%0!$ Ðunder€the€appropriate€measure.€€The€trial€court€initially€awarded€$5,000€in€damages,€but€later€reducedÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€award€to€$2500€after€Mr.€Ball€filed€his€motion€to€alter€the€judgment.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àMr.€Ball€asserts€that€the€Conatsers€failed€to€carry€their€burden€of€proof€regarding€damagesÐ )à$( Ðand,€consequently,€are€entitled€to€no€monetary€judgment.€€Mr.€Ball€asserts€that€the€proper€measureÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€damages€for€injuries€to€real€property€is€the€difference€in€the€fair€market€value€before€and€after€theÐ h+¸&* Ðinjury€or€the€reasonable€costs€of€repairing€the€injury,€whichever€is€less,€relying€on€€òòFuller€v.€OrkinÐ ° ÐExterminating€Co.,€Inc.óó,€545€S.W.2d€103€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975).€€According€to€Mr.€Ball,€theÐ œì ÐConatsers€were€required€to€prove€both€amounts€so€that€the€ð ðwhichever€is€lessðð€comparison€can€beÐ ˆØ Ðmade.€€Mr.€Ball€asserts€the€Conatsers€provided€an€inflated€and€speculative€estimate€of€the€cost€toÐ tÄ Ðrestore€their€land€and€provided€no€proof€regarding€the€diminution€in€its€value.€€This€failure,€accordingÐ `° Ðto€Mr.€Ball,€precludes€their€recovery€of€any€damages.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Conatsers,€on€the€other€hand,€maintain€that€they€presented€evidence€of€the€cost€to€repairÐ $ t Ðthe€damage€caused€by€Mr.€Ballððs€cutting€the€road€up€their€hillside,€$39,000€to€$40,000,€that€greatlyÐ  ` Ðexceeded€the€amount€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€€They€argue€the€evidence€of€the€cost€of€repair€wasÐ ü L  Ðnot€speculative€but€was€based€in€part€on€estimates€and€that€Mr.€Ball€offered€no€rebuttal€proof€of€aÐ è 8  Ðlesser€€cost.€€The€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€further€maintain€that€the€proper€measure€of€damages€is€the€reasonableÐ Ô$  Ðcost€of€restoration€of€any€physical€injury€to€the€land,€citing€òòCitizens€Real€Estate€&€Loan€Co.,€Inc.€v.Ð À  ÐMountain€States€Dev.€Corp.,óó€633€S.W.2d€763€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð ¬ü  Ð13(a),€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€ask€this€court€to€award€them€up€to€$40,000€in€damages.€€Because€Mr.€BallÐ ˜è  Ðoffered€no€proof€on€any€alternative€measure€of€damages,€they€assert€he€cannot€now€complain€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðuse€of€their€measure.Ð pÀ ÐÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àThe€general€rule€for€the€measure€of€damages€for€trespass€òòóóis:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àThe€cost€of€restoring€the€property€to€its€condition€prior€to€the€injury€caused€by€aÐ  p Ðtrespass€is€an€alternative€to€the€measure€of€diminution€of€market€value,€where€theÐ  \ Ðinjury€to€the€land€resulting€from€the€trespass€is€temporary€and€subject€to€restoration,Ð øH Ðunless€such€cost€is€equal€to€or€exceeds€the€market€value€of€the€affected€property,€orÐ ä4 Ðis€disproportionate€to€or€greater€than€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€property.€Ð Ð  ÐDamages€for€restoration€or€replacement€are€limited€to€situations€where€replacementÐ ¼  Ðor€restoration€costs€are€feasible€and€reasonable.€€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌ75€òòAm.€Juróó.€2d,€òòTrespass€óóðð€137€(1991).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌÔ#†XXXXj“#ÔÔ‡(XXXXÔà  àIn€òòRedbud€Coop.€Corp.€v.€Claytonóó,€700€S.W.2d€551€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985),€this€court€foundÐ X ¨ Ðthere€was€proof€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€owners€of€houses€in€a€development€had€sufferedÐ D!” Ðdamages€as€a€result€of€the€developerððs€failure€to€construct€a€drainage€system€in€accordance€with€itsÐ 0"€  Ðoriginal€drainage€plan.€€Although€liability€in€òòRedbud€Ô_ÔCoop.Ô_Ô€Corpóó.€was€not€based€on€trespass,€theÐ #l! Ðcourtððs€discussion€of€damages€is€instructive:Ð $X" ÐÌÔ#†XXX(X-—#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àOur€courts€have€approached€the€question€of€the€measure€of€damages€for€injury€to€realÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€from€several€different€directions.€€They€have,€in€the€past,€drawn€distinctionsÐ Ì&"% Ðbetween€damages€for€injuries€to€the€land€itself€as€opposed€to€improvements€on€theÐ ¸'#& Ðland.€€They€have€also€drawn€distinction€between€injuries€that€are€permanent€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðopposed€to€those€that€are€ð ðremediable.ðð€€In€an€attempt€to€reconcile€these€precedents,Ð )à$( ÐJudge€Carney€has€stated:Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOur€appellate€courts€have€uniformly€held€that€the€measure€of€damagesÐ ° Ðfor€injury€to€real€estate€is€the€difference€between€the€reasonableÐ œì Ðmarket€value€of€the€premises€immediately€prior€to€and€immediatelyÐ ˆØ Ðafter€injury€but€if€the€reasonable€cost€of€repairing€the€injury€is€lessÐ tÄ Ðthan€the€depreciation€in€value,€the€cost€of€repair€is€the€lawful€measureÐ `° Ðof€damages.€€Of€course,€the€trier€of€fact€can€also€take€intoÐ L œ Ðconsideration€the€reasonable€cost€of€restoring€the€property€to€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðformer€condition€in€arriving€at€the€difference€in€value€immediatelyÐ $ t Ðbefore€and€after€the€injury€to€the€premises.Ð `` x` x ÐÌòòÔ#†XXXX½™#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔIdóó.€at€560„61€(quoting€òòFuller€v.€Orkin€Exterminating€Co.óó,€545€S.W.2d€103,€108€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð è 8  Ð1975))€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð Ô$  ÐÔ#†XXXX“Ÿ#ÔÌà  àIn€òòRedbudóó,€this€court€also€determined€that€the€only€reasonable€basis€upon€which€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðcould€have€awarded€damages€was€the€cost€of€repairing€the€developmentððs€inadequate€drainageÐ ˜è  Ðsystem.€€700€S.W.2d€at€561.€€This€conclusion€was€based€upon€(1)€the€fact€that€it€would€have€beenÐ „Ô  Ðimpractical€to€attempt€to€calculate€the€exact€extent€of€damage€to€each€home€in€the€development€withÐ pÀ Ðany€degree€of€precision,€since€the€experts€testified€that€the€diminution€in€value€arose€from€a€decreaseÐ \¬ Ðin€competitive€attractiveness;€(2)€the€inadequate€drainage€system€was€causing€damage€to€theÐ H˜ Ðdevelopmentððs€common€areas,€which€had€no€market€value;€and€(3)€based€on€the€developerððs€proofÐ 4„ Ðof€recent€sales€prices€of€homes€in€the€development,€it€would€have€been€reasonable€for€the€trial€courtÐ  p Ðto€conclude€that€the€cost€of€repairing€the€drainage€system€was€less€than€the€diminished€market€valueÐ  \ Ðof€all€homes€in€the€development.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€we€concluded€that€the€trial€court€was€justified€inÐ øH Ðawarding€damages€based€on€the€estimated€cost€of€repairing€the€drainage€system,€noting,€ð ðin€this€caseÐ ä4 Ð[such€evidence]€was€the€only€reliable€evidence€before€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔKillianÔ_Ô€v.€Campbellóó,€760€S.W.2d€218,€222€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988),€this€court€stated€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðcost€of€restoration€is€the€proper€measure€of€injuries€to€land€where€such€restoration€is€possible.€€In€thatÐ ”ä Ðcase,€the€defendants€made€improvements€or€alterations€to€real€property€of€another€by€creating€aÐ €Ð Ðroadway€and€a€pad€and€utilities€for€a€mobile€home.€€These€actions€were€performed€pursuant€to€a€deedÐ l¼ Ðwhich€was€later€set€aside.€€This€court€stated€the€proper€measure€of€damages€as:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àIf€an€injury€to€the€land€is€permanent,€any€depreciation€in€the€value€will€be€an€elementÐ 0"€  Ðof€damages.€€If€the€land€can€be€restored€to€its€original€value€by€an€expenditure€ofÐ #l! Ðmoney€and€labor,€the€costs€of€such€money€and€labor€is€the€basic€measure€of€damages.€Ð $X" ÐOther€elements€might€be€present€for€consideration.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€(citing€òòCitizens€Real€Estate€&€Loan€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Mountain€States€Dev.óó,€633€S.W.2d€763€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐCt.€App.€1981)).€€While€the€court€set€forth€this€standard,€it€found€no€need€to€apply€it€in€òòKillianóóÐ ¸'#& Ðbecause€no€proof€€had€been€produced€regarding€the€nature€of€the€injuries€(permanent€or€restorable),Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€depreciation€in€the€value€after€the€injuries,€or€the€cost€to€repair€the€injuries.€€òòIdóó.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€òòCole€v.€Cliftonóó,€833€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€a€trespass€case,€this€courtÐ ° Ðâ ârecognized€that€at€least€one€party€saw€a€need€to€reconcile€the€òòKillianóó€holding€with€that€of€òòFuller€v.Ð œì ÐOrkinóó€and€òòRedbudóó.€€The€plaintiffs€in€òòColeóó€framed€the€issue€as€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àð ð[Ô_ÔW]hetherÔ_Ô€the€measure€of€damages€for€trespass€to€land€[is]€the€cost€of€restorationÐ `° Ðof€the€land,€or€the€diminution€in€value€to€the€land,€or€the€lesser€of€the€two;€and€if€itÐ L œ Ðis€the€law€that€the€measure€of€damages€is€the€lesser€of€the€two,€must€the€plaintiffsÐ 8 ˆ Ðprove€both€measures?ððÐ$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€76.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àUnfortunately€for€the€case€before€us,€the€court€in€òòColeóó€declined€to€resolve€that€issue€or€ð ðtoÐ Ô$  Ðrule€on€any€potential€conflict€between€òòKillianóó€and€òòFullerððóó.€€òòIdóó.€at€77.€€Instead,€the€court€affirmed€theÐ À  Ðtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€had€not€proved€damages€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòId.óóÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€a€later€case,€òò€Ô_ÔMcCammonÔ_Ô€v.€Meredithóó,€830€S.W.2d€577,€€this€court€considered€the€properÐ pÀ Ðmeasure€of€damages€for€trespass€in€building€a€road€over€a€spring,€which€trespass€the€courtÐ \¬ Ðcharacterized€as€deliberate€and€showing€reckless€disregard€for€the€owner€of€the€property.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðplaintiff€had€asked€for€a€mandatory€injunction€requiring€the€trespasser€to€remove€the€roadbed€andÐ 4„ Ðfrom€the€spring€and€surrounding€area.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€òòMcCammonóó,€the€court€recognized€the€various€measures€of€damages€explained€in€òòRedbudÐ øH ÐCoop.€Corp.óó,€but€also€relied€on€òòÔ_ÔKillianÔ_Ô€óófor€the€proposition€ð ðIf€land€can€be€restored€to€its€originalÐ ä4 Ðvalue€by€an€expenditure€of€money€and€labor,€the€cost€of€such€money€and€labor€is€the€basic€measureÐ Ð  Ðof€damages.ðð€€830€S.W.2d€at€581.€€The€court€also€quoted€the€standard€from€òòCitizens€Real€Estate€&Ð ¼  ÐLoan€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Mountain€States€Development€Corpóó.,€633€S.W.2d€763€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981),Ð ¨ø Ðð ð[Ô_Ôw]henÔ_Ô€the€injury€is€permanent,€any€depreciation€in€the€value€of€the€property€will€be€an€element€ofÐ ”ä Ðdamages,€according€to€the€extent€and€duration€of€plaintiffððs€estate.€€An€estimate€of€damages€on€thisÐ €Ð Ðbasis€presupposes€that€the€premises€are€subject€to€the€same€lasting€detriment,€and€that€it€is€not€to€beÐ l¼ Ðavoided€or€removed€by€any€expenditure,€for,€otherwise,€the€injury€would€be€measured€upon€differentÐ X ¨ Ðelements.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThis€court€found€the€plaintiffððs€testimony€that€the€aesthetics€of€the€spring€in€connection€withÐ #l! Ðher€use€of€her€property€were€more€important€to€her€than€recovery€of€any€monetary€damages€was€aÐ $X" Ðcompelling€reason€for€requiring€the€trespasser€to€remove€the€roadbed.€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€ordered€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€trespasser€be€mandatorily€enjoined€to€remove€the€roadbed€and€restore€the€spring€and€surroundingÐ à%0!$ Ðarea€to€its€former€condition,€ð ð[Ô_Ôp]rovidedÔ_Ô,€however,€proof€may€be€heard€to€ascertain€if€restoration€willÐ Ì&"% Ðexceed€$4,000.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€582.€€If€restoration€costs€were€shown€to€exceed€that€amount,€plaintiff€was€toÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€awarded€$4,000€in€damages.€€òòIdóó.€€Plaintiff€had€testified€that€the€loss€of€the€spring€depreciated€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvalue€of€her€property€between€$3400€and€$3800.€€òòIdóó.€at€581.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€presented€testimony€from€Mr.€Ô_ÔParrisÔ_Ô€who€had€been€askedÐ ° Ðâ âto€prepare€an€estimate€for€the€cost€of€restoring€the€damage€to€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€caused€by€the€road€fromÐ œì Ðthe€Rocky€Creek€route€up€the€hill.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔParrisÔ_Ô€based€his€repair€estimate€of€$39,000€to€$40,000€onÐ ˆØ Ðcosts€of€labor€and€equipment,€including€a€track€hoe€at€an€hourly€rate€of€$150,€as€well€as€replacementÐ tÄ Ðtrees.€€He€testified€that€this€figure€would€be€a€high€estimate€and€included€costs€of€otherÐ `° Ðsubcontractors€to€do€things€such€as€plant€the€trees.€€As€with€all€estimates,€he€acknowledged€that€theÐ L œ Ðactual€time€required€and€resulting€cost€could€differ€from€the€estimate.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMr.€Ball€asserts€that€this€evidence€of€the€cost€of€repair€is€insufficient€to€support€the€damagesÐ  ` Ðaward€because€the€witness€was€not€a€land€appraiser,€timber€buyer€or€other€reliable€source€ofÐ ü L  Ðknowledge€and€admitted€his€estimate€of€the€repair€costs€was€speculative.€€However,€in€òòRedbud€Coop.Ð è 8  ÐCorpóó.,€this€court€discussed€the€specificity€needed€in€establishing€the€amount€of€damages.€€WhileÐ Ô$  Ðrecognizing€that€uncertain,€contingent,€or€speculative€damages€should€not€be€awarded,€we€stated:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àuncertain€or€speculative€damages€are€prohibited€only€when€the€existence€of€damagesÐ ˜è  Ðis€uncertain€not€when€the€amount€of€damage€is€uncertain.€€All€that€an€award€forÐ „Ô  Ðdamages€requires€is€proof€of€damages€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€certainty.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌ700€S.W.2d€at€561.€(internal€citations€omitted).€€In€a€footnote,€we€recognized€that€an€award€can€beÐ H˜ Ðbased€upon€estimated€costs€of€repair.€€òòIdóó.€at€561€n.20€(citing€òòCity€of€Knoxville€v.€Peeblesóó,€19€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€340,€87€S.W.2d€1022€(1935)).€€We€find€that€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€proof€regarding€the€cost€of€repairÐ  p Ðof€the€damage€done€by€Mr.€Ballððs€trespass€is€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€certainty.€€Although€Mr.Ð  \ ÐBall€cross„examined€Mr.€Ô_ÔParrisÔ_Ô€about€his€evidence,€he€presented€no€other€evidence€of€the€cost€ofÐ øH Ðrepair.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔConatserÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€fair€market€value€of€his€150€acre€tract€was€$150,000.׃j×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€TheÐ ¼  ÐÔ_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€presented€no€testimony€as€to€the€value€of€the€property€before€and€after€the€injury€or€theÐ ¨ø Ðdepreciation€in€value€due€to€the€injuries.€€Mr.€Ball€presented€no€such€proof€either.€€In€this€appeal,€Mr.Ð ”ä ÐBall€asserts€that€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€failure€to€prove€any€decrease€in€value€in€their€land€due€to€his€trespassÐ €Ð Ðis€fatal€to€their€request€for€damages.€€Essentially,€he€asserts€that€Ô‡XXXXÔthe€measure€of€damages€to€realÐ l¼ Ðproperty€is€calculated€by€a€two„pronged€test€and€that€it€was€the€Ô_ÔConastersÔ_Ôðð€burden€to€prove€bothÐ X ¨ Ðprongs.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThis€court€resolved€that€issue€in€òòÔ_ÔNutzellÔ_Ô€v.€Godwinóó,€no€docket€no.,€1989€WL€76306€at€*1€Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€13,€1989)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)Ô#†XXXX'É#Ô,€wherein€the€defendantÐ $X" Ðmade€the€same€argument€that€Mr.€Ball€makes:€that€in€a€case€involving€damage€to€real€property€theÐ ô$D # Ðplaintiff€is€required€to€offer€proof€on€both€factors€(cost€of€repairs€and€diminution€in€value)€so€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€court€or€the€jury€can€choose.€€We€stated:Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà8  àWe€hold€that€the€plaintiffs€do€not€have€the€burden€of€offering€alternative€measuresÐ ° Ðâ âof€damages.€€The€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€the€cost€of€repairs€isÐ œì Ðunreasonable€when€compared€to€the€diminution€in€value€due€to€the€defects€andÐ ˆØ Ðomissions.€€This€reasoning€is€consistent€with€that€of€the€Texas€courts€in€òòGreene€v.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔBeardenÔ_Ô€Enterprises,€Inc.óó,€598€S.W.2d€649€(Tex.€Civ.€App.€1980)€which€dealt€withÐ `° Ða€similar€factual€situation.€€Other€states€have€applied€the€same€logic€applying€thisÐ L œ Ðmeasure€of€damages.€€òòÔ_ÔA.I.D.Ô_Ô€Insurance€Services€v.€Rileyóó,€25€Ariz.€App.€132,€541€P.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð595€(1975);€òòEngel€v.€Dunn€Countyóó,€273€Wis.€218,€77€N.W.2d€408€(1956).€€BecauseÐ $ t Ðthe€burden€to€produce€an€alternative€measure€of€damages€was€on€the€defendant€whoÐ  ` Ðfailed€to€meet€that€burden,€proof€of€repairs€alone€was€a€sufficient€basis€on€which€toÐ ü L  Ðsubmit€the€question€of€damages€to€the€jury.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€*1„2.òò€€See€also€Oakwood€Furniture€Mfg.,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔRUHÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔPressleyÔ_Ô€Constr.€Co.,€Incóó.,€€No.Ð À  Ð03A01„9307„CH„00233,€1993€WL€477020€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€15,€1993)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ð ¬ü  Ðapplication€filed).€€Therefore,€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€were€not€required€to€prove€the€diminution€in€value€ofÐ ˜è  Ðtheir€land€due€to€Mr.€Ballððs€trespass.€€Mr.€Ball€was€required€to€present€such€proof€if€he€wanted€theÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€to€apply€that€measure.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àMr.€Ballððs€trespass€caused€damage€to€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ôðð€land€which€can€be€repaired.€€WithoutÐ H˜ Ðsuch€repair,€continuing€damage€will€be€caused€through€erosion.€€Therefore,€the€proper€measure€ofÐ 4„ Ðdamages€was€the€òòreasonable€óócost€of€repair,€òòÔ‡(XXXXÔCitizens€Real€Estate€&€Loan€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Mountain€StatesÐ  p ÐDev.€Corpóó.,€633€S.W.2d€at€767,€Ô#†XXX(X"Õ#Ôunless€such€cost€is€disproportionate€to€or€exceeds€the€diminution€inÐ  \ Ðvalue€or€is€disproportionate€to€or€exceeds€the€market€value€of€the€affected€property.€€Because€thereÐ øH Ðwas€no€proof€regarding€the€diminution€in€value,€the€trial€court€could€properly€consider€theÐ ä4 Ðproportionality€of€the€cost€of€repair€to€the€market€value€of€the€affected€property.€€In€determining€anÐ Ð  Ðappropriate€and€reasonable€amount€of€damages,€the€court€was€entitled€to€consider€the€nature€of€theÐ ¼  Ðinjury,€the€portion€of€the€land€damaged€and€Ô‡XXXXÔthe€effect€of€damage€of€that€portion€on€the€entire€tract,Ô#†XXXX3Ø#ÔÐ ¨ø Ðthe€market€value€of€the€entire€tract€or€the€portion€damaged,€and€the€costs€of€repair.€€In€consideringÐ ”ä Ðthose€factors,€the€trial€court€originally€assessed€damages€at€$5,000.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€showed€that€Mr.€Ball€cut€a€road€of€1600€„€1700€feet€in€length€across€a€field€andÐ X ¨ Ðup€a€slope,€causing€injury€to€the€land€and€creating€a€condition€allowing€continuing€injury.€€The€trialÐ D!” Ðcourt€€limited€the€amount€for€repairs€presumably€because€of€the€Ô_ÔdisproportionalityÔ_Ô€of€the€estimatedÐ 0"€  Ðcost,€$39,000€„€$40,0000,€to€the€market€value€of€the€entire€150€acre€tract,€$150,000.€€We€find€noÐ #l! Ðerror€in€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$5,000€in€damages€in€view€of€the€evidence€and€record€before€it.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€later€decreased€the€judgment€to€$2,500,€and€the€record€includes€no€explanationÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€the€change.€€The€only€indication€we€have€for€the€courtððs€rationale€is€Mr.€Ballððs€motion€to€alterÐ Ì&"% Ðor€amend€the€judgment€wherein€Mr.€Ball€argued:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àThe€court€erred€in€entering€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$5,000.00€(Five€thousandÐ )à$( Ðdollars).€€The€only€testimony€as€to€damages€was€presented€through€Jerry€Parris.€€TheÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€was€not€competent€in€that€the€witness€could€not€answer€any€questions€as€toÐ h+¸&* Ðhow€he€calculated€damages€and€further€testified€that€he€was€merely€giving€a€guess.€Ð ° ÐIt€is€averred€that€the€amount€of€$5,000.00€(Five€thousand€dollars)€would€represent€aÐ œì Ðsubstantial€portion€of€the€fair€market€value€of€the€entire€Conatser€tract€when€onlyÐ ˆØ Ðarguably€an€acre€or€two€of€property€was€damaged€at€most.€€The€correct€calculationÐ tÄ Ðof€damage€would€be€the€fair€market€value€of€a€small€portion€of€hillside.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€have€already€dispensed€with€Mr.€Ballððs€complaints€about€the€speculative€nature€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€regarding€the€cost€of€repair.€€Although€he€argues€that€the€correct€calculation€would€be€theÐ $ t Ðvalue€of€only€a€small€portion€of€the€hillside,€he€cites€and€we€find€no€authority€for€that€position.€€Such€Ð  ` Ðan€argument€assumes€there€is€a€fair€market€value€for€only€that€portion€and€that€the€size€of€the€affectedÐ ü L  Ðportion€has€been€identified.€€In€view€of€the€fact€there€was€no€evidence€regarding€the€potential€forÐ è 8  Ðdiffering€values€per€acre€of€different€portion€of€the€150€acre€tract,€it€apparently€also€assumes€all€acresÐ Ô$  Ðare€valued€the€same.€€Because€the€trial€courtððs€original€judgment€was€supported€by€the€record€whenÐ À  Ðthe€applicable€measure€of€damages€is€applied€and€all€relevant€factors€considered,€and€because€theÐ ¬ü  Ðrecord€provides€no€evidence€or€justification€for€the€reduction€after€Mr.€Ballððs€motion,€we€modify€theÐ ˜è  Ðfinal€judgment€to€award€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€$5,000€in€damages.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@RR ìàò òVI.€€Frivolous€Appealó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Conatsers€maintain€that€because€no€law€supports€Mr.€Ballððs€contention€that€heÐ 4„ Ðis€granted€an€easement€according€to€the€language€of€the€deeds,€and€because€the€damages€issue€wasÐ  p Ðonly€an€afterthought,€Mr.€Ballððs€appeal€is€frivolous.€€Mr.€Ball€did€not€respond€to€this€issue.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„122,€governing€frivolous€appeals,€provides:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àWhen€it€appears€to€any€reviewing€court€that€the€appeal€from€any€court€of€record€wasÐ ¼  Ðfrivolous€or€taken€solely€for€delay,€the€court€may,€either€upon€motion€of€a€party€or€ofÐ ¨ø Ðits€own€motion,€award€just€damages€against€the€appellant,€which€may€include,€butÐ ”ä Ðneed€not€be€limited€to,€costs,€interest€on€the€judgment,€and€expenses€incurred€by€theÐ €Ð Ðappellee€as€a€result€of€the€appeal.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌHowever,€an€award€of€damages€under€ðð€27„1„122€is€discretionary.€€òòBanks€v.€St.€Francis€Hosp.óó,€697Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.€1985).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€neither€a€party,€nor€this€court,€should€have€to€bear€the€costs€and€vexationÐ $X" Ðof€a€meritless€appeal.€€òòJackson€v.€Aldridgeóó,€6€S.W.3d€501,€504€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(citing€òòDavisÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Gulf€Ins.€Groupóó,€546€S.W.2d€583,€586€(Tenn.€1977);€òòMcDonald€v.€Onohóó,€772€S.W.2d€913,€914Ð à%0!$ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)).€€An€appeal€is€considered€frivolous€if€there€is€no€reasonable€chance€of€successÐ Ì&"% Ðor€is€devoid€of€merit.€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòDavisóó,€546€S.W.2d€at€586;€òòIndustrial€Dev.€Bd.€of€Tullahoma€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐHancockóó,€901€S.W.2d€382,€385€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995));€òòBursack€v.€Wilsonóó,€982€S.W.2d€341,€345Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(citing,€among€others,€òòLiberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Tayloróó,€590€S.W.2d€920€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ð1979)€and€òòWilson€v.€Ricciardióó,€778€S.W.2d€450€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989));€òòCombustion€Engððg,€Inc.€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐKennedyóó,€562€S.W.2d€202,€205€(Tenn.€1978).Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWe€do€not€find€the€appeal€to€be€frivolous.€€All€the€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Ball€were€not€withoutÐ ° Ðlegal€merit.Ð œì ÐÌà@,,"ìàò òVII.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€all€respects€regardingÐ L œ Ðthe€grant€of€the€easement€to€Mr.€Ball€along€Rotten€Fork€and€Buckeye€Lick€Creek€and€the€denial€of€Ð 8 ˆ Ðuse€of€Rocky€Creek.€€We€modify€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€damages€by€vacating€its€final€order€on€Ð $ t Ðdamages€and€reinstating€the€judgment€entered€after€trial,€awarding€the€Ô_ÔConatsersÔ_Ô€$5,000€in€damages.€Ð  ` ÐCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Mr.€Ball.€Ð ü L  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE