ÿWPCâ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w.14_s‚ 0JŠ 0TÔ 0^( 0h† 0rî 0|` 0†Ü 0b 1uò 0dgU>ËB) AQ2 ƃ 0DI 0@ 0DÍ DC D/T Bƒ B  D3½ AMð U*= *g v~‘ vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-P+EQ+R+DS+T+EU+Ó€_+zƒ=#3|x_+2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&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 Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌOctober€10,€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  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦4XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò ò›Þ ÞÌCHARLES€W.€BERNARD€and€wife,à àà à)ÌKAREN€BERNARD,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà àà à)à àNo.€22425Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€à à)à àAppeal€No.ÌHOUSTON€EZELL€CORPORATION,€THE€à à)€à à01A01„9701„CH„00015̜ـ!ÙßR€*,%A1-j|ÁÿF` ç `€€@ÿRß›CITY€OF€BRENTWOOD,€TENNESSEE€and€à à)ÌLAND€INVESTMENT€CORPORATION,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendants/Appellees,›à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€WILLIAMSON€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€JUDGEÌó óÌÌÌWilliam€Kennerly€BurgerÌ301€N.€Spring€Street,€P.O.€Box€398ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37133„0398ÌœATTORNEY›€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌDavid€J.€White,€Jr.ÌWHITE€&€REASORÌ3305€West€End€AvenueÌNashville,€TN€37203ÌATTORNEY€FOR€œPLAINTIFFS/APPELLEE,€HOUSTON€EZELL€CORPORATIONÌÌVan€French,€BPR€#6922ÌThe€City€of€BrentwoodÌ8307€Bridle€PlaceÌBrentwood,€TN€37027ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEE›ÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌÌœBEN›€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌœWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›Ìò òÌÌœÌCHARLES›€W.€BERNARD€and€wife,à àà à)ÌKAREN€BERNARD,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà àà à)à àNo.€22425Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€à à)à àAppeal€No.ÌHOUSTON€EZELL€CORPORATION,€THE€à à)€à à01A01„9701„CH„00015ÌCITY€OF€BRENTWOOD,€TENNESSEE€and€à à)ÌLAND€INVESTMENT€CORPORATION,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendants/Appellees,›à àà àà à)ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÔ€¼Ôà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÔÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€suit€arose€out€of€alleged€defects€in€the€planning€of€a€subdivision€œlot€and›€defects€inÏthe€lot€on€which€a€house€was€built€and€sold€to€plaintiffs.€€ÌÌà àThe€suit€against€The€City€of€Brentwood€was€dismissed€upon€a€motion€to€dismiss€œor€for›Ïsummary€judgment.€€The€suit€against€Houston€Ezell€Corporation,€the€developer€of€theÏsubdivision,€was€dismissed€by€the€Trial€Judge€after€a€hearing€upon€the€merits.€€The€manner€ofÏdisposition€of€the€remaining€defendant,€Land€Investment€Corporation,€will€be€detailedÏhereafter.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓPLEADINGSó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€complaint€alleged€in€part:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ2.à àThe€Defendant€HOUSTON€EZELLÏCORPORATION€is€a€corporation€chartered€under€the€lawsÏof€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€doing€business€withinÏWilliamson€County,€Tennessee.€€Defendant€HOUSTONÏEZELL€CORPORATION€is€the€developer€of€the€above„described€Brentmeade€Estates€Subdivision,€which€includesÏLot€No.€156,€of€Section€II,€Revision€Number€1,€of€thatÏsubdivision.€€Plaintiffs€allege€and€aver€that€the€saidÏHOUSTON€EZELL€CORPORATION,€directly€or€throughÏtheir€agents,€prepared€information€required€by€both€state€andÏlocal€development€statutes€and€ordinances,€necessary€for€theÏsubmission€and€approval€of€the€above„described€BrentmeadeÏEstates€Subdivision€by€the€local€planning€authority,Ïspecifically€the€Brentwood€Planning€Commission.ÌœÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓ K ÓÓÓà à5.à àIncluded€among€the€mandatory€subdivisionÏregulations€applicable€to€the€above„described€tract€of€land€isÏðð€506€of€the€Brentwood€Subdivision€regulations,€whichÏprovides€as€follows:Ì›ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓòòð ðSuitability€of€the€landóó.€€The€Planning€Commission€œshall›€notÏapprove€the€subdivision€of€land€if,€from€adequateÏinvestigations€conducted€by€all€public€agencies€concerned,€itÏhas€been€determined€that€in€the€best€interest€of€the€public€theÏsite€is€not€suitable€for€platting€and€development€purposes€ofÏthe€kind€proposed.ÌÌLand€subject€to€flooding€and€land€deemed€to€beÏtopographically€unsuitable€shall€not€be€platted€for€residentialÏoccupancy,€or€for€any€other€uses€which€may€increase€floodÏhazard,€endanger€health,€life€or€property,€or€aggravateÏerosion.€€Such€land€within€the€plat€shall€be€set€aside€for€suchÏuses€as€shall€not€be€endangered€by€periodic€or€occasionalÏinundation€or€shall€not€produce€satisfactory€livingÏconditions.ÌœÓ  Ó„€„€„€„›ÌœÓ  Óà à5.›à àFurther€ðð602.3€of€the€òòBrentwoodÏSubdivision€Regulationsóó€outlines€minimal€requirements€forÏproper€lot€drainage€within€the€subdivision€proposed€forÏdevelopment.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óœà à7.›à àThe€Defendant,€LAND€INVESTMENTÏCORPORATION,€is€the€grantor€of€the€real€estate€property.€ÍThe€real€estate€was€constructed€by€contractor€T.€J.€NeumannÏand€Associates,€although€the€true€grantor€in€interest€isÏDefendant€LAND€INVESTMENT€CORPORATION.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óœà à9.›à àPlaintiffs€CHARLES€W.€BERNARD€andÏwife,€KAREN€BERNARD€allege€and€aver€that,€commencingÏalmost€immediately€upon€their€occupancy€of€the€property,Ïthey€became€aware€of€an€unusual€water€accumulationÏproblem€beneath€the€residence€constructed€upon€Lot€156,Ïmanifested€periodically€by€the€accumulation€of€as€much€asÏtwo€to€three€feet€of€water€beneath€the€house,€oftenÏinundating€the€central€heat€and€air€conduits€and€soaking€theÏfloor€joists€and€other€areas€beneath€the€residence.€€PlaintiffsÏallege€and€aver€that,€upon€complaining€of€the€propensity€ofÏthe€lot€to€frequently€flood€beneath€the€residence,€efforts€wereÏimmediately€commenced€by€the€developer€HOUSTONÏEZELL€CORPORATION€and€the€grantor,€LANDÏINVESTMENT€CORPORATION,€to€correct€the€problem.€ÏPlaintiffs€allege€that€those€corrective€efforts,€althoughÏproviding€some€temporary,€mitigating€relief,€failed€toÏprovide€a€permanent,€adequate€remedy.€€ExtensiveÏexcavation€around€and€beneath€the€residence€occurred€inÏ1990€as€the€Defendants€HOUSTON€EZELLÏCORPORATION€and€LAND€INVESTMENTÏCORPORATION€understood€more€dramatic€efforts€to€solveÏthe€water€accumulation€problems.€€Those€extensive€efforts€inÏ1990€provided€some€abatement€to€the€problem,€although€theÏrelief€was€temporary€in€nature,€and€proved€ultimately€to€beÏunsatisfactory.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óœà à12.›à àPlaintiffs€allege€and€aver€that€they€are€entitledÏto€the€remedy€of€recision€as€to€the€grantor,€LANDÏINVESTMENT€CORPORATION,€which€is€a€companyÏrelated€to€the€parent€company,€HOUSTON€EZELLÏCORPORATION.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óœà à14.›à àPlaintiffs€allege€and€aver€that,€due€to€theÏstatutory€obligation€of€the€CITY€OF€BRENTWOOD,ÏTENNESSEE€to€properly€review,€inspect,€and€approve€landÏproposed€for€subdivision€development,€the€CITY€OFÏBRENTWOOD,€TENNESSEE€is€legally€responsible,€bothÏupon€legal€theories€of€permanent€nuisance€and€tort,€due€toÏthe€improper€supervision€of€the€development€of€Lot€156.ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  ÓBASED€UPON€THE€FOREGOING€ALLEGATIONS,ÏPLAINTIFFS€SEEK€THE€FOLLOWING€RELIEF:ÌÌà àA.à àA€finding€by€the€Court€that€the€aboveÏdescribed€condition€constitutes€a€permanent€nuisance,€whichÏcannot€be€abated€or€minimized€by€expenditures€of€additionalÏsums€or€additional€corrective€work.Ìà àÌà àB.à àThat,€in€the€alternative,€a€mutual€mistake€ofÏfact€or€negligent€misrepresentation€existed€at€the€time€of€theÏsale€of€the€property€to€the€Plaintiffs€and€that,€accordingly,ÏPlaintiffs€should€be€granted€recision€of€the€transaction,Ïtogether€with€incidental€and€consequential€damagesÏappropriately€shown.ÌÌà àC.à àA€finding€that€the€CITY€OF€BRENTWOOD,ÏTENNESSEE€is€jointly€and€severally€liable€due€to€its€failureÏto€follow€the€requirements€which€the€CITY€itselfÏpromulgated€for€proper€review€of€potential€drainageÏproblems€in€proposed€subdivision€development.ÌÌà àD.à àThe€joint€and€several€liability€for€the€damagesÏshown€by€the€Plaintiffs€against€the€Defendant€HOUSTONÏEZELL€CORPORATION,€developer€of€Brentmeade€EstatesÏSubdivision.ÌÌà àE.à àFor€such€further€and€general€relief€to€whichÏPlaintiffs€may€be€entitled,€including€all€incidental€andÏconsequential€damages,€attorneyððs€fees,€and€court€costs.ÌÌà àF.à àA€finding€that€the€conduct€of€the€developerÏconstitutes€a€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÏStatute,€specifically€òòTennessee€Code€Annotatedóó,€ðð€47„18„101€et€seq,€entitling€the€Plaintiffs€to€an€assessment€ofÏattorneyððs€fees€and,€if€intentional€misconduct€is€shown,€anÏaward€of€treble€damages€against€the€developer€and€grantor.€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€City€moved€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€can€be€grantedÏand€subsequently€moved€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€overruled€the€motion€of€the€City€to€œdismiss›€and€sustained€the€motion€ofÏthe€City€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€defendant„developer€filed€an€answer€including€the€following:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ7.à àThe€Defendant€admits€that€Land€Investment€andÏDevelopment€Corporation,€the€predecessor€of€Houston€EzellÏCorporation,€transferred€and€conveyed€the€propertyÏdescribed€in€paragraph€1€of€the€Complaint€to€T.€J.€NeumannÏand€Associates,€Inc.€constructed€a€residence€on€the€property;Ïand€that€T.€J.€Neumann€and€Associates,€Inc.€transferred€andÏconveyed€the€property€to€the€Plaintiffs.€ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Ó1.à àThe€Complaint€fails€to€state€a€claim€against€theÏDefendant€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.ÌÌ2.à àThe€causes€of€action€alleged€in€the€Complaint€areÏbarred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌ3.à àNeither€the€Defendant€or€Land€Investment€andÏDevelopment€Corporation,€its€predecessor,€was€guilty€of€anyÏnegligence€which€proximately€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏPlaintiffsðð€water€problem€or€any€damages,€losses€orÏexpenses€incurred€by€the€Plaintiffs.€ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àPlaintiffs€moved€for€partial€summary€judgment€against€the€seller,€which€motion€wasÏoverruled.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€Order:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àUpon€consideration€of€the€entire€record€herein,€theÏcourt€concludes€that€defendant€Houston€Ezell€CorporationððsÏMotion€for€Summary€Judgment€is€not€well€taken€and€theÏsame€is€hereby€overruled.€€Plaintiff€is€hereby€awardedÏsummary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€defendant/developerððsÏliability€provided€said€defendant€fails€to€sustain€theÏaffirmative€defense€of€bar€of€the€statute€of€œlimitations.›ÌÌà àALL€SO€ORDERED€this€14th€day€of€DecemberÏ1995.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€developer€moved€for€an€order€bifurcating€the€remaining€issue€of€statute€ofÏlimitations€from€the€issue€of€damages,€and€for€hearing€on€the€issue.€€The€motion€wasÏsustained.ÌÌà àAll€pleadings€and€orders€to€this€point€were€under€captions€containing€the€names€of€allÏthree€captioned€defendants.ÌÌà àThe€captions€of€the€succeeding€memorandum€and€final€order€of€the€Trial€Judge€containÏonly€the€name€of€the€œdefendant„developer,€omitting€the€other€two€defendants.›ÌÌà àThe€Memorandum€reads€as€follows:Ò ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÓ K Óà àThis€bifurcatedÏcase€was€heard€on€August€16,€1996,€on€the€affirmativeÏdefense€of€statute€of€limitations€and/or€statute€of€repose.€€ByÏorder€entered€December€14,€1995,€Judge€Henry€D.€BellÏgranted€summary€judgment€as€to€liability,€except€forÏdefendantððs€right€to€assert€the€statute€of€limitations€defense.€ÏBy€order€entered€April€23,€1996,€the€court€bifurcated€theÏremaining€issue€of€damages€and€set€a€hearing€on€the€statuteÏof€limitations€issue.ÌÌà àOn€August€16,€the€court€heard€the€testimony€of€theÏparties€and€received€additional€evidence€on€the€sole€issueÏbefore€it.€€After€due€consideration,€the€court€finds€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations/statute€of€repose€defense€has€beenÏsustained€and€the€case€must€be€dismissed.ÌÌà àThe€gravamen€of€this€complaint€is€that€both€a€surfaceÏwater€and€subsurface€water€problem€exist€on€the€lot€andÏunder€the€house€where€plaintiffsðð€residence€is€located.€€TheirÏhomebuilder,€T.€J.€Neumann€&€Associates,€Inc.€(ð ðNeumannÏ(sic)),€who€sold€them€their€lot,€has€taken€bankruptcy€and€isÏno€longer€available€for€suit.€€They€have€sued€the€originalÏdeveloper€of€the€property€under€theories€of€negligence,Ïpermanent€nuisance,€and€violation€of€the€ConsumerÏProtection€Act.ÌÌà àThe€parties€do€not€dispute€that€defendant€sold€thisÏproperty€to€the€builder€on€March€31,€1986.€€The€builder€thenÏconstructed€a€home€on€the€lot.€€The€home€was€substantiallyÏœcompleted€and›€the€plaintiffs€received€their€deed€on€March€27,Ï1987.€€This€lawsuit€was€not€filed€until€December€14,€1993,Ïsix€and€one„half€years€later.ÌÌà àAt€issue€in€the€courtððs€determination€are€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€for€damage€to€real€propertyÏ(T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105);€the€four„year€statute€of€repose€relatedÍto€real€property€construction€(T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„202);€and€theÏone„year€statute€of€limitations€(with€a€four„year€statute€ofÏrepose)€for€violations€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÏAct€(T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„110).€€Plaintiffsðð€suit€was€not€broughtÏtimely€unless€they€can€show€that€the€applicable€statute(s)Ïwas/were€tolled€for€some€period€of€time€by€the€actions€ofÏdefendant€that€were€fraudulent€or€intended€to€conceal€the€realÏcause€of€action.ÌÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€as€follows.€€DefendantÏHouston€Ezell€Corporation€(formerly€known€as€LandÏInvestment€Corporation)€purchased€a€large€acreage€inÏWilliamson€County€for€the€purpose€of€subdividing€the€landÏinto€one„acre€tracts€on€which€single€family€residences€couldÏbe€constructed.€€Defendant€developed€the€land€in€complianceÏwith€all€applicable€governmental€rules€and€regulations.€€AtÏno€time€during€the€development€process€did€any€employee,Ïagent,€or€other€representative€of€defendant€see€or€hear€aboutÏany€unusual€flow€or€accumulation€of€water€on€the€acreageÏwhich€eventually€comprised€the€subdivision€known€asÏBrentmeade€Estates.€€Defendant€ultimately€sold€Lot€156,€theÏlot€in€question€of€this€lawsuit,€to€Neumann€in€March€1986.€ÏNeumann€then€began€construction€of€a€home€on€this€lot.ÌÌà àDuring€construction€of€the€home,€a€NeumannÏemployee€of€the€builder€observed€water€seeping€from€a€rockÏon€the€property.€€Neumannððs€foreman€called€defendant€forÏadvice€because€the€builder€was€new€to€Tennessee€and€wasÏinexperienced€in€dealing€with€subsurface€water€issues.€€TedÏSanders,€an€officer€of€defendant,€went€to€the€lot€but€did€notÏobserve€any€flow€or€accumulation€of€water€from€or€aroundÏthe€rock€at€that€time.€€Mr.€Sanders€made€suggestions€to€theÏforeman€that€an€underground€drainage€pipe€be€installed€to€theÏedge€of€the€property€line.€€Neumann€completed€thisÏinstallation.€€Defendant€then€agreed€to€install€a€pipe€from€theÏproperty€line€under€the€street€to€connect€to€a€storm€drain€onÏthe€opposite€side€of€the€street.€€The€City€of€BrentwoodÏinspector€approved€the€installation€of€the€pipe€under€theÏroad.€€Defendant€was€not€directly€involved€in€the€installationÏof€the€pipe€on€the€property.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€purchased€the€lot€and€moved€into€theÏresidence€in€March€1987.€€Several€months€after€they€tookÏpossession,€plaintiffs€noticed€water€standing€in€their€backÏyard€after€a€heavy€rain.€€They€had€never€experienced€thisÏproblem€before,€but€it€did€not€cause€them€great€concern€at€theÏtime.€€Within€a€month€or€two€after€that,€a€neighbor€called€andÏpointed€out€water€flowing€on€their€property€between€the€twoÍhouses€from€an€area€in€the€back€of€their€property.€€WaterÏwas€not€only€standing€but€flowing.ÌÌà àAbout€six€months€later,€in€early€1988,€plaintiffsÏobserved€that€every€time€it€rained€water€would€start€pooling€Ïin€the€same€back€yard€area.€€The€accumulation€became€muchÏlarger€than€before.€€Mr.€Bernard€pinpointed€six€areasÏflowing€from€underground€that€contributed€to€the€pooling.€ÏThis€did€create€concern.€€Mr.€Bernard€then€contactedÏdefendant€for€the€first€time.€€He€also€contacted€his€attorney,Ïwho€came€to€the€site,€personally€observed€the€six€flowingÏstreams,€and€made€a€video.ÌÌà àIn€response€to€that€call€Doug€Sanders,€an€agent€ofÏdefendant€and€acquaintance€of€Mrs.€Bernard,€cameÏimmediately€to€the€property€and€viewed€the€six€waterÏsources.€€Plaintiff€requested€help€from€defendant€to€resolveÏthe€problem.€€A€few€weeks€later,€in€about€March€1988,€anÏelectrician€working€under€plaintiffsðð€house€advised€themÏabout€a€ð ðseriousðð€standing€water€problem€there.€€Mr.ÏBernard€then€went€under€his€home€for€the€first€time.€€HeÏagain€called€defendant,€reported€the€problem,€and€soughtÏassistance.€€Defendant€representatives€returned€to€the€house,Ïobserved€the€water€and€building€debris€left€by€NeumannÏafter€construction,€and€took€action€to€pump€the€water€andÏremove€the€debris€from€underneath€the€house.€€The€positiveÏdrain€also€was€cleaned.ÌÌà àIn€the€fall€of€1988,€Mr.€Bernard€again€reported€anÏaccumulation€of€water€under€his€house.€€Defendant€againÏresponded€and€pumped€out€the€water.€€At€that€time€TedÏSanders€also€employed€Barge€Waggoner€Sumner€&€CannonÏto€investigate.€€Dan€Barge,€III€proposed€the€installation€of€aÏFrench€drain€to€intercept€the€water€coming€from€the€back€ofÏthe€lot€and€divert€it€around€the€house.€€This€drain€wasÏinstalled€at€no€cost€to€plaintiff€in€early€1989.€€The€defendantÏalso€employed€a€subcontractor€to€rework€the€earthenÏdrainage€ditch€at€the€rear€of€the€property.€€Immediately€uponÏcompletion€of€these€actions,€all€parties€hoped€that€they€hadÏcorrected€the€problem.ÌÌà àHowever,€within€six€to€eight€months€after€this€workÏwas€done€by€defendant,€Mr.€Bernard€testified€that€it€wasÏœð ðquite›€evidentðð€that€the€problems€had€œnot€been›€cured.€€At€thatÏtime€he€contacted€an€attorney€to€give€him€advice€about€whatÏhis€rights€were.€€However,€he€did€not€contact€defendantÏagain€until€early€1993.ÌÌà àIn€1993€plaintiffs€noticed€a€musty€odor€under€theirÏhouse,€and€identified€water€accumulating€there€again.€€TheyÏagain€contacted€defendant,€who€employed€a€hydrologist€toÏprepare€a€report.€€As€a€result€of€the€report€made€by€OgdenÏEnvironmental€and€Energy€Services€(ð ðOgdenðð),€plaintiffsÏhave€now€been€given€a€specific€opinion€about€the€cause€ofÏthe€water€problem,€and€a€specific€recommendation€aboutÏwhat€needs€to€be€done€to€correct€it.€€Plaintiffs€claim€that€theÏreceipt€of€this€report€constitutes€the€creation€of€their€cause€ofÏaction€and€starts€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏThey€filed€this€suit€on€December€14,€1993.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€asserted€at€trial€that€the€construction€of€theÏpipe€across€their€property€(not€done€by€defendant),€and€theÏfailure€to€advise€of€that€construction,€constitutes€one€part€ofÏtheir€claim.€€They€do€not€assert€that€plaintiffs€created€theÏunderground€springs.€€They€do€contend€that€defendantððsÏsuperior€knowledge€about€the€flowing€water€in€1986€gaveÏrise€to€a€duty€further€to€investigate€it,€and€the€failure€to€takeÏthat€step€gives€rise€to€a€cause€of€action.€€They€apparently€didÏnot€allege€that€any€remedial€work€done€in€1988€or€1989Ïgives€rise€to€a€cause€of€action,€but€only€œthat€that›€work€helpedÏconceal€the€extent€of€the€problem.€€Plaintiffs€rely€heavily€onÏstatements€made€in€òòPrescott€v.€Adamsóó,€627€S.W.2d€134Ï(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€However,€that€case€is€distinguishableÏbecause€it€arose€out€of€a€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment.€ÏIn€that€case€the€trial€court€found€that€there€were€issues€of€factÏconcerning€the€€allegations€of€fraud€and€concealment,€andÏthat€summary€judgment€was€not€appropriate.€€In€the€instantÏcase€defendant€also€did€not€prevail€on€its€earlier€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€The€matter€is€before€the€court€òònowóó,Ïhowever,€after€trial€on€the€merits.€€This€court€has€heard€moreÏproof€than€was€presented€during€the€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€and€is€in€a€position€to€evaluate€and€weigh€theÏproof€presented.ÌÌà àThis€court€is€convinced€that€the€cause€of€action€forÏdamages€arose,€if€at€all,€many€years€before€this€lawsuit€wasÏfiled.€€If€there€is€a€permanent€nuisance,€it€has€existed€sinceÏbefore€plaintiffs€purchased€their€property,€and€hasÏmanifested€itself€in€several€ways.€€If€there€is€a€violation€ofÏthe€Consumer€Protection€Act,€it€must€be€based€on€someÏaction€or€omission€taken€not€later€than€early€1989.€€The€factÏthat€plaintiffs€did€not€€discover€a€fraud€does€not€itself€toll€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€There€must€be€continued€affirmative,Ïfraudulent€concealment€of€the€cause€of€action€by€defendant.€ÏIn€addition,€the€defendant€must€know€that€the€plaintiff€has€aÏcause€of€action€and€must€conceal€it€in€such€a€fashion€that,Íeven€if€plaintiff€were€diligent,€he€would€not€be€able€toÏdiscover€it.€€òòPhillips€v.€Phillipsóó,€526€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€It€is€not€the€fraud,€but€its€concealment€by€the€partyÏperpetrating€it,€unmixed€with€fault€or€negligence€on€the€partÏof€him€who€complains,€which€works€this€result.€€òòIdóó.€At€440.ÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€court€is€convinced€that€defendantÏnever€affirmatively€committed€fraud€or€concealed€a€cause€ofÏaction.€€Each€time€plaintiffs€called€a€representative€ofÏdefendant€responded.€€Both€parties€had€the€same€amount€ofÏinformation€concerning€the€problems€as€they€developed.€ÏFrom€1988€forward,€Mr.€Bernard€was€fully€aware€that€thereÏwere€at€least€six€springs€causing€subsurface€water€flow€inÏhis€back€yard.€€He€was€aware€that€water€stood€under€theÏhouse€after€each€rain.€€Plaintiffs€contend€that€they€did€notÏknow€they€had€a€cause€of€action€until€the€Ogden€report€wasÏmade€in€1993.€€However,€they€have€presented€no€proof€toÏsuggest€why€they€could€not€have€hired€a€hydrologist€earlier.ÌÌà àUltimately€it€is€not€necessary€for€the€court€to€analyzeÏeach€potential€accrual€date€discussed€by€the€parties€in€thisÏlawsuit.€€It€is€sufficient€to€find€that€the€last€work€performedÏby€defendant€on€this€property€and€the€last€statements€madeÏby€defendant,€occurred€in€early€1989.€€Within€six€or€eightÏmonths€after€that€time,€plaintiff€Charles€W.€Bernard€wasÏaware€œthat€that€work›€had€not€successfully€contained€theÏproblem€and€that€the€problem€continued€to€exist.€€ThisÏconcerned€him€enough€to€cause€him€to€call€his€attorney€andÏto€seek€advice€about€his€rights€in€the€situation.€€At€this€point,Ïif€not€before,€plaintiffs€clearly€had€a€cause€of€action,€andÏknew€they€had€a€cause€of€action.€€òòHarvey€v.€Knox€Countyóó,Ï1988€Tenn.€App.€Lexis€487€(Tenn.€App.€M.S.,€August€3,Ï1988).€€It€was€not€necessary€that€they€know€all€the€reasonsÏfor€the€problem€or€the€extent€of€the€problems.€€They€knewÏthe€problem€was€worse€after€a€heavy€rain€fall,€but€testifiedÏthat€it€did€not€rain€much€between€1989€and€1993.€€PlaintiffsÏdid€not€made€any€further€contact€with€defendant€until€earlyÏ1993,€and€did€not€file€this€lawsuit€until€December€14,€1993.€ÏTheir€lawsuit€is€barred€by€all€applicable€statutes€of€limitationÏand/or€repose.ÌÌà àThis€Memorandum€shall€be€placed€of€œ€record,›€butÏneed€not€be€spread€upon€the€minutes€of€the€court.€€An€orderÏof€dismissal€is€being€entered€contemporaneously.ÌÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Order€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` Òà àIn€accordance€with€the€Memorandum€being€enteredÏcontemporaneously,€IT€IS€HEREBY€ORDERED,ÏADJUDGED€AND€DECREED€that€plaintiffsðð€case€againstÏdefendant€Houston€Ezell€Corporation€shall€be,€and€isÏhereby,€dismissed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€plaintiffs,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àÌà àThe€caption€of€the€Notice€of€Appeal€contains€the€names€of€all€three€defendants,€but€theÏappeal€bond€is€made€only€to€the€developer.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓTHE€PARTIES€AND€ISSUES€ON€APPEALóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€cover,€certificate€of€the€Trial€Clerk€and€brief€of€appellant€list€the€names€of€all€threeÏdefendants.€€A€brief€has€been€filed€in€this€Court€on€behalf€of€the€developer,€and€a€separate€briefÏhas€been€filed€on€behalf€of€the€City.€€No€brief€has€been€filed€on€behalf€of€Land€InvestmentÏCorporation.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€state€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà à1.à àWithin€the€meaning€of€Rules€13d€and€36€ofÏthe€òòTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedureóó,€does€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€support€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÏthat€no€conduct€was€committed€by€the€Defendant€whichÏviolated€a€duty€to€disclose,€within€the€meaning€of€the€T.C.A.Ïðð€28„3„205,€tolling€the€statute€of€limitations?ÌÌà à2.à àDid€the€Defendantððs€conduct€in€performingÏthe€corrective€work,€while€not€disclosing€a€full€history€of€theÏproblem,€effect€an€estoppel€of€the€statute€of€limitationsÏdefense?ÌÌà à3.à àWas€the€trial€court€correct€in€its€determinationÏthat€the€CITY€OF€BRENTWOOD€is€immune€from€claimsÏarising€from€the€CITYððS€failure€to€conduct€any€finalÏinspection€of€the€BERNARD€residence€and€thereafterÏpermitting€its€sale€and€occupancy,€after€failing€an€earlierÏinspection?ÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÌà àThe€developer€states€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àA.à àDid€Chancellor€œ(sic)€Cornelia›€A.€Clark€err,€after€hearing€all€theÏproof,€by€determining€that€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€the€PlaintiffsððÏalleged€cause€of€action€against€the€Defendants?ÌÓ ° ÓÌÓ  Óà àB.à àDid€Chancellor€Henry€Denmark€Bell€err€by€granting€theÏPlaintiffsðð€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€and€denying€the€DefendantððsÏMotion€for€Summary€Judgment?ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÌà àThe€City€states€the€issue€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` Òà àI.à àWhether€the€trial€court€was€in€error€inÏgranting€summary€judgement€(sic)€in€favor€of€the€City€ofÏBrentwood€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Government€TortÏLiability€Act,€on€the€basis€of€immunity€to€the€plaintiffsððÏtheories€of€negligent€inspection,€issuance€or€failure€to€issueÏa€building€permit€and€nuisance.ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÌÒ X ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ e ÒÓ Pû Óò òÒ X ÒÒ e ÒÓ  ÓFIRST€AND€SECOND€à àà àISSUESÌòòLiability€of€Developeróóó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓ K ÓÓ  ÓœT.C.A.›€ðð€28„3„202€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ X ÒÒ £ ÒÓ  ÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` Òò òLimitation€of€actionsó ó.€„€All€actions€to€recover€damagesÏfor€any€deficiency€in€the€design,€planning,€supervision,Ïobservation€of€construction,€or€construction€of€anÏimprovement€to€real€property,€for€injury€to€property,€real€orÏpersonal,€arising€out€of€any€such€deficiency,€or€for€injury€toÏthe€person€or€for€wrongful€death€arising€out€of€any€suchÏdeficiency,€shall€be€brought€against€any€person€performingÏor€furnishing€the€design,€planning,€supervision,€observationÏof€construction,€construction€of,€or€land€surveying€inÏconnection€with,€such€an€improvement€within€four€(4)€yearsÏafter€substantial€completion€of€such€an€improvement.€[ActsÏ1965,€ch.€353,€ðð€1;€1980€(Adj.€S.),€ch.€811,€ðð€1;€T.C.A.,€ððÏ28„314.]ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÌÒ X ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ £ Òà àAs€found€by€the€Trial€Judge,€the€basic€problem€was€excessive€water€on€the€lot,€particularlyÏunder€the€house,€which€œplaintiffs›€reported€to€the€developer€ð ðearly€in€1988"€(before€March).€€ThisÏsuit€was€initiated€on€December€14,€1993,€more€than€four€years€later,€at€which€time,€any€actionÏagainst€the€developer€for€negligence€in€the€planning€of€the€construction€was€barred.€€PlaintiffsÏinsist€that€the€developer€was€guilty€of€fraudulent€concealment€which€tolled€the€statute€of€limitationsÏand/or€œestopped›€the€defense€of€statute€of€limitations.€€A€careful€examination€of€œappellantððs›€brief€andÏthe€record€fails€to€disclose€any€citation€to€the€record€or€evidence€indicating€any€concealment€orÏfailure€to€disclose€by€the€developer€subsequent€to€the€occasion€in€ð ðearly€in€œ1988"›€when€plaintiffsððÏdisclosed€their€knowledge€of€the€defects€by€complaining€of€them€to€the€developer.€€No€suchÏsubsequent€negligent€or€fraudulent€concealment€is€cited€in€plaintiffsðð€brief€or€found€in€the€record.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€plaintiffs€insist€that€the€developer€committed€actionable€subsequentÏconcealment€when,€in€their€efforts€to€satisfy€plaintiffsðð€complaints,€they€agreed€to€and€did€install€anÏ8"€drainage€pipe€partly€on€plaintiffsðð€property€and€partly€upon€the€public€right€of€way.€€PlaintiffsððÏbrief€contains€citations€of€numerous€authorities€which€are€applicable€to€particular€circumstances,Ïbut€the€brief€contains€no€citation€of€evidence€of€facts€in€the€present€case€which€would€establishÏwrongdoing€by€either€defendant€at€any€time€within€the€period€of€limitation€prior€to€the€filing€of€thisÏsuit.ÌÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ £ ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ £ Òà àPlaintiffs€assert:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` Òà àThe€defendantsðð€conduct€in€performing€correctiveÏwork€while€not€disclosing€a€full€history€of€the€problemÏeffected€an€estoppel€of€the€statute€of€limitation€problem.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÌà àThis€Court€does€not€understand€the€general€rule€to€be€that€any€effort€by€a€wrongdoer€toÏremedy€the€effect€of€the€wrongdoing€would€effectively€bar€the€defense€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏIn€òòJackson€v.€Kempóó,€211€Tenn.€438,€365€S.W.2d€437€(1963),€the€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ „ Òà àA€statute€of€limitation€òòmay€be€waived€by€express€contract€or€byÏnecessary€implicationsóó€or€its€benefits€may€be€lost€by€òòconduct€invoking€theÏestablished€principles€of€estoppel€in€paisóó.€€(Emphasis€supplied)ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ X ÒÒ £ ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ S ÒÒ £ Òà àNo€evidence€is€cited€or€found€to€show€that€either€or€both€of€the€defendants€represented,Ïpromised€or€contracted€to€remedy€all€of€the€subject€defects€in€exchange€for€plaintiffsðð€delay€inÏbringing€suit,€or€that€œplaintiffs›€did€allow€the€statute€to€œexpire›€in€reliance€upon€such€representation,Ïpromise€or€contract.òò€€Sharks€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyóó,ÏTenn.€App.€1989€states:ÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òœà àWhere›€by€òòpromisesóó€and€òòappearancesóó€one€party€is€induced€to€believeÏthat€the€other€party€is€òògoing€to€pay€or€otherwise€satisfy€the€claimóó€of€the€firstÏparty,€and€òòin€reliance€on€that€representationóó€the€òòfirst€party€delays€filing€suitóó,€theÏparty€making€the€representation€òòmay€be€estoppedóó€to€raise€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€as€a€defense.€€(Emphasis€supplied)ÌÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ S ÒÒ £ ÒÌà àIn€short,€plaintiffs€have€not€provided€this€Court€with€an€evidentiary€basis€upon€which€thisÏCourt€might€apply€the€authorities€cited.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ X ÒÒ „ ÒÌò òÓ  ÓTHIRD€ISSUEÌòòImmunity€of€the€CityÌóóó óœÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  Óà àT.C.A.›€ðð€29„20„205€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓò òà àRemoval€of€immunity€for€injury€caused€byÏnegligent€act€or€omission€of€employees€„ÏExceptionsó ó.€„€Immunity€from€suit€of€all€governmentalÏentities€is€removed€for€injury€proximately€caused€by€aÏnegligent€act€or€omission€of€any€employee€within€the€scopeÏof€his€employment€except€if€the€injury:ÌÓ  Ó„€„€„€„ÌÓ  Óà à(2)à àArises€out€of€false€imprisonment€pursuant€toÏa€mittimus€from€a€court,€false€arrest,€malicious€prosecution,Ïintentional€trespass,€abuse€of€process,€libel,€slander,€deceit,Ïinterference€with€contract€rights,€infliction€of€mentalÏanguish,€invasion€of€right€of€privacy,€or€civil€rights;ÌÌà à(3)à àArises€out€of€the€issuance,€denial,Ïsuspension€or€revocation€of,€or€by€the€failure€or€refusal€toÏissue,€deny,€suspend€or€revoke,€any€permit,€license,Ïcertificate,€approval,€order€or€similar€authorization;ÌÌà à(4)à àArises€out€of€a€failure€to€make€an€inspection,Ïor€by€reason€of€making€an€inadequate€or€negligentÏinspection€of€any€property.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ X ÒÒ £ Òà àÌÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ ½ ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ Òà àPlaintiffsðð€suit€against€the€City€is€clearly€based€upon€alleged€acts€or€omissions€of€its€agentsÏmaking€an€inadequate€or€negligent€inspection€of€property,€and/or€issuance€of€a€permit,€license,Ïcertificate,€approval€or€authorization.€€It€is€true€that€plaintiffs€argue€that€defendants€created€aÏnuisance,€but€no€evidence€is€cited€or€found€that€the€efforts€of€the€defendants,€or€either€of€them€toÏremedy€the€effects€of€the€œdefects›€created€a€nuisance.ÌÌÒ S ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ Òà àAccordingly,€this€Court€concurs€in€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Court€that€the€City€ofÏBrentwood€and€its€employees€are€statutorily€immune€to€the€rights€of€action€asserted€by€plaintiffs.ÌÌà àThe€disposition€of€this€appeal€is€contrary€to€the€œdesire›€of€this€Court€to€reach€a€fair€result.€ÏHowever,€œcircumstances›€over€which€this€Court€has€no€œcontrol€require€the€disposition.›€ÏGovernmental€immunity€from€suit€has€its€roots€in€the€common€œlaw›œ;›€and,€under€our€œConstitution›Ïthe€power€of€limiting€that€immunity€is€reserved€to€the€Legislature.€€In€its€wisdom,€the€LegislatureÏhas€seen€fit€to€preserve€that€immunity€in€respect€to€the€actions€and€inaction€of€the€City€in€theÏpresent€case.ÌÌà àStatutes€of€limitation€are€likewise€the€exclusive€province€of€the€Legislature,€and€exceptionsÏto€legislation€may€not€be€granted€by€the€courts.€€Apparent€exceptions€are€not€true€exceptions€butÏrecognition€of€special€facts€which€produce€a€different€right€of€action€to€which€a€different€limitationÏapplies.ÌÌà àFinally,€plaintiffsðð€failure€to€timely€ascertain€their€rights€and€timely€pursue€their€remediesÏhas€its€part€in€their€failure€to€obtain€relief.ÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€theÏplaintiffs€and€their€surety.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÒ S ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ Òœò òÒ S ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€¼ÔÌAFFIRMED›€AND€REMANDEDó óÔ€XÔÌÓÓÓ  Ӝ̛à àà àà àà àœÌà àà àà àà à›à àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.ÏTODDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDINGÏJUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÓÓœÌÌÌCONCURS:›ÌÓÓœÌ_________________________________›ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE̛̜Ì_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÓÓÌÌ