WPC^ DGњn;uTԚK39"jӸy~ots_,d"Wy~)m}LdͧlwAb5Hx=.품K}nP6TO=@_C2BUkY <HxTdʥWD\~s+" *,F"vU?-|Ywv7n`YC)W0thS> yV(CxMBF1% vy,^5kwG/}=5;NpSb8BCmWFDߙba14XP6s5܈װ'hH[^g8=7"ḿɷl@\C| d0f8Ǡs_% # 5iW<"XwS=xj I 2\Ý:OUb#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m UN   s9UNNMMMEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOObQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0YYYY BDD 0a D5 D-: 0Kgg AS 0 0Do A\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0g1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular6h001s02 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  T d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8wXXdd8  @ ifINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#if #Ԉ #   September20,2004Session F XwX #XXw#RICHARDH.DEVAUGHNv.FAYETTEMULLINS,etal.XwX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWeakleyCounty  9 @@No.17801WilliamMichaelMaloan,Chancellor  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200302581COAR3CVFiledNovember8,2004   AV) ` dE<]` A ^      X=XXXwThetrialcourtdeterminedthattheboundarylineseparatingthepartiespropertieswasestablished V  byanoldfenceline.Weaffirm. ? #XwXX X=##XXwu#XwX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and J Remanded  4   #Xw#XwX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined.  RichardH.DeVaughn,ProSe. r JamesH.Bradberry,JefferyT.Washburn,Dresden,Tennessee,fortheappellees,FayetteMullins D andBrendaMullins. -} i OPINION #XXw#XwX O #XXw#  XwX X=XXXw  Thisdisputeconcernsaboundarylineofapproximately525feetbetweenPlaintiff/Appellant !"! RichardH.DeVaughns(Mr.DeVaughn)propertytothesouthandpropertybelongingtoFayette " " andBrendaMullins( theMullins)tothenorth.Mr.DeVaughncommencedthisactionwiththe ## filingofacomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgmentagainsttheMullinsintheWeakleyCountyChancery $$ CourtinSeptember2002.Inhiscomplaint,hesoughtajudgmentof$30,000indamagesfor,inter v% % alia,trespass,cuttingofapproximatelysixtrees,devaluationofrealproperty,anddiversionofthe _&!& naturalflowofwater.Mr.DeVaughnalsoprayedforincidentalandtrialexpenses.Intheiranswer, H'"' theMullinsdeniedliabilityandcounterclaimedforillegaldumpinganddamagestoproperty. 1(#(   SurveyorJimCrocker(Mr.Crocker)conductedaprofessionalsurveyofMr.DeVaughns *S%* propertyforMr.DeVaughnspredecessorininterestinSeptember1999.Thissurveyformedthe *<&+ basisofthepurchaseofthepropertybyMr.DeVaughninNovember1999.Mr.Crockertestified +%', thathedeterminedtheboundarylinebetweenthepartiesbyutilizingdeeddescriptionsandwasable ,(- tolocateanironpinwhichmarkedthesoutheastcorneroftheMullinsproperty.Hefurthertestified -(. that,althoughhedidnotlocateapinatthesouthwestcorner,hewasabletolocatethecornerwith  thehelpofanadjoiningpropertyowner.Hestatedthatthesouthwestcornerwasmarkedbyanoak  treewhichwas48"indiameter.Mr.Crockeradditionallystatedthathehadconsideredapartial  fenceline. k   The1999surveywasupdatedinAugust2002bysurveyorRobertBrentNichols(Mr =  Nichols),whoconfirmedthepropertylineasestablishedbyMr.Crocker.Attrial,Mr.Nichols & v testifiedthathehadthebenefitoftheCrockersurveyaswellasasurveyworddescriptionprepared  _ byJ.R.Burdette(Mr.Burdette)forpreparationoftheMullinsdeedin1984.Mr.Nicholsalso  H testifiedthattherewasanoldfenceattachedtothefourfootoaktreeatthesouthwestcornerofthe  1  Mullinsproperty,andthattheoldfencelineranclosetothepropertyline.Mr.Nicholsfurther    testifiedthatfivetreeshadbeencutslightlysouthofthepropertylineasestablishedbythesurveys.     TheWeakleyCountyAssessor,DavidTuck(Mr.Tuck),testifiedregardingtaxmapsfor   1970,1993,and2003.Mr.Tucktestifiedthat,sinceatleast1972,thetaxassessmentsonthe n  propertieshadbeenbasedontheboundaryestablishedbytheoldfenceline.Mr.Tuckalsotestified W  thatonthe1970taxmaptheacreageonthetaxrollsfortheDeVaughnpropertywas66.5acres,but @ thenewmapindicated69.6acres.Mr.Tuckadditionallystatedthat,althoughthemapswereto )y scaleandestablishedtheboundaryastheoldfenceline,thetaxmapswouldnotbemoreaccurate b thanasurvey. K   ThetrialcourtenteredjudgmentonSeptember18,2003.Thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthe  propertylinewasestablishedbytheoldfencelineasdepictedonthepropertyassessorsmap.The  trialcourtdeterminedthatthislineraneastfromthefourfootoaktreeonthesouthwestcorneralong  thefencelinetothesoutheastcorneroftheMullinsproperty.ThetrialcourtdismissedMr.  DeVaughnscomplaintandtheMullinscountercomplaint,orderedeachpartytopaytheirown q attorneyfees,anddividedthecostsofthematterequally.Mr.DeVaughnfiledatimelynoticeof Z appealtothisCourt. C   IssuesPresented  e   TheissuebeforethisCourtonappeal,asweperceiveit,iswhetherthetrialcourterredby  6 determiningthattheboundarylinebetweenthepartiesisestablishedbytheoldfencelineas !  indicatedontheassessorsmaps. "!   StandardofReview  $# #XwXX X= #X=XXXw  Ourstandardofreviewofatrialcourtsittingwithoutajuryisdenovoupontherecord. [&!% Wrightv.CityofKnoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thereisapresumptionof D'"& correctnessastothetrialcourtsfindingsoffact,unlessthepreponderanceofevidenceisotherwise. -(}#' Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).#XwXXX=# X=XXXwThus,wemaynotreversethetrialcourt'sfactualfindingsunlesstheyare )f$( contrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.#XwXX X=#X=XXXwWereviewthetrialcourtsconclusionsonmatters )O%) oflawdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Bowdenv.Ward,27 *8&* S.W.3d913,916(Tenn.2000). +!'+ Ї  Analysis     Mr.DeVaughnassertstheboundarybetweenthepartiesrunsjustnorthoftheoldfenceline,  whereastheMullinsasserttheboundaryisestablishedbyanoldfencelinewhichislocatedonthe j southsideofanoldfieldroad.Uponexaminationofthemapsintherecord,wenotethatthedispute S concernsaverynarrowstripofproperty.Initsorder,thetrialcourtstatedthat,basedonthe <  testimony,mapsandpictures,itwasconvincedthattheoldfencelineestablishedtheboundaryline % u betweenthepartiesproperties.Havingreviewedtheentirerecord,wecannotsaytheevidence  ^ preponderatesagainstthefindingofthetrialcourt.  G   Indeterminingboundaries,courtsgenerallyresortfirsttonaturallandmarks,andthento    artificialmonumentsormarks.Thornburgv.Chase,606S.W.2d672,675(Tenn.#XwXXX=# X=XXXwԀCt.App.1980).   #XwXX X=$#X=XXXwTheynextlooktotheboundarylinesofadjacentproperties,andfinallytocoursesanddistances.   #XwXXX=$#X=XXXwId.#XwXXX=>%#X=XXXwԀInthiscase,thetrialcourtsetthewestcorneroftheboundarylineatanoldoaktreewhichis   48inchesindiameter.Wenotethatthiscornermarkertheoaktreeisthesameasthatestablished m  byMr.Crockertomarkthewestcorner. V    WeadditionallynotethatMr.Crockertestifiedthatthedifferencebetweentheproperty (x boundaryasestablishedbyhimselfandMr.Nichols,ononehand,andthatestablishedbyMr. a Burdette,ontheotherhand,was withintoleranceofthemarginoferrorascommonlyaccepted J inthesurveyingprofession.Mr.Crockerstated, His(Mr.Burdettes)magneticreadingswerein 3 1984.Minewerein1999.Youknow,ifyouconsiderthemagneticdeclinationovertheyears,it  couldmean,youknow,aconsiderableamountofdifference,30minutesormore...youcould  easilybe30minutesofadegreeoffjustinthepersonreadingthecompass.Further,wenotethat  thedisputedareaisapproximatelythreefeetinwidth.Itislessthanthefourfootdiameterofthe  oaktree,andwellwithintheacceptablemarginoferrorforprofessionalsurveys.Mr.DeVaughn p simplyhasnotcarriedhisburdenofdemonstratingthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthe Y findingofthetrialcourt. B   Holding  d +  Inlightoftheforegoing,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Theboundaryline  5 betweenthepropertiesisestablishedasmarkedbytheoaktreeatthewestandrunningeastalong !  theoldfencelineasdepictedontheassessorsmapstothepinlocatedattheeastcorner.Costsof "! thisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,RichardH.DeVaughn,andhissurety,forwhichexecution #" mayissueifnecessary. $# #XwXXX=%#    `     h     ___________________________________ D'"&    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE