ÿWPCÄ ,Y/ý#±‚½Mt‚ hž»‘à:)Ø µ"ªqR̵úH®MÇTi:i¡a°­Z=G7æçöêþqU‹'çZoéG„½JóQ™¨³Ê³õ=µ>>lìábÞ?‡éµupés §) Ò?á]onFáלNzX§M6-LÙdBChG~HëØ‹:Â×ÚDUŸËoq¢n¤”—¶˜ÕÁ¨Vg®ÿrœ:!ðÔ®nž1S’JÚ(Vq Õ$0â2¿-a=›&˜b¶‰`*YìÞ»IÚ¾¿%ѯҔÿ9ºÜ:# ¯:æ×3×±×ÇhTH ‘åª_¨Ü›ßXd©ä‡zñbì7䱩8u²UóMD¨Øš|˜'ørR¢Ä°o)š3Ü·"¨¼½Šuî ‡·EØ0 nAúꬉ~îŠ&ÉðtÓìnñfÈT„iÁ õÞc×^¬Ég¡  Ó #…»f·ª˜ˆA! ©]ÏùbÚLy6.•ÎÊâæOjj6y°Déä/^@‹ÈO:/™§Ž¯#¯ýC.Øs¦Ä8܈ý)·zÚíÈx’ ç]·+p\í8:‡…óSë ‘ÿ‡%fô=J|Ú-n Ëhœžê£÷SùÍÕcß%µžwD<©b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0Ntv 0c~EáUNã1 1uD 72¹ 72ë 0w 0Š”›b¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹ 0ëÁÁÁÁ B¬¬ 0¤É D3m D-  0KÍÍ ASÆk 0¤1 0DÕ A«˜\\IB27S11T\stats1ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ך9-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular$w%-ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ05hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒRÔG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€This€court€has€previously€held€that€ð ða€landowner€whose€property€has€been€adverselyÐ ° Ðaffected€by€a€county€improvement€has€a€choice€of€remedies€against€the€county.€€If€the€adverse€effectÐ œì Ðamounts€to€a€taking€of€the€ownerððs€property,€the€proper€remedy€is€inverse€condemnation€under€theÐ ˆØ Ðeminent€domain€statutes.€€If,€however,€the€effect€on€the€landownerððs€property€is€a€nuisance,€.€.€.€theÐ tÄ Ðlandowner€may€sue€the€county€for€the€nuisance.ðð€€òòSmith€v.€Maury€County,óó€1999€Tenn.€App.€òòLEXISóóÐ `° Ð601€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)(citations€omitted).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) (Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à ‘Ý ƒRÔG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPlaintiffs€filed€a€motion€in€the€Trial€Court€to€amend€and€allege€another€sewage€backup€andÐ ° Ðmoved€in€this€Court€to€consider€pursuant€to€Rule€14,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€In€view€of€our€holding,€weÐ œì Ðfind€it€unnecessary€to€consider€the€amendment.- ù-(|G2ÔG$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XùX»»Ô d(|3‰h$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰h$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Hå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Hå»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€23,€2002€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X X»¼HåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Hå»XX ¡#ÔÓ  ÓRAY€D.€EDWARDS,€SR.,€and€wife,€Ô_ÔJEWELEÔ_Ô€C.€EDWARDS,€and€JOHN€F.Ð Ò" ÐÔ_ÔGAZICKÔ_Ô,€and€wife,€Ô_ÔHELENEÔ_Ô€K.€Ô_ÔGAZICKÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHALLSDALEÔ_Ô„POWELLÐ æ 6 ÐUTILITY€DISTRICT€KNOX€COUNTY,€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X X»¼HåÔó óÐ ú J ÐÓçÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@þ þ ìàNo.€3„104„00€€€€€€Hon.€Wheeler€A.€Ô_ÔRosenblamÔ_Ô,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ æ 6  ÐÌÓ  ÓFILED€SEPTEMBER€25,€2002Ð ¾  ÐÓ‡Óà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2002„00395„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CV€ˆÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌÌThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€for€defendant€that€plaintiff€could€notÐ d´ Ðmaintain€an€action€for€inverse€condemnation.€€On€appeal,€we€vacate€the€grant€of€summary€judgment.Ð P  ÐÌÔ#†¼Hå»XX ]#ÔÔ‡X X»¼HåÔò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Vacated€and€Remanded.ó óÐ (x ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼Hå»àX #ÔÔ‡X X.¼HåÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Charles€D.€Susano,Ð P ÐJr.,€Ô#†¼Hå»àX Û#ÔÔ‡X X.¼HåÔJ.,óó€andòò€D.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼Hå»àX ‚#ÔÔ‡X X.¼HåÔ€J.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌJ.€Myers€Morton€and€George€W.€Morton,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellants.Ð Ä ÐÌSamuel€C.€Ô_ÔDoakÔ_Ô€and€Dan€D.€Rhea,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð œì ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Hå»XX  #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HåԈРL"œ! ÐÌòòÌà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àóóÔ‡X XXX ÔIn€this€action€for€damages€under€theories€of€inverse€condemnation€and€nuisance,€theÐ ü%L!% ÐTrial€Court€granted€defendant€partial€summary€judgment€as€to€plaintiffsðð€claim€for€inverseÐ è&8"& Ðcondemnation,€and€held€that€plaintiffsðð€claims€would€be€tried€pursuant€to€the€Governmental€TortÐ Ô'$#' ÐLiability€Act.€€The€Court€then€permitted€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€which€we€granted.Ð À($( ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€sued€defendant€which€is€a€sewer€provider€for€plaintiffsðð€homes,€alleging€thatÐ ˜*è%* Ðin€December€1999,€raw€sewage€backed€up€into€their€homes€and€flooded€the€lower€level€of€bothÐ „+Ô&+ Ðhomes,€causing€significant€damage.€€Defendants€answered€denying€all€allegations€except€that€it€wasÐ p,À', Ða€statutorily€created€utility€district,€subject€to€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,€and€that€itÐ \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_Ôprovided€service€to€the€area€where€plaintiffs€reside.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€and€a€statement€of€undisputed€facts,Ð ˆØ Ðsetting€forth€the€following€facts:€Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ€ (5h83Óà0  àà0` (#(#à1.à0¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant€maintained€the€sewage€system€in€such€a€way€that€sewage€backedÐ L œ Ðup€into€plaintiffsðð€homes;Ð8 ˆ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌØ! !ØÝ"‚·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚·¤4Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ25hÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝThe€sewage€backup€interfered€with€the€common€and€necessary€use€ofÐ  ` Ðplaintiffsðð€homes;€Ýƒ·¤4aÝŒÐü L ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚·¤’Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ25hÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝPlaintiffs€could€not€sell€their€homes€without€disclosing€the€sewage€problem.€Ð Ô$  Ð݃·¤’¿ÝŒÐ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€also€filed€the€affidavits€of€the€parties,€which€allege€that€the€homes€stillÐ ¬ü  Ðcontain€the€smell€of€sewage,€and€that€plaintiffs€have€been€deprived€of€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€theirÐ ˜è  Ðhomes,€and€would€have€trouble€selling€their€homes€due€to€the€problem.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€then€filed€a€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€as€to€Plaintiffsðð€ClaimÐ \¬ Ðfor€Inverse€Condemnation,€and€alleged€there€were€no€material€facts€in€dispute,€and€that€it€wasÐ H˜ Ðentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Defendant€submitted€a€Rule€56.03€Statement€of€AdditionalÐ 4„ ÐFacts,€and€stated€that€the€cause€of€the€sewage€backup€was€a€root€clog€in€the€main€sewer€line,€and€thatÐ  p Ðthe€root€clog€had€been€removed.€€Defendant€stated€plaintiffsðð€homes€were€cleaned€and€disinfected,Ð  \ Ðand€repairs€were€made.€€€€Ð øH Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àDefendant€attached€the€Affidavit€of€Robert€Campbell,€a€consulting€engineer€who€saidÐ Ð  Ðthat€one€solution€to€this€problem€would€be€the€installation€of€a€grinder€pump€station€between€eachÐ ¼  Ðof€the€homes€and€the€main€sewer€line,€which€would€prevent€backflow.€€He€stated€that€this€would€costÐ ¨ø Ð$3,000.00€to€$5,000.00€per€home.€€Defendant€also€presented€an€affidavit€of€Gary€Cobble,€a€licensedÐ ”ä Ðcontractor€who€inspected€the€homes.€€He€stated,€in€his€opinion,€the€homes€could€be€repaired€and€Ð €Ð Ðfully€remediated,€and€attached€estimates€for€repair€work.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` à€Plaintiffs€filed€the€Affidavit€of€Hop€Bailey,€Jr.,€who€is€a€realtor€and€real€estateÐ D!” Ðappraiser€in€Knoxville,€who€stated€that€in€his€opinion€the€value€of€plaintiffsðð€homes€had€been€reducedÐ 0"€  Ðto€zero.€€Plaintiffs€also€filed€a€Supplemental€Affidavit€from€Bailey,€which€states€that€if€plaintiffsÐ #l! Ðwere€trying€to€sell€their€homes,€plaintiffs€would€be€required€to€disclose€the€sewage€issue€by€virtueÐ $X" Ðof€the€Tennessee€residential€disclosure€law,€and€that€his€opinion€was€that€a€buyer€would€not€likelyÐ ô$D # Ðpurchase€the€home€knowing€of€the€sewage€problem.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€Trial€Court€granted€defendantððs€Motion€and€plaintiffs€have€appealed.€€PlaintiffsÐ ¸'#& Ðalleged€that€their€property€has€been€taken€by€defendant€because€they€have€suffered€a€total€loss€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmarket€value.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àà ` àArticle€I,€Section€21€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ðno€manððs€particularÐ h+¸&* Ðservices€shall€be€demanded,€or€property€taken,€or€applied€to€public€use,€without€the€consent€of€hisÐ ° Ðrepresentatives€or€without€just€compensation€being€made€therefor.ðð€€Prior€cases€dealing€with€theÐ œì Ðissue€of€inverse€condemnation,€as€well€as€the€eminent€domain€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð29„16„123,Ð ˆØ Ðheld€that€the€question€of€whether€a€taking€of€property€has€occurred€is€a€question€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóóÐ tÄ ÐòòJackson€v.€Metropolitan€Knoxville€Airport€Auth.óó,€922€S.W.2d€860€(Tenn.€1996);€òòJohnson€v.€City€ofÐ `° ÐGreenevilleóó,€435€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€1968).€€In€òòJacksonóó,€the€Trial€Court€had€granted€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðmotion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€of€inverse€condemnation,€where€the€complaint€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðalleged€the€taking€of€plaintiffððs€property€which€was€contiguous€to€the€Knoxville€Airport€by€constantÐ $ t Ðoverflight€of€planes€and€noise€vibration€and€pollution€associated€therewith.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ  ` Ðsaid€that€it€had€to€review€the€ruling€by€taking€Ô#†X XXX Ù #ÔÔ‡X XXX ÔÔ#†¼Hå»XX k #ÔÔ‡X X»¼HåÔall€material€facts€as€true€and€construing€the€complaintÐ ü L  Ðliberally€in€plaintiffððs€favor,€and€then€determining€whether€plaintiffs€had€alleged€facts€sufficient€toÐ è 8  Ðestablish€a€jury€question€regarding€whether€a€taking€had€occurred.€€òòIdóó.Ð Ô$  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSince€the€instant€case€involves€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€rather€than€a€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐR.€Civ.€P.€12.02€motion,€we€are€required€to€ð ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðnonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐòòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€€Then,€we€must€decide€whetherÐ pÀ Ðthere€is€a€general€issue€of€material€fact€rendering€partial€summary€judgment€inappropriateòòóó.€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€òòJacksonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€clarified€the€requirements€for€proving€a€òòprima€facieóóÐ 4„ Ðcause€of€action€for€inverse€condemnation.€€The€Court€stated€that€the€plaintiff€had€to€allege€1)€a€directÐ  p Ðand€substantial€interference€with€the€beneficial€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€property,€2)€interferenceÐ  \ Ðwhich€was€repeated€and€not€just€occasional,€and€3)€interference€which€peculiarly€affected€theÐ øH Ðproperty€at€issue€and€resulted€in€a€loss€of€market€value,€i.e.€the€interference€had€to€be€greater€thanÐ ä4 Ðor€different€from€that€suffered€by€the€general€public€as€a€whole.€€òòId.óó€at€865.€€òòJacksonóó€was€dealingÐ Ð  Ðwith€different€factual€circumstances,€and€tailored€its€analysis€to€the€specific€interference,€i.e.,Ð ¼  Ðoverflight€of€airplanes.€€òòóóHowever,€the€Court€expounded€on€earlier€takings€cases,€and€explained€thatÐ ¨ø Ðsuch€cases€usually€involved€either€a€continuing€physical€occupation€or€a€complete€destruction€ofÐ ”ä Ðproperty€rights.€€òòId.óó€€€The€Court€also€cited€òòJohnsonóó,€another€airplane€overflight€case,€wherein€theÐ €Ð ÐCourt€implied€that€any€time€there€was€an€actual€physical€injury€to€property,€the€owner€has€groundsÐ l¼ Ðto€allege€that€a€taking€has€occurred.€€The€more€difficult€issue€in€that€case,€as€well€as€in€òòJacksonóó,€wasÐ X ¨ Ðwhether€òòóóa€taking€could€occur€when€the€property€was€not€actually€invaded€or€physically€destroyed,Ð D!” Ðbut€rather€the€owner€was€deprived€of€its€use€and€enjoyment€due€to€some€interference€(like€planesÐ 0"€  Ðflying€overhead).òòóóòò€óó€òòóóIn€those€instances,€the€Court€said€that€the€interference€had€to€be€ð ðcontinuing€andÐ #l! Ðsubstantial.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€862.€€In€cases€where€there€is€an€actual€physical€occupation€or€damage,€however,Ð $X" Ðour€courts€have€always€ò òó ócouched€this€requirement€in€terms€of€permanency€of€injury€or€damage€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðproperty.€€òòSeeóó€òòPleasant€View€Utility€Dist.€v.€Vradenburgóó,€545€S.W.2d€733€(Tenn.€1977);€òòKnoxÐ à%0!$ ÐCounty€v.€Moncieróó,€455€S.W.2d€153€(Tenn.€1970);€òòLedbetter€v.€Beachóó,€421€S.W.2d€814€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% Ð1967);€òòBarron€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€80€S.W.€832€(Tenn.€1904);€òòBetty€v.€Metropolitan€Govððt€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐNashvilleóó,€835€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòOsborne€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð561€S.W.2d€160€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).€€Ð )à$( Ðò òà  àó óÌà  àà ` àOn€the€foregoing€authority,€we€conclude€that€plaintiffs€have€presented€sufficient€factsÐ h+¸&* Ðto€meet€the€threshold€to€take€the€issue€of€inverse€condemnation€to€a€jury.€€Plaintiffsðð€evidenceÐ ° Ðshowed€a€direct€and€substantial€interference€with€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€their€property€and€damageÐ œì Ðto€its€market€value,€and€the€interference€was€suffered€only€by€plaintiffs€and€not€the€general€publicÐ ˆØ Ðas€a€whole.€€This€evidence€showed€that€the€sewage€backup€into€their€homes€caused€a€permanent€lossÐ tÄ Ðin€market€value,€and€thus€their€damage€was€not€simply€temporary€or€occasional€in€nature.€€Ð `° Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWhile€defendant€argues€the€sewage€problem€was€only€temporary€and€thus,€a€nuisanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€not€a€taking,€and€that€the€homes€could€be€remediated,€plaintiffs€presented€evidence€that€there€hadÐ $ t Ðbeen€a€permanent€loss€of€market€value.€€It€is€well€settled€ò òó óthat€only€a€jury€can€decide€whether€theÐ  ` Ðð ðinterference€is€substantial€enough€to€constitute€a€takingðð.€€òòJacksonóó,€at€862.€€Accordingly,€viewingÐ ü L  Ðthe€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€plaintiffs,€and€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€in€their€favor,Ð è 8  Ðpartial€summary€judgment€was€inappropriate€on€this€issue,€and€we€vacate€the€partial€summaryÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€granted.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€the€case€is€remanded€for€trial€by€jury.€€The€Trial€Court€may€conduct€onlyÐ ˜è  Ðone€trial€by€allowing€the€jury€to€take€the€issue€of€whether€a€taking€has€occurred,€after€the€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðis€concluded.€€If€the€jury€finds€that€a€taking€has€occurred,€then€it€can€assess€damages€accordingly.€Ð pÀ ÐIf€the€jury€finds€no€taking€has€occurred,€then€the€Court€can€assess€damages€for€plaintiffsðð€nuisanceÐ \¬ Ðclaim€under€the€GTLA.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àó óThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€vacated€and€the€cause€remanded€to€proceed€inÐ  p Ðaccordance€with€this€Opinion.€€The€costs€are€assessed€to€Hallsdale„Powell€Utility€District.ò òÐ  \ ÐÓ  ÓÌÌó óÔ#†X XXX €##ÔÔ#†¼Hå»XX Â##ÔÔ‡X X»¼HåÔÌÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð ”ä ÐóóÓ@<Ó