ÿWPCé «ÃÐZÀºÑÁºû´tîC¦ÂÚŘûÎd‰£p$[-!µ­‘!ã<âèâœÓÏo©#úGûü¿\=hörWRÙ­keÏ#­l:.>e´nqsX8K_ËÏÅ\AÛ…òƒþx«7ò Eò³ß %dX®ŸõY»uB,K­²ÃÁu>Æž¤DÊê‹KîèÔ`zYrã½íœ!›¨TÀÌåwO繎+©CUö6±¬]c¢ûío~ÌQj#X4f=MÚdÇ–n•ñxÛdŸÆ#”yà†ÉùßÔÿs¬þn¾î·IÕ•ŸÎ¼þv»`C d$yø&Ÿº5 ¡|þ>¬m£E—YÊ)ôN àIà VL|à8‘fÂÕjç²KÔ³ÇÑj~[ƒj &C>ºyE?ÄžÐ4Ž âÕÏûݳ«v Ðv´óÆa‘Cóá¿}Y"!ùSÓò“%§ìz»žé)¬^6'^çÖÞ¥û )ûó¶§3`‡#?…–e J|À×ÝÜS³à)È<»€s1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ÙÝ ƒRÇ2$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€have€noted€the€amount€of€damages€awarded€was€subsequently€reduced€to€a€lesser€amount.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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Ç2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Aµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó­ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Aµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Aµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Aµ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Aµ»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î\,AµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Aµ»îî\, #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€20,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼AµÔÌò òÔ#†¼Aµ»XX ÷#ÔCITY€OF€ELIZABETHTON,€TENNESSEE€v.€NORTH€AMERICANÐ úJ ÐFIBERS,€INC.,€et€al.Ô‡X X»¼AµÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Carter€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€24908€€€€€€G.€Richard€Johnson,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02930„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€NOVEMBER€19,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Aµ»XX —#ÔÔ‡X X»¼AµÔThis€appeal€arises€out€of€a€cause€of€action€filed€by€a€municipality€against€a€corporate€landowner€forÐ ŒÜ Ðbreach€of€a€sewer€easement€which€the€municipality€purchased€as€a€path€for€its€underground€sewerÐ xÈ Ðline.€The€municipality€alleged€that€after€construction€of€the€sewer€line,€the€landownerððs€long„Ð d´ Ðstanding€practice€of€depositing€fly€ash€and€cinders€over€the€area€of€the€easement€rendered€the€lineÐ P  Ðinaccessible€and€necessitated€the€construction€of€an€alternate€sewage€system€for€which€theÐ <Œ Ðmunicipality€requested€compensation.€The€municipality€also€sought€to€hold€the€landownerððsÐ (x Ðpresident€and€chief€executive€officer€liable€as€the€alter€ego€of€the€landowner.€€The€trial€court€decreedÐ d Ðthat€the€landowner€had€unreasonably€burdened€the€easement,€awarded€the€municipality€compensatoryÐ P Ðdamages,€and€decreed€that€although€the€landownerððs€president€was€an€alter€ego€of€the€landowner,Ð ì< Ðhe€was€not€personally€liable.€On€appeal€the€landowner€argues€that€the€municipalityððs€cause€of€actionÐ Ø( Ðwas€barred€under€the€statute€of€limitations€and€equitable€doctrines€of€estoppel€and€laches,€that€underÐ Ä Ðthe€rule€of€practical€construction€the€easement€allowed€the€landowner€to€dump€material€over€theÐ ° Ðsewer€line,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€damages,€and€that€the€court€erred€in€refusing€toÐ œì Ðstrike€findings€with€respect€to€the€landownerððs€president.€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ ˆØ Ðas€rendered€and€remand.€€€€€Ð t Ä ÐÓÞÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed;€CauseÐ L"œ! ÐRemandedó óÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓSharon€G.€Lee,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.óó€andÐ %` $ ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ü%L!% ÐÌStephen€G.€Anderson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€North€American€Fibers,€Inc.€Ð Ô'$#' ÐÌCharlton€R.€Ô_ÔDevaultÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€City€of€Elizabethton,€Tennessee.Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÓˆ ÓÌÌÌÐ \-¬(-ý Ðò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌI.Ð ˆØ ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àAppellee,€the€City€of€Elizabethton€(hereinafter€"the€City"),€purchased€in€1957€an€easementÐ `° Ðfrom€Beaunit€Mills€and€North€American€Rayon€Corporation,€Inc.,€predecessors€in€title€to€€Appellant,Ð L œ ÐNorth€American€Fibers,€Inc.€(hereinafter€"NAFI").€€The€easement€ran€approximately€1,700€feetÐ 8 ˆ Ðacross€an€open€field€and€provided€the€City€with€a€path€for€placement€of€one€of€two€24€inch€diameterÐ $ t Ðgravity€sewer€interceptor€lines.€The€line€which€is€the€subject€of€this€case,€designated€"the€westÐ  ` Ðinterceptor€line",€served€as€a€conduit€for€seventy€percent€of€the€Cityððs€total€sewage.€€It€began€at€€aÐ ü L  Ðcollection€point€in€the€City€and€extended€through€NAFIððs€property€to€the€bank€of€the€Watauga€RiverÐ è 8  Ðat€which€point€sewage€was€siphoned€under€the€river€to€the€sewage€treatment€plant€located€on€theÐ Ô$  Ðother€side.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€times€relevant€to€the€instant€matter,€€NAFI€operated€a€coal„fired€power€plant€in€the€vicinityÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€sewer€easement.€€For€a€number€of€years€NAFI€and€its€predecessors€had€dumped€cinders€andÐ „Ô  Ðfly€ash€produced€by€the€power€plant€in€settling€ponds€and€waste€piles€in€the€area€through€which€theÐ pÀ Ðeasement€ran.€This€practice€continued€after€construction€of€the€subject€sewer€line€such€that€theÐ \¬ Ðsurface€elevation€over€the€line€€progressively€and€substantially€increased€and€manholes€to€the€lineÐ H˜ Ðwere€buried.Ð 4„ ЀÌà  àIn€the€mid„1980's,€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Conservation€and€Environment€(hereinafterÐ  \ Ð"DCE")€categorized€the€dumping€area€as€a€"private€landfill"€and€ordered€that€the€dumping€cease.€Ð øH ÐIn€1988,€DCE,€which€had€not€been€advised€of€the€Cityððs€sewer€line€easement,€mandated€that€NAFIÐ ä4 Ðplace€a€clay€"cap",€or€cover€layer,€over€the€dumping€area.€€As€a€consequence€of€the€accumulated€ash,Ð Ð  Ðcinders€and€other€debris€and€the€clay€cap,€manhole€covers,€which€had€been€at€ground€level€when€theÐ ¼  Ðline€was€constructed€in€1958,€were€now€buried€twelve€to€twenty€feet€underground€and€the€sewer€line,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€had€been€approximately€fifteen€feet€underground€in€1958,€was€now€more€than€thirty€feetÐ ”ä Ðunderground.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€1995,€the€City's€wastewater€plant€manager€found€that€the€sewer€line€and€manholes€locatedÐ X ¨ Ðwithin€the€easement€area€were€buried€under€the€above€described€debris€and€clay€cap€and€wereÐ D!” Ðinaccessible.€The€City€asked€NAFI€if€it€could€borrow€a€bulldozer€to€remove€the€accumulation€overÐ 0"€  Ðits€sewer€line€and€was€advised€that€it€would€need€DCEððs€permission€before€proceeding.€The€CityÐ #l! Ðsubsequently€determined€that€the€process€of€getting€DCEððs€approval€and€accessing€the€line€byÐ $X" Ðbulldozing€was€both€impractical€and€cost€prohibitive.€€Thereafter,€the€City€entered€€into€discussionsÐ ô$D # Ðwith€NAFI€in€an€effort€to€resolve€the€problem,€but€a€mutually€acceptable€solution€was€not€realizedÐ à%0!$ Ðand,€on€August€16,€2000,€the€City€filed€a€complaint€against€North€American€Fibers,€Inc.,€NorthÐ Ì&"% ÐAmerican€Corporation;€and€Charles€K.€Green,€individually€and€as€ððalter€egoðð€of€North€AmericanÐ ¸'#& ÐFibers,€Inc.€The€complaint€demands€that€NAFI€ð ðremove€the€existing€burden€on€the€plaintiffððs€sanitaryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsewer€line€easementðð€and€ð ðrestore€complete€and€regular€accessðð€to€the€line.€After€the€complaint€wasÐ )à$( Ðfiled,€negotiations€between€the€parties€continued€without€resolution€and,€in€July€of€2001,€the€CityÐ |*Ì%) Ðcompleted€construction€of€a€bypass€system€consisting€of€two€parallel€pressurized€sewer€lines€and€aÐ h+¸&* Ðpump€station.€This€system€eliminated€the€Cityððs€dependence€upon€both€the€inaccessible€westÐ ° Ðinterceptor€line€and€the€east€interceptor€line€and€both€of€those€lines€were€abandoned.Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€February€14,€2002,€the€City€filed€an€amended€complaint€which€notes€the€futility€ofÐ tÄ Ðnegotiations€between€itself€and€NAFI€and,€òòinter€aliaóó,€recites€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àSince€the€filing€of€its€original€complaint,€the€plaintiff€constructed€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðplaced€in€service€in€July€2001,€a€forced„main€sewer€line€which€bypasses€thatÐ $ t Ðportion€of€its€sanitary€sewer€line€system€which€has€been€illegally€burdened€andÐ  ` Ðobstructed€by€defendant.€Plaintiff€avers€that€the€construction€of€the€sewer€lineÐ ü L  Ðbypass€and€accompanying€pump„stations€were€necessary€to€preserve€the€integrityÐ è 8  Ðof€the€municipal€sanitary€sewer€system€and€to€protect€the€health€and€safety€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðinhabitants€of€the€City€and€of€the€community€in€general.€Plaintiff€avers€the€costs€Ð À  Ðincurred€in€the€construction€of€the€forced„main€bypass€were€$1,102,754.00€andÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€reasonable.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€complaint€demands€that€the€City€be€awarded€the€$1,102,754.00€incurred€in€constructionÐ pÀ Ðof€the€bypass€system€and€an€amount€adequate€to€reimburse€it€ð ðfor€the€increased€debt€service€whichÐ \¬ Ðit€has€incurred€in€order€to€finance€the€construction€of€its€sewer€line€bypass.ðð€€Ð H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àTrial€of€the€Cityððs€complaint€was€held€in€December€of€2002€after€which€the€trial€court€enteredÐ  p Ðits€memorandum€opinion€and€final€order€decreeing€that€NAFI€ð ðunreasonably€and€substantiallyÐ  \ Ðburdenedðð€the€Cityððs€sewer€line€easement€and€awarding€the€City€damages€in€the€amount€ofÐ øH Ð$3,414,985.00,€consisting€of€$1,102,754.00,€attributable€to€the€construction€of€the€bypass€system,Ð ä4 Ðplus€$2,312,231.00€in€interest.€€In€response€to€post€judgment€motions€filed€by€NAFI,€the€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðreduced€its€judgment€to€$3,215,270.00€and€further€reduced€that€amount€to€its€present€value€ofÐ ¼  Ð$1,187,581.49.€€Thereafter,€NAFI€timely€filed€the€instant€appeal.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓd(Óà  àThe€following€issues€are€presented€for€our€review€in€this€case:Ð X ¨ Ðà  àÌà  à1)€Was€the€Cityððs€cause€of€action€against€NAFI€barred€under€either€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ 0"€  Ðor€the€equitable€doctrines€of€laches€and€estoppel?Ð #l! ÐÌà  à2)€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€its€award€of€damages?Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  à3)€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€find€that€NAFI€was€authorized€to€dump€waste€materialÐ Ì&"% Ðon€the€land€over€the€Cityððs€sewer€line€based€upon€the€partiesðð€practical€construction€of€the€easement?€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  à4)€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€refusing€to€strike€from€the€record€its€findings€with€respect€toÐ )à$( ÐCharles€K.€Green?Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓIII.Ð ° ÐÓÞ+ÓÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€in€this€non„jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedingsÐ ˆØ Ðbelow€and€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€with€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€Ð tÄ ÐòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.óó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996)€and€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€The€trialÐ `° Ðcourt's€factual€findings€are,€however,€presumed€to€be€correct€and€we€must€affirm€such€findingsÐ L œ Ðabsent€evidence€preponderating€to€the€contrary.€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðOn€an€issue€which€hinges€on€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€trial€court€willÐ $ t Ðnot€be€reversed€unless€there€is€found€in€the€record€clear,€concrete,€and€convincing€evidence€otherÐ  ` Ðthan€the€oral€testimony€of€witnesses€which€contradict€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ðð€òòGalbreath€v.€Harrisóó,Ð ü L  Ð811€S.W.2d€88,€91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€citing€òòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryóó,€526Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€488,€490€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ¬ü  ÐÓ¥0ÓÌà  àThe€first€issue€we€address€is€whether€the€Cityððs€cause€of€action€in€this€case€was€barred€underÐ „Ô  Ðeither€the€statute€of€limitations€or€the€equitable€doctrines€of€laches€and€estoppel.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„2„103(a)€provides€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Ò(a)€No€person€or€anyone€claiming€under€such€person€shall€have€any€action,€eitherÐ  p Ðat€law€or€in€equity,€for€the€recovery€of€any€lands,€tenements€or€hereditaments,€butÐ  \ Ðwithin€seven€(7)€years€after€the€right€of€action€accrued.Ð øH ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àOrdinarily,€a€suit€to€abate€an€adverse€use€of€an€easement€€under€this€section€must€be€broughtÐ Ð  Ðwithin€seven€years€from€the€time€the€cause€of€action€arose.€€òòShearer€v.€Ô_ÔVandergriffÔ_Ôóó,€661,€682€S.W.2dÐ ¼  Ð680€(Tenn.€1983).€€And,€as€acknowledged€by€this€Court€in€òòMoffitt€v.€Meeks,óó€199€S.W.2d€463,€465Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1946),€this€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€from€the€time€the€adverse€actionÐ ”ä Ðcommences.€€However,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð28„1„113€provides€that€the€provisions€of€Title€28€are€notÐ €Ð Ðapplicable€to€actions€brought€by€the€state€ð ðunless€otherwise€expressly€provided€for.ðð€The€CityððsÐ l¼ Ðaction€is€not€asserted€to€be€an€action€ð ðotherwise€expressly€provided€for.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòHamilton€County€Board€of€Education€v.€Asbestospray€Corporationóó,€909€S.W.2d€783,€785Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€1995)€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€origin€and€applicability€of€Tenn.€CodeÐ #l! ÐAnn.€ðð€28„1„113€as€follows:Ð $X" ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àThe€common€law€doctrine€of€òònullum€tempus€occurit€regióó,€which€is€literallyÐ à%0!$ Ðtranslated€as€ð ðtime€does€not€run€against€the€king,ðð€prevents€an€action€brought€byÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€State€from€being€dismissed€due€to€the€expiration€of€the€statutory€period€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðlimitations€normally€applicable€to€the€specific€type€of€action.€This€doctrine€hasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbeen€justified€on€the€ground€ð ðthat€the€public€should€not€suffer€because€of€theÐ )à$( Ðnegligence€of€its€officers€and€agents€...ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.€Board€of€University€&Ð |*Ì%) ÐSchool€Lands€v.€Andrusóó,€671€F.2d€271,€274€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1982).€Tennesseeððs€versionÐ h+¸&* Ðof€this€doctrine,€found€at€ðð€28„1„113,€provides€as€follows:€ð ðThe€provision€of€thisÐ ° Ðtitle€[pertaining€to€statutes€of€limitation]€do€not€apply€to€actions€brought€by€theÐ œì ÐState€of€Tennessee,€unless€otherwise€expressly€provided.ðð€€This€doctrine€is€not€toÐ ˆØ Ðbe€lightly€regarded,€as€we€have€repeatedly€stated€that€statutes€of€limitation€areÐ tÄ Ðlooked€upon€with€disfavor€in€actions€brought€by€the€State,€and€will€not€beÐ `° Ðenforced€in€the€absence€of€clear€and€explicit€statutory€authority€to€do€so.€€òòDunn€v.Ð L œ ÐW.F.€Ô_ÔJamesonÔ_Ô€&€Sons,€Inc.óó,€569€S.W.2d€799,€802€(Tenn.€1978);€òòAnderson€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐSecurity€Millsóó,€175€Tenn.€197,€133€S.W.2d€478€(1939).Ð $ t ÐÌà Ø àMoreover,€it€is€settled€that€the€òòÔ_ÔnullumÔ_Ô€tempus€óódoctrine€applies,€in€certainÐ ü L  Ðcases,€to€subordinate€organs€of€the€state,€such€as€counties€or€municipalities.€TheÐ è 8  Ðbasic€rule€regarding€the€application€of€òòÔ_ÔnullumÔ_Ô€tempusóó€to€actions€brought€byÐ Ô$  Ðsubordinate€bodies€is€set€forth€in€òòWood€v.€Cannon€Countyóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€600,Ð À  Ð166€S.W.2d€399€(1942),€where€we€stated:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÒp€ÒÒp€ÒThe€statute€of€limitations€does€not€run€against€the€sovereign€or€the€state,€or€Ð „Ô  Ðagainst€a€county,€when€[the€county€is€seeking]€to€enforce€a€demand€arisingÐ pÀ Ðout€of,€or€dependent€upon,€the€exercise€of€its€governmental€functions€as€anÐ \¬ Ðarm€of€the€state.€But€the€statute€does€run€against€a€county€or€municipalityÐ H˜ Ðin€respect€of€its€rights€or€claims€which€are€of€a€private€or€corporate€natureÐ 4„ Ðand€in€which€only€its€local€citizens€are€interested,€as€distinguished€from€aÐ  p Ðpublic€or€governmental€matter€in€which€all€the€people€of€the€state€areÐ  \ Ðinterested.Ð øH ÐÌÒ€pÒÒ€pÒòòWoodóó,€166€S.W.2d€at€401€[citations€omitted].€€òòSee€also€Jennings€v.€DavidsonÐ Ð  ÐCountyóó,€208€Tenn.€134,€344€S.W.2d€359,€361„362€(1961).Ð ¼  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àPursuant€to€the€standard€indicated€by€the€Court€in€òòHamilton€Countyóó,€we€are€required€toÐ ”ä Ðdetermine€whether€the€Cityððs€breach€of€easement€case€against€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€is€ð ðof€a€private€or€corporateÐ €Ð Ðnature€and€is€a€matter€in€which€only€its€local€citizens€are€interested,€as€distinguished€from€a€publicÐ l¼ Ðor€governmental€matter€in€which€all€the€people€of€the€State€are€interested.ððÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àNAFI€apparently€argues€that€the€breach€of€easement€suit€filed€by€the€City€was€of€a€privateÐ 0"€  Ðnature€because,€in€filing€the€suit,€the€City€ð ðwas€seeking€to€reduce€costs€of€sewer€improvementsÐ #l! Ðundertaken€by€the€City€for€the€benefit€of€local€citizens€and€ratepayers.ðð€We€disagree€with€thisÐ $X" Ðconclusion.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIt€is€true€that€the€damages€which€were€awarded€in€this€case€do€benefit€the€local€citizenry€inÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€costs€of€the€new€sewer€system€will€now€be€paid€for€by€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€and€not€from€municipalÐ ¸'#& Ðrevenue.€However,€the€problem€which€resulted€in€the€award€of€damages€„€the€problem€whichÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprompted€the€prosecution€of€this€case€„€was€the€fact€that€a€significant€portion€of€the€Cityððs€sewageÐ )à$( Ðâ âsystem€was€rendered€inaccessible€as€a€result€of€the€overburden€placed€upon€it€by€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô.€The€Ð |*Ì%) Ðpotential€consequences€of€this€situation€were€attested€to€by€the€Cityððs€wastewater€manager,€JohannÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔCoettzeeÔ_Ô,€as€follows:Ð œì Ðâ âÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒQ.€€What€would€you,€as€the€wastewater€manager,€have€had€to€do€in€the€event€thatÐ tÄ Ðthere€had€been€any€type€of€blockage€or€collapse€in€the€line€under€the€landfill?Ð `° ÐÌA.€€I€would€be€in€a€very€bad€position.€Because€of€the€length€of€the€pipe€that€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðcovered,€one€would€have€no€idea€where€to€dig;€and€digging€in€itself€would€be€aÐ $ t Ðlengthy€and€time„consuming€operation.€So,€the€risk€that€we€have€there€was€thatÐ  ` Ðyou€could€have€an€environmental€catastrophe€with€millions€of€gallons€ofÐ ü L  Ðwastewater€going€into€the€Watauga€River€and€spilling€into€the€fields€upstream€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€landfill€during€the€time€it€would€take€to€locate€where€exactly€is€the€problemÐ Ô$  Ðin€the€landfill,€which€is€a€monumental€undertaking€considering€the€length€of€theÐ À  Ðarea€that€this€covered€and€the€depth€that€the€pipe€was€at.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€Water€Quality€Control€Act,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Title€69,€provides€at€ðð€69„3„Ð „Ô  Ð102(a):Ð pÀ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒRecognizing€that€the€waters€of€Tennessee€are€the€property€of€the€state€and€are€heldÐ H˜ Ðin€public€trust€for€the€use€of€the€people€of€the€state,€it€is€declared€to€be€the€publicÐ 4„ Ðpolicy€of€Tennessee€that€the€people€of€Tennessee€as€beneficiaries€of€this€trust,Ð  p Ðhave€a€right€to€unpolluted€waters.€In€the€exercise€of€its€public€trust€over€the€watersÐ  \ Ðof€the€state,€the€government€of€Tennessee€has€an€obligation€to€take€all€prudentÐ øH Ðsteps€to€secure,€protect,€and€preserve€this€right.Ð ä4 ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àIf€for€no€other€reason,€resolution€of€the€problem€which€caused€the€City€to€file€its€complaintÐ ¼  Ðin€this€case€benefits€not€only€the€citizens€of€Elizabethton,€but€the€general€population€of€this€state€byÐ ¨ø Ðsecuring,€protecting€and€preserving€the€ð ðright€to€unpolluted€waters.ðð€The€City€was€engaged€in€theÐ ”ä Ðexercise€of€a€governmental€function€as€an€arm€of€the€state€in€this€case€and,€accordingly,€the€City€isÐ €Ð Ðnot€subject€to€the€indicated€statute€of€limitations.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àNAFI€also€argues€that€the€City€is€equitably€estopped€€from€pursuing€its€cause€of€action€underÐ D!” Ðthe€doctrine€of€laches,€arguing€that€the€City€unreasonably€delayed€in€asserting€its€rights.€In€its€brief,Ð 0"€  ÐNAFI€alleges€that€the€City€was€aware€that€NAFI€was€dumping€material€over€its€sewer€line€for€moreÐ #l! Ðthan€thirty€years€and€yet€ð ðthe€City€watched€and€said€nothingððand,€thereby,€acquiesced€in€theÐ $X" Ðdumping.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àLaches€€is€a€defense€peculiar€to€courts€of€equity€and€is€usually€applied€in€the€absence€of€aÐ Ì&"% Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€òòClark€v.€American€National€Bank€and€Trust€Company€of€Chattanoogaóó,€531Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€563,€572€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974).€€It€is€based€upon€the€doctrine€of€€estoppel€which€providesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðthat€one€may€not€enforce€rights€against€another€when€that€other€has€materially€relied€on€someÐ )à$( Ðconduct€of€the€moving€party€which€is€in€conflict€with€his€asserted€rights.ðð€€òòHannewald€v.€FairfieldÐ |*Ì%) ÐCommunities,€Incóó.,€651€S.W.2d€222,€228€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€Laches€provides€that€equity€willÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€intervene€on€behalf€of€a€plaintiff€who€has€unreasonably€delayed€in€pursuing€his€rights,Ð ° ÐòòHannewald,€id.óó€€However,€as€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòBledsoe€County€v.€McReynoldsóó,Ð œì Ð703€S.W.2d€123,€124,125€(Tenn.€1985),€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€generally€does€not€apply€to€the€actsÐ ˆØ Ðof€public€authorities:Ð tÄ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒPublic€agencies€are€not€subject€to€equitable€estoppel€or€estoppel€in€pais€to€theÐ L œ Ðsame€extent€as€private€parties€and€òòvery€exceptional€circumstancesóó€are€required€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðinvoke€the€doctrine€against€the€State€and€its€governmental€subdivisions.Ð $ t ÐÌ...Ð ü L  ÐÌIt€is€significant€to€observe€that€in€those€Tennessee€cases€where€estoppel€wasÐ Ô$  Ðapplied,€or€could€have€been€applied,€the€public€body€took€òòaffirmative€action€thatÐ À  Ðclearly€induced€a€private€party€to€act€to€his€or€her€detriment,€as€distinguishedÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€silence,€non„action€or€acquiescenceóó.€€In€the€instant€case€the€defendants€haveÐ ˜è  Ðnothing€upon€which€to€predicate€òòthe€essential€element€of€inducementóó,€exceptÐ „Ô  Ðsilence€and€inaction.€(Emphasis€added)€Ð pÀ ÐÒ°€ÒÒ°€ÒÌà  àIn€the€matter€before€us,€NAFI€references€no€evidence€in€the€record€which€shows€that€the€CityÐ H˜ Ðð ðtook€affirmative€action€that€clearly€inducedðð€NAFI€to€place€the€overburden€on€the€Cityððs€easement€Ð 4„ Ðand,€accordingly,€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel€and€laches€do€not€apply.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€next€issue€we€address€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€damages.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€court€stated€as€follows€with€respect€to€the€award€ofÐ Ð  Ðdamages€in€this€case:Ð ¼  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àThe€burden€that€the€Defendant€has€placed€on€the€cityððs€easement€hasÐ ”ä Ðreduced€the€value€of€the€easement€beneath€the€waste€and€cap€to€zero,€as€the€cityÐ €Ð Ðcannot€reasonably€access€that€portion€of€its€sewer€line.€In€light€of€all€of€theÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances,€the€city€chose€a€reasonable€method€of€accessing€its€sewer€line€byÐ X ¨ Ðhaving€constructed€a€new€pressurized€by„pass€sewer€line€contiguous€to€the€capÐ D!” Ðcovered€line.€The€cost€of€construction€of€the€new€line€was€$1,102,754.00Ð 0"€  Ðprincipal,€plus€$2,312,231.00€interest,€for€a€total€cost€of€$3,414,985.00׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€TheÐ #l! Ðinvestment€and€interest€lost€due€to€the€cost€of€the€project€is€not€an€appropriateÐ $X" Ðelement€of€damages,€as€the€Plaintiff€will€be€made€whole€by€being€reimbursed€byÐ ô$D # Ðthe€Defendant€for€the€actual€reasonable€costs€for€accessing€its€sewer€line,€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðcosts€were€incurred€as€a€result€of€the€Defendantððs€acts€in€making€the€lineÐ Ì&"% Ðunreasonably€inaccessible.Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà Ø àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€mitigate€its€damages.€Ð ° Ðâ âWhen€the€record€is€considered€as€a€whole,€the€Plaintiff€has€acted€with€reasonableÐ œì Ðcare€and€diligence€under€the€circumstances,€and€did€not€enhance€its€damages.€€òòÐ ˆØ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òóóà  àWith€regard€to€the€issue€of€damages€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€first€contends€that€ð ðthe€preponderance€of€theÐ `° Ðevidence€was€that€the€West€Interceptor€was€not€damaged€and€that€access€to€it€could€have€beenÐ L œ Ðpermanently€restored€for€about€$140,000.ðð€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€argument€that€the€west€interceptor€line€was€not€damaged€is€inapposite.€The€trialÐ  ` Ðcourtððs€award€of€damages€is€based€upon€its€finding€that€the€line€was€no€longer€subject€to€reasonableÐ ü L  Ðaccess,€not€that€the€line€was€damaged.€€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€argument€that€access€to€the€line€could€have€beenÐ è 8  Ðrestored€for€$140,000.00€is€based€upon€the€report€and€testimony€of€E.€Roberts€Alley,€an€engineeringÐ Ô$  Ðexpert€who€appeared€as€a€witness€in€the€case€on€behalf€of€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô.€€Apparently€the€fill€over€the€CityððsÐ À  Ðeasement€covers€four€manholes€which€open€into€the€covered€sewer€line.€€Mr.€Alley€proposed€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmaterial€above€the€manholes€be€excavated€which€would€allow€for€the€insertion€of€€pre„manufacturedÐ ˜è  Ðten€foot€diameter€metal€cylinders€as€access€channels€to€each€of€these€manholes.€€Assuming€that€thisÐ „Ô  Ðsolution€did€allow€access€to€the€covered€manholes,€it€would€not€provide€access€to€the€line€as€a€whole.€Ð pÀ ÐIn€its€reply€brief,€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€concedes€that€a€block€in€the€west€interceptor€ð ðcould€be€such€that€it€could€notÐ \¬ Ðbe€fixed€from€a€manhole€and€might€require€a€dig„down€repair.ðð€We€have€already€referencedÐ H˜ Ðtestimony€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔCoetzeeÔ_Ô€to€the€effect€that€a€dig€down€repair€under€the€present€circumstances€wouldÐ 4„ Ðbe€a€time€consuming€undertaking€which€could€result€in€a€major€environmental€catastrophe.€€ThisÐ  p Ðevidence€supports€the€conclusion€that€Mr.€Alleyððs€€proposed€solution€of€accessing€the€manholes€wasÐ  \ Ðinadequate€and€unacceptable.€Other€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€to€the€contrary.Ð øH ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€next€argues€that€the€new€sewage€system€cost€the€City€$2,202,000.00€but€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_ÔÐ Ð  Ðmoney€was€spent€in€lieu€of€the€$1,300,000.00€the€City€otherwise€would€have€spent€to€replace€a€fortyÐ ¼  Ðyear€old€Ô_ÔinfluentÔ_Ô€pump€which€was€part€of€the€replaced€system.€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€asserts€that€ð ðthe€extraÐ ¨ø Ð$900,000.00€gave€the€City€a€new€modern€system€in€place€of€an€aging€one€built€in€the€1950's,Ð ”ä Ðeliminated€the€invert€siphon€under€the€Ô_ÔWataugaÔ_Ô€River€and€brought€the€City€other€advantages.ðð€€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_ÔÐ €Ð Ðcontends€that€the€ð ðdamages€from€breach€of€the€easement€cannot€be€more€than€the€net€additional€costÐ l¼ Ðincurred€by€the€City€as€a€result€of€the€breach.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWhile€it€is€true€that€the€new€system€resulted€in€incidental€benefits€to€the€City,€this€does€notÐ 0"€  Ðbelie€the€fact€that€the€new€system€constituted€a€reasonable€solution€to€problem€caused€by€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô.€€Ð #l! ÐÔ_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€€alternative€to€the€implemented€solution€€was€to€gain€entry€to€the€four€manholes€and,€as€weÐ $X" Ðhave€indicated,€we€do€not€agree€that€this€would€have€solved€the€problem€presented.€€The€evidenceÐ ô$D # Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€that€construction€of€the€new€system€was€the€only€proposalÐ à%0!$ Ðpresented€that€constituted€a€reasonable€solution€to€the€overburden€problem.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€also€contends€that€the€City€failed€to€mitigate€its€damages€in€this€case.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àA€plaintiff€has€the€duty€to€exercise€reasonable€care€and€diligence€to€avoid€loss€or€minimizeÐ |*Ì%) Ðdamages.€€òòHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Builders,€Inc.óó,€546€S.W.2d€228,€234€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976).€€Ô_ÔButòòÔ_ÔÐ h+¸&* Ðóóonly€reasonable€action€is€required€of€a€plaintiff€in€this€regard€and€a€plaintiff€is€not€required€toÐ ° Ðmitigate€damages€if€such€action€is€unduly€burdensome.€òòId.€€€óóIn€òòTampa€Electric€Company€v.€NashvilleÐ œì ÐCoal€Companyóó,€214€F.€Supp.€647,€652€(M.D.€Tenn.€1963)€the€Court€states€as€follows€regardingÐ ˆØ Ðlimitations€on€the€plaintiffððs€duty€to€mitigate€:Ð tÄ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒThe€critical€factor€in€determining€fulfillment€of€a€plaintiffððs€duty€to€mitigate€isÐ L œ Ðwhether€the€method€which€he€employedòò€óóto€avoid€consequential€injury€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€under€the€circumstances€existing€at€the€time.€€The€rule€with€respect€€toÐ $ t Ðmitigation€of€damages€may€not€be€invoked€by€a€contract€breaker€ð ðas€a€basis€forÐ  ` Ðhypercritical€examination€of€the€conduct€of€the€injured€party,€or€merely€for€theÐ ü L  Ðpurpose€of€showing€that€the€injured€person€might€have€taken€steps€which€seemedÐ è 8  Ðwiser€or€would€have€been€more€advantageous€to€the€defaulter.ðð€In€re€Ô_ÔKellettÔ_ÔòòÐ Ô$  ÐóóAircraft€Corp.,€186€F.2d€197,€198„199€(3òòrdóó€Cir.€1950).€€As€stated€in€McCormick,Ð À  ÐDamages,€Sec.€35€(1935),€ð ða€wide€latitude€of€discretion€must€be€allowed€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðperson€who€by€anotherððs€wrong€has€been€forced€into€a€predicament€where€he€isÐ ˜è  Ðfaced€with€a€probability€of€injury€or€loss.€€Only€the€conduct€of€a€reasonable€manÐ „Ô  Ðis€required€of€him.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àIn€support€of€its€argument€that€the€City€failed€to€mitigate€damages,€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€states€that€ð ð[i]t€isÐ H˜ Ðvirtually€self„evident€that€the€problem€with€fly€ash€over€the€sewer€line€could€have€been€avoided€ifÐ 4„ Ðthe€city€had€ever€objected€to€the€practice.ðð€Contrary€to€this€assertion€that€the€City€never€objected,€weÐ  p Ðnote€the€following€letter€dated€November€11,€1971,€from€then€City€Attorney,€Walter€Curtis,€to€DanÐ  \ ÐLaws,€counsel€for€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€predecessor,€Ô_ÔBeaunitÔ_Ô€Corporation:Ð øH ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒDear€Dan:Ð Ð  ÐÌà Ø àOn€August€28,€1957,€Ô_ÔBeaunitÔ_Ô€Corporation,€then€doing€business€as€Ô_ÔBeaunitÔ_ÔÐ ¨ø ÐMills,€Inc.,€for€and€in€consideration€of€the€sum€of€$10,000.00,€executed€a€DeedÐ ”ä Ðconveying€an€Easement€to€the€City€of€Elizabethton,€Tennessee,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ €Ð Ðinstalling€an€Interceptor€Sewer€Line€for€the€City€of€Elizabethton,€Tennessee.€€ThisÐ l¼ ÐDocument€is€of€record€in€Deed€Book€145€at€Page€43,€in€the€Registerððs€office€forÐ X ¨ ÐCarter€County,€Tennessee,€and€a€copy€of€same€is€attached€hereto€for€yourÐ D!” Ðinformation.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà Ø àThere€is€also€enclosed€herewith€a€map€or€survey€showing€the€City€SanitaryÐ $X" ÐSewer€Line€referred€to€above,€in€its€relation€to€the€wet€basin€settling€ponds€nowÐ ô$D # Ðbeing€used€by€Ô_ÔBeaunitÔ_Ô.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà Ø àExamination€of€this€map€will€show€that€several€hundred€feet€of€the€SewerÐ ¸'#& ÐLine,€and€Two€(2)€Manholes€marked€ð ðAðð€and€ð ðBðð€on€the€map,€are€now€completelyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcovered€up,€and€inaccessible,€by€reason€of€the€wet€basin€settling€ponds.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà Ø àI€am€advised€by€the€City€Engineer€that€in€the€event€of€any€leakage€from€theÐ ° Ðâ âsettling€ponds€into€the€Sewer€Line,€there€would€probably€be€damages€incurred€atÐ œì Ðour€Sewer€Treatment€Plant€in€the€neighborhood€of€a€million€dollars€before€theÐ ˆØ ÐPlant€could€be€shut€down.€€Moreover,€in€the€event€any€repair€work€is€ever€neededÐ tÄ Ðon€the€Line€at€the€points€in€question,€such€repair€work€would€be€impossible€underÐ `° Ðthe€present€existing€conditions.Ð L œ ÐÌà Ø àI€have€been€directed€to€call€this€matter€to€your€attention€as€Counsel€forÐ $ t ÐÔ_ÔBeaunitÔ_Ô€Corporation€with€the€hope€that€we€can€possibly€arrange€a€conference€onÐ  ` Ðthe€matter€to€determine€what€if€anything,€needs€to€be€done,€or€can€be€done€toÐ ü L  Ðreduce€the€possible€exposure€to€both€the€City€and€Ô_ÔBeaunitÔ_Ô.Ð è 8  ÐÌà Ø àYour€kind€consideration€of€this€matter€would€be€greatly€appreciated,€andÐ À  ÐI€am€sure€that€Mr.€James€Clear,€or€Mr.€John€Ô_ÔMcCreadyÔ_Ô€or€our€City€Manager,€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐRobert€P.€Ô_ÔAsburyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€will€be€glad€to€answer€any€questions€you€have€in€regards€toÐ ˜è  Ðthis€matter.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àIn€light€of€this€correspondence,€we€do€not€agree€with€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€assertion€that€the€City€wasÐ \¬ Ðinattentive€to€the€problem€created€by€the€constant€dumping€which€continued€despite€notification.€Ð H˜ ÐAs€we€have€indicated,€the€Cityððs€problem€of€accessing€its€sewer€line€was€further€exacerbated€by€theÐ 4„ Ðcapping€of€the€already€overburdened€easement,€an€event€which€was€mandated€by€the€DCE€inÐ  p Ðconsequence€of€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€dumping€of€fly€ash.€Upon€its€discovery€that€the€area€over€the€sewer€line€hadÐ  \ Ðbeen€capped€and€the€line€was€no€longer€accessible€without€great€expense,€the€City€entered€intoÐ øH Ðnegotiations€with€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€in€an€attempt€to€resolve€the€problem.€€The€City€ultimately€implemented€€aÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€solution€and€€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€was€apparently€unable€to€present€a€viable€alternative.€Under€theseÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances€and€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€in€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€argument€that€the€City€failedÐ ¼  Ðto€take€reasonable€action€to€mitigate€damages€in€this€case.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAs€a€final€matter€with€respect€to€the€award€of€damages€in€this€case€,we€note€that€€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€briefÐ €Ð Ðstatement€that€the€requirement€that€it€pay€the€prospective€cost€of€financing€the€new€sewer€system€ð ðisÐ l¼ Ðunwarranted€and€unprecedented.ðð€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€presents€no€authority€to€support€its€argument€that€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€should€not€have€included€these€financing€costs€in€its€award€of€damages.€Accordingly,€€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourtððs€decision€in€this€regard€is€affirmed.€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€next€argues€that€the€partiesðð€practical€construction€of€the€easement€authorized€it€toÐ $X" Ðdump€fly€ash€on€the€surface€over€the€Cityððs€sewer€line€because€ð ðfor€more€than€30€years€the€City,€asÐ ô$D # Ðgrantee,€acted€as€if€it€had€no€right€to€stop€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€from€using€the€land€above€the€sewer€line€as€aÐ à%0!$ Ðlandfill.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€rule€of€practical€construction€provides€that€the€interpretation€placed€upon€a€contract€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€parties€thereto€as€evidenced€by€their€acts€will€be€adopted€by€the€court.€€òòGalleria€Associates,€Ô_ÔL.PÔ_ÔÐ )à$( Ðv.€Ô_ÔMogkÔ_Ôóó,€34€S.W.3d€874,€877€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€However,€the€rule€of€practical€construction€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðonly€applicable€if€ð ðthe€language€used€by€the€parties€to€the€contract€is€indefinite€or€ambiguous,€andÐ h+¸&* Ðhence€of€doubtful€construction.ðð€òòFidelity„Ô_ÔPhenixÔ_Ô€Fire€Ins.€Co.€of€New€York€v.€Jackson,€et€al.,óó€181Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€625€(Tenn.€1944).òò€óóThe€easement€granted€to€the€City€in€the€matter€òòsub€judiceóó€is€neitherÐ œì Ðambiguous€nor€indefinite€and€states€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒIt€is€the€intention€of€this€instrument€to€convey€only€such€rights€or€easements€overÐ `° Ðsaid€land€as€is€reasonably€necessary€to€construct€said€sewer€interceptor€line,€òòandÐ L œ Ðto€maintain€the€same€óó...€.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àIt€is€beyond€dispute€that€an€overburdening€of€the€sewer€line€with€fly€ash€and€other€materialÐ  ` Ðinterfered€with€the€Cityððs€clearly€articulated€right€under€the€easement€to€maintain€the€line.Ð ü L  ÐAccordingly,€the€rule€of€practical€construction€is€not€applicable.€€Even€if€the€rule€were€applicable€inÐ è 8  Ðthis€case€evidence€hitherto€referenced€in€this€opinion€contradicts€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€assertion€that€the€City€actedÐ Ô$  Ðas€if€it€had€no€right€to€stop€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€from€dumping€fly€ash€over€its€sewer€line.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€final€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€strikeÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€the€record€findings€with€respect€to€defendant€Charles€K.€Green.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àCharles€K.€Green€became€president€and€chief€executive€officer€of€North€American€RayonÐ \¬ ÐCorporation,€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ôððs€predecessor€in€title,€in€1987.€€He€subsequently€became€the€corporationððs€soleÐ H˜ Ðowner€and€changed€its€name€to€North€American€Fibers,€Inc.€€In€its€complaint,€the€City€avers€thatÐ 4„ ÐCharles€K.€Green€is€the€alter€ego€of€the€named€corporate€defendants€and€that€he€ð ðtransfers€propertyÐ  p Ðbetween€his€companies,€loans€himself€money€from€his€companies,€controls€the€entire€operations€andÐ  \ Ðemployee€complements€of€each€company,€and€deals€with€each€company€as€if€it€were€a€soleÐ øH Ðproprietorship.ðð€The€complaint€further€avers€that€ð ð[t]he€defendants€are€one€and€the€same€entity€forÐ ä4 Ðpurposes€of€this€civil€action.ðð€As€set€forth€in€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€court€agreed€thatÐ Ð  ÐÔ_ÔMr.GreenÔ_Ô€was€the€alter€ego€of€the€defendant€corporations€and€that€the€defendant€corporations€wereÐ ¼  Ðthe€alter€egos€of€each€other.€However,€the€trial€court€also€concluded€that€no€liability€attached€withÐ ¨ø Ðregard€to€Mr.€Green€because€the€City€ð ðhad€not€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€anyÐ ”ä Ðalter€ego€act€of€Green,€or€any€alter€ego€act€of€the€corporations,€legally€or€proximately€caused€theÐ €Ð Ðunreasonable€and€substantial€burden€on€the€Plaintiffððs€sewer€easement.ðð€€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€argues€that€since€theÐ l¼ Ðtrial€court€concluded€that€it€did€not€matter€whether€Mr.€Green€was€the€alter€ego€of€the€defendant€heÐ X ¨ Ðshould€not€be€embarrassed€by€findings€of€the€court€relative€to€its€determination€in€this€regard.Ð D!” ÐAccordingly,€Ô_ÔNAFIÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€delete€from€the€record€theseÐ 0"€  Ðð ðembarrassingðð€findings.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIt€is€our€determination€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€failing€to€delete€any€Ð ô$D # Ðof€its€findings€with€respect€to€Charles€K.€Green.€In€any€event,€no€supporting€authority€is€cited€inÐ à%0!$ Ðsupport€of€this€argument€and,€therefore,€the€issue€is€waived.€As€recognized€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€795Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€689,€698€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1990):Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àFailure€of€a€defendant€to€cite€authority€for€propositions€in€his€argument€onÐ )à$( Ðappeal€constitutes€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòState€v.€Houstonóó,€688€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) ÐCrim.€App.€1984);€òòÔ_ÔMoormanÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€577€S.W.2d€473€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€Ð h+¸&* ÐThe€brief€of€the€appellant€should€contain€an€argument€setting€forth€the€contentionsÐ ° Ðof€the€appellant€with€respect€to€the€issues€presented€with€citations€to€theÐ œì Ðauthorities€and€appropriate€references€to€the€record.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÐ `° Ðremanded€for€further€action€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€NorthÐ L œ ÐAmerican€Fibers,€Inc.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òSHARON€G.€LEE,€€JUDGEó óòòóóÔ#†¼Aµ»XX #Ô