WPCB QpU4cAז܃4cdZ!|KP*4/U.2pC871ǾQ {onω*_͢}| gt_յS#[N>d<l-SE 0U 0 0 0 0> 0 0 0W 0 0 0d 05 0 0 0+ 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0/ 0f0 0H1 02 022 03 0:4 0Y<4 0_4 0 4 05 07 B*9 D/9 D+9 0 : D/< 0?< 06 = 0C= 0:K> 0^> 0<> 1e? 0N? B?U6?U*%@%@%@O@ 1uB 72yByByByBB\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regularl1 IN1:i+003|x U   X$USUS.,   XX    1    _  Tenn.R.Ct.App.10states:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify 8 theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno L precedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated   MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninanyunrelatedcase.#  #(Y(2X$ !USUS.,     XX    0  (#$  0     X$USUS.,   XX    3    _Mr.WhiteinvitedtheDuncanstoameetingtodiscusshisworkwhilestillinprogress.Throughouttheprocess,  Mr.EzellencouragedtheDuncanstohiretheirownsurveyorsothepartiescouldreachanamicableagreementregarding t theircommonboundary.Instead,theDuncansofferedapartialsurveyconductedbyaMr.BeasleyandMr.Lawson.   X$USUS.,   XX    4    _ThetrialcourtfoundMr.Ezellstestimony unimpeachedandcredibleconcerninghisdenialofblazingor  markingtreesalongthedisputedboundaryline.Thetrialcourtfoundthatifanytreescutwerepainted,theyhadbeen t paintedbyMr.Duncanovertheyearsduringhishomemadesurveysandhadcontributedtotheconfusion.\  `&Times New Roman  X$USUS.,   XX    2    _LanceDuncandiedduringthependencyofthismatter,andhisheirshavebeensubstitutedasparties. ARVELL COA P.J.CentervilleExellEzellsDuncansAtcheson DenaPleasantville MaveQualls Maye OlenBeulahEunisunimpeached GPSBeasleyThornburgMcCalebCrabtreeStovallBagsbyHeckmann BainPritchardRebori S.W.EzellRoaneWinbornunascertainedmeritlessAldridge ##(Xd#*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dI)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X75+ ` hp x 5  I)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  #$%&'()* 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$ d<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial   X$USUS.,   XX    5    _TheDuncansmaintainthattheoriginaldeedcallsweremadeoverahundredyearsagoandthatthetreeatissue  wouldnolongerexist.NothingintherecordrefutesMr.Whitestestimonythathefoundthewhiteoakmentionedin t thedeeds.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i)  !USUS.,  _XXXX  NXX  aOYz@ #XXNh#J<XXINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#XXJ<#NXXԈ &   May4,2004Session L #XXN̈́# NXXARVELLEZELL,etal.v.ALVINE.DUNCAN,etal.#XXN#  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforPerryCounty  J @@No.3902&3903TimothyL.Easter,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300081_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember15,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisappealinvolvesaboundarylinedisputebetweenneighbors.Thetrialcourtfoundinfavorof x  theplaintiffsboundarylinedescription,anddefendantsappeal.Weaffirmthedecisionofthetrial d court. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  (x   PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J., P M.S.,andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. < BobbyA.McGee,Linden,Tennessee,fortheappellantsAlvinE.DuncanandWife,HazelDuncan.  DouglasThompsonBates,III,Centerville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,ArvellEzellandLance  Duncan.   @!MEMORANDUMOPINION  #  1       `   #XXXX=#NeighborsArvellEzellandAlvinandHazelDuncanshareacommonborderonthreetracts 8!  ofland.ThepartiesrefertothetwoEzelltractsastheHomeTractandtheThompsonTract,andthe $"t!  DuncanstractissimplycalledtheDuncantract.Mr.EzellistheowneroftheHomeTract,eastof #`" z 8XXdXXd8   theDuncanproperty,andacoownerwithLanceDuncantobeoftheThompsonTract,southofthe  Duncanproperty. #  2           In1984,Mr.EzellhiredThomasWhitetoprepareasurveyplattoestablishtheexact t commonboundaryline.Keytothedeterminationoftheboundarylinewasthelocationofa white ` oakwithhickorypointerswhichisreferencedinallthedeedsandwasusedbyMr.Whiteto L  establishthecommonboundarylineforthethreetracts.OncetheWhitesurveywascompleteand 8  theDuncansdeclinedtoofferaviablealternative,T #  3      ׀Mr.EzellrecordedtheWhitesurveyinthePerry $ t CountyRegistersOfficeonDecember19,1985.  `   In1997,whenMr.EzellbegancuttingtimberontheThompsonTractonwhathebelieved  8  tobehispropertyasestablishedbytheWhitesurvey,theDuncanshiredF&MSurveyingtoconduct $  anothersurvey.Notlikingtheresult,Mr.Duncantookituponhimselftopersonallysurveyhis   propertywithacompass.Whileconductinghisownsurvey,Mr.Duncanbeganpaintinganew   boundaryline,cuttingdowntreessupposedlyblazedbyMr.Ezell,h #  4      ׀andusingthemaspostsforhis   newboundarywhichshiftedthecommonboundarytotheeastinhisfavor,addingfifteenacresto   theDuncanTractwhencomparedwiththeWhitesurvey. p @  I.TrialProceedings  H   InSeptember1998,Mr.EzellandMr.LanceDuncanfiledsuitagainsttheDuncansinan  p efforttosettlethepartiesboundarylinedispute.Specifically,plaintiffsrequestedthelinebetween  \ thepartiesbesetinaccordancewiththeWhitesurvey.TheDuncanscounterclaimed,requestingthe H courttoestablishthetrueboundaryandtocompensatethemforthetimberimproperlycutontheir 4 propertybyMr.Ezell.Followingthefilingofthelawsuit,theDuncanshiredyetanothersurveyor,   DevonAcheson,tosurveythedisputedboundaryline.Mr.DuncanledtheAchesoncrewhimself   duringthesurvey.TheAchesonsurveydisagreedwiththeWhitesurveysboundarylineplacement.  Thedisagreementsinthetwosurveysamountedtoadisputeoverroughlyfifteenacres.    Followingabenchtrialspanningthreedays,thetrialcourtfoundtheWhitesurveymore l crediblethantheAchesonsurvey.ThetrialcourtalsorejectedtheDuncansargumentthatthe X  partieshadacquiescedthattheboundarylineswerecontrolledbythesteelfencepostsputinplace D!  inthe1940'sbyMr.DuncanandMr.Harper.ThetrialcourtorderedtheRegisterofDeedstocorrect 0"  theplatsatissuetoconformtotheWhitesurveyinfavoroftheEzells.Thetrialcourtmadespecific  factualfindingswhichsetouttheevidenceandthehistoryofthedispute:   8  1.AlvinE.Duncan(Duncan)obtainedinterestinhisproperty(Duncanproperty)by t inheritancein1948.Thispropertyismoreparticularlydescribedbydeedfiledon ` November23,1962,withthePerryCountyRegistersOffice,describingtheproperty L  asbeingsituatedonthewatersofBrushcreekintheThirdCivilDistrictofPerry 8  County,Tennessee,towit:$ t   8      8  8`    Beginningatasetrockwithwhiteoakpointers;thenceeast88poles  L  toastakeinahollowatDenaHarperssouthwestcorner;thence  8  north10degreeswest,101polestoawhiteoakwithahickory $  pointer;thencewest10polestoahornbeamwithabeech8@v` x` x8  pointer;thencenorth10degreeswest,142polestoastakeinthefield;thence_____   15degreeseast,35polestoablackwalnutnearthefootofthehill;thence____10   degreeseast,8polestoahickory;thencenorth10degreeswest,217polestoa   chestnut,withahickorypointeratthePleasantvilleRoad;thencewestwiththe   meandersofthesaidroad,103polestoachestnutoak;whichisthenortheastcorner p ofMayeQuallsline;thencesouthwiththemeandersofthesaidMayeQuallslineto \ thebeginning,containing______acres,moreorless.H   8      8   ` (TrialExhibit1); p   8      8  2.PlaintiffArvellEzell(Ezell)obtainedinterestinpropertyadjoiningtheeastern H boundaryofDuncanpropertyinMay1957,fromOlenHarperandwife.This 4 propertyisdescribedinadeedfiledonMay6,1957,withthePerryCounty   RegistersOffice,asbeingpropertysituatedintheThird(old4th)CivilDistrictof   PerryCounty,Tennessee,onthewatersofBrushCreektowit:   8      8  8`    TractNo.1:Beginningatastakewithbeechpointerneartheold  schoolhouseonthebankofBrushCreek;thencesouth30degrees l west,10polestoastake;thencenorth85degreeswest,8polestoa X  mulberrytree;thencenorth65degreeswest,10polestoastake; D! thencenorth40degreeswest,27polestoBeulahDuncansline; 0"  thencesouth15degreeswest,9polestoastakeonhill;thencesouth #l! 10degreeseast,142polestoahornbeamwithbeechpointersatthe $X" branch;thenceeast10polestoawhiteoakwithhickorypointers; $D # thencesouth10degreeseast,101polestoastakeinEliDuncans %0!$ northboundaryline;thenceeast42polestoastakeinGibbonsline; &"% thencenorth5degreeseast,withGibbonsline94polestoastakein '#& Quallsline:thencenorth24degreeswest,withQuallsline12poles (#' toastakeonridge;thencesouth82degreeswest,8polestoawhite )$( oak;thencewest46polestoalargechestnutstump,J.W.Qualls |*%) corner;thencenorth7degreeswest,12polestoablackoak;thence h+&* north5degreeseast,34polestoawhiteoakonridge;thencenorth44  polestoastakeatfallsonthebranch;thencenorth7degreeseast,17  polestoastakeonpointofthehill;thencenorth131/2degreeseast,  23polestothebeginning,containing40acres,moreorless.t` x` x 8      8  8`   (TrialExhibit1)Thispropertywasreferredtoatthetrialasthe L   hometract;8 ` x` x 8      8  3.Ezellacquiredinterestinrealpropertywhichbordersthesouthernboundaryof  ` Duncanspropertybyinheritanceinthe1960's.Thispropertywasreferredtoattrial  L  asthe Thompsontract.PlaintiffLanceDuncan(nowdeceased)alsohadaninterest  8  intheThompsontract;$    8  4.Foranumberofyears(over40),noneofthepartieshavebeencertainastothe   exactboundarylinelocationseparatingthehometractfromtheDuncanpropertyand   theThompsontractfromtheDuncanproperty;    8      8  5.Thekeydeterminationofbothboundarylinesisdirectlytiedtothelocationofthe \  whiteoakwithhickorypointersdescribedinboththeOlenHarper&Wifeto H ArvellEzell&WifeDeedandtheSmithThomasDuncantoAlvinEunisDuncan& 4 WifeWarrantyDeed.(TrialExhibit1); p   8      8  6.AtsomeperiodoftimepriortoEzellspurchaseofthedisputedproperty,Duncan H andOlenHarperhadadiscussionconcerningthecornersandcommonboundaries 4 ofthehomeplaceandMr.Harpersproperty.Withoutthebenefitofthedeedsor   compass,Mr.HarperandDuncanerectedmetalfencepoststomarkwhatHarper   believedthelocationoftheboundarylinetobe.Duncantestifiedthathehadnoidea  wheretheboundarylinewassupposedtobe;   8      8  7.Overmanyyears,Duncanhaspaintedblazesandmadehackmarksandblazeson l theground,treesandpostssettingouttheboundariesashebelievedthemtobe. X  DuncanallegesthatEzellalsowasguiltyofpaintinglinesandmakinghackmarks D! atinappropriatelocations.BothEzellandhisson,ChesterEzell,denythatthey(the 0"  Ezells)everpaintedlinesorproducedhackmarksorblazesontheirproperty.The #l! CourtfindsthatEzellstestimonythatneitherhenoranyothermembersofhisfamily $X" paintedorproducedthesehackmarksandblazestobeunimpeachedandtobe $D # credible.ThetreesthatEzellallegedlypaintedwerecutdownbyDuncanandused %0!$ forposts.Duncanadmittedtopaintinglinesonbothtracts.Duncanspainting, &"% markingandcoveringupboundarymarkershastoalargeextentresultedinthis '#& confusingpropertydispute;(#'   8      8  8.Asaresultoftheboundaryuncertainty,in1984or1985,EzellemployedThomas |*%) White,RegisteredLandSurveyor,toprepareasurveyplatthatwouldestablishthe h+&* boundarylines.Asaresultofhisinvestigationandsurveyworkthatlastedovera  year,WhitecompletedaplatoftheArvellEzellpropertyandfileditwiththe  RegistersOfficeofPerryCountyonDecember19,1985(TrialExhibits2and6).  Incompletingthissurvey,Whitelocatedacommoncornertobeginhissurvey.To t locatethiscorner,Whitewasabletolocatealargewhiteoakwhichhedetermined ` tobethelargewhiteoakmarkedasacornercalledforinbothdeeds.Hefurther L  wentthe101polescalledforinthedeedsandfoundawhiteoakwithcornermarks 8  onit.AlloftheselocationsandmarkingsappearedtoWhitetobeconsistentwith $ t bothdeeds; `   8  9.AportionofWhitessurveyinExhibit6hasbeenadjudicatedtobeinaccurate.  8  ThisCourtfindsthattheinaccurateportioninvolvedboundariesnotindisputeinthis $  matterandassuchdoesnotaffectWhitessurveyastotheboundaryline   determinationbetweentheEzellandDuncanproperties;    8      8  10.WhitenotifiedDuncanthathewasabouttomarkthelinethathehaddetermined   byhissurvey.InJanuary1985,thepartiesmetalongwithWhiteandJoeGeorge p Beasley.Duncan,throughMr.Beasley,presentedapartialsurveysignedbya \ ThomasE.Lawson(TrialExhibit5).ThissurveydidnotagreewiththeWhite H survey.TheCourtfindstheWhitesurveytobesuperiortotheBeasley/Lawson 4 survey; p   8  11.Afterthirteen(13)yearsofnoaction,Ezellbegancuttingtimberfromthe H Thompsontractonwhathebelievedtobehisproperty.Itwasatthattimethat 4 DuncanhiredF&MConsultantstosurveyhisproperty.InSeptember1997,F&M   ConsultantspresentedDuncanwithasurveyplat.Duncandisagreedwiththesurvey   submittedbyF&Mclaimingtheyfailedtouseaprovencornertorunthesurveyand  thesurveyfailedtofollowthecallsinhisdeed.Asaresult,DuncanfiredF&M  ConsultantsbyletterofNovember5,1997(TrialExhibit19);   8      8  12.OnSeptember11,1998,DuncanprocuredtheservicesofAchesonLand X  Surveyingtoprepareasurvey;D!   8  13.DevonAcheson,alicensedsurveyor,testifiedattrialwithoutthebenefitofhis #l! fullfile.Hisemployeesvisitedthepropertyindisputeandobtainedthedatahe $X" neededtopreparehissurveybyuseofaGPSsystem.Whilehecouldnotremember $D # thefullnamesofhiscrewwhogatheredthesurveydata,thesurveywasperformed %0!$ underhisdirectsupervision.Priortohiscompletionofthesurvey,Achesondidnot &"% visitthepropertysite.AchesonpreparedaplatofsurveyoftheAlvinandHazel '#& DuncanpropertywhichwasdatedMarch24,1999(TrialExhibit27).(#'   8      8  14.Achesonssurvey(TrialExhibit27)isinconsistentwithWhitessurveys |*%) (Exhibits2and6);h+&*   8      8  15.Theareaincontroversyonbothtractsisapproximatelyfifteen(15)acres;   8      8  16.InJune1999,Duncanenteredintoboundarylineagreementswithother t neighboringpropertyowners(TrialExhibits20and21).Totheextentthese ` agreementsconflictwiththepropertydescriptionsofthehometractandthe L  Thompsontract,thepropertydescriptionsassetforthinthedeedstotheseproperties 8  control.$ t     Aftermakingthesefactualfindings,thecourtstatedthatunderTenn.CodeAnn.1611  L  106,thecourtwastoestablishaboundarylinebasedonproofoftrueownership.Thecourtalso  8  foundapplicablewellestablishedrulesofpriorityofreferences;rulesforharmonizingcallsindeeds $  orsurveys;andtherequirementthatthecourtconsideralltheevidence.Applyingtheserulestothe   evidence,thecourtdeterminedthattheWhitesurveycontrolled,thatitmoreaccuratelysetforththe   boundary,andthatitsetforththetrueboundary.ThecourtfoundsignificantMr.Whitesconclusion   thatthewhiteoakreferencedinbothdeedswasthecornerboundaryofthetractsandMr.White   locatedthetree. Thismonumentisanaturalorfixedobjectwhichisalocativecall,servedtofix p theboundaries.Itisnotunreasonableindeterminingthisboundarydisputethatthiswhiteoakisthe \ fixedobjectwhich,whenapplied,harmonizestheEzellandDuncandeeds. H @ II.TheIssuesandtheLaw   p   TheDuncansappeal,arguingthetrialcourterredinacceptingtheWhitesurveyoverthe H Achesonsurvey.Specifically,fiveoftheissuesraisedbytheDuncansarechallengestofindingsof 4 factmadebythetrialcourt:(1)thatforover40years,thepartieshavebeenuncertainastotheexact   boundary;(2)thatthekeytodeterminationofthecorrectboundaryisthelocationofthe whiteoak   withpointersdescribedinbothdeeds;(3)thattheEzellsdidnotblazeormarktrees;(4)thatthe  DuncansdidnottakeactiontocontesttheWhitesurveyfor13years;and(5)thatthesurvey  producedbyWhitewasmorecrediblethanthesurveyproducedbyAchesonandmoreaccuratelyset  forththeboundaries. l   Inresolvingaboundarylinedispute,thetrieroffactmustevaluatealloftheevidenceand D! assessthecredibilityofthewitnesses.Mixv.Miller,27S.W.3d508,514(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). 0"  Thequestionofwherethecorrectboundaryliesisgenerallyaquestionoffact.Theusualstandard #l! ofreviewapplicabletobenchtrialsappliesinboundarydisputes.Thornburgv.Chase,606S.W.2d $X" 672,675(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).Underthatstandard,wemustreviewthiscasedenovouponthe $D # recordwithapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsoffactbythetrialcourt,unlesstheevidence %0!$ preponderatesagainstthesefindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d);Brooksv.Brooks,992S.W.2d403, &"% 404(Tenn.1999).Fortheevidencetopreponderateagainstatrialcourtsfindingoffact,itmust '#& supportanotherfindingoffactwithgreaterconvincingeffect.TheRealtyShop,Inc.v.R.R. (#' WestminsterHolding,Inc.,7S.W.3d581,596(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). )$(   |*%)   Wherethereisconflictintestimony,theXXXXtrialcourtisinabetterpositionthanthiscourtto   observethedemeanorofthewitnessesandevaluatetheir#XXXX|T#XXXXcredibility.#XXXXLU#XXXXMcCalebv.SaturnCorp.,#XXXXU#XXXXԀ910  S.W.2d412,415(Tenn.1995)#XXXXU#.Consequently,appellatecourtsaffordconsiderabledeferencetothe  trialcourtsfindingsofcredibilityandtheweighttobegiventestimony;CutlerHammerv.Crabtree, t 54S.W.3d748,753(Tenn.2001).Thesestandardsapplyinboundarydisputeswherethetrialcourt, ` asthefinderoffact,isrequiredtochoosebetweentwocompetingsurveys.SeeMix,27S.W.3dat L  514( Basedonourreviewoftherecordintheinstantcase,wecannotsaythattheevidence 8  preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsconclusionthattheMixdeedandMr.Barrettssurveyare $ t preferabletotheMillerdeedandMr.Colemanssurvey.);seealsoStovallv.Bagsby,No.M2002  ` 01901COAR3CV,2003WL22768677,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.24,2003)(listingcaseswhere  L  trialjudgechosebetweencompetingsurveys);Edwardsv.Heckmann,No.E2002002292COAR3  8  CV,2003WL21486987,at*45(Tenn.Ct.App.June25,2003)(whereproofwasabattleofthe $  experts,i.e.,surveyors,reviewingcourtappliedTenn.R.App.P.13(d))andfoundtheevidencedid   notpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings).     TherulesonhowacourtistoapproachaboundarylinedisputearewellsettledinTennessee:   8  Indeterminingdisputedboundaries,resortistobehadfirsttonaturalobjectsor \ landmarks,becauseoftheirverypermanentcharacter;next,toartificialmonuments H ormarks,thentotheboundarylinesofadjacentlandowners,andthentocoursesand 4 distances.Thisruleofconstructionistoaidindeterminingtheintentionofthe  p partiestoadeedwhichistobedetermined,ifpossible,fromtheinstrumentin  \ connectionwiththesurroundingcircumstances.H   Thornburg,606S.W.2dat675;seealsoPritchardv.Rebori,135Tenn.328,186S.W.121,122   (Tenn.1916).      III.Analysis   j_  Thetrialcourthereinappliedtheappropriatelegalprinciples.Ourreviewoftheentirerecord l leadsustoconcludethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact X  relativetothecorrectboundary.Bothdeedsreferencedawhiteoakwithhickorypointers.Thetrial D! courtfoundthecommonboundarylineestablishedbytheWhitesurveymorecrediblebecauseit 0"  locatedthewhiteoakwithhickorypointersandusedittolocatethedeedcalls.Thatmethod #l! harmonizesthedeeds. $X"   Incontrast,Mr.Achesondidnotlocatethetree,[ #  5      ׀butMr.Achesondidnotvisitthesiteuntil %0!$ thesurveywascompleted.Insteadofusingthemoretraditionallineofsightmethodemployedby &"% Mr.White,Mr.AchesonemployedasubcontractortouseGPS(globalpositioningsatellite)to '#& establishthecoordinatevalues.Oncethosevalueswerefound,afieldcrewwenttotheproperty  underthedirectionofMr.Duncantocollectfurtherinformation.Thecrewtheninputtheadditional  dataintothecomputer,andthesurveywasgeneratedfromthatprocess.XXXXԀThecrewmemberwho  inputthedatawasunavailabletotestifyandnolongerworkedforthecompany. t #XXXX-e#  Thetrialcourtfoundthat: L  8  TheCourthasconsideredthetestimonyofthetwosurveyorsattrial,themannerin $ t whichtheirsurveyswereperformed,thesurveyorsrelianceonthelegaldescription  ` setforthinthecontrollingdeeds,theextentandthesophisticationofthesurveys,the  L  trainingandexperienceofthetwosurveyors,aswellasthedepositionofAcheson.  8  TheCourtthereforefindsthatWhitessurveycontrols,andtheCourtreliesonthe $  Whitesurveyinfindingthatitmoreaccuratelysetsforththeboundariesbetweenthe   hometractandtheDuncantract....      WeaffirmthetrialcourtsadoptionoftheboundarylineestablishedintheWhitesurveyand,   therefore,itsrulinginfavoroftheplaintiffs,Mr.EzellandMr.LanceDuncan. p   IV.Acquiescence  H i  TheDuncansalsoarguethatthelocationoftheboundarybetweentheHomeTractandtheir  p propertyisfixedbythefencepostsplacedbythepreviousownerofMr.Ezellsproperty,Olen  \ Harper,in1948.Theyarguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtogivecredenceorprecedencetothe H agreementoracquiescenceastotheboundarylineofMr.DuncanandMr.Harperasevidencedby 4 thefenceposts.Thecourtconsideredthisargument,butdidnotagreethatacquiescencecontrolled   thelocationoftheboundary,notingthatwhenthepoleswereplacedMr.Harperhadnotconsulted   anydeedsandMr.Duncan hadnoideaifthelocationofthesepoleswascorrectorincorrect.  Consequently,thetrialcourtgave noweighttotheplacementofthesepolesasacquiescenceby  EzellthatthepolesmarkedtheboundarybetweenDuncanandthehometract.    Theboundarylinebetweenadjoiningpropertyownerscanbeestablishedbyacquiescence. X  RoaneCountyv.AndersonCounty,89Tenn.259,14S.W.1079(1890).However,whileadjoining D! ownersmayagreeupontheexactlocationoftheircommonpropertylinewhenthereisdoubtabout 0"  thelocationofthetrueline,HoustonsHeirsv.Matthews,9Tenn.116,11819(1826);Winbornv. #l! Alexander,39Tenn.App.1,17,279S.W.2d718,725(1954),theycannotchangeaboundaryby $X" parolagreementwhenthedeedscallsaredefiniteandwellunderstood,Mayv.Abernathy,23Tenn. $D # App.236,242,130S.W.2d135,139(1939).Wherethedeedclearlyestablishestheline,thereis %0!$ nobasistoresorttoparolevidencetoestablishadifferentboundary,sinceonlyanunascertainedand &"% disputedlinemaybeestablishedbyparolagreement.Thornburg,606S.W.2dat674. '#&   Inanyevent,wherethereisaclaimthattheboundarylinewasestablishedbyacquiescence, )$( theproofmustshowthattheacquiescencewasmutualandthatbothpartiesmusthaveknowledge |*%) oftheexistenceofalineasaboundaryline.Durenv.Spears,1990WL59396,at*23(Tenn.Ct. h+&* aOY  a a  App.May10,1990).Whetheracquiescenceisshowndependsonthefactsofthecase.Taylorv.  Carlin,No.W200300640COAR3CV,2004WL3679699,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.26,2004)  (permapp.deniedNov.15,2004).Mutualrecognitionandknowledgeofthelineasaboundaryis  required.Id;seealsoBrooksv.Brake,No.01A019508CH00365,1996WL252322,*5(Tenn. t Ct.App.May15,1996)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(findingthattoestablishthe ` existenceofaboundarylinebyagreement,thepartymakingtheassertionmustproveamongother L  factorsthattherewasanagreementofthepartiesortheirpredecessorstothelocationofthe 8  boundary). $ t   Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindingssurroundingthe  L  postssetbyMr.Harper.Weagreewiththeconclusionthattherewasnoacquiescencetoalineother  8  thantheoneestablishedinthedeedsandprovedbytheWhitesurvey. $     V.FrivolousAppeal    y  Mr.EzellaskthiscourttofindtheappealfrivolousunderTenn.Code.Ann.271122   whichprovides: p 8  Whenitappearstoanyreviewingcourtthattheappealfromanycourtofrecordwas H frivolousortakensolelyfordelay,thecourtmay,eitheruponmotionofapartyoron 4 itsownmotion,awardjustdamagesagainsttheappellant,whichmayinclude,but  p neednotbelimitedto,costs,interestonthejudgment,andexpensesincurredbythe  \ appelleeasaresultoftheappeal.H   However,anawardofdamagesunder271122isdiscretionary.Banksv.St.FrancisHosp.,697   S.W.2d340,343(Tenn.1985).     Itiswellsettledthatneitheraparty,northiscourt,shouldhavetobearthecostsandvexation  ofameritlessappeal.Jacksonv.Aldridge,6S.W.3d501,504(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citingDavis  v.GulfIns.Group,546S.W.2d583,586(Tenn.1977).Anappealisconsideredfrivolousifthere l isnoreasonablechanceofsuccessorifitisdevoidofmerit.Id.ThecompetingsurveysofMr. X  WhiteandMr.Achesonpresentedanonfrivolousfactualdisputeinthiscase.Therefore,wefind D! thatthisappealwasnotcompletelywithoutmeritandwas,therefore,notfrivolous. 0"  XXXX  Conclusion  $X"   Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtandremandthecasefor %0!$ anyfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Althoughwefindthatthisappealisnot &"% frivolous,wetaxcostsoftheappealtotheappellants,AlvinandHazelDuncan. '#&    `     h     ___________________________________ |*%)    `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE#XXXX|#