ÿWPCÎ ¬ü>O’c@FPŠÆ²»€þãÐúa47ƒj²‰<†$PLEÞ–‹@qG–®7# èBeÀÃW@«§HR¾€–FxýQ­`ìƒÂá/#_È÷@ÛÖ_ãKŸÏ÷Z¯q#DÇJ`gp“ýfÞâý+müš»§ob@¹{|ló`ôBPŒ`’üž‰Z@7 då£áÛ]gBXÚÛÐÓӅ̯Ovˆ0¡¡¨Á4pl-ã ±¾Ò¤Ø:|ýßø¶/ K§/ñÔ™6¬÷¤^ØJaÄÅü–FãL.¹£üìR±XC[š«àÇohpCM#lA¦?ÍÊY Hî‘~OhàEŸlRTƒ””øNlÐ7ú‡oC*UQ–îÜ?ðû“K<¤ §¬¾:>®é¶£<áÈÉ^çºÕók†E›?Ú4ƒFU3[+ßCËHJLVhÝp•ÀÐò¤tî†Ä?W‹¸@¿!/r¦¿ñ²LUâ: Ý~_8“FÛµÚhh2OIÎËñDŽ1;ŒžöµaýΕ©Î!ßBKhÁlYq|–‡píÁ ¿ðT^ÍaL77 Òz¸®› ©IÝg¹Õ4EÁ X-|!ý²ˆö!²V¨†\A'z«ÅµìæX ì#—Z#ÁìUN­ %û 0: UN; 1u‰ 72þ 0c0 0w“ 0Š 0 ” 0´4 0Çè 0Û¯ 0ïŠ 0Dy 1‰½ 72F^ xw„4ˆEœž­ m¯NÆÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 0DÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ 0 B±˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù xGìGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List—~) õ}|)°Ã k3<£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(.G2+Ž$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüòXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXÔÔ‡îOìîXXáˆÔÑ8€áˆXXdìdÈ8Ñà@ü ü ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XáˆXîîOì\#ÔÔ‡¼Jý»XXáˆÔˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓOCTOBER€12,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†XáˆX»¼Jý@#ÔÌÌÌÌò òÔ‡¼Jý»XXáˆÔGENERAL€Ô_ÔBANCSHARESÔ_Ô,€INC.òòóó€v.€VOLUNTEER€BANK€&€TRUSTòòóóÔ#†XáˆX»¼JýØ#Ôó óÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Marion€CountyÐ ªú  Ðà@@øøìàNo.6357€€€€€€€John€W.€Rollins,€Judge€by€designation€Ð –æ  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€Y) °°` d€÷E<Y` AßÐ Zª  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„00231„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€30,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ U¥ ÐÌßA€Y) °°` dE<,` AßÐ -} Ðó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓThe€Plaintiff,€General€Ô_ÔBancsharesÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€filed€a€declaratory€judgment€action€asking€the€Trial€CourtÐ P Ðto€declare€a€restrictive€covenant€in€its€warranty€deed€unenforceable.€€Defendant€Volunteer€Bank€&Ð ì< ÐTrustððs€predecessor€in€title€of€the€property€at€issue€originally€placed€the€restriction€on€the€propertyÐ Ø( Ðseveral€years€ago.€€Plaintiff€contends,€among€other€arguments,€that€the€restrictive€covenant€does€notÐ Ä Ðbind€it€as€a€remote€grantee€because€the€restrictive€clause€does€not€contain€specific€ð ðsuccessors€andÐ ° Ðassignsðð€language.€€Both€parties€filed€Motions€for€Summary€Judgment,€and€the€Trial€Court€grantedÐ œì ÐDefendantððs€Motion.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€We€affirm.Ð ˆØ ÐÓ©ÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó ó;€ò òcase€Remanded.ó óÐ L œ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Herschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó€andÐ #d" ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó€joined.Ð $P# ÐÌC.€Ô_ÔDeweesÔ_Ô€Berry,€IV,€and€Susan€W.€Ô_ÔFoxmanÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€GeneralÐ Ø%(!% ÐÔ_ÔBancsharesÔ_Ô,€Inc.Ð Ä&"& ÐÌTracy€C.€Wooden,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Volunteer€Bank€&€Trust.Ð œ(ì#( ÐÌÌÐ `+°&+ ÐÔ_ÔÓ~Óò òOPINIONÐ ° Ðó óÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ#†XáˆXXXáˆ=#Ôà@ÛÛ%ìàò òòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ€  (Gìy3Óà  àà ` àThis€suit€arises€from€a€dispute€regarding€a€restrictive€covenant€on€a€parcel€of€propertyÐ `° Ð(hereafter€"Property")€located€in€the€Town€of€Powell's€Crossroads.€€Plaintiff,€General€Bancshares,Ð L œ ÐInc.,€is€the€current€owner€of€the€Property.€€Plaintiff€filed€this€declaratory€judgment€action,€asking€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐTrial€Court€to€find€that€a€restriction€in€its€warranty€deed€(hereafter€"Restrictive€Covenant")€was€notÐ $ t Ðenforceable.€€Defendant,€Volunteer€Bank€&€Trust,€is€a€successor€to€the€previous€owner€of€theÐ  ` ÐProperty,€Marion€Trust€&€Banking€Company.€€In€1989,€Marion€Trust€&€Banking€sold€the€PropertyÐ ü L  Ðto€the€Town€of€Powell's€Crossroads,€a€municipality,€with€the€Restrictive€Covenant€being€containedÐ è 8  Ðin€that€warranty€deed.€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àThe€relevant€portions€of€the€warranty€deed€for€the€1989€conveyance€are€as€follows:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMARION€TRUST€&€BANKING€COMPANY,€has€this€day€bargainedÐ „Ô  Ðand€sold,€and€does€hereby€sell,€transfer€and€convey€untoÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà@q q ìàTOWN€OF€POWELL'S€CROSSROADS,ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àits€successors€and€assigns,€the€following€described€real€estate€situatedÐ  p Ðin€the€Third€Civil€District€of€Marion€County,€Tennessee,€and€moreÐ  \ Ðparticularly€described€as€follows,€to„wit:ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà@­­#ìà*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàRESTRICTION:€€This€property€may€not€be€used€byÐ ¨ø Ðany€financial€institution€as€a€place€of€business€for€aÐ ”ä Ðperiod€of€twenty„five€(25)€years€from€the€date€hereof.Ѐи ¸  ÐÌThe€Restrictive€Covenant€immediately€follows€the€description€of€the€Property€and€a€clause€settingÐ X ¨ Ðforth€an€exception€to€the€property€description.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThereafter,€the€Property€was€conveyed€three€more€times€before€the€conveyance€to€Ð #l! ÐPlaintiff€in€1998.€€Throughout€these€conveyances,€the€Restrictive€Covenant€remained€in€the€chainÐ $X" Ðof€title,€albeit€with€a€few€changes.€€After€the€initial€conveyance€in€1989,€the€Property€was€acquiredÐ ô$D # Ðin€1996€by€NPF€X,€Inc.,€by€warranty€deed€which€contained€the€verbatim€language€of€the€RestrictiveÐ à%0!$ ÐCovenant.€€Later€that€same€year,€the€Property€was€sold€to€Star€Health€Services,€Inc.,€and€the€propertyÐ Ì&"% Ðdescription€attached€to€the€warranty€deed€contained€a€restriction€which€was€identical€to€theÐ ¸'#& ÐRestrictive€Covenant€except€that€it€stated€"òòaóó€financial€institution"€instead€of€"òòanyóó€financialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinstitution."€€In€1997,€Eddie€and€Pamela€Mooneyham€bought€the€Property€by€special€warranty€deedÐ )à$( Ðwhich€contained€a€restriction€identical€to€the€one€found€in€Star€Health's€warranty€deed,€except€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðit€stated€that€the€25„year€restriction€began€running€on€the€date€of€the€most€recent€transfer€inÐ h+¸&* ÐOctober,1996.€€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€1998,€Plaintiff€purchased€the€Property€from€the€Mooneyhams€who€are€not€a€partyÐ ˆØ Ðto€this€litigation.€€Plaintiff's€warranty€deed,€in€pertinent€part,€states€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWE,€EDDIE€D.€MOONEYHAM€and€wife,€PAMELA€J.Ð L œ ÐMOONEYHAM,€do€hereby€sell,€transfer€and€convey€untoÐ8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àGENERAL€BANCSHARES,€INC.,€a€Tennessee€Corporation€Ð  ` Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àits€successors€and€assigns,€the€following€described€real€estate,€situatedÐ ü L  Ðin€the€Third€Civil€District€of€Marion€County,€Tennessee,€and€moreÐ è 8  Ðparticularly€described€as€follows,€to„wit:ÐÔ$ ` x` x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà@””"ìà*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*€ˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàRESTRICTIONS:€€This€property€may€not€be€used€byÐ „Ô  Ða€financial€institution€as€a€place€of€business€for€aÐ pÀ Ðperiod€of€Twenty„five€(25)€years€from€the€date€of€theÐ \¬ Ðconveyance€from€Marion€Trust€&€Banking€CompanyÐ H˜ Ðto€the€Town€of€Powell€[sic]€Crossroads€dated€AprilÐ 4„ Ð12,€1989,€and€recorded€on€July€10,€1990,€in€DeedÐ  p ÐBook€141,€Pages€217,€et€seq.,€Register's€Office€ofÐ  \ ÐMarion€County,€Tennessee.ÐøH¸ ¸  ÐÌAs€in€the€1989€warranty€deed,€the€Restrictive€Covenant€immediately€follows€the€description€of€theÐ Ð  ÐProperty.€Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€and€Defendant€each€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ ”ä Ðgranted€Defendant's€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€Plaintiff€appeals.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionóóó óˆÐ X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€not€enforceable€for€theÐ 0"€  Ðfollowing€reasons:€€1)€the€Restrictive€Covenant€itself€does€not€contain€the€"successors,€and€assigns"Ð #l! Ðlanguage;€2)€the€restriction€does€not€run€with€the€land€because€it€does€not€confer€a€correspondingÐ $X" Ðbenefit€on€another€particular€parcel€of€land;€3)€the€restriction€is€not€enforceable€as€an€equitable€Ð ô$D # Ðservitude€because€the€Property€is€not€part€of€a€common€development€plan;€and€4)€Defendant€is€notÐ à%0!$ Ða€third€party€beneficiary€to€the€Restrictive€Covenant€because€the€Mooneyhams€did€not€intend€to€Ð Ì&"% Ðbenefit€Defendant€with€the€restriction€contained€in€the€1998€warranty€deed.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendant€does€not€dispute€the€Trial€Court's€decision.€€Defendant€contends€that€theÐ )à$( Ðplain€language€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant€and€the€format€of€the€1989€warranty€deed€is€proof€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðintent€of€the€original€grantor€and€grantee€to€bind€remote€grantees€such€as€Plaintiff.€€Defendant€alsoÐ h+¸&* Ðargues€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€enforceable€against€Plaintiff€because€Plaintiff€had€actualÐ ° Ðnotice€of€the€restriction€and€because€the€Restrictive€Covenant€was€in€the€chain€of€title.€€Alternatively,€Ð œì ÐDefendant€argues€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€enforceable€as€an€equitable€servitude.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€outlined€the€standard€of€review€of€a€motion€for€summaryÐ `° Ðjudgment€in€€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assoc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83€(Tenn.€2000),€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€court's€review€of€a€motion€forÐ $ t Ðsummary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiry€involvesÐ  ` Ðpurely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€lower€court's€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€to€reviewing€theÐ è 8  Ðrecord€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€€R.€Civ.€P.€56Ð Ô$  Ðhave€been€met.€€òòSeeóó€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€50-51Ð À  Ð(Tenn.1997);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2dÐ ¬ü  Ð741,€744€(Tenn.1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.04Ð ˜è  Ðprovides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€noÐ „Ô  Ðgenuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claimÐ pÀ Ðor€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòseeóó€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,Ð \¬ Ð210€(Tenn.1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgmentÐ H˜ Ðas€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnderson€v.€StandardÐ 4„ ÐRegister€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.1993).€€The€moving€partyÐ  p Ðhas€the€burden€of€proving€that€its€motion€satisfies€these€requirements.€Ð  \ ÐòòSee€Downen€v.€Allstate€Ins.óó€òòCo.óó,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.1991).€Ð øH ÐWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÐ ä4 Ðsupported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€to€setÐ Ð  Ðforth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existence€of€disputed,€materialÐ ¼  Ðfacts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee€Byrd,óó€847Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€at€215.€€Ð”ä` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àòòóóÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€eitherÐ l¼ Ðaffirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€non-moving€party'sÐ X ¨ Ðclaim€or€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€McCarleyÐ D!” Ðv.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.1998);Ð 0"€  ÐòòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.1997).€€If€the€movingÐ #l! Ðparty€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non-movingÐ $X" Ðparty's€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€aÐ ô$D # Ðgenuine€issue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summaryÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€at€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€the€movingÐ ¸'#& Ðparty€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnon-moving€party€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€mustÐ )à$( Ðoffer€proof€to€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðclaim.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summaryÐ ° Ðjudgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€theÐ œì Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€mustÐ ˆØ Ðalso€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€Ð tÄ ÐòòSee€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2dÐ `° Ðat€210-11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summary€judgment€only€when€bothÐ L œ Ðthe€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permit€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòSee€McCall€v.Ð $ t ÐWilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.1995).Ô‡XáˆXXXáˆÔÐü L ` x` x ÐÌòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€before€us€contains€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact.òòóó€€The€parties€do€notÐ ¬ü  Ðdispute€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€found€in€the€1989€warranty€deed€and€again€in€the€1998Ð ˜è  Ðwarranty€deed.€€The€parties€do€not€dispute€the€language€or€format€of€the€warranty€deeds.€Ô#†XáˆXXXስ7#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔ€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Restrictive€Covenant€at€issue€is€a€"property€[interest]€that€run[s]€with€the€land."€Ð \¬ ÐòòMaples€Homeowners€Ass'n€v.€T&R€Nashville€Ltd.€P'shipóó,€993€S.W.2d€36,€38€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€Ð H˜ ÐIt€is€true€that€€Tennessee€law€does€not€favor€restrictions€on€the€free€use€of€€real€property€by€privateÐ 4„ Ðowners.€€òòHicks€v.€Coxóó,€978€S.W.2d€544,€548€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòHillis€v.€Powersóó,€875€S.W.2dÐ  p Ð273,€275€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€However,€this€Court€has€held€that€restrictive€covenants€will€beÐ  \ Ðenforced€under€certain€circumstances,€holding€that:€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthe€courts€will€uphold€covenants€running€with€thà8@ˆ` x` xàe€land€where€theÐ Ð  Ðintent€of€the€parties€to€bind€their€remote€successors€can€be€determinedÐ ¼  Ðby€the€language€of€the€covenant€and€the€circumstances€of€its€making.Шø` x` x ÐÌòòHillisóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€275€(citations€omitted).€€In€explaining€the€analysis€that€courts€must€make€whenÐ €Ð Ðasked€to€enforce€a€restrictive€covenant,€this€Court€held€that:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[t]he€court€is€required€to€give€a€fair€and€reasonable€meaning€toÐ D!” Ðrestrictive€covenants€in€order€to€determine€the€parties'€intention€andÐ 0"€  Ðonce€the€intention€of€the€parties€is€ascertained,€the€covenant€will€beÐ #l! Ðenforced,€provided€it€serves€a€legitimate€purpose€and€does€notÐ $X" Ðconstitute€a€nuisance€per€se.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌòòJones€v.€Englundóó,€870€S.W.2d€525,€529€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(quoting€òòWaller€v.€Thomasóó,€545Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.2d€745,€747€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976)).€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€a€general€rule,€courts€will€strictly€construe€restrictive€covenants.€€òòHicksóó,€978Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€at€548.€€When€interpreting€unambiguous€restrictive€covenants,€courts€are€to€give€the€wordsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€covenant€their€"usual€and€ordinary€meaning."€€òòId.óó€at€547.€€This€Court€has€held€that:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Restrictions€on€land]€arise€.€.€.€from€a€series€of€overlappingÐ ° Ðcontractual€transactions€.€.€.€.€€Accordingly,€they€should€be€viewed€asÐ œì Ðcontracts,€.€.€.€and€they€should€be€construed€using€the€rules€ofÐ ˆØ Ðconstruction€generally€applicable€to€the€construction€of€otherÐ tÄ Ðcontracts.€€òòÐ`°` x` x ÐÌMaples€Homeowners€Ass'nóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€39€(citations€omitted).€€If€the€restrictive€covenant€isÐ 8 ˆ Ð"'reasonable€and€unambiguous,€there€is€no€need€to€seek€further€clarification€outside€its€language.'"€Ð $ t ÐòòHicks,€óó978€S.W.€2d€at€548€(quoting€òòShea€v.€Sargentóó,€499€S.W.2d€871,€874€(Tenn.€1973)).€€However,Ð  ` ÐÔ#†XáˆXXXሣ9#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔif€the€language€in€a€restriction€is€ambiguous,€the€courts€will€construe€that€provision€against€theÐ ü L  Ðdrafter€of€the€restriction.€€òòHillisóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€275„76€(citation€omitted).€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€reject€Plaintiff's€contention€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€does€not€apply€to€remoteÐ À  Ðgrantees€because€the€clause€itself€does€not€contain€"successors€and€assigns"€language.€Ô#†XáˆXXXáˆÒE#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔWe€hold€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€plain€language€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€unambiguous€and€clearly€indicates€the€intent€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðoriginal€parties€to€bind€successors€and€assigns€like€Plaintiff.€€òòSeeóó€òòHicksóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€548€Ô#†XáˆXXXáˆÑG#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔ(holdingÐ „Ô  Ðthat€"the€overriding€factor€is€the€intent€of€the€partiesðð).ò òó óòòóó€€TÔ#†XáˆXXXáˆI#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔhe€"successors€and€assigns"€language€in€theÐ pÀ Ð1989€warranty€deed€is€found€in€the€sentence€immediately€preceding€a€large,€fully„indented€portionÐ \¬ Ðof€the€warranty€deed€which€is€set€off€by€a€colon.€€Contained€in€this€fully„indented€section€is:€1)€aÐ H˜ Ðdescription€of€the€Property;€2)€an€exception€to€the€property€description;€3)€the€Restrictive€Covenant;Ð 4„ Ðand€4)€a€reference€to€a€previously„recorded€deed€regarding€the€same€Property.€€The€placement€of€theÐ  p ÐRestrictive€Covenant€within€the€umbrella€of€the€colon€clearly€shows€that€the€original€parties€intendedÐ  \ Ðfor€the€"successors€and€assigns"€language€to€be€a€part€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€plain€language€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant€indicates€that€the€original€grantor€andÐ Ð  Ðgrantee€intended€for€it€to€apply€to€remote€grantees.€€The€Restrictive€Covenant€€prohibits€"òòanyóóÐ ¼  Ðfinancial€institution"€from€using€the€Property€as€a€place€of€business€"for€a€period€of€twenty„five€(25)Ð ¨ø Ðyears€from€the€date€hereof."€€When€coupled€with€the€format€of€the€warranty€deed,€the€"clear€andÐ ”ä Ðordinary€meaning"€of€this€language€clearly€indicates€that€the€intent€of€the€original€parties€was€to€bindÐ €Ð Ðremote€grantees€such€as€Plaintiff€to€the€Restrictive€Covenant.€€òòSee€Hicksóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€548.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€the€language€of€the€restriction€in€the€1998€warranty€deed€is€proof€thatÐ D!” ÐPlaintiff€understood€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€applied€to€it€as€a€remote€grantee.€€Plaintiff's€deedÐ 0"€  Ðclarified€the€date€of€the€beginning€of€the€twenty„five€year€term,€stating,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€Ð #l! Ð"for€a€period€of€twenty„five€(25)€years€from€the€date€of€the€conveyance€from€Marion€Trust€&Ð $X" ÐBanking€Company€to€the€Town€of€Powell€Crossroads€dated€April€12,€1989€.€.€.€."€€As€discussed,€theÐ ô$D # Ðdeeds€between€the€1989€and€1998€conveyances€did€not€make€this€point€clear.€€Although€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðclarifying€language€cannot€be€used€to€show€the€intention€of€the€original€parties,€it€is€proof€thatÐ Ì&"% ÐPlaintiff€understood€the€plain€language€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant€to€bind€the€successors€andÐ ¸'#& Ðassigns€of€the€original€grantee.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€support€of€its€argument€that€to€run€with€the€land€and€bind€remote€grantees,€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐRestrictive€Covenant€itself€must€contain€the€ð ðsuccessors€and€assignsðð€language,€Plaintiff€reliesÐ h+¸&* Ðheavily€upon€two€decisions,€òòLowe€v.€Wilsonóó,€250€S.W.2d€366€(Tenn.€1952),€and€òòEssary€v.€Coxóó,€844Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€169€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Plaintiffððs€argument€fails€because€the€restrictive€covenants€inÐ œì Ðthose€cases€are€readily€distinguishable€from€the€one€at€issue.€€Our€Supreme€Court€in€òòLoweóó€found€thatÐ ˆØ Ða€covenant€which€forbade€the€sale€of€intoxicating€beverages€was€not€enforceable€against€remoteÐ tÄ Ðgrantees€because€it€ð ðdid€not€specifically€bind€the€heirs€and€assignees€of€the€grantees.ðð€€òòLoweóó,€250Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€368.€€The€restrictive€clause€in€òòLoweóó€is€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòIt€is€hereby€agreed€and€understood€between€the€parties€heretoóó€that€noÐ $ t Ðbeer,€beverages,€or€intoxicants€of€any€kind€or€character€shall€ever€beÐ  ` Ðsold€upon€the€lot€or€parcel€of€land€herein€conveyed,€and€òòthisÐ ü L  Ðagreement€is€a€part€of€the€consideration€for€this€sale.óóÐè 8 ` x` x ÐÌòòId.€óó(emphasis€added).€€The€òòLoweóó€Ô#†XáˆXXXáˆÄI#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔcourt€held€that€the€language€of€the€restriction€showed€that€thisÐ À  Ðclause€was€merely€a€personal€agreement€between€the€original€parties.€€òòId.óó€at€368.€€Similarly,€thisÐ ¬ü  ÐCourt€in€òòEssary€v.€Coxóó€found€that€a€restriction€which€forbade€the€sale€of€oil€and€gas€supplies€was€notÐ ˜è  Ðenforceable€against€remote€grantees€because€the€language€showed€that€it€was€a€personal€agreementÐ „Ô  Ðbetween€the€original€grantors€and€grantees.€€òòEssaryóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€172.€€The€restriction€in€òòEssaryóóÐ pÀ Ðstates€as€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòIt€is€expressly€understood€and€agreedóó€that€the€above„describedÐ 4„ Ðpremises€shall€not€be€used€for€the€purpose€of€any€sales€of€oil€and€gasÐ  p Ðsupplies€or€products.Ð \` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€170€(emphasis€added).€€Unlike€the€restrictions€found€in€òòLoweóó€and€òòEssaryóó,€the€plain€languageÐ ä4 Ðof€the€Restrictive€Covenant€in€this€matter€does€not€indicate€solely€a€personal€agreement€between€theÐ Ð  Ðoriginal€parties.€€In€contrast,€the€Restrictive€Covenant€contains€broader€language€such€as€ð ðanyÐ ¼  Ðfinancial€institution€.€.€.€.ðð€€€Additionally,€the€Restrictive€Covenant€binds€remote€grantees€since,€asÐ ¨ø Ðdiscussed,€it€is€part€of€the€sentence€that€contains€the€"successors€and€assigns"€language.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€also€reject€Plaintiffððs€argument€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€RestrictiveÐ l¼ ÐCovenant,€to€be€binding,€must€benefit€another€specific€tract€of€land.€€Plaintiff€concedes€that€there€isÐ X ¨ Ðno€Tennessee€case€law€which€directly€supports€this€argument,€and€we€do€not€find€the€authority€citedÐ D!” Ðby€the€Plaintiff€to€be€persuasive.€€òòBut€see€Ridley€v.€Haimanóó,€47€S.W.2d€750,€755€(Tenn.€1932)Ð 0"€  Ð(citation€omitted)€(discussing€the€rule€that€restrictive€covenants€are€enforceable€where€the€commonÐ #l! Ðvendor€intended€that€the€restriction€would€benefit€all€of€the€parcels€of€land€of€a€subdivision);€òòLeachÐ $X" Ðv.€Larkinóó,€No.€919193,€1993€WL€377629,€at€*€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€24,€1993)€(citations€omitted)Ð ô$D # Ð(holding€that€a€property€owner€who€subdivides€and€sells€parts€of€a€tract€of€land€may€includeÐ à%0!$ Ðrestrictive€covenants€which€benefit€both€the€property€owner€and€the€purchasers€of€the€subdividedÐ Ì&"% Ðportions€of€the€tract).€€While€disagreeing€with€Plaintiffððs€assertion€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€mustÐ ¸'#& Ðbenefit€another€particular€tract€of€land€to€be€enforceable,€Defendant€argues€that€the€RestrictiveÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCovenant€does€benefit€other€tracts€of€land€owned€by€Defendant€and€its€predecessor.€€AffidavitsÐ )à$( Ðsubmitted€by€Plaintiff€in€support€of€its€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€show€that€Defendant€and€itsÐ |*Ì%) Ðpredecessor€own€other€land€used€for€banking€purposes.€€The€intention€of€the€original€parties€is€clearÐ h+¸&* Ðfrom€the€language€of€the€1989€Warranty€Deed,€and€that€intention€was€to€prohibit€any€financialÐ ° Ðinstitution€from€using€the€property€as€a€place€of€business.€€Although€Defendantððs€properties€ownedÐ œì Ðat€the€time€of€the€1989€deed€and€at€the€time€of€the€lawsuit€are€not€adjacent€to€the€Property,€theÐ ˆØ Ðintention€of€the€parties€to€protect€those€properties€from€any€financial€institution€being€operated€onÐ tÄ Ðthe€Property€is€clear.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€Restrictive€Covenant€is€enforceable€against€PlaintiffÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€that€the€Trial€Court€did€not€err€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€Defendant.Ô#†XáˆXXXáˆUY#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔ€Additionally,Ð $ t Ðin€light€of€our€holding,€we€find€Ô#†XáˆXXXáˆõh#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔPlaintiff's€argument€concerning€whether€Defendant€is€a€third„partyÐ  ` Ðbeneficiary€to€the€Restrictive€Covenant€to€be€moot.€€Likewise,€our€holding€renders€it€unnecessary€toÐ ü L  Ðaddress€Plaintiffððs€argument€that€the€restriction€is€not€enforceable€as€an€equitable€servitude€becauseÐ è 8  Ðthe€property€is€not€part€of€a€common€development€plan.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ#†XáˆXXXáˆ{i#ÔÔ‡XáˆXXXáˆÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionó óóóˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€matter€remanded€for€furtherÐ „Ô  Ðproceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€for€collection€of€the€costsÐ pÀ Ðbelow.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€General€Bancshares,€Inc.,€and€its€surety.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆà0  à___________________________________€Ð¨ø(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÔ#†XáˆXXXáˆWk#Ô