WPC @DC7o@Զ8A8uյT)U{]n[5F}.}e33OF#W%2YJ2 ; `V bյzB/0 x'%9Z_(l ߻xΊ8vKܭs;fH>SvYr hQ8bI6J4~ kL]"da 9`4://@vCș9@J^UD0S(E@ WGΓC6H9"%UZA]49MYx9Y;J`ϗ#QDŽ"`?!] }wd(P_dHܐ'9%\Te7RfiGU54`萭 ~Do3aG (ȎP &A=r^'?MLw֖b %\UNb 0UN8^ w4 z$   m #   k 1N 0DE>>>b@ 1u 72 0cIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIb 0 B 0 D3` D- 0K AS ^ 0$ 0D A (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularKsz-s |&-:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xUHP LaserJet 40500Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R?$      1    _ ` TherecordreflectsthatonlyMr.Greenagreedastothecommonboundaryline.  (#$  0   X R?$      2    _ ` Itdoesnotappearthatatransitormeasuringtapewasusedwhenthelinewasinitiallyestablishedand,  accordingtoMr.Turnerstestimony,themeasurementsweremadewithastick.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -(|G2?$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3r$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8YXXdd8  @  lINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# l #Ԉ &   SEPTEMBER27,2002Session L XYX #XXY#TERRYGREEN,etal.v.GLENTURNER,etal.XYX  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforClaiborneCounty  J @@No.12,549BillyJoeWhite,Chancellor  6  @ FILEDNOVEMBER26,_2002_@@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102326COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XYXXXYThisisasuitbythePlaintiffsGreenagainsttheDefendantsTurner,askingtheCourttodetermine x  thecommonboundarylinebetweenthepartiesproperties.TheTrialCourtfoundtheevidence d preponderatedinfavoroftheTurnersposition,resultinginthisappealbytheGreens.Weaffirm. P #XYXXXY##XXYs#XYX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed; d CauseRemanded  P   #XY|#XYX.HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr., ( andD.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined.  FloydW.Rhea,Sneedville,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,TerryGreenand_Linnie_ԀGreen  BenjaminS._Pressnell_,_Tazewell_,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,GlenTurnerandMichelleTurner t ; OPINION #XXYj#XYX L  #XXY #  XYX  TheoriginofthisappealwasasuitfiledbyTerryGreenandhiswife,LinnieGreen,against $"t! GlenTurnerandhiswife,MichelleTurner.TheoriginalsuitaskedtheTrialCourttodeterminethe #`" locationofthepartiescommonboundaryline. #L#   TheTurnersfiledananswerandacountercomplaintseekingpaymentofonehalfofthe %$!% costsforthechainlinkfencetheycontendMr.Greenagreedtopayasapartofanagreementthe &"& Greenssaywasenteredintorelativetolocationoftheboundaryline. '"'   TheGreensfiledananswertothecounterclaim,denyinganysuchagreementwasevermade. )$)   AfteranadverserulingastotheGreens,theyappealedraisingthefollowingthreeissues: \+&+  4-(-  @ttSTATEMENTOFTHEISSUES   ̀1.DIDTHECHANCELLORERRINFINDINGTHATAMISTAKE  OCCURREDINDRAFTINGTHEPARTIESRESPECTIVEDEEDS t SUFFICIENTTOJUSTIFYREFORMATION? ` ̀2.DIDTHECHANCELLORERRINFINDINGTHATAPPELLANTS 8  ENTEREDINTOABINDINGPAROLAGREEMENTTOCHANGETHE $ t PARTIESBOUNDARYLINE?  ` ̀3.DIDTHECHANCELLORERRBYFAILINGTOAPPLYTENNESSEE  8  CODEANNOTATEDSECTION282110(a)TOAPPELLEESCOUNTER $  COMPLAINT?     Asthisisanonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow;   however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourt'sfactualfindingsarecorrect.   Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemusthonorthatpresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidence p preponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sfactualfindings.UnionCarbideCorp.v._Huddleston_,854 \ S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthe H samedeference.Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996). 4   Preliminarily,wenotethatanagreedorderwasenteredonthe17thdayofAugust1999,  \ representingthattheparties havecompromisedandsettledallissuesbeforetheCourt.OnAugust H 24,1999,theGreensfiledprosean_unstyled_Ԁpaperwritingrepresentingthattheydidnotagreeto 4 thisorder.WedonotfindinthefileanyorderaddressingtheGreenscontentions,butwedofind   asExhibitNumber10,acopyofaproposedordersettingasidetheagreedorder.Thisorderissigned   bycounselfortheparties,butnotbytheChancellor.Wewillpresumethatasignedorderwas  inadvertentlynotincludedintheappellaterecord,orwasinadvertentlyneverfiled.Wereachthis  conclusionbecausetheChancellorproceededtohaveaplenarytrialontheissuesraisedinthe  pleadings. l   Theevidenceintheappellaterecordisembodiedinastatementoftheevidencewhichis,as D! oftenisthecase,woefullyinadequate.(SeeAppendixforentirestatementoftheevidence.)For 0"  example,numerousexhibitswereintroducedbutnotreferencedinthestatementoftheevidence. #l! Weare,however,abletoidentifythe_Fultz_ԀsurveyrelieduponbytheGreensandtheParsonsurvey $X" relieduponbytheTurnersandfoundbytheChancellortoproperlylocatetheline. $D #   Wealsonotethattherecordeddeedsofthepartieshavenocalls,merelyreferringto &"% directionsas northerly, easterly, southerly,and westerly.Also,wenotethat,althoughboth '#& deedsrecitethedescriptionscontain oneacremoreorless,infact,thetracts,whichare300feet (#' by200feet,containoveroneandonethirdacre. )$(   Inresolvingthedispute,theChancellormadethefollowingfindingsoffact: h+&* ЇҀ1.Thattheoriginaldeedcontainsamistakeinmeasurementconcerningthe  correctdistanceoftheparcelsindisputefromthethenexistent_Shenandoah_ԀRoad.  ̀2.ThatthesurveyofDennis_Fultz_Ԁwascorrectinsofarasitcorrespondedto ` thelanguageoftheoriginaldeedconveyingsaidpropertybythepartiescommon L  grantor,MyrtleGreen. 8  ̀3.TheCourtfurtherfindsthatthePlaintiffs #  1      ׀did,onmorethanoneoccasion,  ` agreetothecommonboundarylinebetweenthepartiesreflectedbythe  L  DefendantssurveybyParsonsEngineeringandAssociatesdatedFebruary25,  8  1997. $  ̀4.ThattheCourtthereforefindsthattheParsonssurveymoreaccurately   reflectsthedisputedproperty,whenconsideringthemistakenmeasurementsfrom   theoriginaldeed,saidmeasurementshavingbeentakenby_laypersons_,towit:the   plaintiff,TerryGreenandthedefendant,GlenTurner. p   Giventheprimitivemethodofmeasuringthepropertydescribedinthestatementofthe H evidence, #  2      ׀wedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheChancellorsfindingoffact 4 astothelocationoftheline.  p XYXXXY  ThesecondissuecontendsthattheStatuteofFrauds,T.C.A.292101,wouldprecludethe H Turnersfrom#XYXXXY]##Ԁrelyingonaparolagreementtochangetheboundarylineshowninthepartiesdeeds. 4 Wefirstpointoutthat,asweunderstandtherecord,theTrialCourtwasnotenforcingaparol   agreement,butwasfindingthelocationofthelineoriginallylaidoutbyMr.GreenandMr.Turner   inaccordancewiththeprayersoftheGreensoriginalcomplaint.Moreover,wehavesearchedthe  recordandfindnoadvocacyoftheStatuteofFraudscontention,asitisnotmentionedinanyofthe  pleadingsnorinthestatementoftheevidence,andunderourjurisprudencecannotberaisedforthe  firsttimeonappeal.Simpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion,810S.W.2d147(Tenn.1991). l Ѐ X    ThelastissuereferencesT.C.A.282110(a),contendingthattheChancellorerredinnot D! applyingittobartheTurnerscounterclaim.InourviewthisCodeSectionisinapplicable,asit 0"  addressesasuittorecoverrealestatebeingbarredfornonpaymentoftaxes.Thecountercomplaint, #l! however,doesnotseektorecoverrealestate,butonlyajudgmentforonehalfofthecostoferecting $X" afenceinaccordancewithanagreementtheTurnerscontendwasenteredinto. $D # Ї  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremanded  forcollectionofthejudgmentrenderedinfavoroftheTurners,andofcostsbelow,andforsuch  otherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessary.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstTerryGreen  and_Linnie_ԀGreen. t    `     h   _________________________________________ $ t    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE  `