ÿWPC^ RÇßñ«ýmˆ÷mˆ(eí hö‘ù£Lˆ VÏaPõ“É¥èÛ‘`¨šg&iT`è3òo€bÚv@Ó-!T÷pLH„µ.¬eÉÏK4,ÏÉÖ©dÝÛsÔ¸¾»Èâ¾}ëB2?Ê âxè* ìÜ€ß0íuLh%ˆCV-xcªœÅÚB¼ÞS ‚™a ÆlÙ&Ypˆm‰{ðôW‰B®ªab.ýŸS;L˜Êt;ähwz¥2륪 ~‘97ÆÂ»;×GZM²TÃ:JE$ZáºjGˆtä¶ÎÚ nÿÃøéù]é^Þª¶P"±O°Ê5¸{!WNûÒÎÀ¹TÍÛ«ùS0Nåݼ&j´sm9øzQÂ;v÷ý.’P5× l &r‰Ý«´ñºƒö~ïaO&»žW<æJáéN+õžßIŽî\ÙYOÙ››ÅŒŸ;UEá®aGºó'>¡×*È *ÞØ´_ Óƒ~ô9Ôk+^é™d "6dÚ‡›¯íT˜ «·Á>ôªñ^3a‡Ϩ 'n!0 ÉÙ ¯Û”"_ÿ‹ËÂÄ+SÛßkÌ.60 ÔŽqÄïšxµKIô°ðG5Ï¡—æÖR‚ç9H]ˆ›'[Ρ…Švb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ i™ ÆÆÈÆŽÆT 0DN^`ÝhEE 1uG 72¼ 0cîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîbQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0ëYYYY BDD 0¤a D5 D-: 0Kgg AS²Æ 0¤Ë 0Do A«³˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ú…l/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê: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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ _Ý ƒRl‡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€Letter€of€Disapproval€advised€the€plaintiffs€that€they€might€request€a€variance.€€Whether€they€Ô_Ôdid,Ô_Ô€theÐ ° Ðrecord€does€not€reveal.€€Further,€the€record€does€not€reveal€whether€they€undertook€to€relocate€the€driveway€and€limitÐ tÄ Ðits€width€to€ten€feet,€which€presumably€would€have€brought€the€plaintiffs€into€compliance€with€the€permit.€€The€letterÐ 8ˆ Ðmade€no€mention€of€a€three„bedroom€house.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ÓÝ ƒRl‡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€When€the€plaintiffs€enlarged€the€Ô_Ôdriveway,Ô_Ô€they€decreased€the€area€necessary€for€a€sub„surface€sewageÐ ° Ðdisposal€system;€had€they€not€done€so,€the€system€presumably€would€have€been€approved.€€The€ð ðthree„bedroom€houseððÐ tÄ Ðargument,€patently€hearsay,€arose€much€later.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à- ù-(|G2l‡$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâMò»»Ô d(|3‰k$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰k$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Vå»»»ÔÑ8€1XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îIÄVåÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Vå»îîIÄ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€6,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X1X»¼VåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Vå»XX1ô#ÔÔ_ÔTHADÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGUERRAÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€LEONARD€PEEKS,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X1X»¼VåÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€11958€€€€€€John€Ô_ÔWoottenÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02580„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€12,€2003Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€permit€for€a€sewage€disposal€system€required€that€the€driveway€be€constructed€along€the€lot€lineÐ xÈ  Ðand€be€no€wider€than€ten€feet.€€The€plaintiffs,€during€the€course€of€constructing€a€residence€on€theirÐ d´ Ðlot,€did€not€locate€the€driveway€along€the€lot€line€as€required,€and€made€it€twenty„five€feet€wide.€€TheÐ P  Ðsystem€was€disapproved€by€the€State€unless€the€plaintiffs€obtained€a€duplicate€area,€i.e.,€procured€byÐ <Œ Ðeasement€or€purchase€square€footage€equivalent€to€the€footage€utilized€by€the€mis„located,€widenedÐ (x Ðdriveway.€€The€complaint€was€filed€more€than€three€years€after€the€disapproval€by€the€State,€the€dateÐ d Ðon€when€the€cause€of€action€accrued,€and€the€action€was€dismissed.€€We€affirm.Ð P ÐÓòÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Vå»àX1²#ÔÔ‡X1X.¼VåÔWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jróó€andÐ ° ÐòòWilliam€B.€Cain,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌTimothy€W.€Burrow€and€Christopher€D.€Cravens,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€attorneys€for€appellants,Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔThadÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGuerraÔ_Ô€and€Darlene€Ô_ÔGuerraÔ_Ô.Ð `° ÐÌJohn€T.€Ô_ÔGwinÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Juliet,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellees,€Leonard€Peek€and€K&P,€Inc.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌDavid€B.€Scott,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellees,€Jim€Sellers€and€Ô_ÔCryeÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔLeikeÔ_Ô,€Inc.Ð #`" ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Vå»XX1í#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼VåÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌò òI.ó óÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Vå»XX1i #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X1X»¼VåÔà  àIn€1998€the€plaintiffs€purchased€undeveloped€Lot€20€in€the€Scenic€Ridge€Subdivision€inÐ ˜(è#( ÐWilson€County.€€Acting€as€their€own€contractor€they€constructed€a€three„bedroom€residence€thereon,Ð „)Ô$) Ðwith€a€conventional€sewage€disposal€system€which€failed€to€meet€State€specifications€because€it€didÐ p*À%* Ðnot€have€a€duplicate€area.€€The€permit€for€the€construction€of€the€sewage€disposal€system€was€issuedÐ \+¬&+ ÐMarch€30,€1998€and€explicitly€required€the€plaintiffs€to€locate€the€driveway€along€the€property€lineÐ H,˜', Ðand€be€no€wider€than€ten€feet.€€This€requirement€was€ignored€by€the€plaintiffs€who€constructed€aÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôdriveway€twenty„five€feet€wide€at€a€location€other€than€along€the€lot€line,€hence,€the€need€for€aÐ ° Ðduplicate€area.€€The€sewage€disposal€system€was€disapproved,€because€the€size€and€location€of€theÐ œì Ðdriveway€nullified€the€required€duplicate€area.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ `° ÐÓxÓÌà  àThe€defendants€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment€alleging€that€the€claims€of€the€plaintiffsÐ 8 ˆ Ðare€barred€by€the€three„year€Statute€of€Limitations€prescribed€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€28„3„Ð $ t Ð105€relative€to€actions€for€damages€to€real€property.€€These€motions€were€supported€by€(1)€the€permitÐ  ` Ðissued€by€the€State€for€the€construction€of€the€sewage€system;€(2)€the€Field€Activity€Report€of€theÐ ü L  ÐDepartment€of€Environment€and€Conservation;€(3)€a€later€Field€Activity€Report;€(4)€the€AffidavitÐ è 8  Ðof€Paul€Sizemore,€an€employee€of€the€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation;€(5)€a€StatementÐ Ô$  Ðof€Undisputed€facts;€(6)€a€Memorandum€of€Law€and€the€contract€for€the€sale€of€Lot€20€to€theÐ À  Ðplaintiffs.€€It€is€the€insistence€of€the€defendants€that€the€plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action,€if€any,€accruedÐ ¬ü  Ðwhen€they€were€informed€by€Sizemore€that€their€sewage€system€was€disapproved,€that€is,€on€OctoberÐ ˜è  Ð21,€1998.Ð „Ô  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÐ \¬ ÐÓ ÓÌà  àThe€defendants€do€not€controvert€the€applicability€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€Ð 4„ ÐThey€argue€that€the€date€of€disapproval€of€their€sewage€system€is€essentially€meaningless€as€to€theirÐ  p Ðclaims€against€the€defendants€because€the€plaintiffs€believed€the€disapproval€was€attributable€to€theirÐ  \ Ðnegligence€in€not€following€the€driveway€specifications.€€They€insist€that€it€was€not€until€2001€thatÐ øH Ðð ðthey€realized,€regardless€of€where€the€driveway€had€been€placed€or€anything€else€done€with€theÐ ä4 Ðinstallation€of€the€sewer€system€.€.€.€he€could€not€install€a€sewer€system€of€any€type€.€.€.€that€wouldÐ Ð  Ðfit€on€Lot€20.ðð€€€This€discovery,€they€argue,€is€the€date€of€the€accrual€of€their€cause€of€action.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€judge€ruled€that€the€plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€accrued€as€of€October€21,€1998,€moreÐ ”ä Ðthan€three€years€before€the€complaint€was€filed,€and€granted€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðplaintiffs€appeal,€and€present€for€review€the€propriety€of€the€dismissal€of€their€complaint.Ð l¼ ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓAnalysisó óóóÐ D!” ÐÓÓÌà  àSummary€judgment€is€not€a€disfavored€procedural€device€and€can€be€used€to€conclude€anyÐ #l! Ðcivil€case,€including€negligence€cases€that€can€be,€and€should€be,€resolved€on€legal€issues€alone.€Ð $X" Ðòòò òMansfield€v.€Colonial€Freight€Sys.óóó ó,€862€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€The€standard€of€reviewÐ ô$D # Ðon€motions€for€summary€judgment€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee.€€A€moving€party€is€entitled€toÐ à%0!$ Ðsummary€judgment€when€it€established€from€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatoriesÐ Ì&"% Ðand€admissions€on€file,€together€with€affidavits,€if€any,€that€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€remainÐ ° Ðto€be€tried,€and€that€the€undisputed€facts€entitle€the€moving€party€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ð œì ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56;€òòò òWhite€v.€Lawrenceóóó ó,€975€S.W.2d€525,€528€(Tenn.€1998);€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóó,ó ó€847€S.Ð ˆØ ÐW.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).Ð xÈ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€motions€for€summary€judgment,€courts€are€required€to€consider€the€evidenceÐ P   Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party€and€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€non„Ð < Œ Ðmovantððs€favor.€€òòò òWhiteóó,€ó ó975€S.W.2d€at€529.€€Rule€56.05€provides€that€the€non„moving€party€ð ðmustÐ ( x Ðnot€rest€upon€the€mere€allegations€or€denials€of€his€pleadings,€but€his€response,€by€affidavit€orÐ  h Ðotherwise€must€set€forth€specific€facts€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€for€trial€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.Ð  T  ÐCiv.€P.€56.€€When€only€one€conclusion€can€be€drawn€from€the€undisputed€facts,€then€the€movingÐ ð @  Ðparty€is€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòò òMcCall€v.€Wilderóóó ó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153Ð Ü,  Ð(Tenn.€1995).Ð È  ÐÌà  àThe€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€by€a€trial€court€creates€a€question€ofÐ  ð  Ðlaw.€€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€review€the€courtððs€decision€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€ofÐ ŒÜ  Ðcorrectness.€€ò òòòGoodloe€v.€Stateó ó,€óó36€S.W.3d€62,€65€(Tenn.€2001);€òòò òMooney€v.€Sneedóóó ó,€30€S.W.3d€304,Ð xÈ Ð306€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€reviewing€court€must€examine€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ d´ Ðnon„moving€party€and€determine€if€the€moving€party€has€met€its€burden€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.Ð P  Ðòòò òHunter€v.€Brownóóó ó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòò òMason€v.€Seatonóóó ó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472Ð <Œ Ð(Tenn.€1997).Ð (x ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€his€opposition€to€the€defendantsðð€motion,€Mr.€Guerra€filed€his€somewhat€prolixÐ P Ðaffidavit€stating€that€when€Paul€Sizemore€ð ðred„taggedðð[disapproved]€the€system€because€theÐ ì< Ðdriveway€was€twenty„five€feet€wide€instead€of€the€permitted€ten€feet€he€did€not€know€or€have€reasonÐ Ø( Ðto€know€that€he€had€a€cause€of€action€against€any€defendant,€because€he€believed€the€problem€ð ðwasÐ Ä Ðmy€fault€or€the€fault€of€the€installer€of€the€SSDS€system.ððÐ ° ÐÌà  àHe€deposed€that€ð ðnot€until€after€1998€did€I€discover,€through€research,€including€takingÐ ˆØ Ðmeasurement€of€the€work€and€the€lot€and€studying€the€Stateððs€ððRegulations€to€Govern€SubsurfaceÐ tÄ ÐSewage€Disposal€Systems,ðð€that€it€was€not€possible€to€construct€an€SSDS€on€Lot€20€that€wouldÐ ` ° Ðsupport€a€3„bedroom€house,€regardless€of€where€the€driveway€was€placed€or€how€wide€it€was.ðð€€HeÐ L!œ Ðfurther€deposed€ð ðthat€it€was€not€until€the€fall€of€2001€that€the€State€officials€told€me€of€thatÐ 8"ˆ  Ðconclusion.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $#t! ÐÌà  àIt€is€apparent€that€the€plaintiffs€became€aware€of€the€sewage€disposal€problem€on€October€21,Ð ü$L # Ð1998€when€it€was€officially€disapproved.€€The€discovery€rule,€relied€on€by€the€plaintiffs,€ð ðappliesÐ è%8!$ Ðonly€in€cases€where€the€plaintiffs€do€not€discover€and€reasonably€could€not€be€expected€to€discoverÐ Ô&$"% Ðthat€they€had€a€right€of€action.€€Furthermore,€the€statute€is€tolled€only€during€the€period€when€theÐ À'#& Ðplaintiffs€had€no€knowledge€at€all€that€the€wrong€had€occurred€and,€as€reasonable€persons,€were€notÐ ° Ðput€on€enquiry.ðð€€òòò òPotts€v.€Celotexóóó ó,€796€S.W.2d€678€(Tenn.€1990).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€knew€that€only€a€ten„foot€driveway€could€be€constructed€on€the€property€asÐ tÄ Ðearly€as€March€30,€1998€when€the€permit€was€issued€by€the€State€restricting€the€drivewayððs€size.€Ð `° ÐThey€discovered€that€the€septic€system€was€not€in€compliance€with€the€permit€on€October€21,€1998Ð L œ Ðwhen€Paul€Sizemore€disapproved€the€septic€system€and€informed€the€Guerras€of€the€improperlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðplaced€driveway.€€Taking€all€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Guerras,€it€is€beyond€dispute€thatÐ $ t Ðthey€knew€there€were€problems€with€the€installation€and€approval€of€the€septic€system€at€the€veryÐ  ` Ðlatest€on€November€16,€1998€when€Paul€Sizemore€reinvestigated€the€system€and€spoke€with€ThadÐ ü L  ÐGuerra€and€advised€him€of€the€need€to€obtain€an€easement€to€make€room€for€the€duplicate€system.€Ð è 8  ÐFrom€Mr.€Guerraððs€affidavit€it€appears€that€he€did€nothing€whatever€to€investigate€the€sewageÐ Ô$  Ðdisposal€problem€until€sometime€in€2001,€notwithstanding€that€he€was€clearly€put€on€enquiry€onÐ À  ÐOctober€15,€1998€when€the€system€was€disapproved.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€observe€that€the€plaintiffsðð€affidavit€in€opposition€to€the€motion€is€replete€withÐ „Ô  Ðconclusory€statements€and€hearsay,€clearly€inadmissible€as€evidence.€€Mere€conclusory€statementsÐ pÀ Ðwill€not€create€a€material€factual€dispute€sufficient€to€prevent€the€trial€court€from€granting€a€summaryÐ \¬ Ðjudgment.€€òòò òDavis€v.€Campbellóóó ó,€48€S.W.3d€741€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòò òChrisman€v.€Hill€HomesÐ H˜ ÐDev.ó óóó,€978€S.W.2d€535€(Tenn.€1998).€€Supporting€and€opposing€affidavits€shall€be€made€on€personalÐ 4„ Ðknowledge,€shall€set€forth€facts€as€would€be€admissible€in€evidence,€and€shall€show€affirmatively€thatÐ  p Ðthe€affiant€is€competent€to€testify€to€the€matters€stated€therein.€€Rule€56.05,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.;€òòò òPriceÐ  \ Ðv.€Beckeróóó ó,€812€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellants.Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE