WPC |:6ͅiY9yb~KYp]Xy/b&;D&_8پ g6\ahCڢFPU)glJV3)q I񙑍T     h #. N 0DE555555555555555555555555b7 0Y??????????????????????????????????? 0 B 0 D3D D-w 0K ASB 0 0D Ayz-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-PDOCS3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\  `&Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(#$  0  - -64Hyperlink    (|G2Y$ !.8 dXXd8         0  m d(|3F$ !.8 dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3F$ !.8 dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     _   8RXXdd8  @  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#  #Ԉ &   July8,2002Session L XRX  # XXR#MARYF.HALL,etal.v.MARYROSEPIPPIN,etal.XRX   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforPutnamCounty  J @@No.93731VernonNeal,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200001151_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember26,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheDefendants,MaryRosePippinandDaleDelaneyappealtheTrialCourtsdismissalofa d Rule60motion,whichattackedapreviousdeterminationbytheTrialCourtrelativetotheirright P tomaintainafenceacrossaroadwayoverwhichthePlaintiffs,MaryF.HallandDonK.Hall < claimaprivaterightofway.Weaffirm. (x # XXRs#XRX # XXR{#XRX  @kk_Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed; P @#CauseRemanded <    HoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  D.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined.  MaryRosePippinandDaleDelaney,ProSe  _Chantal_ԀM._Eldridge_,_Cookeville_,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,MaryF.HallandDonK.Hall `  @66'OPINION  #`"     Asthisisanonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow; $8 $ however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourt'sfactualfindingsarecorrect. %$!% _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ13(d).Wemusthonorthatpresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidence &"& preponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sfactualfindings.UnionCarbideCorp.v._Huddleston_,854 '"' S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthe (#( samedeference.Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996). )$)   TheoriginofthisappealwasasuitfiledbyPlaintiffsMaryF.HallandDonK.Hallagainst \+&+ DefendantsMaryRosePippinandDaleDelaney,seekingremovalofafenceerectedbythe H,', DefendantsacrossaroadwaywhichthePlaintiffscontendisburdenedbytheirprivaterightofway. 4-(- _ԇ  TheTrialCourtruledinfavorofthePlaintiffsuponfindingthattheroadway,although  havingbeenabandonedasapublicroad,neverthelesswaspreservedasaprivaterightofwayasto  abuttinglandowners,whichincludedthePlaintiffs.    ThisdeterminationwasappealedtothisCourtandtheChancellorwasaffirmedbya ` publishedopinion,Hallv.Pippin,984S.W.2d617(Tenn.Ct.App.1998),towhichreferenceis L  madeforamoreparticulardiscussionregardingthefactspresented,theissuesraisedandthe 8  dispositionbytheTrialCourt. $ t   Afterthecasewasdecidedatthetriallevel,theDefendantsfiledthreeseparateRule60  L  motionsseekingrelieffromthejudgment.Astothefirstmotion,theChancellorheldthathedidnot  8  havejurisdictioninthatanappealofthecasewaspendingbeforethisCourt.TheDefendantsthen $  requestedtheCourtofAppealstoremandthecasetotheChanceryCourtfordispositionofthatRule   60motion.     TheCourtofAppealsdeclinedtodoso,andthereasonforitsactionissetoutinfootnote4   tothepublishedopinion: p  XRXXXR Afterthisappealwasfiled,Ms.PippinandMr.DelaneyfiledaTenn.R. H Civ.P.60.02motioninthetrialcourtseekingtoreopenthecasetointroduce(1) 4 evidenceofanactiontakenbythePutnamCountyCommissionin1905  p purportedlyclosingtheoldBomaBaxterRoadand(2)thecontentsofthecourt  \ filerelatingtothe1942judicialsaleofthepropertiestotheAllisons.Thetrial H courtproperlydeniedthismotiononthegroundthatitlackedjurisdictionto 4 considerit.#XRXX XR]#See XRXXXRSpencev.AllstateIns.Co.#XRXX XR #Ԁ883S.W.2d586,596(Tenn.1994). XRXXXR   Ms.PippinandMr.Delaneyhavenowrequestedthiscourttoremandthecaseto   thetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.Wedenythemotiontoremandthecase.  Eveniftheprofferedevidencecouldbeconsiderednewlydiscoveredevidence,  itsadmissionandconsiderationwouldnotaltertheconclusionthattheevidence  doesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt'sfindingsthatFriendlyDriveandthe l graveledextensiontoFriendlyDrivefollowtheroadbedoftheoldBomaBaxter X  RoadandthatthelandownersresidingalongthisareaoftheoldBomaBaxter D! Roadhavenotabandonedtheuseoftheroadforaccesstotheirproperty. 0"  #XRXX XR#  AsecondRule60.02motionwasfiledonJanuary1,2000.Thismotionwasdeniedbythe $X" Chancellor,resultinginthisappeal. $D #   AthirdRule60.02motionwasfiled,overruledbytheTrialJudge,andnoappealwastaken &"% therefrom.. '#&   Thesecondmotion,theonewhich,asalreadynoted,isthesubjectofthisappeal,is )$( predicatedupontwopropositions.First,thatthecaseofAllisonv.Lowe,whichwasfiledinApril |*%) 1942,sustainsthepositionoftheDefendantsandshouldbeconsideredasnewlydiscovered h+&* evidence,theClerkoftheCourtbeingunabletolocatethefilepriortotrialofthecase,althoughthe  judgmentoftheCourt,asweunderstandit,wasavailable.Secondly,thePlaintiffsinsiststhatthe  minutesoftheCountyCourtforPutnamCountyabandoningtheroadlikewisewerenotpresented  totheTrialCourt. t   Astothesecondinsistence,itwasconcededfromtheoutsetandfoundbytheChancellorand L  thisCourtthattheroadwasabandonedasapublicroad,butneverthelessthePlaintiffswereentitled 8  toprivaterightofway,notwithstandingtheabandonment. $ t   Astothefirstproposition,itappearsthattheverysamecontentionsweremadeinthefist  L  Rule60motionanddisposedofinthefootnoteintheopinionheretoforequoted.Thus,ithasbeen  8  judiciallydeterminedthatneitherofthepropositionsraisedinthesecondRule60motionnowon $  appealwouldhavechangedthedeterminationoftheTrialCourtorthisCourt.     TheDefendantshavefiledamotiontohavethisdeclaredafrivolousappealandthattheybe   awardeddamagesasaconsequence.BecausethePlaintiffsareunrepresentedandfiledthisappeal   prose,wearedisinclinedtograntthemotion. p   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremanded H forcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMaryRosePippinandDale 4 Delaney.  p    `     h   _________________________________________      `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE