ÿWPCJ 3# ÚUNå %3 0ñ9UN*w@x4¸Ì 0DÛ 05 0DT ˜ 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ 0r 0|v 0†ò 0x 1u 0d} AQá Æ2 Bø 0@ 0DU D/™ BÈ D3åU>B)VDC AMÂU*ž9"×v~ùvÓw˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ɇ$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X”XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ô/õ/öD÷øùúDûüÓ€zƒ=#3|x(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(å(3¤‰$¤¤Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€XñkXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ! #$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ”Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌOctober€3,Ï1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓRule€10€(Rules€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee).€„„€(b)ò ò€Memorandum€Opinion.ó ó€ÏThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€orÏmodify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€haveÏno€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designatedÏð ðMEMORANDUM€OPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€anyÏreason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓÑ7€ÜÎXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌBILLY€FRANK€HENLEY€and,€€€€€€€à à)à àó óFrom€the€Chancery€Courtò òÌJOE€H.€MARLOW,€€€€€€€€€à àà à€à à)à àó ófor€Coffee€County,€Tennessee€€€ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óThe€Honorable€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€Sr.,ÏChancellorò òÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à àÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óCoffee€Chancery€No.€95„165€ò òÌDALE€DOTSON€and€wife,€€à àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9611„CH„00523ò ò€€€ÌELSIE€DOTSON,€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAubrey€L.€Harper€€€ò òÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)à àó óMcMinnville,€Tennessee̜ـ!ÙßR€-/,A1-j|×ê` w `€€@ÿRß›€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppellantsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óRobert€F.€Hazard€€ò ò€ó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óTullahoma,€Tennessee€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/Appellees€ò òÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àóóRULE€10€MEMORANDUM€OPINIONÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓóóó óà àThis€matter€appears€appropriate€for€consideration€pursuant€to€Rule€10(b)€of€the€Rules€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee.× ƒ0 ××  ×Ìà àThe€plaintiffs€in€this€case,€Billy€Frank€Henley€(ð ðHenleyðð)€and€Joe€H.€Marlow€(ð ðMarlowðð),Ïown€tracts€of€farm€land€in€Coffee€County,€Tennessee.€€Henley€acquired€his€land€in€1992€from€hisÏbrother,€Clarence€Henley,€and€his€sister„in„law,€Nona€Mae€Henley.€€Clarence€and€Nona€MaeÏHenley€had€acquired€the€property€from€his€parents€in€1974.€€His€parents€had€owned€the€propertyÏsince€1957.€€Marlow€acquired€one€tract€of€land€at€issue€in€1973€and€another€tract€of€land€at€issue€inÏ1975.€€The€plaintiffs€claim€that€a€road€separates€their€land€from€that€of€the€defendants,€Dale€andÏElsie€Dotson€(ð ðDotsonðð).Ìà àHenley€and€Marlow€brought€this€action€after€Dotson€placed€a€gate€across€the€road,€insertedÏmetal€posts€in€the€roadway€separating€Dotsonððs€property€from€Marlowððs€property,€and€insertedÏfence€posts€parallel€to€the€roadway€in€property€alleged€to€be€owned€by€Henley.€€Henley€andÏMarlow€sought€to€have€the€road€declared€a€public€road,€and€petitioned€the€trial€court€to€enjoinÏDotson€from€obstructing€it.Ìà àDotson€countered€that€the€road€at€issue€is€merely€a€farm€lane€with€no€public€use.€€DotsonÏfurther€contended€that€a€1995€survey€indicates€that€a€significant€portion€of€the€road€at€issue€isÏlocated€within€the€boundaries€of€Dotsonððs€property.Ìà àAt€the€bench€trial,€the€plaintiffs€proffered€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses,€includingÏHenleyððs€parents,€that€as€far€back€as€1918€the€road€had€been€publicly€used€as€a€means€of€access€toÏhomes€located€in€the€vicinity.€€They€testified€that€this€use€continued€after€the€county€ceasedÏmaintaining€the€road,€until€Dotson€closed€it.Ìà àThe€plaintiffs€also€presented€testimony€that€for€at€least€seventy€years€the€road€had€beenÏtreated€as€the€boundary€between€the€plaintiffsðð€property€and€Dotsonððs€property.€€Although€heÏdisputed€that€the€road€was€a€boundary,€Dotson€acknowledged€that,€since€Dotson€was€a€child,€theÏœplaintiffs›€and€their€predecessors€had€farmed€the€land€up€to€the€road.Ìà àIn€a€cursory€opinion,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€road€was€a€ð ðpublic€right„of„wayðð€andÏenjoined€Dotson€from€obstructing€the€roadway.€€Dotson€then€filed€a€motion€with€the€trial€court,Ïseeking€a€ruling€on€the€ownership€of€the€land€adjacent€to€the€road,€which€had€been€farmed€by€theÏplaintiffs€for€many€years€but€which€Dotsonððs€1995€survey€indicated€belonged€to€Dotson.€€In€aÏSupplemental€Decree,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€road€served€as€the€boundary€between€theÏœplaintiffsðð›€and€the€œdefendantsðð›€property,€in€effect€ruling€that€the€disputed€land€belonged€to€theÏœplaintiffs.›€€From€these€rulings,€Dotson€now€appeals.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Dotson€asserts€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€that€the€road€is€a€public€right„of„way€and€that€the€road€is€the€boundary€line€between€theÏpartiesðð€property.€€Dotson€also€asserts€that€it€was€inappropriate€for€the€trial€court€to€rule€that€theÍroad€serves€as€the€boundary€line,€because€this€determination€was€not€requested€in€the€œplaintiffsðð›ÏComplaint.Ìà àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€From€ourÏexamination€of€the€record,€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏroad€constitutes€a€public€right„of„way.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€an€implied€dedication€has€been€made.€€òòò òSee€Reeves€v.€Perkins,ó ó€óó509€S.W.2d€233Ï(Tenn.€App.€1973);ò òòò€Rogers€v.€Sainó óóó,€679€S.W.2d€450€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€Therefore,€the€trialÏcourt€appropriately€ordered€removal€of€obstructions€placed€on€the€road€and€on€the€œplaintiffsðð›Ïproperty.Ìà àThe€evidence€is€also€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€road€serves€as€theÏboundary€between€the€properties€of€Henley€and€Dotson.€€ð ðTo€establish€title€by€adverse€possession,Ïthere€must€be€an€occupation€of€the€property€under€a€claim€of€right€or€title€which€is€open,€actual,Ïcontinuous,€exclusive,€adverse€and€notorious€for€the€prescriptive€period€of€20€years.ðð€€ò òòòCatlett€v.ÏWhaleyó óóó,€731€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€Furthermore,€ð ð[t]here€is€no€question€but€thatÏthe€taking€of€possession€of€parties,€where€neither€had€as€much€as€twenty€years€possession,€butÏtogether€their€period€of€adverse€possession€had€been€far€more€than€twenty€years,€withoutÏinterruption,€the€title€and€right€by€prescription€prevailed.ðð€€ò òòòHill€v.€Hilló óóó,€403€S.W.2d€769,€781,Ï55€Tenn.€App.€589,€617€(Tenn.€App.€1965).Ìà àThe€record€indicates€œthat,›€for€decades,€Henley€and€his€family€have€farmed€the€landÏbordering€the€road.€€This€continued,€uninterrupted,€while€title€to€the€land€was€passed€to€variousÏmembers€of€€Henleyððs€family.€€The€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏthe€road€separates€the€properties€of€Henley€and€Dotson.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Dotson€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€ruled€that€the€road€was€theÏboundary€between€the€œplaintiffsðð›€and€œdefendantsðð›€properties,€because€the€œplaintiffs›€failed€to€requestÏa€boundary€determination€in€their€Complaint.€€This€argument€is€puzzling€in€view€of€DotsonððsÍmotion€filed€on€May€6,€1996,€specifically€requesting€the€trial€court€to€make€a€ruling€regarding€thisÏissue.€€It€appears€that€the€issue€was€tried€by€the€implied€consent€of€the€parties.€€ò òòòSee€DerryberryÏv.€Ledfordó óóó,€506€S.W.2d€152,€155„156€(Tenn.€App.€1973).€€Moreover,€any€objection€DotsonÏmay€have€had€was€waived€by€the€filing€of€a€motion€requesting€the€trial€court€to€rule€on€this€issue.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó ó