ÿWPCþ) B©Íž6þ×É7®W4;-UßS8âªI†iQ&äxDÉR*~ Zú]÷õžÅ)èD·ØTýrg‚Ÿm¥Ÿ}ø>—K¸§ˆ·ÐýHÒëȵø¢@ú ‰;h´0hÀ­ ?ù¯w~(bî™,ú=Ža@¶‚ºÚP-ûòädo ãu› 5rõ!OB•„i ðë` °Ž÷\L‡zo¾ú-u^ß ¦ ›gõuÐÛ†*àÉj£ëÏ3ׂë¨~1¤•YÊÙP`ó` å…L3Ïg,Yº©IØpï)Cæë‰sâé£âÆ ÉâÑ?Y3ºœÅöÆëµïò)ƒð8¦à€Q(ª­¤/Y׎Úyý¸Þ:q’Üt.ýþ¥ËJ¶|jò.‹îØ”b¸†-† K/ d÷µFéOÖÄ‘ž"¿øö qtÍ].õY- ƒÅJœùÃJ~S.¾µ&ó›Àþ·Ô0›»ÅÞ Èû\_d’ò„4¤ê¶¸”¨W\ö¦Þ'rD ´ÿW9$Ü[‚?ø’J»1½‘Ú׆«ÇZ‡{.Ç f=\Ó  ÷_ú㜤λF@¹²&íµóÌÕÅUfpK>?ëQÈ0´«Ñ`Å«1¸¬8ÉšGr†b %\UNb 0ˆ°8U!NN,œ¼È z„ Òþ ©Ð Dyi½ 0 D&ÆjÆ0ÆöƼ ‚N¯¦>!Eä"^ æ"wò"4ö" ## m##Á2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#bó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ó$ 0 ëû$û$û$û$ Bæ%æ% 0¤& D3§& D-Ú& 0K'' ASR'Æ¥' 0¤k( 0D) A«S)»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó Ñ e Ñ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular "Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€easement€was€created€in€a€1967€lease€agreement€between€Frank€Becker€and€his€wife€Louise€Becker,€andÐ ° ÐFarmerððs€Daughter€of€Tennessee€Inc. ²Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€a€letter€to€members€of€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€datedÐ ° ÐNovember€14,€2000,€West€stated€that€the€original€1972€permit€for€the€building€provided€that€the€entire€Ô_Ôtwo„storyÔ_Ô€buildingÐ tÄ Ðcould€be€utilized€for€retail€sales.€€West€noted,€however,€that€the€second€floor€of€the€building€must€now€remain€vacant€dueÐ 8ˆ Ðto€the€development€of€more€restrictive€parking€requirements€and€the€inadequacy€of€the€parking€available€to€the€building. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ŸÝ ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Parker€testified€that€he€could€not€use€the€building€for€wholesale€furniture€sales€because€it€was€too€difficult€forÐ ° Ðdelivery€drivers€to€maneuver€their€40„foot€trucks€to€reach€the€building,€regardless€of€the€presence€and€availability€of€theÐ tÄ Ðeasement. :Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Britainððs€entered€into€a€contract€to€purchase€Lot€4€from€Printers€Press€on€February€26,€1993,€but€did€notÐ ° Ðacquire€legal€title€to€the€property€until€October€1,€1999. _Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€JWT€filed€a€third€party€complaint€against€Beckerland,€Frank€Becker,€Donna€Nagelson,€and€Becker€TrustÐ ° Ð(ð ðBeckerlandðð),€denying€that€the€deed€granted€by€Beckerland€to€appellants€included€parking€rights€on€the€easement.€Ð tÄ ÐJWTððs€action€alleged€breach€of€warranty€of€title€by€Beckerland€in€the€event€the€chancery€court€determined€that€appellantsÐ 8ˆ Ðwere€entitled€to€parking€rights€pursuant€to€the€deed€granting€the€easement.Ð üL Ðà  àHPE,€HPA,€Weakley,€and€Trentham€filed€a€third€party€complaint€against€Beckerland€alleging€that€BeckerlandÐ À Ðwould€be€obligated€to€indemnify€appellees€for€any€liability€assigned€to€them€as€a€result€of€the€construction€of€the€fence.€Ð „Ô ÐIn€the€alternative,€appellees€asserted€that€Beckerland€would€be€liable€for€breach€of€the€lease€between€Beckerland€andÐ H ˜ Ðappellees€as€a€result€of€the€easement€that€it€granted€to€appellants.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Appellee€JWT€is€a€limited€partnership€formed€by€appellees€W.R.€Weakley€(ð ðWeakleyðð)€and€Robert€L.Ð ° ÐTrentham€(ð ðTrenthamðð).€€Weakley€and€Trentham€serve€as€General€Partners€of€JWT.€€JWT€acquired€title€to€propertyÐ tÄ Ðidentified€as€2010€Richard€Jones€Road€in€Nashville,€Tennessee,€on€April€15,€1998,€and€is€the€record€owner€of€the€realÐ 8ˆ Ðproperty€on€which€Hillsboro€Plaza€Shopping€Center€is€located.€€Weakley€and€Trentham€orchestrated€the€purchase€of€thisÐ üL Ðproperty€by€warranty€deed€of€record€granted€by€Beckerland,€a€general€partnership€composed€of€three€partners,€FrankÐ À ÐBecker,€Donna€Nagelson,€and€Becker€Trust.Ð „Ô Ðà  àAppellee€Hillsboro€Plaza€Enterprises€(ð ðHPEðð)€is€a€general€partnership.€€HPE€is€the€record€owner€of€a€groundÐ H ˜ Ðlease€encumbering€the€property€at€2010€Richard€Jones€Road.€€Appellee€Hillsboro€Plaza€Associates€(ð ðHPAðð)€is€a€generalÐ  \ Ðpartnership.€€HPA€is€the€owner€and€holder€of€a€ground€lease€ð ðencumbering€the€servient€estate€pursuant€to€an€unrecordedÐ Ð  ÐAgreement€of€Sale€dated€February€1,€1982,€and€an€unrecorded€Assignment€by€and€between€Hillsboro€Plaza€EnterprisesÐ ” ä  Ðand€Hillsboro€Plaza€Associates.ðð€€Prior€to€April€15,€1998,€either€HPE€or€HPA€or€both€were€in€possession€and€controlÐ X ¨  Ðof€the€encumbered€property.€€After€this€date,€either€HPE,€HPA,€or€JWT,€or€all€were€in€possession€and€control€of€theÐ  l  Ðproperty.€€Weakley€and€Trentham€serve€as€General€Partners€for€HPE,€HPA,€and€JWT€respectively. ¥Ý ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€ð ð[Ô_ÔA]ppellateÔ_Ô€courts€are€generally€disinclined€to€interfere€with€a€trial€courtððs€decision€in€assessing€costs€unlessÐ ° Ðthere€is€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòPerdue€v.€Green€Branch€Mining€Co.óóó ó,€837€S.W.2d€56,€60€(Tenn.€1992). œÝ ƒR¶‰$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Printers€Press€filed€a€notice€of€voluntary€non„suit€of€both€its€counter€complaint€and€third€party€complaint€onÐ ° ÐMay€21,€2001.€€Hereinafter,€any€reference€to€appellant€actions€taken€or€arising€after€May€21,€2001,€will€pertain€only€toÐ tÄ ÐBritainððs.7‘X-s š‚,-+Y±€9h€¥3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0- ù-(|G2¶‰$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Se»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïMò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Se»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Se»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Se»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Se»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î_„SeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Se»îî_„ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€8,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XiX»¼SeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Se»XXió#ÔÔ_ÔJWTÔ_Ô,€L.P.òòóó€v.€PRINTERS€PRESS,€INCORPORATED,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XiX»¼SeÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„1994„III€€€€€€The€Honorable€Ellen€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02590„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€24,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XiXXXiÔà  àCorporation€sought€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€for€losses€sustained€as€a€result€ofÐ xÈ  Ðneighboring€business€property€ownerððs€erection€of€a€fence€across€a€valid€easement€immediatelyÐ d´ Ðadjacent€to€appellantððs€business.€€The€chancery€court€denied€corporationððs€claim€for€compensatoryÐ P  Ðand€punitive€damages,€but€granted€injunctive€relief.€€Corporation€appeals.€€We€affirm.€€Ô#†XiXXXi$#ÔÔ#†¼Se»XXi–#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼SeÔÐ <Œ ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Se»àXiK#ÔÔ‡XiX.¼SeÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,Ð ì< ÐJ.óó€and€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌMichael€K.€Ô_ÔRadfordÔ_Ô,€Brentwood,€For€Appellant,€Printers€Press,€Incorporated,€and€Britain's,€Inc.Ð ° ÐÌDavid€S.€Ô_ÔZinnÔ_Ô,€Brentwood,€For€Appellees,€Ô_ÔJWTÔ_Ô,€L.P.,€Hillsboro€Plaza€Enterprises,€Hillsboro€PlazaÐ ˆØ ÐAssociates,€W.€R.€Ô_ÔWeakleyÔ_Ô€and€Robert€L.€Ô_ÔTrenthamÔ_ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌJoel€M.€Ô_ÔLeemanÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€For€Appellees,€Ô_ÔBeckerlandÔ_Ô,€Frank€H.€Becker,€Donna€L.€Ô_ÔNagelsonÔ_Ô€andÐ L œ ÐBecker€TrustÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓþÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Se»XXi-#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼SeÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Se»XXih #ÔÔ‡XiX»¼SeÔÓ  ÓÑ8€iXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ïWÑà  àThis€case€is€before€the€court€on€a€second€appeal.€€In€ò òòòÔ_ÔJWTÔ_Ô,€L.P.€v.€Printers€Press€Inc.,€andÐ è$8 $ ÐBritainððs€Inc.óóó ó,€No.€01A01„9904„CH„00209,€1999€WL€704733,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€13,Ð Ô%$!% Ðâ â1999),€the€Court€determined€that€Printers€Press,€Incorporated€(ð ðPrinters€Pressðð)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Britainððs,€Inc.Ð À&"&ýn ÐÔ_Ô(ð ðBritainððsðð),€held€a€valid€easement€across€an€adjoining€lot€owned€by€appellee€JWT,€L.P.€(ð ðJWTðð).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âThe€court€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€JWT€and€ò òòòóóó óremanded€theÐ œì Ðcase€with€directions€to€the€trial€court€to€enter€a€judgment€declaring€that€the€easement€was€bindingÐ ˆØ Ðon€the€parties,€and€further€directed€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€issues€of€injunctive€relief€andÐ tÄ Ðdamages.€€òòò òIdó óóó.Ð `° ÐÌà  àBritainððs€is€the€record€owner€of€Lot€4,€a€tract€of€land€located€at€2034€Richard€Jones€Road€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Green€Hills€area€of€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€Britainððs€first€acquired€an€interest€in€this€property€onÐ $ t ÐFebruary€26,€1993,€through€a€contract€of€purchase€with€Printers€Press.׃ „ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Britainððs€paid€$108,635.06Ð  ` Ðfor€the€property.€€Printers€Press€obtained€the€Lot€4€property€by€virtue€of€a€deed€conveyed€to€it€byÐ ü L  ÐThomas€Becker,€Frank€Becker,€and€Donna€Becker€Holland€on€February€8,€1972.€€In€2001,€BritainððsÐ è 8  Ðsold€the€property€to€Grei€Hinsen€and€Company€for€$450,000.00.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àJWTððs€€property,€the€Hillsboro€Plaza€Shopping€Center,€is€located€at€2010€Richard€Jones€RoadÐ ¬ü  Ðand€adjoins€Britainððs€lot.€€At€the€time€€of€JWTððs€purchase,€and€all€times€since,€this€property€wasÐ ˜è  Ðdesignated€as€the€servient€estate€for€a€forty„foot€easement€that€runs€along€the€eastern€border€of€LotÐ „Ô  Ð4.×ƒÔ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€easement€was€recorded€for€the€purpose€of€providing€ingress€and€egress€for€Lot€4€across€theÐ pÀ Ðparcel€of€land€that€is€now€identified€as€2010€Richard€Jones€Road.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€conflict€at€issue€in€this€case€stems€from€an€incident€that€occurred€in€1992,€while€PrintersÐ 4„ ÐPress€was€still€the€legal€owner€of€Lot€4.€€The€owner€of€Printers€Press€hired€workers€to€repair€theÐ  p Ðoutside€of€its€building.€€During€the€course€of€repairs,€one€of€the€workers€placed€constructionÐ  \ Ðmaterials€in€the€easement,€obstructing€use€of€the€easement€for€an€entire€day.€€W.R.€Weakley,€aÐ øH Ðgeneral€partner€of€JWT,€HPE,€and€HPA€respectively,€requested€the€removal€of€these€materials,€butÐ ä4 Ðâ âthe€worker€refused.€€Weakley€discussed€the€problem€with€Robert€Trentham,€the€other€general€partner,Ð Ð  Ðand€the€men,€acting€on€behalf€of€HPA,€erected€a€chain€link€fence€along€the€westerly€edge€of€theÐ ° Ðeasement€and€bordering€the€eastern€boundary€of€Lot€4€to€prevent€further€obstruction.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àBritainððs€was€formed€in€1993€by€Paul€Parker€(ð ðParkerðð)€and€his€wife€with€the€intention€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€store€would€specialize€in€the€retail€of€antiques,€reproductions,€and€accessories.€€Parker€was€awareÐ `° Ðof€the€fence€when€he€purchased€Lot€4€from€Printers€Press.€€Shortly€after€purchasing€the€property,Ð L œ ÐParker€submitted€an€application€to€the€Metropolitan€Department€of€Codes€Administration€(ð ðCodesðð)Ð 8 ˆ Ðfor€permission€to€use€the€building€located€on€Lot€4€for€the€ð ðwholesale€sales€of€furniture,€accessoriesÐ $ t Ðand€related€items.ðð€€Parker€testified€that€he€never€applied€for€a€permit€to€use€the€Lot€4€building€forÐ  ` Ðthe€retail€sale€of€antiques€as€originally€intended.€€However,€Parker€contends€that€he€neglected€to€fileÐ ü L  Ðan€application€because€Codes€had€already€told€him€that€he€could€not€have€a€retail€business€on€theÐ è 8  Ðproperty€with€the€fence€in€place.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAppellees€offered€evidence€in€the€form€of€testimony€from€Metropolitan€ZoningÐ ¬ü  ÐAdministrator,€Lon€F.€West€(ð ðWestðð)€to€rebut€Parkerððs€argument€that€Codes€declared€the€building€Ð ˜è  Ðunfit€for€retail€use.€€West€denied€ever€telling€Parker€that€his€building€could€not€be€used€for€retail,€andÐ „Ô  Ðfurther€testified€that€Parker,€pursuant€to€the€original€use€permit€issued€in€1972,€could€have€used€theÐ pÀ Ðentire€first€floor€of€the€two„story€building€for€his€retail€sales€business.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àConflicting€evidence€was€presented€during€the€trial€regarding€the€physical€condition€ofÐ 4„ ÐBritainððs€building.€€The€parties€dispute€whether€Britainððs€maintained€the€property€in€a€rentableÐ  p Ðcondition,€and,€if€not,€whether€the€proximity€of€the€fence€to€Britainððs€property€prevented€properÐ  \ Ðmaintenance.€€Appellees€assert€that€Britainððs€ð ðenhancedðð€its€damages€by€failing€to€maintain€theÐ øH Ðproperty€in€rentable€condition.€€They€cite€two€documents€in€support€of€this€argument.€€The€firstÐ ä4 Ðdocument€is€a€letter€dated€September€13,€1996,€from€R.A.€Willoughby,€a€building€inspector€forÐ Ð  ÐCodes,€to€Printers€Press.€€Willoughby€sent€this€letter€after€inspecting€the€Lot€4€building.€€The€letterÐ ¼  Ðwarned€Printers€Press€that€the€building€was€a€ð ðpublic€nuisanceðð€and€health€hazard€that€must€eitherÐ ¨ø Ðbe€repaired€or€demolished.€€The€second€document€introduced€by€appellees€was€a€letter€from€theÐ ”ä ÐDepartment€of€Water€and€Sewage€Services€to€Printers€Press.€€In€this€letter,€the€department€notifiedÐ €Ð ÐPrinters€Press€that€the€building€contained€a€defective€backflow€prevention€device.€€Printers€Press€wasÐ l¼ Ðgiven€one€month€to€put€the€device€in€good€operating€condition€and€notify€the€department€forÐ X ¨ Ðinspection.€€There€is€no€evidence€on€the€record€to€indicate€that€Printers€Press€or€Britainððs€compliedÐ D!” Ðwith€this€demand€or€notified€the€department€of€repairs.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àDating€from€his€purchase€of€Lot€4€in€February€of€1993,€until€the€sale€of€the€property€to€GreiÐ $X" Ðâ âHinsen€and€Company€on€June€1,€2001,€Parker€did€not€operate€a€retail€or€wholesale€business€on€theÐ ô$D # Ðproperty€at€any€time.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Parker€testified€that€the€presence€of€the€fence€obstructed€the€building,Ð ° Ðâ âpreventing€him€from€operating€his€business€or€making€necessary€repairs€to€the€exterior€of€theÐ œì Ðbuilding.€€According€to€Parker,€the€obstruction€caused€by€the€fence€detracted€from€the€value€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðproperty€and€deterred€prospective€renters€from€entering€into€serious€lease€negotiations€with€ParkerÐ tÄ Ðfor€use€of€the€building.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAs€noted,€the€record€established€that€Parker€was€aware€of€the€fence€prior€to€his€purchase€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐLot€4.€€On€two€separate€occasions,€Parker€hired€legal€counsel€to€draft€letters€demanding€the€removalÐ $ t Ðof€the€fence.€€The€first€letter,€drafted€by€attorney€Barry€Gardner€(ð ðGardnerðð)€and€dated€June€7,€1993,Ð  ` Ðwas€addressed€to€Weakley.€€In€this€letter,€Parker€threatened€legal€action€if€the€fence€was€not€removedÐ ü L  Ðwithin€ten€days€of€receipt€of€the€demand.€€The€second€letter€dated€June€1,€1994,€was€sent€to€TrenthamÐ è 8  Ðby€attorney€Robert€J.€Notestine€III€(ð ðNotestineðð).€€This€letter€also€promised€legal€action€if€the€fenceÐ Ô$  Ðwas€not€immediately€removed.€€Despite€these€letters,€and€appellantððs€subsequent€failure€to€removeÐ À  Ðthe€fence€as€requested,€Parker€failed€to€pursue€legal€relief€as€promised.€€Parker€eventually€filed€aÐ ¬ü  Ðcounterclaim€to€have€the€fence€removed€in€1998,€but€only€after€appellees€filed€an€action€to€have€theÐ ˜è  Ðeasement€declared€void.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€Parker€received€several€inquiries€regarding€the€availability€of€theÐ \¬ ÐLot€4€property.€€Soon€after€Parker€purchased€the€property€in€1993,€Chip€ChristiansonÐ H˜ Ð(ð ðChristiansonðð)€of€CRC€Holdings,€Inc.,€contacted€Parker€about€renting€the€property.€€According€toÐ 4„ ÐParkerððs€cross€examination€testimony,€he€and€Christianson€tentatively€reached€an€agreement€inÐ  p Ðprinciple.€Despite€the€tentative€agreement,€the€parties€never€finalized€a€deal.€€Appellants€andÐ  \ Ðappellees€disagree€as€to€whether€the€failure€of€this€agreement€stemmed€from€Christiansonððs€inabilityÐ øH Ðto€reach€an€agreement€with€Weakley€and€Trentham€for€parking€and€removal€of€the€fence.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€October€of€1995,€Weakley€received€a€proposal€from€Ed€Fryer€(ð ðFryerðð)€to€lease€the€LotÐ ¼  Ð4€building€in€a€joint€arrangement€with€Weakley€and€Britainððs.€€Under€this€proposal,€the€building€wasÐ ¨ø Ðto€be€leased€by€Britainððs€to€Weakley,€with€Weakley€subsequently€subleasing€the€building€and€parkingÐ ”ä Ðprivileges€to€Fryer.€€Weakley€forwarded€the€proposal€to€Britainððs,€but€Britainððs€did€not€pursue€theÐ €Ð Ðinquiry€further.€€In€1996,€a€representative€from€Einstein€Brothers€Bagels€(ð ðEinsteinðð)€€submitted€aÐ l¼ Ðproposal€to€purchase€the€Lot€4€property€from€Britainððs.€€Although€Parker€testified€that€a€sale€toÐ X ¨ ÐEinstein€was€impliedly€contingent€upon€the€removal€of€the€fence,€the€Einstein€proposal€did€notÐ D!” Ðexplicitly€require€such€a€contingency.€€Ultimately,€Britainððs€rejected€Einsteinððs€proposal€for€a€lackÐ 0"€  Ðof€interest.€€Over€the€years,€Britainððs€also€received€multiple€inquiries€and€preliminary€offers€fromÐ #l! ÐWeakley€regarding€the€sale€or€rental€of€Lot€4,€all€of€which€he€rejected.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€July€of€1998,€JWT€brought€an€action€in€chancery€court€seeking€a€declaration€that€BritainððsÐ à%0!$ Ðeasement€across€the€2010€Richard€Jones€Road€property€was€void.€€Appellants€answered€and€assertedÐ Ì&"% Ða€counterclaim€for€a€declaratory€judgment€proclaiming€the€easement€valid.€€Appellants€also€soughtÐ ¸'#& Ðdamages€and€injunctive€relief.€€The€court,€in€an€opinion€styled€ò òòòJWT,€L.P.€v.€Printers€Press€Inc.,€andÐ ° ÐBritainððs€Inc.óóó ó,€No.€01A01„9904„CH„00209,€1999€WL€704733,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€13,Ð œì Ð1999),€held€that€JWT€was€estopped€to€deny€the€existence€of€the€easement.€€The€court€reversed€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€judgeððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€JWT€and€remanded€for€ð ðentry€of€a€judgmentÐ tÄ Ðdeclaring€the€easement€binding€on€the€parties,€and€trial€on€the€issues€of€injunctive€relief€andÐ `° Ðdamages.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€2.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àPrinters€Press€and€Britainððs€filed€multiple€motions€to€amend€their€counter€complaint€and€thirdÐ $ t Ðparty€complaints,€naming€Hillsboro€Plaza€Enterprises,€Hillsboro€Plaza€Associates,€Weakley,€andÐ  ` ÐTrentham€as€additional€parties€upon€discerning€the€involvement€of€each.€€The€motions€acknowledgedÐ ü L  Ðthat€appellees€removed€the€fence€on€October€22,€1999€following€the€chancery€courtððs€declaratoryÐ è 8  Ðjudgment,€but€further€prayed€for€declaratory€relief€affirming€that€appellants€were€entitled€to€use€theÐ Ô$  Ðeasement€for€parking€purposes.€€In€the€alternative,€appellants€prayed€for€injunctive€relief€prohibitingÐ À  Ðappellees€from€ð ðparking€upon€or€otherwise€obstructing€the€westerly€20€feet€of€the€easement€atÐ ¬ü  Ðissue....ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Appellants€asserted€that€the€fence€was€an€obstruction€that€prevented€them€ð ðfrom€obtainingÐ ˜è  Ðan€occupancy€permit€for€the€subject€property,€unlawfully€interfered€with€[their]€use€of€the€subjectÐ „Ô  Ðproperty,€[and]€adversely€impacted€the€value€of€the€subject€property....ðð€€In€addition€to€compensatoryÐ pÀ Ðdamages,€appellants€sought€recovery€of€punitive€damages€on€the€basis€that€appelleesðð€erection€of€theÐ \¬ Ðfence€constituted€ð ðintentional€misconduct,€or€misconduct€in€reckless€disregard€of€[appellantsðð]Ð H˜ Ðinterest€in€said€property.ðð€€The€chancery€court€granted€all€motions€to€amend.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAppellees€filed€a€joint€answer€to€appellantsðð€amended€complaints,€asserting€that€the€counterÐ  \ Ðand€third€party€complaints€filed€by€appellants€were€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€of€limitationsÐ øH Ðgoverning€property€damage,€the€equitable€doctrine€of€laches,€and€the€doctrine€of€adverse€possession.€Ð ä4 ÐAppellees€further€averred€that€the€doctrines€of€waiver€and€estoppel€acted€as€complete€bars€toÐ Ð  Ðrecovery.€€In€response€to€appellantsðð€motion€to€amend€of€July€9,€2001,€appellees€filed€a€second€jointÐ ¼  Ðanswer€asserting€the€additional€affirmative€defense€of€failure€to€mitigate€damages.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€May€21,€2001,€Printers€Press€filed€a€notice€of€voluntary€non„suit€of€both€its€counterÐ €Ð Ðcomplaint€and€third€party€complaint.€€Upon€receipt€of€this€notice,€the€court€ordered€all€pendingÐ l¼ Ðclaims€of€Printers€Press€for€damages€or€injunctive€relief€dismissed€without€prejudice.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€injunctive€relief€and€damages€issues€raised€by€appellants€and€the€affirmative€defensesÐ 0"€  Ðasserted€by€appellees€were€tried€to€the€chancery€court€in€August€of€2001.€€On€September€13,€2001,Ð #l! Ðthe€court€entered€an€order€holding€that€appellants€were€not€entitled€to€compensatory€or€punitiveÐ $X" Ðdamages€as€Britainððs€failed€to€ð ðact€reasonably€or€diligently€in€mitigating€its€damages.ðð€€The€court€did,Ð ° Ðhowever,€determine€that€ð ð[d]iscretionary€costs€shall€be€awarded€to€Britainððs€upon€it€filing€a€post„Ð œì Ðjudgment€motion€detailing€those€costs.ðð€€Addressing€the€affirmative€defenses€raised€by€appellees,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€court€rejected€the€statute€of€limitations€and€laches€defenses€on€the€basis€that€the€fence€constitutedÐ tÄ Ða€temporary,€rather€than€permanent,€nuisance.€€Finally,€noting€that€the€fence€had€been€removed,€theÐ `° Ðcourt€issued€a€permanent€injunction€prohibiting€appellees€and€their€successors€from€obstructing€theÐ L œ Ðeasement.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€a€side€note,€the€court€held€that€appellees€had€no€basis€for€an€indemnity€claim€against€theÐ  ` ÐBeckerland.€€This€decision€was€not€appealed.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àBritainððs€immediately€complied€with€the€courtððs€order€to€file€a€post„judgment€motionÐ Ô$  Ðdetailing€discretionary€costs.€€Appellees,€in€response€to€the€September€13€order,€filed€a€motion€toÐ À  Ðalter€or€amend€the€judgment,€specifically€challenging€the€award€of€discretionary€costs.€€AfterÐ ¬ü  Ðconsideration€of€the€motions€and€responses€filed€by€the€parties,€the€court€modified€its€order€ofÐ ˜è  ÐSeptember€13€to€delete€the€award€of€discretionary€costs€to€Britainððs.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àBritainððs€has€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court,€presenting€the€following€fourÐ \¬ Ðissues€for€review:€(1)€Whether€the€court€erred€in€ruling€that€failure€to€mitigate€damages€is€a€completeÐ H˜ Ðbar€to€recovery;€(2)€Whether€the€court€erred€in€finding€that€Britainððs€failed€to€mitigate€damages;€(3)Ð 4„ ÐWhether€the€court€erred€in€dismissing€Britainððs€claim€for€punitive€damages;€and€(4)€Whether€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€erred€when€it€amended€its€order€to€deny€Britainððs€discretionary€costs,€€thereby€denying€BritainððsÐ  \ Ðmotion€for€discretionary€costs.€€Appellees€offer€two€additional€issues€for€review€which€we€quoteÐ øH Ðfrom€their€brief:€Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€Were€Britainððs€claims€barred€by€the€three„year€property€statute€ofÐ ¼  Ðlimitations?Шø` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€Were€Britainððs€claims€barred€by€laches?ò òó óДä` x` x ÐÌà  àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€ò òòòde€novoóóó ó€uponÐ l¼ Ðthe€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€first€two€issues€presented€by€appellants€for€review€can€be€combined€into€a€singleÐ #l! Ðquestion€stated€as€follows:€Whether,€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€thatÐ $X" ÐBritainððs€failed€to€mitigate€its€damages€and€subsequently€barring€appellants€from€recovery€ofÐ ô$D # Ðcompensatory€damages.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àUnder€the€doctrine€of€mitigation€of€damages,€an€injured€party€is€enlisted€with€a€duty€toÐ ¸'#& Ðexercise€reasonable€care€and€due€diligence€to€avoid€loss€or€minimize€damages€after€suffering€injury.€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðò òòòKline€v.€Benefielóóó ó,€No.€W1999„00918„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€25750,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€9,Ð )à$( Ð2001)€(citing€ò òòòCook€&€Nichols,€Inc.€v.€Peat,€Marwick,€Mitchell€&€Co.óóó ó,€480€S.W.2d€542,€545€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) ÐCt.€App.€1971);€ò òòòGilson€v.€Gilliaóóó ó,€321€S.W.2d€855,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1958)).Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGenerally,€one€who€is€injured€by€the€wrongful€or€negligent€act€ofÐ ° Ðanother,€whether€by€tort€or€breach€of€contract,€is€bound€to€exerciseÐ œì Ðreasonable€care€and€diligence€to€avoid€loss€or€to€minimize€or€lessenÐ ˆØ Ðthe€resulting€damage,€and€to€the€extent€that€his€damages€are€the€resultÐ tÄ Ðof€his€active€and€unreasonable€enhancement€thereof,€or€due€to€hisÐ `° Ðfailure€to€exercise€such€care€and€diligence,€he€cannot€recover.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌò òòòCook€&€Nichols,€Inc.óóó ó,€480€S.W.2d€at€545.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€an€injured€party€has€fulfilled€its€duty€to€mitigate,€a€court€mustÐ ü L  Ðexamine€ð ðwhether€the€method€which€he€employed€to€avoid€consequential€injury€was€reasonableÐ è 8  Ðunder€the€circumstances€existing€at€the€time.ðð€€òòò òAction€Ads,€Inc.€v.€William€B.€Tanner€Co.,€Inc.ó óóó,€592Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€572,€575€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979)€(quoting€ò òòòTampa€Electric€Co.€v.€Nashville€Coal€Co.óóó ó,€214Ð À  ÐF.€Supp.€647,€652€(M.D.€Tenn.€1963)).€€Despite€this€duty,€an€injured€party€is€not€required€to€mitigateÐ ¬ü  Ðdamages€where€such€a€duty€would€constitute€an€undue€burden.€€ò òòòKlineóóó ó,€2001€WL€25750,€at€*7€(citingÐ ˜è  Ðò òòòCummins€v.€Brodieóóó ó,€667€S.W.2d€759,€766€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àConsidering€the€circumstances€of€this€case€as€they€existed€from€1992€through€October€ofÐ \¬ Ð1999,€the€period€during€which€the€fence€stood€erect,€we€find€that€Britainððs€failed€to€exerciseÐ H˜ Ðreasonable€care€or€diligence€to€mitigate€its€damages.€€Britainððs€claim€for€compensatory€damagesÐ 4„ Ðalleges€a€loss€of€rental€profits€as€a€result€of€the€presence€of€the€fence.€€Specifically,€Britainððs€assertsÐ  p Ðthat€the€fence€discouraged€potential€lessors€or€buyers€from€inquiring€about€the€availability€of€the€LotÐ  \ Ð4€property,€and€further€prevented€Britainððs€from€use€and€operation€of€the€building€as€a€retail€orÐ øH Ðwholesale€establishment€because€it€could€not€obtain€use€approval€from€the€fire€marshal€or€MetroÐ ä4 ÐTraffic€and€Parking.€€We€find€these€arguments€unpersuasive€and€thereby€affirm€the€finding€of€theÐ Ð  Ðtrial€court€for€the€following€reasons.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àExamining€the€record€and€testimony€presented€at€trial,€we€are€convinced€that€HPAððsÐ ”ä Ðconstruction€and€maintenance€of€the€ð ðobstructingðð€fence€did€not€€discourage€potential€lessors€orÐ €Ð Ðbuyers€from€inquiring€about€Britainððs€property.€€By€Britainððs€admission,€it€received€at€least€threeÐ l¼ Ðserious€inquiries€or€offers€regarding€lease€or€purchase€of€the€Lot€4€property.€€Parker€confirmed€that,Ð X ¨ Ðas€the€owner€of€Britainððs,€he€received€offers€from€Christianson,€Einstein,€Fryer,€and€numerousÐ D!” Ðproposals€from€Weakley,€until€finally€settling€on€an€offer€from€Grei€Hinsen€and€Company€in€2001.€Ð 0"€  ÐWhile€Britainððs€was€certainly€entitled€to€accept€or€reject€any€and€all€of€these€proposals,€the€fact€thatÐ #l! Ðit€received€at€least€three€serious€inquiries€or€offers€regarding€the€property€refutes€Britainððs€argumentÐ $X" Ðthat€the€fence€discouraged€inquiries€from€prospective€tenants€or€buyers.€€It€is€our€conclusion€thatÐ ô$D # ÐBritainððs€cannot€be€allowed€to€recover€lost€rental€profits€where€it€failed€to€diligently€pursueÐ à%0!$ Ðlegitimate,€unsolicited€offers.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€further€indicates€that€Britainððs€made€no€efforts€to€actively€advertise€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðavailability€of€the€Lot€4€property.€€In€fact,€Britainððs€was€unable€to€produce€any€evidence€ofÐ )à$( Ðcommunications€with€real€estate€brokers€regarding€the€property€prior€to€Britainððs€1999€negotiationsÐ |*Ì%) Ðwith€Grei€Hinsen€and€Company.Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àBritainððs€was€originally€chartered€to€operate€as€a€retail€business€selling€fine€antiques,Ð ° Ðreproductions,€and€accessories.€€However,€despite€the€initial€business€plan,€Britainððs€did€not€file€anÐ œì Ðapplication€for€a€retail€permit€until€2000,€the€necessary€and€first€step€to€achieving€use€and€occupancyÐ ˆØ Ðapproval€for€a€retail€business.€€Britainððs€argues€that€an€officer€at€Codes€told€him€that€the€buildingÐ tÄ Ðcould€not€be€used€for€retail€because€of€inadequate€parking,€and€therefore€did€not€take€the€futile€stepsÐ `° Ðof€filing€for€a€permit.€€Testimony€from€West,€the€Metropolitan€Zoning€Administrator,€was€offeredÐ L œ Ðto€rebut€this€claim.€€West€testified€that€he€never€told€Parker€that€he€could€not€get€a€retail€permit€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€property€as€long€as€the€fence€was€in€place.€€Further,€West€noted€that€the€first„floor€of€BritainððsÐ $ t Ðbuilding€could€have€been€used€for€retail€because€in€1993,€approval€from€Traffic€and€Parking€wouldÐ  ` Ðnot€have€been€necessary€for€the€issuance€of€a€retail€permit€as€use€of€the€entire€first€floor€as€retailÐ ü L  Ðspace€was€a€ð ðgrandfathered€nonconformity.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àDespite€its€original€intention€to€operate€as€a€retail€antique€store,€Britainððs€filed€a€wholesaleÐ À  Ðuse€permit€a€mere€sixteen€days€after€it€acquired€a€contractual€interest€in€the€Lot€4€property.€€ThisÐ ¬ü  Ðwholesale€application€required€Britainððs€to€secure€the€approval€of€the€Department€of€Water€andÐ ˜è  ÐSewage€Services€and€Metropolitan€Traffic€and€Parking€before€issuance€of€a€permit.€€During€his€crossÐ „Ô  Ðexamination,€Parker€admitted€that€he€failed€to€receive€approval€of€these€agencies€as€required.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àApproval€of€the€Metro€fire€marshal€was€also€required€by€Codes€as€a€condition€precedent€toÐ H˜ Ðpermit€issuance.€€Assistant€Fire€Marshal€Michael€Dutton€(ð ðDuttonðð)€testified€that€his€office€wasÐ 4„ Ðresponsible€for€reviewing€and€evaluating€drawings€or€blueprints€typically€submitted€by€individualsÐ  p Ðseeking€use€and€occupancy€permits€for€the€use€of€commercial€property€in€the€Metro€area.€€DuttonÐ  \ Ðtestified€that,€to€his€knowledge,€Britainððs€had€not€submitted€such€plans€for€approval.€€Without€theseÐ øH Ðplans,€the€fire€marshalððs€office€could€not€conclusively€determine€whether€Britainððs€proposed€use€andÐ ä4 Ðlayout€for€the€building€complied€with€Metroððs€life€safety€code.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àBritainððs€argues€that€the€location€of€the€fence€immediately€adjacent€to€its€building€preventedÐ ¨ø Ðrear€exit€from€the€building€in€violation€of€the€life€safety€code.€€Due€to€this€obstruction,€BritainððsÐ ”ä Ðasserts€that€it€was€prevented€from€obtaining€a€use€and€occupancy€permit.€€Dutton€testified€thatÐ €Ð Ðcompliance€with€the€code€would€hinge€on€the€floor„plan€implemented€by€Britainððs.€€The€building€atÐ l¼ Ðissue€is€approximately€68€feet€in€length.€€The€life€safety€code€requires€at€least€one€exit€to€be€locatedÐ X ¨ Ðwithin€a€travel„distance€of€less€than€75€feet€from€any€point€in€the€room.€Therefore,€it€is€possible€thatÐ D!” Ðeven€with€the€fence€in€place,€Britainððs€may€have€been€in€compliance€with€the€code€and€thereforeÐ 0"€  Ðeligible€for€a€use€and€occupancy€permit.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWithout€regard€to€Britainððs€failure€to€obtain€the€above€noted€approval,€Parker€testified€thatÐ ô$D # Ðit€would€have€been€impossible€to€operate€a€wholesale€business€on€the€Lot€4€property€because€theÐ à%0!$ Ðforty„foot€trailers€required€to€deliver€wholesale€furniture€to€Britainððs€could€not€access€the€building,Ð Ì&"% Ðeven€with€use€of€the€easement.€€Based€on€this€evidence,€the€only€possible€use€for€the€Lot€4€property,Ð ¸'#& Ðas€Britainððs€intended,€was€for€retail.€€As€the€facts€demonstrate,€Britainððs€failed€to€take€the€necessaryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsteps€to€establish€a€retail€operation€on€the€Lot€4€property€regardless€of€the€alleged€interference€causedÐ )à$( Ðby€appelleesðð€actions.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€parties€strongly€dispute€the€physical€condition€of€Britainððs€building€during€the€timeÐ ° Ðperiod€at€issue.€€Britainððs€contends€that€it€spent€nearly€$80,000.00€to€renovate€the€inside€of€theÐ œì Ðbuilding,€and€on€numerous€occasions€were€rebuffed€in€their€attempt€to€make€necessary€repairs€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðbuildingððs€exterior.€€Appellees€argue€that€the€building€was€maintained€in€an€unrentable€state€of€repairÐ tÄ Ðas€evidenced€by€a€1996€letter€from€Codes€that€declared€the€building€ð ða€public€nuisance€and€aÐ `° Ðhazard,ðð€and€ordered€Britainððs€to€either€repair€or€demolish€the€building.€€The€trial€court€agreed€withÐ L œ Ðappelleesðð€argument,€citing€the€deteriorated€condition€of€the€building€as€a€determining€factor€in€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðdecision€to€deny€Britainððs€compensatory€damages€for€failure€to€mitigate.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOur€finding€that€Britainððs€failed€to€mitigate€its€damages€is€further€supported€by€BritainððsÐ ü L  Ðdecision€to€delay€legal€action€demanding€immediate€removal€of€the€fence.€€If€the€loss€suffered€byÐ è 8  ÐBritainððs€as€a€result€of€the€presence€of€the€fence€precluded€any€or€all€legal€or€entitled€use€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðproperty,€we€find€it€difficult€to€understand€why€Britainððs€failed€to€institute€legal€action€prior€to€1998.€Ð À  ÐBritainððs€pleads€that€ð ð[a]ppellees€€stole€Britainððs€easement€rights€and€held€them€for€ransom,ðð€yetÐ ¬ü  ÐBritainððs€never€called€upon€court€authority€to€aid€in€release.€€Despite€obvious€awareness€of€its€legalÐ ˜è  Ðrights,€as€evidenced€by€the€letters€drafted€by€attorneys€Gardner€and€Notestine€on€Britainððs€behalf,Ð „Ô  ÐBritainððs€waited€approximately€five€years€before€taking€action.€€Moreover,€when€appelleeððs€refusedÐ pÀ Ðto€comply€with€Britainððs€sensible€demand,€Britainððs€neglected€to€take€the€promised€steps€to€protectÐ \¬ Ðits€property€interests,€thereby€rendering€legal€action€nothing€more€than€a€hollow€threat.€€WhenÐ H˜ ÐBritainððs€finally€brought€suit€demanding€removal€of€the€fence,€it€was€only€in€response€to€appelleesððÐ 4„ Ðinitial€claim€for€a€judgment€declaring€the€easement€void.Ð  p ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€evidence€presented,€we€find€that€Britainððs€failed€to€mitigate€damages€as€itÐ øH Ðneglected€to€exercise€reasonable€care€and€due€diligence.€€By€failing€to€take€the€necessary€steps€toÐ ä4 Ðprocure€a€retail€permit,€maintaining€the€property€in€an€unrentable€condition,€and€disregarding€orÐ Ð  Ðrefusing€numerous€lease€inquiries€and€proposals,€Britainððs€voluntarily€allowed€the€Lot€4€property€toÐ ¼  Ðsit€vacant€for€nearly€eight€years.€€For€these€reasons,€we€find€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÐ ¨ø Ðpreponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÐ ”ä Ðcompensatory€damages.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWhile€we€agree€with€Britainððs€assertion€that€failure€to€mitigate€damages€is€not€a€complete€barÐ X ¨ Ðto€recovery,€ò òòòsee€Salley€v.€Pickney€Co.ó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€240,€244€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€Britainððs€failedÐ D!” Ðto€present€credible€proof€of€damages€incurred€regardless€of€failure€to€mitigate.Ð 0"€  ÐÌò òòòóóó óà  àBritainððs€next€presents€for€review€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€theirÐ $X" Ðclaim€for€punitive€damages.€€Britainððs€sought€punitive€damages€on€the€theory€that€appelleesððÐ ô$D # Ðobstruction€of€the€easement€constituted€intentional€misconduct,€or,€at€the€very€least,€demonstratedÐ à%0!$ Ða€reckless€and€conscious€disregard€for€€appellantððs€property€rights.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIt€is€settled€law€in€Tennessee€that€punitive€damages€cannot€be€sustained€absent€an€award€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðactual€damages.€€ò òòòLiberty€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Stevensonóóó ó,€212€Tenn.€178,€368€S.W.2d€760€(1963)€(citingÐ )à$( Ðò òòòAllen€v.€Meltonóóó ó,€20€Tenn.€App.€387,€99€S.W.2d€219€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1936));€ò òòòsee€Emerson€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐGarneró óóó,€732€S.W.2d€613,€614„15€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€However,€ð ð[w]here€the€plaintiff€has€provedÐ h+¸&* Ðan€entitlement€to€injunctive€relief,€an€award€of€punitive€damages€may€be€upheld€without€an€awardÐ ° Ðof€compensatory€damages.ðð€€ò òòòOakley€v.€Simmonsóóó ó,€799€S.W.2d€669,€672€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€InÐ œì Ðher€order€of€September€13,€2001,€Chancellor€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle€issued€a€decree€ð ðpermanentlyÐ ˆØ Ðenjoining€the€third„party€defendants€and€those€who€succeed€to€their€property€rights€from€obstructingÐ tÄ Ðthe€easement.ðð€€Taking€into€consideration€€the€law€set€forth€in€ò òòòOakleyóóó ó€and€Chancellor€Lyleððs€orderÐ `° Ðof€September€13,€our€finding€that€Britainððs€is€not€entitled€to€an€award€for€compensatory€damagesÐ L œ Ðwould€therefore€not€preclude€an€analysis€of€whether€the€chancery€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðdenying€appellantsðð€claim€for€punitive€damages.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTo€recover€punitive€damages,€a€plaintiff€must€prove,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendant€engaged€in€intentional,€fraudulent,€malicious,€or€reckless€conduct.€€ò òòòHodges€v.€S.C.Ð è 8  ÐToof€&€Co.óóó ó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€defined€the€clear€andÐ Ô$  Ðconvincing€evidence€standard€to€mean€ð ðevidence€in€which€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubtÐ À  Ðabout€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€901€n.3.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðdetermination€of€whether€punitive€damages€should€be€awarded€ð ðis€a€matter€largely€within€theÐ ˜è  Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€except€in€case€of€abuse€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðdiscretion.ðð€€òòò òSee€Lichter€v.€Fulcheró óóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€670,€125€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1938)Ð pÀ Ð(ð ðWhere€the€case€is€tried€before€the€Chancellor€it€is€obvious€that€it€is€peculiarly€within€the€discretionÐ \¬ Ðof€the€Chancellor€as€to€how€much,€if€any,€punitive€damages€should€be€allowed.ðð).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAs€stated,€Britainððs€argued,€both€at€trial€and€in€its€brief€to€this€court,€that€appelleeððsÐ  p Ðconstruction€of€the€fence€constituted€intentional,€or,€at€the€very€least,€reckless€conduct€sufficient€toÐ  \ Ðsupport€an€award€for€punitive€damages.€€The€chancellor€rejected€this€argument€in€granting€€appelleesððÐ øH Ðmotion€to€dismiss€the€punitive€damages€claim,€concluding€that€ð ðBritainððs€failed€to€demonstrate€byÐ ä4 Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence€that€JWTððs€actions€were€motivated€by€ill„will,€wrongful€intent,Ð Ð  Ðmalice,€or€reckless€disregard.ðð€€Despite€this€ruling,€Britainððs€contends€that€the€chancellorððsÐ ¼  ÐSeptember€13€order€does€not€address€its€theories€of€intentional€or€reckless€misconduct,€but€ratherÐ ¨ø Ðstates€that€punitive€damages€were€denied€because€the€ð ðfence€was€not€erected€out€of€malice€or€illÐ ”ä Ðwill.ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€language€relied€upon€by€the€chancellor€in€her€order,€we€find€that€her€denialÐ X ¨ Ðof€Britainððs€punitive€damages€claim€does€not€constitute€an€abuse€of€discretion€as€Britainððs€failed€toÐ D!” Ðprove,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€that€appellees€engaged€in€intentional€or€recklessÐ 0"€  Ðmisconduct.€€The€precise€definitions€for€intentional€and€reckless€conduct€were€set€forth€by€theÐ #l! ÐSupreme€Court€in€ò òòòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óóó ó:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€person€acts€intentionally€when€it€is€the€personððs€conscious€objectiveÐ à%0!$ Ðor€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.€€òòò òCfó óóó.€T.C.A.€ððÐ Ì&"% Ð39„11„302(a)€(1991)€(criminal€definition€of€ð ðintentionalðð)....€€AÐ ¸'#& Ðperson€acts€recklessly€when€the€person€is€aware€of€but€consciouslyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdisregards,€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€risk€of€such€a€nature€that€itsÐ )à$( Ðâ âdisregard€constitutes€a€gross€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€ordinary€person€would€exercise€under€all€the€circumstances.€€òòò òCfó óóó.Ð ° ÐT.C.A.€ðð€39„11„302(c)€(1991)€(criminal€definition€of€ð ðrecklessðð).Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌò òòòóóó ó833€S.W.2d€896,€901€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)(citations€omitted).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€parties€do€not€dispute,€and€we€find€no€evidence€to€the€contrary,€that€it€was€the€consciousÐ L œ Ðobjective€of€appellees€to€erect€the€fence€along€the€eastern€boundary€of€Britainððs€Lot€4€property.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€the€issue€is€not€whether€appellees€intentionally€or€consciously€constructed€the€fenceÐ $ t Ðadjacent€to€Lot€4,€but€rather€the€motive€for€the€erection€of€the€fence.€€Britainððs€asserts€that€appellees,Ð  ` Ðdespite€having€knowledge€of€Britainððs€legal€right€to€use€the€easement,€constructed€the€fence€toÐ ü L  Ðrestrict€access€to€the€easement€until€Britainððs€agreed€to€pay€for€parking€privileges€on€Hillsboro€Plaza.€Ð è 8  ÐAccording€to€Britainððs,€Weakley€and€Trentham€were€put€on€notice€of€Britainððs€easement€rights€byÐ Ô$  ÐGardnerððs€letter€of€June€7,€1993,€and€again€by€Notestineððs€letter€dated€June€1,€1994.€€Any€lack€ofÐ À  Ðknowledge,€Britainððs€alleges,€was€due€to€Weakley€and€Trenthamððs€unreasonable€and€ð ðrecklessððÐ ¬ü  Ðfailure€to€conduct€a€title€search€on€the€Lot€4€property.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àConsidering€all€of€the€proof€presented€in€the€record,€we€find€that€Britainððs€has€not€proven,Ð pÀ Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€appelleesðð€erection€of€the€obstructing€fence€constituted€intentionalÐ \¬ Ðor€reckless€conduct.€€The€fence€was€erected€in€1992,€approximately€one€year€prior€to€BritainððsÐ H˜ Ðpurchase€of€the€Lot€4€property.€€We€are€further€persuaded€by€the€evidence€in€the€record€thatÐ 4„ Ðappelleesðð€erected€the€fence€to€prevent€the€construction€worker,€hired€by€Printers€Press€to€replaceÐ  p Ðwindows€on€the€Lot€4€building,€from€continuing€to€obstruct€the€easement.€€Although€we€do€notÐ  \ Ðnecessarily€condone€appelleeððs€decision€as€the€most€accommodating€solution,€we€do€not€find€thatÐ øH Ðappellees€acted€intentionally€and€recklessly€to€injure€Britain.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWe€specifically€note€Trenthamððs€testimony€as€evidence€that€appelleesðð€actions€did€not€amountÐ ¼  Ðto€a€gross€deviation€from€the€accepted€standard€of€care€owed€by€an€individual€or€corporationÐ ¨ø Ðsimilarly€situated.€€As€an€attorney€with€prior€real€estate€and€title€search€experience,€Trentham€wasÐ ”ä Ðsufficiently€qualified€to€evaluate€and€interpret€the€terms€of€the€original€easement€agreement€betweenÐ €Ð ÐLouise€Becker€and€Jack€Loiseau,€dated€June€19,€1972.€€The€agreement€provides:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFor€and€in€consideration€of€the€sum€of€Ten€($10.00)€Dollars€cash€inÐ D!” Ðhand€paid,€I,€Louise€N.€Becker,€a€widow,€grant€unto€John€E.€Loiseau,Ð 0"€  Ðhis€heirs€and€assigns,€an€easement€and€right€to€use€jointly€with€othersÐ #l! Ðfor€the€purpose€of€ingress€and€egress€a€40„foot€easement€adjacent€toÐ $X" Ðcertain€property€leased€by€said€John€E.€Loiseau€from€Thomas€A.Ð ô$D # ÐBecker,€Frank€H.€Becker€and€Donna€Becker€Holland...Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à******************************************************и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThat€this€easement€shall€continue€only€so€long€as€the€aforesaid€leaseÐ )à$( Ðagreement€between€Thomas€A.€Becker,€Frank€H.€Becker€and€DonnaÐ |*Ì%) ÐBecker€Holland€and€John€E.€Loiseau€remains€in€full€force€and€effect,Ð h+¸&* Ðthis€easement€to€terminate€automatically€upon€the€termination€of€theÐ ° Ðsaid€lease€agreement.Мì` x` x ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Trenthamððs€testimony,€the€above€agreement€was€the€only€document€availableÐ tÄ Ðto€him€at€the€time€he€and€Weakley€decided€to€erect€the€fence.€€In€Trenthamððs€opinion,€the€leaseÐ `° Ðagreement€and€easement€terminated€upon€the€assigneeððs€filing€for€bankruptcy.€€On€this€basis,Ð L œ ÐTrentham€concluded€that€construction€of€the€fence€would€not€violate€Printers€Pressððs€right€to€use€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðeasement,€as€no€such€right€existed.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€Trenthamððs€reading€and€interpretation€of€the€1972€agreement€was€reasonable.€Ð ü L  ÐAs€an€attorney€qualified€to€interpret€terms€of€a€deed,€Trentham€justly€relied€upon€his€knowledge€andÐ è 8  Ðexperience€in€concluding€that€no€valid€easement€existed.€€Although€his€interpretation€was€laterÐ Ô$  Ðproven€erroneous,€we€nonetheless€find€that€it€was€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.€€Therefore,Ð À  Ðbecause€appellees€did€not€recklessly€deprive€Britainððs€of€a€legal€right€to€use€the€easement,€we€holdÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€Britainððs€is€not€entitled€to€punitive€damages.òòò òó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àWe€quote€Britainððs€final€issue€for€review€directly€from€its€brief:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€amending€its€memorandum€and€order€to€denyÐ H˜ ÐBritainððs€discretionary€costs€and€in€denying€Britainððs€motion€forÐ 4„ Ðdiscretionary€costs?Ð p` x` x ÐÌThis€court€examined€the€standard€of€review€for€discretionary€decisions€of€a€trial€judge€in€depth€inÐ øH Ðò òòòWhite€v.€Vanderbilt€Univ.óóó ó,€21€S.W.3d€215,€222„223€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDiscretionary€decisions€require€conscientious€judgment.€€They€mustÐ ¼  Ðtake€the€applicable€law€into€account€and€must€also€be€consistent€withÐ ¨ø Ðthe€facts€before€the€court.€€Appellate€courts€will€set€aside€aÐ ”ä Ðdiscretionary€decision€only€when€the€trial€court€has€misconstrued€orÐ €Ð Ðmisapplied€the€controlling€legal€principles€or€has€acted€inconsistentlyÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€substantial€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Thus,€a€trial€courtððsÐ X ¨ Ðdiscretionary€decision€should€be€reviewed€to€determine:€€(1)€whetherÐ D!” Ðthe€factual€basis€for€the€decision€is€supported€by€the€evidence,€(2)Ð 0"€  Ðwhether€the€trial€court€identified€and€applied€the€applicable€legalÐ #l! Ðprinciples,€and€(3)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€within€theÐ $X" Ðrange€of€acceptable€alternatives.€€Appellate€courts€should€permit€aÐ ô$D # Ðdiscretionary€decision€to€stand€if€reasonable€judicial€minds€can€differÐ à%0!$ Ðconcerning€its€soundness.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€223€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( ÐStated€more€succinctly,€the€decision€whether€to€award€a€party€discretionary€costs€rests€with€the€soundÐ ° Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òòòShahrdar€v.Ð œì Ðâ âGlobal€Housing,€Inc.óóó ó,€983€S.W.2d€230,€239€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2);Ð ˆØ Ðò òòòLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€809€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1991)).€€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€RuleÐ tÄ Ðof€Civil€Procedure€54.04,€such€discretionary€costs€ð ðshall€be€allowed€as€of€course€to€the€prevailingÐ `° Ðparty€unless€the€court€otherwise€directs.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àAn€abuse€of€discretion€is€committed€when€a€trial€court€applies€an€incorrect€legal€standard€orÐ $ t Ðð ðreaches€a€clearly€unreasonable€decisionðð€that€injures€an€aggrieved€party.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€òòò òEldridge€v.€Eldridgeó óóó,Ð  ` Ð42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€ò òòòState€v.€Shirleyóóó ó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).€€In€herÐ ü L  Ðorder€of€September€13,€2001,€the€judge€awarded€discretionary€costs€to€Britainððs€contingent€uponÐ è 8  ÐBritainððs€filing€a€post„judgment€motion€detailing€these€costs.€€Britainððs€immediately€complied€withÐ Ô$  Ðthe€order.€€Appellees,€in€response€to€the€September€13€order,€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÐ À  Ðjudgment,€specifically€challenging€the€award€of€discretionary€costs.€€After€consideration€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmotions€and€responses€filed€by€the€parties,€the€court€modified€its€order€of€September€13€to€delete€theÐ ˜è  Ðaward€of€discretionary€costs€to€Britainððs.€€Deletion€of€the€award€was€based€on€the€courtððs€conclusionÐ „Ô  Ðthat€all€of€the€discretionary€costs€which€Britainððs€sought€to€recover€were€ð ðincurred€solely€inÐ pÀ Ðconnection€with€its€unsuccessful€claim€for€damages.ðð€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAfter€examining€the€records€submitted€by€Britainððs€regarding€discretionary€costs,€we€find€thatÐ 4„ Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€amending€its€order€to€deny€Britainððs€recovery€for€theseÐ  p Ðexpenses.€€We€conclude€that€the€courtððs€decision€was€supported€by€the€evidence€and€well€within€theÐ  \ Ðrange€of€acceptable€alternatives€the€court€had€to€choose€from.€€Britainððs€argues€that€it€was€theÐ øH Ðprevailing€party€in€this€suit€because€it€was€awarded€injunctive€relief.€€While€we€do€not€dispute€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€awarded€Britainððs€injunctive€relief,€we€do€not€consider€Britainððs€the€prevailing€partyÐ Ð  Ðwith€regard€to€this€lawsuit.€€This€case€was€remanded€for€consideration€of€the€issues€of€injunctiveÐ ¼  Ðrelief€and€damages;€however,€the€costs€sought€by€Britain€were€incurred€in€connection€with€the€claimÐ ¨ø Ðfor€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€„€an€issue€that€was€ultimately€decided€in€favor€of€appellees.€Ð ”ä ÐBecause€the€issues€of€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€were€predominantly€considered€andÐ €Ð Ðargued€in€this€case,€as€evidenced€by€the€briefs€of€the€parties€and€the€trial€record,€we€hold€that€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€concluding€that€Britainððs€was€not€the€prevailing€party,€andÐ X ¨ Ðtherefore€not€entitled€to€discretionary€costs.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAppelleesðð€first€issue€for€review€is€whether€Britainððs€claims€were€barred€by€the€€three„yearÐ #l! Ðstatute€of€limitations€for€injuries€to€personal€or€real€property.€€Section€28„3„105€of€the€TennesseeÐ $X" ÐCode€Annotated€provides€that€an€action€for€injury€to€real€property€ð ðshall€be€commenced€within€(3)Ð ô$D # Ðyears€from€the€accruing€of€the€cause€of€action.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105€(2000).€€Appellees€assert€that,Ð à%0!$ Ðregardless€of€whether€the€fence€is€classified€as€a€nuisance€or€a€trespass,€an€action€for€injunctive€reliefÐ Ì&"% Ðto€abate€the€nuisance€or€trespass€is€barred€if€not€brought€within€three€years€of€the€creation€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðnuisance.€€ò òòòSee€Caldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Products,€Inc.óóó ó,€391€S.W.2d€5,€11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964);Ð ¤(ô#' Ðò òòòAlley€v.€Clevelandóóó ó,€No.€03A01„9605„CV„00160,€1996€WL€605157,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€23,Ð ° Ð1996).Ð œì ÐÌà  àð ðA€nuisance€has€been€defined€as€anything€which€annoys€or€disturbs€the€free€use€of€oneððsÐ tÄ Ðproperty,€or€which€renders€its€ordinary€use€or€physical€occupation€uncomfortable.ðð€€ò òòòCaldwellóóó ó,€391Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€9€(citation€omitted).€€Finding€that€the€fence€erected€by€appellees€disturbed€Britainððs€freeÐ L œ Ðuse€of€the€easement,€and€arguably€the€Lot€4€building,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€classificationÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€fence€as€a€nuisance.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àDetermination€of€the€issue€presented€hinges€on€whether€the€fence€constituted€a€permanentÐ ü L  Ðor€temporary€nuisance.€€A€permanent€nuisance€is€one€that€will€ððcontinue€indefinitely€and€is€at€onceÐ è 8  Ðproductive€of€all€the€damage€that€can€ever€occur€from€it.ðð€€ò òòòShearon€v.€Tucker€Corp.óóó ó,€No.€M2000„Ð Ô$  Ð00624„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€1158897,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€2,€2001)€(quoting€ò òòòKearney€v.Ð À  ÐBarrettóóó ó,€No.€01A01„9407„CH00356,€1995€WL€1690,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€4,€1995)).€€WhereÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action€for€damages€based€on€a€theory€of€permanent€nuisance,€the€statuteÐ ˜è  Ðof€limitations€on€such€action€begins€to€run€ð ðfrom€the€time€of€the€complete€creation€of€the€nuisance.€Ð „Ô  Ðòòò òCaldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Products,€Inc.óóó ó,€391€S.W.2d€5,€11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964).€The€properÐ pÀ Ðmeasure€of€these€damages€is€the€amount€of€depreciation€in€the€market€value€of€the€injured€realty.òòò ò€Ð \¬ ÐBennett€v.€Cumberland€Hardwoods,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€01„A„019111CH00419,€1992€WL€135808,€at€*5Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€19,€1992)€(citing€ò òòòButcher€v.€Jefferson€City€Cabinet€Co.óóó ó,€59€Tenn.€App.€59,Ð 4„ Ð67,€437€S.W.2d€256,€259€(1968)).Ð  p ÐÌà  àA€temporary€nuisance,€in€contrast,€is€one€ð ðthat€can€be€corrected€by€the€expenditure€of€laborÐ øH Ðor€money.ðð€€ò òòòCaldwellóóó ó,€391€S.W.2d€at€11€(citing€ò òòòCity€of€Nashville€v.€Comeróóó ó,€88€Tenn.€415,€12€S.W.Ð ä4 Ð1027,€1030€(Tenn.€1890)).€€Damages€caused€by€a€temporary€nuisance€are€recurrent,€ð ðand€may€beÐ Ð  Ðrecovered€from€time€to€time€until€the€nuisance€is€abated.ðð€€ò òòòCaldwellóóó ó,€391€S.W.2d€at€11€(citingÐ ¼  Ðò òòòLouisville€&€N.€Terminal€Co.€v.€Lellyettóóó ó,€114€Tenn.€368,€403,€85€S.W.€881,€890€(Tenn.€1904)).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€seems€to€us€that€the€true€rule€deducible€from€the€authorities€is€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€law€will€not€presume€the€continuance€of€a€wrong,€nor€allow€aÐ l¼ Ðlicense€to€continue€a€wrong,€when€the€cause€of€the€injury€is€of€suchÐ X ¨ Ða€nature€as€to€be€abatable€either€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€or€money.€Ð D!” ÐAnd€that,€where€the€cause€of€the€injury€is€one€not€presumed€toÐ 0"€  Ðcontinue,€that€the€damages€recoverable€from€the€wrong„doer€are€onlyÐ #l! Ðsuch€as€have€accrued€before€action€brought,€and€that€successiveÐ $X" Ðactions€may€be€brought€for€the€subsequent€continuance€of€the€wrongÐ ô$D # Ðor€nuisance.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌò òòòComeróóó ó,€88€Tenn.€415,€12€S.W.€at€1030.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àFrom€the€case€law€cited€aboveò òòòóóó ó,€it€is€obvious€that€the€test€for€determining€if€a€nuisance€isÐ )à$( Ðtemporary€in€nature€is€whether€the€nuisance€can€be€corrected€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€or€money.€Ð |*Ì%) Ðò òòòSee€id.óóó ó€€Appellees€assert€that€the€fence€constituted€a€permanent€nuisance€for€the€reason€that€itÐ h+¸&* Ðpresented€permanent,€rather€than€recurrent,€injury€to€Britainððs€rights€in€the€easement.€€They€argue€thatÐ ° Ðthe€injury€caused€by€the€fence€was€ð ðconstant€and€unchanging,ðð€and€therefore,€by€definition,€couldÐ œì Ðnot€produce€recurring€damage.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAs€indicated€in€the€record,€the€fence€was€erected€prior€to,€and€in€place€at€the€time€of,€BritainððsÐ `° Ðpurchase€of€the€Lot€4€property€in€1993.€€Appellees€assert€that€ð ðBritainððs€took€full€possession€of€theÐ L œ Ðpremises€in€1993€with€knowledge€of€the€fence€and€the€obstruction€it€presented.ðð€€Because€TennesseeÐ 8 ˆ Ðlaw€ordinarily€recognizes€that€a€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€when€a€plaintiff€is€aware€that€theyÐ $ t Ðhave€a€legally€valid€cause€of€action,€appellees€conclude€that€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€onÐ  ` ÐBritainððs€claims€accrued€in€1993.€€Since€Britainððs€counter€complaint€and€third€party€complaint€wereÐ ü L  Ðnot€filed€until€1998,€appellees€argue€that€these€actions€are€subsequently€barred€by€the€statute€ofÐ è 8  Ðlimitations.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€contrast,€Britainððs€classifies€the€fence€as€a€temporary€nuisance.€€As€support€for€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðargument,€Britainððs€notes€that€appellees€were€required€to€expend€very€little€money€or€effort€inÐ ˜è  Ðremoving€the€fence.€€Although€the€record€does€not€specifically€indicate€how€long€the€removalÐ „Ô  Ðprocess€took,€it€is€clear€from€the€evidence€that€appellees€were€not€forced€to€dedicate€a€significantÐ pÀ Ðamount€of€time€or€energy€to€the€removal€effort.€€Britainððs€further€notes€that€it€cost€appellees€a€mereÐ \¬ Ð$400.00€for€complete€removal€of€the€fence.€€For€these€reasons,€Britainððs€concludes€that€the€fence€wasÐ H˜ Ða€temporary€nuisance€capable€of€correction€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€or€money.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€favor€in€Britainððs€arguments,€holding€that€Britainððs€claims€were€notÐ  \ Ðbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€as€the€fence€constituted€a€temporary€nuisance.€€Finding€€that€theÐ øH Ðinjury€suffered€to€Britainððs€property€was€continuing,€the€court€reasoned€that€because€the€fence€couldÐ ä4 Ðhave€been€removed€at€any€time,€and,€in€fact€was€removed,€it€was€not€permanent€in€nature.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€arguments€of€the€parties€and€the€relevant€case€law,€we€find€that€the€fenceÐ ¨ø Ðconstituted€a€temporary€nuisance,€and€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€Britainððs€claimsÐ ”ä Ðwere€not€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€governing€personal€and€real€property€claims.€Ð €Ð ÐWe€are€persuaded€by€Britainððs€argument€that€the€injury€caused€by€the€presence€of€the€chain€link€fenceÐ l¼ Ðwas€easily€abated€through€minimal€expenditure€of€labor€and€money.€€The€facts€in€the€record€bear€outÐ X ¨ Ðthis€conclusion,€as€it€is€evident€that€appellees€were€able€to€erect€and€disassemble€the€fence€essentiallyÐ D!” Ðovernight€and€at€only€a€slight€cost.€€We€note€appelleesðð€citation€to€ò òòòKearney€v.€Barrettóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„Ð 0"€  Ð9407„CH00356,€1995€WL€1690,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€24,€1995),€offered€as€support€for€theirÐ #l! Ðargument€that€the€classification€of€a€temporary€nuisance€as€one€that€can€be€corrected€by€theÐ $X" Ðexpenditure€of€labor€or€money€is€not€€ððentirely€satisfactory.ðð€€In€ò òòòKearneyóóó ó,€the€court€relied€on€a€moreÐ ô$D # Ðð ðpragmaticðð€test€for€determining€the€nature€of€a€nuisance,€looking€to€whether€ð ðthe€harm€resultedÐ à%0!$ Ðfrom€reasonable€and€lawful€operations€on€the€defendantððs€property.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€Because€appelleesðð€erectionÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€fence€was€ultimately€deemed€an€ð ðunlawful€operation,ðð€we€find€the€modified€analysis€adoptedÐ ¸'#& Ðin€ò òòòKearneyóóó ó€inapplicable€to€the€case€at€bar.€€Appellees€have€cited€to€no€other€case€law€that€wouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpersuade€us€to€reevaluate€the€trial€courtððs€classification€of€the€fence€as€a€temporary€nuisance.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAppelleesðð€final€issue€for€review€is€whether€Britainððs€claims€are€barred€by€the€equitableÐ ° Ðâ âdoctrine€of€laches.€€Appellees€argue€that€Britainððs€five„year€delay€in€filing€suit€against€appellees€forÐ œì Ðerection€of€the€fence,€despite€immediate€knowledge€and€recognition€of€their€right€to€bring€such€anÐ ˆØ Ðaction,€constituted€a€gross€and€unreasonable€delay.€€We€reject€appelleesðð€argument€for€the€simpleÐ tÄ Ðreason€that€they€have€failed€to€offer€any€evidence€to€prove€that€they€have€been€prejudiced€by€theÐ `° Ðdelay.€€ò òòòSee€Wilson€v.€Wilsonóóó ó,€58€S.W.3d€718,€729€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Without€such€proof,Ð L œ Ðappellees€are€not€entitled€to€the€equitable€defense€of€laches.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðholding€that€Britainððs€claims€are€not€barred€by€laches.Ð $ t Ðò òà  àó óIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÐ  ` Ðassessed€to€the€appellant,€Britainððs,€Inc.,€and€its€surety.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€such€furtherÐ ü L  Ðproceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Ð è 8  ÐÔ#†¼Se»XXiÆ #ÔÔ€XiX»¼SeÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.