ÿWPC HÖ·ñ¿¤{è¥)ùðeì È%A}CÎ>ª²W0€›~e‚íOŒŽðÿ½P\Ï“²ˆ¶ê©@¾´tïìäè¬-þ> uð#®!âZIùMYì> ÒÅ`R6¸zÆ•Yál9K¿ m‹j‘UÓwY¾,63@¹æ€:· Šý’ÊžŸó¬Š¸áx í\º0]éKz¯Ü;(`˜·¾<,n~²j–u‡œ­&iSŒkûrx-•)L¹ °!ÏÐç=¹ 3dE“ÏdZ&³?¿‹êÐ39©6ÝaVSÚ¢ WŒÐ›ðϼ”¡¨ÛŽŠ-NO¥Ü¬²‡ ŒŠsFî·tNX>¼¼þìŒÓ§-ôw¶„»¯J*¬æfß»œ¦…„Mš.È»·˜ÍÁÖ05úÍ$8{˜QŒUiÞÓ9DkÙ™H7ÚOáJ°§d7v%\FÔ`ÄÝ.ð(…6Ùõ©/[k“¿PG%öÇ–Í&n1‚ȺX»}o~ØøÆy}EÎêð1â(ùשP æ!u&³!Ib %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c»Œn%+L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜L-(䙣3|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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2¤|$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€äD»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô˜Ìò»»Ô d(|3¹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€äD»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€äD»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€äD»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼äD»»»ÔÑ8€ëSXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàԇäDÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼äD»îî¡— #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€21,€2001€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡XëSX»¼äDÔÌò òÔ#†¼äD»XXëSô#ÔGLORIA€B.€LANEòòóó€v.€W.€J.€CURRY€&€SONSòòóóÔ‡XëSX»¼äDÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€301117€T.D.€€€€€€Robert€L.€Childers,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01580„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€September€5,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThis€case€involves€a€dispute€about€the€responsibility€for€trees€on€adjacent€properties.€€TheÐ ¶ Ðplaintiff€and€defendant€own€adjacent€properties.€€Located€on€the€defendant's€property€are€three€largeÐ ¦ö Ðoak€trees€whose€branches€overhang€the€plaintiffððs€roof.€€The€roots€from€the€trees€grow€onto€theÐ –æ Ðplaintiffððs€property€and€have€infiltrated€the€plaintiffððs€sewer€lines€on€several€occasions.€€After€a€limbÐ †Ö Ðfrom€one€of€the€trees€fell€through€the€plaintiffððs€roof,€the€plaintiff€complained€to€the€defendant.€€TheÐ vÆ Ðdefendant€twice€sent€someone€to€cut€back€the€treesðð€branches.€€The€plaintiff€continued€to€complainÐ f¶ Ðabout€the€trees,€and€the€defendant€refused€to€provide€any€additional€assistance.€€This€lawsuit€ensued.€Ð V¦ ÐThe€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiffððs€only€remedy€was€self„help.€€The€plaintiff€now€appeals.€€WeÐ F– Ðaffirm.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 6† ÐÓ­ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ f ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼äD»àXëSj#ÔÔ‡XëSX.¼äDÔHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,Ð öF ÐW.S.óó€and€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€joined.Ð æ6 ÐÌElder€Shearon,€III,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant€Gloria€B.€Lane.Ð Æ  ÐÌRobert€A.€Cox,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee€W.€J.€Curry€&€Sons.Ð ¦"ö! ÐÓF ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼äD»XXëSu #ÔÔ‡XëSX»¼äDÔÐ †$Ö# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼äD»XXëSM #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XëSX»¼äDÔÓ Óà  àThis€case€involves€a€dispute€over€the€responsibility€for€trees€on€adjacent€properties.€Ð f&¶!% ÐPlaintiff/appellant€Gloria€Lane€(ð ðLaneðð)€and€her€siblings€own€property€located€next€door€€to€propertyÐ V'¦"& Ðowned€by€defendant/appellee€W.€J.€Curry€&€Sons€(ð ðCurry€&€Sonsðð).€€Located€on€the€Curry€&€SonsÐ F(–#' Ðproperty,€adjacent€to€Laneððs€property,€are€three€large€oak€trees.€€The€trees€are€owned€by€Curry€&Ð 6)†$( ÐSons.€€Due€to€the€size€and€proximity€of€the€trees€to€the€Lane€property,€limbs€from€the€trees€overhangÐ &*v%) Ðthe€roof€of€Laneððs€home.€€The€roots€of€the€trees€grow€into€the€ground€of€Laneððs€property€and€onÐ +f&* Ðseveral€occasions€have€infiltrated€the€sewer€line,€clogging€the€sewer€and€causing€damage€to€herÐ ,V'+ Ðplumbing.€ò òó ó€€Ð ö,F(,ý Ðà  àIn€1997,€a€limb€from€one€of€the€trees€fell€through€the€roof€of€Laneððs€house,€creating€a€holeÐ ° Ðin€the€ceiling.€€Water€leaked€into€the€interior€of€Laneððs€home.€€Lane€then€contacted€Judith€HarrisÐ  ð Ð(ð ðHarrisðð),€the€owner€of€Curry€&€Sons,€to€complain€about€the€trees€and€to€inform€Harris€of€theÐ à Ðdamage€caused€by€the€fallen€limb.€€In€response€to€Laneððs€complaint,€Harris€sent€a€tree€company€toÐ €Ð Ðcut€back€the€limbs€which€hung€over€onto€Laneððs€property.€€Dissatisfied€with€the€tree€companyððsÐ pÀ Ðwork,€Lane€again€called€Harris€to€complain€about€the€trees.€€Harris€sent€the€tree€company€back€toÐ ` ° Ðfurther€cut€back€branches.€€ò òòòó óóóAfter€receiving€a€third€call€from€Lane€about€the€trees,€Harris€told€LaneÐ P   Ðthat€Lane€could€trim€the€treesðð€limbs€or€roots,€but€that€she,€Harris,€no€longer€felt€any€responsibilityÐ @  Ðto€remedy€the€situation.Ð 0 € Ðà  àLane€subsequently€filed€suit€against€Curry€&€Sons€in€General€Sessions€Court,€alleging€thatÐ `  Ðthe€trees€caused€property€damage€to€her€home.€€After€the€General€Sessions€Court€found€in€favor€ofÐ P  ÐCurry€&€Sons,€Lane€appealed€the€matter€to€the€Circuit€Court.€€Ð ð@  Ðà  àThe€Circuit€Court€trial€was€held€in€May€2000.€€At€the€Circuit€Court€bench€trial,€Lane€testifiedÐ Ð  Ðthat€she€had€been€experiencing€problems€with€the€treesðð€limbs€and€roots€off€and€on€for€at€least€27Ð À Ðyears.€€She€testified€that€she€had€repeatedly€made€complaints€to€the€City€of€Memphis€(ð ðthe€Cityðð)€Ð ° Ðregarding€her€problems€with€the€trees€and€the€damages€her€home€has€incurred€from€the€treesðð€limbsÐ  ð Ðand€roots.€€She€asserted€that€the€City€had€to€replace€the€roof€on€her€house€in€late€1989€because€theÐ à Ðoverhanging€limbs€had€caused€the€roof€to€rot.€€Lane€acknowledged€that€the€new€roof€temporarilyÐ €Ð Ðsolved€the€problem,€but€said€that€the€problems€later€recurred.€€Lane€testified€that€the€City€had€madeÐ pÀ Ðseveral€visits€to€her€home€to€try€to€get€the€roots€out€of€the€sewer€line.€€However,€each€time€the€CityÐ `° Ðrepaired€the€line,€the€roots€would€grow€back€and€again€infiltrate€the€sewer€line.€€Lane€testified€thatÐ P  Ðthe€City€had€to€replace€the€floor€in€her€bathroom,€due€to€water€damage€caused€by€the€root„cloggedÐ @ Ðlines.€€She€asserted€that€she€could€use€her€bathroom€for€a€period€of€time€after€the€City€made€repairsÐ 0€ Ðto€the€sewer€lines€and€her€bathroom€floor,€but€that€the€problems€with€the€plumbing€and€floor€soonÐ  p Ðrecurred.€€Lane€said€that€she€had€been€unable€to€use€the€bathroom€in€her€home€for€two€years€becauseÐ ` Ðof€the€problems€caused€by€the€roots€clogging€the€sewer€line.€€€€€Ð P Ðà  àLane€testified€that€she€and€her€family€had€attempted€to€remedy€some€of€the€problems€withÐ à0 Ðthe€trees€themselves€on€several€occasions€by€digging€to€the€sewer€line€and€cutting€away€roots.€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€the€roots€grew€back€each€time.€€Laneððs€son€testified€that€on€several€occasions€he€hadÐ À! Ðscraped€branches€off€of€the€roof.€€Lane€said€that€the€house€is€occupied€by€her€and€her€brother.€€SheÐ °"  Ðmaintained€that€neither€she€nor€her€brother€are€physically€able€to€cut€back€the€overhanging€treeÐ  #ð! Ðlimbs,€nor€are€they€financially€able€to€engage€in€more€extensive€self„help.€Ð $à" Ðà  àHarris€testified€that,€prior€to€1997,€she€had€not€received€any€complaints€from€Lane€about€theÐ p&À!$ Ðtrees.€€She€testified€that€she,€her€husband,€and€an€employee€of€Curry€&€Sons€also€inspected€theÐ `'°"% Ðpremises,€prior€to€sending€the€tree€company.€€Harris€asserted€that€the€trees€at€issue€were€healthy,Ð P( #& Ðliving€trees€that€were€not€noxious.€€€Ð @)$' Ðà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€case€of€òòò òGrandberry€v.€Jonesóóó ó,€216€S.W.2d€721€(Tenn.€1949),Ð  +p&) Ðwas€controlling€and€that€the€plaintiffððs€sole€remedy€was€self„help.€€The€trial€court€determined€thatÐ ,`'* Ðthe€trees€at€issue€were€live,€growing€trees€that€were€not€noxious€and€as€such€could€not€constitute€aÐ ° Ðnuisance.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€Lane€was€financially€or€otherwise€unable€to€engage€in€moreÐ  ð Ðextensive€self„help;€yet,€she€failed€to€show€that€the€other€owners€of€the€house€were€also€financiallyÐ à Ðor€otherwise€unable€to€engage€in€self„help€and€remove€the€branches€and€roots.€€Lane€now€appeals.Ð €Ð Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Lane€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€self„help€was€her€sole€remedyÐ ` ° Ðin€this€case.€€She€contends€that€the€treesðð€limbs€and€roots€fit€under€the€existing€Tennessee€lawÐ P   Ðdefinitions€of€nuisance€because€of€the€damage€that€the€limbs€and€roots€have€done€to€her€property.€Ð @  ÐTherefore,€she€asserts€that€she€is€entitled€to€damages€and€abatement.€Ð 0 € Ðà  àÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóóÐ `  Ðupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Ô#†XëSX X X¿F$#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔò òòòSeeóóó ó€Tenn.Ð üL  ÐR.€App.€P.€13(d).Ð è8  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€In€òòò òGrandberryóóó ó,€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€owned€residences€on€adjacent€lots.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔGrandberryÔ_Ôó óóó,€Ð À  Ð216€Ô_ÔS.W.2dÔ_Ô€at€721.€€Over€a€period€of€years,€the€branches€and€foliage€of€a€hedge€located€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantððs€property,€close€to€the€boundary€line,€grew€onto€the€plaintiffððs€property,€resting€againstÐ ˜è Ðthe€plaintiffððs€residence.€€€òòò òId.€€óóó óat€721„22.Ô#†XëSX X X¿a%#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔ€€The€plaintiff€sued,€alleging€that€the€hedge€was€a€nuisanceÐ „Ô Ðbecause€the€overhanging€branches€and€foliageÔ#†XëSX X X¿õ'#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔ€blocked€the€view€from€the€windows€on€that€side€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€residence€and€caused€her€outer€wall€to€rot€and€decay.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€722.€€Ô_ÔThe€Court€noted€that€the€hedgeÐ \¬ Ðat€issue€was€healthy,€living,€innoxious€and€growing€Ô_Ônaturally;€its€growth€ð ðaccompanied€Ô#†XëSX X X¿´(#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔby€theÐ H˜ Ðextension€of€boughs€and€the€penetration€of€roots€over€and€into€adjoining€property€of€others.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€atÐ 4„ Ð723.Ô#†XëSX X X¿>*#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔ€€€The€Court€held€that€the€plaintiffððs€only€remedy€was€self„help,€cutting€any€branches€and€foliageÐ  p Ðwhich€grew€across€onto€her€property:€Ð  \ Ðà8  à[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€has€been€held€that€no€landowner€has€a€cause€of€action€from€the€mere€fact€that€theÐ ä4 Ðbranches€of€an€innoxious€tree,€belonging€to€an€adjoining€land€owner,€overhang€hisÐ Ð  Ðpremises,€his€right€to€cut€off€the€overhanging€branches€being€considered€a€sufficientÐ ¼  Ðremedy.ШøÐ Ð  Ðòòò òId.óóó ó€at€723.€Ô#†XëSX X X¿(+#ÔÔ‡ X¿ XXXëSÔÐ € Ð ÐÔ#†XëSX X X¿Ã-#Ôà  àIn€this€case,€òòò òóóó óthe€three€oaks€at€issue€are€viable,€healthy,€and€innoxious€trees€whose€naturalÐ X"¨  Ðgrowth€is€accompanied€by€the€extension€of€their€branches€and€roots€over€and€into€Laneððs€property.€Ð H#˜! ÐUnder€ò òòòGrandberryó óóó,€Laneððs€remedy€is€self„help€and€her€nuisance€action€cannot€be€sustained€.€€TheÐ 8$ˆ" Ðtrial€court€found€that€although€Lane€had€engaged€in€some€self„help€in€the€past,€she€was€financiallyÐ (%x # Ðand€physically€unable€to€engage€in€more€extensive€self„help.€€The€trial€court€also€found,€however,Ð &h!$ Ðthat€Lane€failed€to€established€that€the€other€owners€of€the€property€were€similarly€unable€to€engageÐ 'X"% Ðin€self„help€to€remove€the€branches€and€roots.€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€evidence,€we€cannotÐ ø'H#& Ðconclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€All€remaining€issues€areÐ è(8$' Ðâ âpretermitted.€€€Ð Ø)(%( Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€the€appellant,€Gloria€B.€Lane€andÐ ° Ðâ âher€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€Ð  ð ÐÌÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ` ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€K.€LILLARD,€JUDGE