WPCgI kh9{ Ѥ;S%Db,Oaާ6v}Hf~+Ug:q431ojТ5nYCd}q)H 抝2&JpF˒f}"+2$ꕝN|I$f`f HP ٴӇL] H"}V>, < 1x7R;\Fq@8И8~qS5>2$QM `(m[Q9 J*dw;Ìʛ9R$aٶ:ܸw%'b=Êrd4"e|JB )#M֢!|/S0;us= |Rz1&06([rI} [,B5Ol@d5F+="E*j8AtˏBC 0~F 0x 0k< 0k 0 0~ 0* 0 0 0 0 | 0 01 0C 0V 0n 0= 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0;UB %  0z& 0 1y 0~ b 0=s 0F 0P 1F 0 ! 0O%Ec% 0}e% 0x% 0Z& 0j& 0eQ' 0W' 0W ( 0d( 0j( 0R) 0 * 0* 0g+ 0H, 0<- 0C. 0-]/ 0@0 01 02 03 03 0N4 04 05 0\6 06 1x7/8n?8 048 B 94=9 0Q9^9 0JL:d:< ==UB>> @ D3@U>@w@'AU:gAACUBeEU>EUBEU>'F eF 0DoFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF AOGHH 0DH D/I BJIV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d6S/%$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSONZIERERHUTCHINSDANDRIDGEMilesesTidwellDeventerAdkisonPrestonPanterDerryberryLedfordLamonsAngell LimLanierBurnettGastonCopelandMurpheyMcCammonHanesCatlettWhaleyPullenMoulton I$  XX     1     ` Theplatdoesnotshowthecallsforthesidelotlines.  I$  PXX     1     ` Theplatdoesnotshowthecallsforthesidelotlines.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  I$  [XX     2    \ ` ThecaseofHanesv.Peck'sLessee,8Tenn.227(1827),isoneof `  thefirstTennesseecasestoenunciatetheruleof"presumingalossgrant"(whichisthepredecessorofpresumingalostdeed)bypossessingpropertyadverselyforaperiodof20years.#[Tt# GGGG'dxd<( 9Z &Courier Regular D++Ӏ,cAZ"Arial Regular  I$  XX     2    T ` ThecaseofHanesv.Peck'sLessee,8Tenn.227(1827),isoneof `  thefirstTennesseecasestoenunciatetheruleof"presumingalossgrant"(whichisthepredecessorofpresumingalostdeed)bypossessingpropertyadverselyforaperiodof20years.#Tt#  Iy$  YXX     2    Z ` ThecaseofHanesv.Peck'sLessee,8Tenn.227(1827),isoneof `  thefirstTennesseecasestoenunciatetheruleof"presumingalossgrant"(whichisthepredecessorofpresumingalostdeed)bypossessingpropertyadverselyforaperiodof20years.#YTt#<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi<( 9Z &Courier Regular (3$ F!   VXnXXXVqXVXn   Ad FILEDVXnXVq   September30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.VA XVXnAppellateCourtClerk ^C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!     7qXXdd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTXqXXXr_S<,(j 8` `@Ea ` ttx$` rߛ@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLEEVAL.MILES@*@@*)  JEFFERSONCOUNTY x  x    `     h   )  03A019711CH00500 @   PlaintiffAppellant@*) h    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.C.S.RAINWATER,JR., `  @*)  CHANCELLOR (  @*)  @*  @*) P  MARJORIEM.NELSON@*)   Ѐ@*)       DefendantAppellee@*)  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED H  WILLIAMA.ZIEREROFMORRISTOWNFORAPPELLANTJAMESD.HUTCHINSOFDANDRIDGEFORAPPELLEE@*@*   `    OPINION  p    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. $X#    ` InthiscasePlaintiffEvaL.MilessuesDefendantMarjorieM.Nelsontohavedecreedtoheratriangularstripoflandwhichisnotencompassedinthedeedtoherandherhusband.Itis,however,includedinthedeedtoMrs.Nelsonandherhusband.ThePlaintiffassertsthatbecauseshehasadverselypossessedthedisputedareaforaperiodofalmost39years,sheisentitledtoprevail.   ` TheTrialCourtfoundthatthePlaintiffdidnotproveherclaimbyclearandpositiveproofand,consequently,dismissedhersuit.  9p0>    ` Herappealinsiststhattheevidencepreponderates againsttheTrialCourt'sdeterminationthatshedidnotmeetherburdenofproof.   ` ThepartiesownadjoininglotsintheCherokeeLakesSubdivisioninJeffersonCounty.ThePlaintiffownsLot9andtheDefendantownslot10.Thedescriptionsinthedeedstobothlotsrefertoarecordedplatandalsodescribesthelotsbymetesandboundswhich,astothelengthofalllotlinesandastothecallsastothefrontandrearlines,isinconformitywiththerecordedplat.MO K   1      ׀ThePlaintiffandherhusbandacquired  herpropertyfromthedeveloperofthesubdivisionbydeeddatedAugust13,1958,andthePlaintiffDefendantsucceededtotheownershipofthepropertyuponthedeathofherhusband.TheDefendantandherhusbandacquiredthepropertybydeeddatedDecember27,1967,andshealsosucceededtotheownershipuponthedeathofherhusband.   ` ApparentlythepartieslivedsidebysideinharmonyfromthedatetheNelsonspurchasedthepropertyuntilMay1997,when,becauseoftheillnessoftheDefendant,herdaughterandhersoninlawdecidedtomoveintothebasementofherhousesothattheymightbeinapositiontobettercareforherandseeafterherneeds.Incidenttothisplannedmovetheydecidedtoconstructadrivewayonthepropertytoservethebasementapartment.WhenasurveywasmadeoftheDefendant'sproperty,itwasdiscoveredthatatriangularstripoflandfrontingapproximately5.8feetontheroadandextendingbacksome160feetwasinfactapartoflot10,althoughboththePlaintiffandtheDefendanthadalwaysthoughtitwasapartoflot9. @8.<    ` TheDefendantandherhusbandthroughtheyearsevidencedownershipoftheareainquestionbyplantingflowers,shrubsandtrees,bothfruitandflowering.TheyhadmowedtheϜarea,placedtheirmailboxonit,anddugadrainageditchneartheroad.Mr.MileshadalsocutatreewhichwasontheboundarylineofthepropertythePlaintiffclaims.Therestrictionsastothesubdivisionpreventedlotownersfromerectingafencehigherthantwofeet,butnofencewasevererectedbytheMileses.Duringtheirownership,theMileseshadneverpreventedanyonefromcrossingthepropertyindispute.   ` Asalreadynoted,theTrialCourtfoundthattheabovefactsofownershipshown,whichwereundisputed,didnotmeettheϜrequirementsforadversepossession.   ` TheChancellorwascorrectinfindingthePlaintiffboretheburdenofprovingbyclearandpositiveproof,McCammon  :04 v.Meredith,830S.W.2d577(Tenn.App.1991);Tidwellv.Van `  Deventer,686S.W.2d899(Tenn.App.1984),thatshemetthe @  requirementsnecessarytoestablishtitlebyadversepossession.WQX K   2         TheserequirementsaresetoutinCatlettv.Whaley,731S.W.2d  544,546(Tenn.App.1987),arecentopinionofthisCourt,asfollows: ` Toestablishtitlebyadversepossession,theremustbeanoccupationofthepropertyunderaclaimofϜrightortitleR]N K   3      כwhichisopen,actual,continuous, ` exclusive,adverseandnotoriousfortheprescriptiveperiodof20years.Tidwellv.VanDeventer,686 @ S.W.2d899(Tenn.App.1984);Smithv.Adkison,622 0 S.W.2d545(Tenn.App.1981);andPrestonv.Smith,41   Tenn.App.222,293S.W.2d51(1955). ` Thenatureandcharacterofthelandistakenintoconsiderationindeterminingwhethertheclaimant'spossessionhasbeensufficienttoestablishownership.(Citationomitted.)   ` Ourresearchhasdisclosedcaseswhichholdthatastomountainlandandthelike,Panterv.Miller,698S.W.2d634 `'  (Tenn.App.1985),orwheretheerectingofafencewoulddestroytheprincipalutilityofaparticularpieceofproperty,Lamons  +!$ v.Mathes,33Tenn.App.609,232S.W.2d558(1950),afenceis -#& notrequired.  0`'*    ` Beginningasearlyas1878,inPullenv.Hopkins,69 `   Tenn.741(1878),ourSupremeCourt,whenaddressingadversepossessionasitrelatestoourcoloroftitledefensivestatutestatesthegeneralrule,notesexceptions,andconcludesthatthegeneralrulerequiringenclosureshouldnotbeextended(atpage744): ` ItisgenerallyrecognizedasthelawinthisStatethatactualpossessionforsevenyearsisnecessarytogivetheyoungergranteethebettertitleunderouractof1819,andactualpossessionisgenerallyunderstoodtomeananenclosurebybuildingfences,orothersimilarimprovements.Thisgoesuponthetheorythatthepossessionmustbecontinuous,andopen,andnotorious;thatis,bysuchactsofpossessionasgivenoticetothepublicthatthepartyisholdingpossessionunderaclaimoftitle,andingeneralnothingshortofactualenclosurewillberegardedassufficientevidenceofthecontinuousoccupationofthelandastogivenoticetothepublicoftheadverseholding.SeethesubjectdiscussedinAngellonLim.,sec.396.Someexceptionshavebeenmadetothisrule,andtheextenttowhichtheseexceptionshavegone,oroughttogo,isthequestionnowpresented. ` InWestv.Lanier,9Hum.,762,itappearedthatthelandwasonlyvaluableforthetimberandironoreuponit,andLanierplacedslavesuponthelandwhocuttimberandremovedironoretherefromfromtimetotimetosupplyafactorynearby,butdidnotresideupontheland,buildhousesfortheslaves,ormakeanyenclosures;hispossession,however,weheldequivalenttoactualpossession.ThecourtadoptedthelanguageusedinEwingv.Burnett,11Peters,asfollows:"Anentrybyonemanuponthelandofanotherisanousterofthelegalpossessionarisingfromthetitleornot,accordingtotheintentionwithwhichitisdone.Ifmadeunderclaimorcolorofright,itisanouster;otherwise,itisameretrespass.Inlegallanguage,theintentionguidestheentryandfixesitscharacter."Again,"neitheractualcultivationorresidenceisnecessarytoconstituteactualpossessionwhenthepropertyissosituatedasnottoadmitofanypermanentusefulimprovement,andthecontinuedclaimofthepartyhasbeenevidencedbypublicactsof  :04 ownershipsuchashewouldexerciseoverpropertyheclaimedinhisownright,andwouldnotclaimoverpropertyhedidnotclaim."InthatcasethepossessionconsistedofdiggingandremovingsandfromalotinCincinnati,anditwasheldsufficient,thelotnotbeingsusceptibleofanyusefulpermanentimprovement. ` ThecourtusesapprovinglythelanguageofJudgeGastoninWilliamsv.Buchanan,1Ire.L.R.,540: Possessionoflandisdenotedbytheexerciseofactsofdominionoverit,inmakingtheordinaryuseandtakingtheordinaryprofitsofwhichitissusceptibleinitspresentstate,suchactstobesorepeatedastoshowthattheyaredoneinthecharacterofowner,andnotofanoccasionaltrespasser.Thepossessioninthatcasewasofafishtrapanddaminasluiceofanunnavigablestream,andhavingbeencontinuous,washeldsufficient.JudgeGreenconcludes, Fromthesecasesitwillbeseenthataninclosureorresidenceonlandisnotnecessaryinordertoconstitutepossession,butthatsuchuseandoccupationofitasfromitsnatureandcharacterissusceptibleunderaclaimofownership,willbeanactualpossession. ` InthecaseofCassv.Richardson,2Col.,28,itwasheldthattheerectionanduseofawashplacetowashironorewasnotsufficient,thecourtsayingthatingeneralabuildingorinclosureofsomesortisnecessary,butthatexceptionsexistedwherethelandisunfittedforresidenceorcultivationas,forexample,anorebank,acoalravine,asandpit,astonequarry,orameadowbelowtidewater. ` ThecaseofCopelandv.Murphey,2Col.,64,seemstocarrytheprinciplestillfarther,asinthatcase,althoughitwassaidthatthetimberconstitutedtheprincipalsourceofvalueoftheland,itdidnotappearthatitwasnotsusceptibleofcultivation.However,inthatcase,althoughthecontinuedcuttingandusingofthetimberinthesightandhearingoftheplaintiffwasastrongconsideration,yetitfurtherappearedthatthedefendantclaimedthelandunderalostdeed,andhadthelinesurveyedandrunoutwhentheplaintiffwasalong,anditwasapparentthatthelatterwasfullyinformedthatthelandwasbeingclaimedandheldbythedefendantaspartofhishometractoflanduponwhichhelived. ` Casesmayarisewheretheactsofdomainandownershipoverunimprovedlandsmaybeofsuchacharacterastoleavenodoubtofthepartysclaimofownership,althoughthelandbesusceptibleof  :04 inclosureorcultivation,andinsuchcasetheclaimofpossession,itwouldseem,oughttoberecognized.Butingeneral,therulethatthepossessionmustbebyinclosure,ifthelandbesusceptibleofit,issowellunderstoodandrecognizedthatitisbetternottodepartfromit.Whatevermayhavebeentheruleastoanousterofthepossessionwhichattachestothelegaltitle,suchaswouldhaveauthorizedejectmentbythetrueowner,yetitisgenerallyconcededthatunderourstatuteoflimitationsthepossessionmustbeatthetimecontinuousandactualtoperfectaninferiortitle,andordinarilytheuseoftimberfromuninclosedlandisnotsufficient,assuchactsarenotregardedasgivingnoticetothepublicofthepartyspossessionandclaim. ` Theexception,asstated,iswheretheotheractsofpossessionhavebeensuchasthelandissusceptibleoffromitsnatureandcharacter.Theorebank,thesandbank,thefishtrap,thestonequarryandcoalravine,havebeeninstanced.Willitdotoestablishtherulethattheuseoftimberwillamounttoactualpossessioninallcaseswheretheland,orthegreaterpartofit,isnotfertileorlevelenoughtobeprofitablycultivatedinthepresentstateofpopulation?Forthisiswhatthedefendantstestimonyamountsto,althoughheusesthelanguageusedbythecourtinthecaseofEwingv.Burnett,thatthelandisnotsusceptibleofanyusefulpermanentimprovement.Yetfromhisdescriptionandthefactsstated,weseesimplythatatpresentitwouldnotbeprofitabletocultivatealargeportionofthisland,buthowitmaybewhenthecountrybecomesmoredenselypopulatedwecannotsay.Heconcedesthatpartofitmaybecultivated,andasmallpartinfacthassincebeeninclosed.Histestimonydoesnotshowabsolutelythatthelandisnotsusceptibleofcultivationorresidence. ` Ifthisrulebeestablisheditwouldintroduceinagreatnumberofcasesthequestionwhetherthelandorthegreaterpartofit,bevaluableenoughtoclearandcultivate;ifnot,thenitwouldbeclaimedthattheuseoftimberwouldbesufficientevidenceofpossession;butifsuitablelandtocultivate,thenadifferentruleofpossessionwouldprevail.Thiswouldintroducearuleofuncertainty,andonethatpracticablyitwouldbedifficulttofollow,whereastheotherruleisgenerallyunderstood,andofeasyapplication,andwethinkitbettertoexendtheexceptionstotherulerequiringactualinclosurenofarther.See2Smith,L.cases,6Am.Ed.,Marg.,p.561,etseq.  :04 Ї ` Weconcludethatthepossessioninthiscasewasnotofacharactertogivethedefendantthebettertitle,andthejudgmentwillbeaffirmed.   ` InthepresentcasethePlaintiffinsiststhatϜshrubberyplantedalongthelinesheclaimsnearthefrontofthetractservedtomeettherequirementofafence.Oneofthephotographsintroduced,exhibitfour,would,attheangleitwastaken,seemtosupporthercontention.However,herownsurveyortestifiedthattheshrubberywasnotahedgeandnotrestrictive.   ` Uponourdenovoreviewoftherecordweconcludethe   evidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheTrialCourt'sfindingsthatthePlaintiffhasnotbornetheburdenrequiredwhenassertingownershipbyadversepossession.   ` Inreachingtheforegoingconclusion,wearenotunmindfulofthecaseofHallmarkv.Tidwell,849S.W.2d787 `'  (Tenn.App.1992).Inthatcaseitappearsthattheplaintiffandherhusbandhadclearedpropertynotincludedintheirdeedand"fencedapartofthenonownedclearedpropertyandcreatedagardenontheremainder."Theissueonappealastothiscase,however,wasnotwhethertheplaintiff'spossessionwasϜsufficientlyaadverse,butwhetherMrs.Hallmarkwasrequiredtoshowthatthenonpossessoryholderofthelegaltitle}"}wasnot"underanydisabilityatanytimeduringtheperiodofadversepossession."  :04    ` Inconclusion,wehavenotoverlookedthealternativereliefsoughtinthePlaintiff'sbrief,towit,thatshewasentitled"toaperpetualexclusiveprescriptiveeasementforallencompassingsurfaceuses,suchasplanting,gardening,mowing,leisureactivities,etc."Thisisatheorythatwasnotadvancedbelowandcannotbeconsideredforthefirsttimeonappeal.Simpsonv.FrontierCommunityCreditUnion,810S.W.2d147 @  (Tenn.1991);BrooksideMills,Inc.v.Moulton,55Tenn.App.643,   404S.W.2d258(1965).   ` Oneadditionalmatterneedstobeconsidered.ItappearsthatastayorderwasenteredbythisCourtpendingdispositionofthisappeal,andthereafteramotionforcontemptwasfiledbythePlaintiffforactscommittedbyanagentoftheDefendantaffectingthedisputedstripofland.Becauseitisnecessarythatproofbeintroducedastothisissue,uponremanditisappropriatefortheTrialCourttoaddresstheissuesraisedbythePlaintiff'smotioninrespectthereto.   ` Finally,inordertomaintainthestatusquo,thestayheretoforeissuedwillremainineffectuntilourjudgmentbecomesfinaloranapplicationforappealisacceptedbytheSupremeCourtandthepropriety______________ofthestayresolvedbyit.   ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,includingdispositionofthemotionforcontempt,as  :04 maybenecessary.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstthePlaintiffandhersurety.   `     h   _______________________________   `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.