ÿWPC / 0eð—äš,(9Õó8kS[É”¯6ì_Õj.”#žŽ®F¤ý5@•ov_~ y Z y7ò‰= )Þ…¥dä §aALÈAšŽH†McI¿Ôb÷_5Ä}6’ˆ%\Õžçt@+ÞÐ^øÓàÜ,ƒh`Ärxb=ǦºNˆ<èËU¬Ò؆ ˆ^²hô{™>h9Y<<;5¡‘^9#@W“n= t–…Ïnÿç5˜i/ºŠ²¸Úðæ¸Î{-²{öh_àçdÅ·Lþ›€´ÍÅËàòþBÿ0GD¼®ô@'ð–L‚Ó…Ñäà ó¨2äQtz5ôzÓJÓaÙ‚ÍÕá0ŽæŽr9;¸s©(µbYóç è-É€r†Êù¤'®ÆŒ÷ õv Z…1½YD”#Ì ð-…µŸ·.Ì|NÎË8Pœæ¦í=à>¹jžAY#•ÈCÛy•IH½IŠq‡‰–3Í.#=Â9G ¿ùJDgª‘QjKÔ»Š¬°…;ß@ÙcŸ³Œ:ÎÿL$8š-¯#dlPáÉA'Š-îzÍ(X /œÊ&ŸÑº"ÅYã:žé¸OžÆZàï»E]|ÆÄ]]y¤b#Á\ %  0ˆ# UN« UNù 0DG z‹ Ò  n× Eö[ÆQ"Æ#ÆÝ#Æ£$Ei%N®)^ °)w¼)EÀ)4Â)Ö)å) mç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)ç)bþ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ)þ) 0ë**** Bñ*ñ* 0¤+ D5²+ D-ç+ 0K,, AS_,Ʋ, 0¤x- 0D. A«`.˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜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 dÝ ƒRÓ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôr­ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔChancellor€Neal€Small€served€as€judge€for€the€trial€below€and€entered€a€final€order€approving€the€jury€verdict.€Ð ° ÐSmall€was€subsequently€replaced€by€Walter€Evans.€€Chancellor€Evans€ruled€on€Property€Ownersðð€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð tÄ ÐProperty€Owners€assert€that€the€new€chancellor€was€not€qualified€to€rule€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€because€he€did€notÐ 8ˆ Ðpreside€over€the€actual€trial.€€We€find€this€argument€is€without€merit.€€€ Ý ƒRÓ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôr­ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6-51-103€provides€in€relevant€part:Ð ° Ðà  à(a)(1)(A)€Any€aggrieved€owner€of€property€which€borders€or€lies€within€territory€which€is€the€subject€of€anÐ tÄ Ðannexation€ordinance€prior€to€the€operative€date€thereof,€may€file€a€suit€in€the€nature€of€a€quo€warranto€proceeding€inÐ 8ˆ Ðaccordance€with€this€part,€ðð€6-51-301€and€title€29,€chapter€35€to€contest€the€validity€thereof€on€the€ground€that€itÐ üL Ðreasonably€may€not€be€deemed€necessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€residents€and€property€owners€of€the€affected€territoryÐ À Ðand€the€municipality€as€a€whole€and€so€constitutes€an€exercise€of€power€not€conferred€by€law.€€Notwithstanding€theÐ „Ô Ðprovisions€of€any€other€section€in€this€chapter,€for€purposes€of€this€section,€an€"aggrieved€owner€of€property"€does€notÐ H ˜ Ðinclude€any€municipality€or€public€corporation€created€and€defined€under€title€7,€chapter€82€which€owns€propertyÐ  \ Ðbordering€or€lying€within€the€territory€which€is€the€subject€of€an€annexation€ordinance€requested€by€the€remainingÐ Ð  Ðproperty€owner€or€owners€of€the€territory€and€whose€property€and€services€are€to€be€allocated€and€conveyed€inÐ ” ä  Ðaccordance€with€ðð€6-51-111,€ðð€6-51-112€or€ðð€6-51-301,€or€any€contractual€arrangement€otherwise€providing€for€suchÐ X ¨  Ðallocation€and€conveyance.Ð  l  Ðà  à(B)€The€provisions€of€this€subdivision€(a)(1)€do€not€apply€to€the€counties€covered€by€subdivision€(a)(2).Ð à 0  Ðà  à(2)(A)Any€aggrieved€owner€of€property,€lying€within€territory€which€is€the€subject€of€an€annexation€ordinanceÐ ¤ô  Ðprior€to€the€operative€date€thereof,€may€file€a€suit€in€the€nature€of€a€quo€warranto€proceeding€in€accordance€with€this€part,Ð h¸  Ððð€6-51-301€and€title€29,€chapter€35€to€contest€the€validity€thereof€on€the€ground€that€it€reasonably€may€not€be€deemedÐ ,|  Ðnecessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€residents€and€property€owners€of€the€affected€territory€and€the€municipality€as€a€whole,Ð ð@  Ðand€so€constitutes€an€exercise€of€power€not€conferred€by€law.Ð ´  Ðà  à(B)€The€provisions€of€this€subdivision€(a)(2)€shall€apply€only€in€counties€having€a€metropolitan€form€ofÐ xÈ  Ðgovernment€and€in€counties€having€populations€of:Ð <Œ ª Ðnot€less€than€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€nor€more€thanÐ ° Ð-------------€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€-------------Ð tÄ ÐÌ€€4,000€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€4,300Ð üL Ѐ14,940€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€15,000Ð À Ѐ43,700€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€44,700Ð „Ô Ѐ49,400€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€49,500Ð H ˜ Ѐ58,000€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€59,000Ð  \ Ѐ67,300€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€67,400Ð Ð  Ѐ74,500€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€74,600Ð ” ä  Ð100,000€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€250,000Ð X ¨  Ð475,000€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€480,000Ð  l  Ð700,000Ð à 0  ÐÌaccording€to€the€1980€federal€census€or€any€subsequent€federal€census,€and€in€any€county€with€a€population€of€not€lessÐ h¸  Ðthan€two€hundred€eighty-five€thousand€(285,000)€and€not€more€than€two-hundred€ninety€thousand€(290,000)€based€uponÐ ,|  Ðthe€1980€federal€census.Ð ð@  Ðà  à(b)€The€municipality€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€that€an€annexation€ordinance€is€reasonable€for€the€overallÐ ´  Ðwell-being€of€the€communities€involved. ìÝ ƒRÓ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôr­ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Factors€to€be€considered€in€testing€reasonableness€of€annexation€ordinance€include:€€necessity€for,€or€use€of,Ð ° Ðmunicipal€services;€€present€ability€and€intent€of€municipality€to€render€municipal€services€when€and€as€needed;€€andÐ tÄ Ðwhether€annexation€is€for€sole€purpose€of€increasing€municipal€revenue€without€ability€and€intent€to€benefit€annexed€areaÐ 8ˆ Ðby€rendering€municipal€services.€òòCity€of€Kingsport€v.€State€ex€rel.€Crown€Enterprises,€Inc.óó,€562€S.W.2d€808€(Tenn.€1978)Ð üL ÐThe€primary€test€is€the€planned€and€orderly€growth€and€development€of€the€city,€taking€into€consideration€theÐ À Ðcharacteristics€of€the€existing€city€and€those€of€the€area€proposed€for€annexation.€òòState€ex€rel.€Collier€v.€City€of€PigeonÐ „Ô ÐForgeóó,€599€S.W.2d€545,€548€(Tenn.€1980)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ;Ý ƒRÓ^$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôr­ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6-51-102€provides€in€relevant€part€(emphasis€added):Ð ° Ðà  à(a)(1)€A€municipality,€when€petitioned€by€a€majority€of€the€residents€and€property€owners€of€the€affectedÐ tÄ Ðterritory,€òòor€upon€its€own€initiative€when€it€appears€that€the€prosperity€of€such€municipality€and€territory€will€beÐ 8ˆ Ðmaterially€retarded€and€the€safety€and€welfare€of€the€inhabitants€and€property€endangered,€after€notice€and€publicÐ üL Ðhearing,€by€ordinance,€may€extend€its€corporate€limits€by€annexation€of€such€territory€adjoining€its€existing€boundariesÐ À Ðas€may€be€deemed€necessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€residents€and€property€owners€of€the€affected€territory€as€well€as€theÐ „Ô Ðmunicipality€as€a€wholeóó;€€provided,€that€the€ordinance€shall€not€become€operative€until€thirty€(30)€days€after€final€passageÐ H ˜ Ðthereof.à  à2ƒ4)â ûr') œk2ü- 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2Ó^$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô5Pò»»Ô d(|3ù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H<»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€EŒ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ÖÅ»»»ÔÑ8€+|XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÏTÖÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ÖÅ»îîÏT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAPRIL€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X…ÉX»¼ÖÅÔÌÔ#†¼ÖÅ»XX…Éí#ÔEDGAR€AND€MARY€Ô_ÔMULROONEYÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€TOWN€OF€Ô_ÔCOLLIERVILLEÔ_Ô,Ð úJ ÐTENNESSEE,€òòet€alóó.Ð  \ ÐÌDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ 0 € ÐNo.€103683„1;€€The€Honorable€Walter€L.€Evans,€ChancellorÐ B ’ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<w` AßÐ xÈ  ÐÌNo.€€W1999„01474„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€September€14,€2000Ð ™é  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¼` AßÐ ½  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ€X…ÉX»¼ÖÅÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€quo€warranto€action€filed€by€the€Ô_ÔMulrooneysÔ_Ô€(ð ðProperty€Ownersðð)€onÐ Þ. Ðbehalf€of€residents€of€subdivisions€annexed€by€Ô_ÔColliervilleÔ_Ô€(ð ðTownðð).€€Property€Owners€claimed€thatÐ Ê ÐTown€did€not€meet€the€statutory€requirements€needed€to€annex€the€subdivisions.€The€jury€returnedÐ ¶ Ða€verdict€on€behalf€of€Town,€finding€that€the€annexation€was€proper.€€Thereafter,€Property€OwnersÐ ¢ò Ðfiled€a€motion€for€new€trial€which€was€denied€by€the€court.€€Property€Owners€appeal.Ð ŽÞ ÐÓ±ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ f¶ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCrawford,€P.J.,óó€and€òòLillard,Ð >Ž ÐJ.óó,€joined.Ð *z ÐÌDan€M.€Norwood,€Memphis,€for€AppellantsÐ R ÐÌCharles€B.€Welch,€Jr.,€Jon€F.€Ô_ÔMinkoffÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€for€AppelleesÐ Ú * ÐÓäÓÌò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ Â-),ý ÐOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„51„102,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Town€can€annex€nearby€property€despite€objections€ofÐ ˆØ Ðproperty€owners€if€Town€can€show€there€is€a€danger€(1)€to€the€prosperity€of€both€areas,€or€(2)€to€theÐ tÄ Ðsafety€and€welfare€of€the€inhabitants€and€property€owners€of€both€areas€if€the€areas€are€not€annexed.€Ð `° ÐUnder€this€statute,€there€must€be€public€notice€and€a€hearing€held€on€the€matter€before€the€propertyÐ L œ Ðcan€be€annexed.€€In€1993,€Town,€acting€through€its€legislative€body,€adopted€an€annexation€ordinanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhich€provided€for€annexation€of€two€neighboring€subdivisions.€€The€ordinance€stated€thatÐ $ t Ðannexation€was€necessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€residents€of€the€subdivisions€as€well€as€TownÐ  ` Ðresidents.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAt€a€public€hearing€on€the€matter,€Town€presented€evidence€from€a€state€annexationÐ Ô$  Ðfeasibility€study€as€well€as€a€plan€of€services€prepared€by€the€town€planner.€According€to€theÐ À  Ðfeasibility€study,€Town€would€be€able€to€offer€better€and€quicker€police,€fire,€and€emergency€servicesÐ ¬ü  Ðthan€the€county€services€available€if€the€subdivision€remained€Ô_ÔunannexedÔ_Ô.€€Following€a€unanimousÐ ˜è  Ðvote€on€the€matter,€the€annexation€took€place.€€In€response,€Property€Owners€filed€a€quo€warrantoÐ „Ô  Ðaction€as€provided€for€in€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð6„5„103׃ °×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€challenge€the€annexation.Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€September€1997,€a€jury€trial€on€the€matter€was€held€in€the€Shelby€County€Chancery€Court.€Ð œì ÐTown€presented€the€following€evidence€regarding€the€added€benefits€to€the€annexed€area.€€TownððsÐ ˆØ Ðmayor€testified€about€the€growing€size€and€industry€of€Town€and€the€positive€effects€of€theÐ tÄ Ðannexation.€€In€addition,€the€mayor€testified€that€most€of€the€residents€of€the€annexed€areas€were€inÐ `° Ðfavor€of€annexation€and€the€areas€were€ð ðbetter€offðð€annexed.€Townððs€city€planner€testified€about€theÐ L œ Ðannexation€feasibility€study€and€the€plan€of€services€for€the€annexed€area.€€The€plan€of€servicesÐ 8 ˆ Ðindicated€that€Townððs€emergency€response€system,€police€department,€and€fire€department€wouldÐ $ t Ðbe€expanded.€In€addition,€Townððs€fire€and€police€chiefs,€city€engineer,€and€director€of€public€worksÐ  ` Ðpresented€testimony€to€the€same€effect.€A€board€member€of€one€of€the€annexed€subdivisionsðð€HomeÐ ü L  ÐOwners€Association€testified€that€the€majority€of€residents€and€the€entire€board€supported€theÐ è 8  Ðannexation.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€presentation€of€evidence,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Town.€€A€finalÐ ¬ü  Ðorder€to€this€effect€was€entered€by€the€chancellor׃ à×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€October€9,€1997.€€Property€Owners€filed€aÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€for€new€trial,€alleging€that€the€jury€verdict€was€contrary€to€the€clear€weight€of€the€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðbecause€Town€had€failed€to€present€the€proof€required€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð6„51„102.€After€theÐ pÀ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€was€denied,€Property€Owners€filed€this€appeal.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Property€Owners€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€the€motion€forÐ 4„ Ðnew€trial.€€In€addition,€Property€Owners€claim€that€Town€failed€to€present€the€evidence€required€forÐ  p Ðannexation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„51„102€and€that€therefore€the€jury€verdict€is€not€supportedÐ ° Ðby€material€evidence.€Ð œì ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àUpon€review,€this€court€does€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€the€evidence€and€consider€where€the€preponderanceÐ L œ Ðlies.€€Instead,€we€determine€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€and,€ifÐ 8 ˆ Ðthere€is,€we€must€affirm€the€judgment.€€òòóóTÔ‡ôr­ òXX…ÉÔENNÔ#†X…ÉX òôr­ #Ô.€R.€AÔ‡ôr­ òXX…ÉÔPPÔ#†X…ÉX òôr­X#Ô.€P.€13(d);€€òòÔ_ÔOverstreetÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔShoneyÔ_Ô's,€Inc.óó,€4Ð $ t ÐS.W.3d€694,€at€718€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€citing€òòReynolds€v.€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,€887€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ð822,€823€(Tenn.1994).€ò òó ó€òòóó€Even€if€we€would€have€reached€conclusions€different€from€those€reachedÐ ü L  Ðby€the€jury,€if€there€is€some€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€it€must€be€affirmed.€€òòMason€v.Ð è 8  ÐTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€640€S.W.2d€561,€at€564€òòóó(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)ò ò€ó óWith€the€foregoingÐ Ô$  Ðin€mind,€we€now€turn€to€the€case€at€bar.ò òÐ Ä  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓóóA.€Motion€for€New€TrialÐ œì  ÐÌó óÓbÓà  àOn€appeal,€Property€Owners€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€the€motion€forÐ tÄ Ðnew€trial.ò ò€€ó óProperty€Owners€claim€the€jury€verdict€was€contrary€to€the€great€weight€of€evidence€andÐ `° Ðaccordingly€the€trial€court€should€have€set€aside€the€verdict.€€We€do€not€agree.€€Based€on€theÐ P  Ðfollowing,€we€find€that€the€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motion€for€new€trial.Ð <Œ ÐÌà  àð ðThe€purpose€of€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€to€call€the€trial€judge's€attention€to€errors€of€theÐ d Ðjury€in€deciding€a€case€and€to€his€own€errors€in€presiding€over€a€jury€trial,€all€in€the€hope€that€he€canÐ P Ðcorrect€them€without€the€necessity€for€appellate€review.ðð€òòBryant€v.€Central€Motor€Exp.,€Inc.óó,€€404Ð ì< ÐS.W.2d€513,€at€518€(Tenn.€1966).€€ò òòòó óóóA€trial€court€is€given€wide€latitude€in€granting€a€motion€for€newÐ Ø( Ðtrial,€and€a€reviewing€court€will€not€overturn€such€a€decision€unless€there€has€been€an€abuse€ofÐ Ä Ðdiscretion.€òòÔ_ÔLoefflerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKjellgrenÔ_Ôóó,€€884€S.W.2d€463,€468€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€In€other€words,€theÐ ° Ðrefusal€to€grant€a€motion€for€new€trial€is€a€discretionary€decision€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòÔ_ÔEsstmanÔ_Ô€v.€Boydóó,Ð œì Ð605€S.W.2d€237,€240€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979);€òòÔ_ÔSeayÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€654€S.W.2d€397,€398„399Ð ˆØ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòMiller€v.€Altman€Const.€Co.óó,€666€S.W.2d€466,€468€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€OnÐ tÄ Ðappeal,€our€review€is€limited€to€determining€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€makingÐ ` ° Ðthis€decision.€€òòHerbert€v.€Ô_ÔBrazealeÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€933,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1995);€€òòLadd€by€Ladd€v.Ð L!œ ÐHonda€Motor€Co.,€Ltd.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€104€(Tenn.€App.€1996).Ð 8"ˆ  ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€abuse€of€discretion€standard€involves€two€considerations.€€Primarily€it€indicates€that€theÐ $`" Ðtrial€court€has€the€authority€to€choose€among€several€legally€permissible,€sometimes€even€conflicting,Ð ü$L # Ðanswers.€€€In€addition,€it€indicates€that€the€appellate€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court'sÐ è%8!$ Ðdecision€simply€because€it€did€not€choose€the€alternative€the€appellate€court€would€have€chosen.òòóó€Ð Ô&$"% ÐòòBIF,€a€Div.€of€General€Signals€Controls,€Inc.€v.€Service€Const.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€No.€87„136„II,€1988€WLÐ À'#& Ð72409,€at€*2„*3,€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)€citing€òòDowner€v.€Aquamarine€Operators,€Inc.óó,€701€S.W.2dÐ ¬(ü#' Ð238,€242€(Tex.1985);€òòSouthern€Fire€&€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.€v.€Cooperóó,€200€Tenn.€283,€286,€292€S.W.2d€177,€178Ð ˜)è$( Ð(1956).€€€€Under€this€standard,€Property€Owners€must€prove€that€the€lower€court€abused€its€discretionÐ „*Ô%) Ðby€failing€to€grant€their€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð p+À&* Їà  àProperty€Owners€focus€on€Townððs€failure€to€use€the€specific€terms€ð ðthe€prosperity€of€suchÐ ° Ðmunicipality€and€territory€will€be€materially€retarded€and€the€safety€and€welfare€of€the€inhabitantsÐ œì Ðand€property€endangeredðð€as€provided€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð6„51„102.€€However,€the€overwhelmingÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€supported€Townððs€argument€that€annexation€was€beneficial€to€the€welfare€of€both€TownÐ tÄ Ðand€the€affected€subdivisions.€€Therefore,€while€Town€may€not€have€couched€its€argument€andÐ `° Ðpresentation€of€evidence€in€the€precise€statutory€terms,€Townððs€trial€proof€reflected€the€welfareÐ L œ Ðbenefits€produced€by€annexation.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðdiscretion€in€denying€the€motion€for€new€trial.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  Óò òB.€Material€EvidenceòòÐ ü L  ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àProperty€Owners€also€assert€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð Ô$  ÐAgain,€Property€Owners€rely€on€the€failure€of€Townððs€witnesses€to€use€the€terms€provided€by€theÐ À  Ðannexation€statute.€€As€stated€above,€the€failure€to€use€these€precise€terms€is€not€in€and€of€itself€errorÐ ¬ü  Ðand€does€not€prevent€the€jury,€the€trial€judge,€or€this€Court€from€understanding€the€evidence.€TownððsÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€about€the€positive€effect€of€the€annexation€on€the€welfare€of€the€residents€includedÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony€by€Townððs€mayor,€Townððs€city€planner,€Townððs€fire€and€police€chiefs,€city€engineer,€andÐ pÀ Ðdirector€of€public€works.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€indicates€that€Town€compliedÐ \¬ Ðwith€the€statutory€requirements€for€annexation€of€the€affected€subdivision.€€Therefore,€there€isÐ H˜ Ðmaterial€evidence€supporting€the€juryððs€verdict.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCLUSIONÐ #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" ÐÓ  Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€Property€Ownersðð€Motion€for€NewÐ ° Ðâ âTrial€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Edgar€and€Mary€Ô_ÔMulrooneyÔ_Ô,€et€al,€for€whichÐ œì Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.à h àÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE