WPC # VU:a % 0(w@4  0l, 0D & 0J L 0TR 0^  0h 0rr 0| 0` 0 1uv 0d BOU*lU>B)DC AM@ D3T 0@fOv~v3 AOU 0D D/_ BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,cAZ"Arial RegularX($ DD E!"E#$*+Ӏڃ"3|x6((3$ !      0  (#$  0  S.W.2d App2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  H26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G 'dxd !#d#%  %   YYY FILED%X December10,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk  J !#d#%   $       % TheTROwasapparentlygranted.Itisnotincludedintherecord.WeassumeitϜ  restrainedthedefendantsfromclosingthe accessroad.Itwassupportedbytheaffidavitof AlvinEscue,Presidentandprincipalshareholderoftheplaintiff,whotestified,essentially,thatthe plaintiffwouldbeirreparablyharmediftheTROwasnotgranted.("$     \\RA'\PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %       &&\RA'\7XXdd7%  R)+(A1-j| `  `@R INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE  ONEIDAWOODPRODUCTS,INC., )̜       ) Plaintiff/Appellant    )            ) SCOTTCHANCERYv.       )       ) NO.03A019707CH00264ONEIDAWOODINDUSTRIES,INC., )LUMBER,INC.andDANIELL.  )̜BILLINGSLEY,     ) HON.BILLYJOEWHITE       ) CHANCELLOR Defendants/Appellees   )       ) VACATEDand       ) REMANDED̜DannyP.Dyer,Knoxville,forAppellant.̜JohnnyV.Dunaway,LaFollette,forAppellees. ̛̜@ OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge  Thecorporatepartiesarecloselyheldandcompetitivelyengagedinthelumberbusiness.DavidL.Billingsley[ Billingsley] , ownsasubstantialnumberofsharesoftheplaintiff,OneidaWoodProducts[ Oneida], andisacorporateofficer.BeforehisterminationonSeptember13,1996,hewasemployedasPlantManager. BillingsleyisalsoprincipalshareholderandPresidentofthedefendants,OneidaWoodIndustries,Inc.[ OWI],andLumber,Inc.Thecorporateplaintiffaccuseshimoffraudulentconductinvolvinghismanipulationsofthevariouscorporationsresultinginhisenrichmenttothedetrimentoftheplaintiff.ThecomplaintwasfiledonSeptember13,1996.ThecorporatedefendantsandBillingsleyincoursefiledtheiranswers,generallydenyingtheallegationsoffalsedealings. OnJune2,1997,theplaintifffiledamotionforatemporaryrestrainingorderagainstBillingsley,whoallegedlyintendedtocloseanaccessroadtotheplaintiffsplantwhichithadusedforeightyears. ,   כ Thedefendants,onJune5,1997,movedtodissolvetheTRO,allegingthattheaffidavitofEscueinsupportofthemotionwasinaccurate. OnJune11,1997,theplaintifffiledamotionforatemporaryinjunction,whichenlargeduponthemotionfortheTRO.ThemotionforatemporaryinjunctionwasheardonJune12,1997. ThethrustoftheplaintiffsevidenceisthatthedisputedroadacrossϜBillingsleyslandtothepublicVerdunroadhasbeenusedformorethansevenyearsandisvitaltoitscontinuedexistence.Thethrustofthedefendantsevidenceisthattheplaintiffhasnovestedrightsinthedisputedroadandthattheplaintiffhasunfetteredaccesstoanotherpublicroadonwhichitspropertyabuts. TheChancellorfoundnolegalbasisforapermanenteasement,butgavetheplaintifftherighttousethedrivewayfor90daysinordertofacilitateanotheraccess.Theplaintiffappeals,(1)insistingthatthedefendantsshouldbeestoppedfromdenyingtheexistenceoftheeasement,and(2)thattheChancellorimproperly awardedrelieftoanonmovingpartythathadnotbeenrequestedinanypleading. Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d)..ǜ ThedefendantsobjectedtotheintroductionofevidenceoftheownershipϜinterestsofBillingsleyinthesecompetingcorporations.Accordingtothepleadings,heownedonethirdofthesharesoftheplaintiffand100percentofthesharesofeachdefendant.HewastheSecretaryoftheplaintiffandthePresidentofeachdefendant.Asownerofthelandoverwhichtheeasementbyestoppelisclaimed,heallowedtheplaintiff,whichemployedhimasplantmanager,toutilizetheeasementforsevenyears.Itsusewasapparentlypermissive;therewasnodocumentationinvolved.GiventheapparentpostureofBillingsley,whichallegedlysubjectshimtoaconflictofinterestwithrespecttotheothershareholderoftheplaintiff,wethinktheargumentoftheplaintiffthatthereliefgrantedtoBillingsleywasinexcessofthepleadingsiswelltaken.See,T.C.A.4818310;4818403;KnoxTennRentalCo.v.JenkinsIns.,Inc.,755S.W.2d33(Tenn.1986);FidelityPhenixFireIns.Co.ofN.Y.v.Jackson,181S.W.2d625(Tenn.1944);JohnJ.HeirigsConst.Co.,Inc.v.Exide,709S.W.2d604(Tenn.App.1986). Theparticularproceduralproblempresentedhereistobefoundinthefactthattheissuewaswhetheratemporaryinjunctionshouldbeissued,keepinginmindthatnoneofthedefendantsfiledapleadingseekingtohavetheplaintiffsrighttousetheaccessroadterminated.ThedefendantsarguethattheChancellorcouldnotadjudicatetheissueofwhethertograntatemporaryinjunctionwithoutfirstdeterminingwhethertheplaintiffhadaneasementasclaimed;wedisagree.TheChancellorbasedhisconclusionthatnoeasementexistedbecausetheStatuteofFrauds,whichwasnotpleaded,requireddocumentationofit;hedidnotreachtheissueofwhetherthedefendantsshouldbeequitablyestoppedfromdenyingtheclaimedeasement,andastothisweoffernoopinionandnoneshouldbeinferred.Wenote,inpassing,thataneasementbyestoppelmaybeestablishedbyproofofarepresentationcommunicatedtotheplaintiffwhichwasbelievedandreliedupon.See,ϜChartonv.Burgess,CourtofAppeals,1989WL105655(1989).InlightofthedefendantssustainedobjectiontotestimonyrelativetotherelationshipandactivitiesofBillingsley,wethinkthattheissueofwhethertheplaintiffhasaneasementasclaimedshouldbereservedforamerittrial.Sincethedenialofatemporaryinjunctionwasbasedsolelyuponthefindingthatnoeasementexisted,thejudgmentisvacatedintotoandthecaseisremanded.Costsareassessedtotheappellee.       _____________________________       WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:__________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge̜%  ___________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge