ÿWPC  MгoKÚTèDXš•‡BêÚõt´æ’½Ñml¢¨šT`wP‹ð,G‚3š§îÓQäïø‘øý‡ÌK/ò,H-¤5N`'…ZN$=LÓd”}`4{`²&¡a¸}?#>SGðiз)Ç 5Ïù0½fѦ£hñ’Ó±}B¨+i“D²BÁ AS N»R·©Eä° $ ìdQ0žû w…;ý.ðzÐÅðN¸Ú¾µ‡um²>îT‡‡›à©¬”Ïä«0ßø`yÃLòoô¦SÇ+÷eÜOתx2æúÆ…¬Cò2‘Œ‹5v56Rú`œd|ŒÜ¦å] ¡5#‡••kµ è`¨¯K¯ÓòzÐmk cÍ®V”DàVùSÜ|ˆÈðѿԩMº‘ãÊg¡ëP@ª†“ßK¦Ø;Ò§Óxžæ®ÿé˜û¥ÇWù¸Ò©ÊvÿJÍÎ28=þxÇ\?Ë+“uÞbYT³xÄ_bÖ÷Rev–Š;]!ëH¨<þgD€ÕÎP±ŸŽ<:-½BäGz·¦ï¹xøP¬M¼UÁ`*~èÄwì©ʺó½/…¡Oö 78ÉÀmVÌÜCP"WÃbÖÄYç÷󣫬~>~•f]sRt*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 .6LU:LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL AQ†Æ× 0D 0Dá 0D% % D/i B˜ Bµ D3Ò ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - âãäDåæUçDè éDêÓ€ôê‚_#„3|xô Ñ X Ñ öÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X¿XXXÔÔ€ $rX X¿ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¿X $rÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñêñ›ñêñѰÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¿XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼–¼XXÔÓ  Óñôññêñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñêññôññôññôññôññêñ›ñêññôññôññôññôñ›ñôññôñ›ñôñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñôñœßt€ )>.*jxpþF` `€€@Edb` 8ttxPœð F tß›ñôñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€X¿X¼¼–ԈР ÐÌÌÌÌBOB€PARKS,€JOHN€E.€œHARNEY›,€III,à  à)Ð È À Ðand€GARY€BOWMAN,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ® ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à 8 àà  à)Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð `X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9708„CH„00412Ð F>  МVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRutherford€ChanceryÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€œ97CV›„180Ð øð  ÐWILLIAM€J.€REINHART€and€wife,à  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ÞÖ  ÐJUDITH€F.€REINHART,à à àà 8 àà  à)Рļ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellants.à 8 àà  à)Ð ˆ ÐÌÌà@¤¤êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYˆÌà@õõ'êàAT€MURFREESBOROˆÌÌà@ú ú êàTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€L.€WEATHERFORD,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌJOHN€G.€MITCHELL,€JR.Ì120€E.€Main€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€1336ÌMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€37133„1336Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌLAURA€TEKÌ1994€N.€Gallatin€RoadÌMadison,€Tennessee€37115Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌà@DD$êàAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDˆÌà@¿¿(êàAND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌœKOCH,›€œJ.ÌCAIN,€J.›ÌÐ  ´9¬28 ÐÓÓœò òÔ€„Ì„XX¿ÔòòÑ€ /VÑ›à@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€X¿X„„ÌԈР ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThis€is€a€dispute€over€a€drainage€easement.€€The€Chancery€Court€ofÏRutherford€County€reformed€the€deed€from€the€defendants€to€the€plaintiffs€to€includeÏa€description€of€the€easement.€€We€affirm€the€lower€courtððs€œjudgment,›€but€we€modifyÏthe€judgment€to€reflect€the€purchasersðð€obligation€to€keep€the€easement€cleaned€out.ÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ ˜  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€and€Mrs.€William€J.€Reinhart€owned€a€large€tract€of€land€on€theÏManchester€Highway€just€outside€of€Murfreesboro.€€They€divided€it€into€nine€separateÏtracts€and€held€an€auction.€€At€the€auction€the€auctioneer€announced€that€the€ownersÏ(Mr.€and€Mrs.€Reinhart)€or€the€purchaser€of€œLot›€œ9›€would€grant€an€easement€across€theÏlot€to€accommodate€the€natural€drainage€of€surface€water€from€the€other€lots.€€TheÏplaintiffs,€Bob€Parks,€John€E.€œHarney›,€III€and€Gary€Bowman,€bought€œLots›€œ1„8›€at€theÏsale.€€The€owners€and€sellers€signed€a€contract€reflecting€the€transaction€andÏincluding€the€following€provision:€ð ðEasement€will€(be)€granted€to€purchaser€across€(#)Ï9€tract€for€development€of€Tracts€1„8.ðð€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Reinhart€retained€œLot›€œ9.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€deed€to€the€purchasers,€however,€did€not€mention€the€œeasement,›€Ïœand›€the€œReinharts›€œrefused€to›€sign€a€letter€consenting€to€the€purchasersðð€drainage€planÏfor€the€œproperty.›€€The€purchasers€then€filed€this€action€for€a€mandatory€injunctionÏrequiring€the€œReinharts›€to€sign€the€letter€or€something€similar.€€The€chancellor€treatedÏthe€complaint€as€one€to€reform€the€deed€to€the€purchasers€and€entered€a€decreeÏreforming€the€deed€to€include€the€description€of€a€drainage€easement€across€the€frontÏof€œLot›€œ9.›ÌÌà@––-êàò òII.ó óˆÐ ”8Œ16 Їà Ø àà 0 àThe€record€shows€that€the€front€part€of€the€property€drains€naturally€toÏthe€south€through€a€œhighway›€drainage€ditch€running€alongside€Highway€41€and€acrossÏthe€front€of€œLot›€œ9.›€€The€state€does€not€always€keep€the€ditch€œclear,›€and€the€brushÏgrowing€in€it€impedes€the€flow€of€water€from€the€north.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€and€Mrs.€Reinhart€were€fearful€that€a€high€density€development€onÏthe€property€they€sold€would€substantially€increase€the€œrunoff›€across€the€property€theyÏretained.€€They€testified€that€the€purchasers€assured€them€that€they€would€not€furtherÏsubdivide€the€eight€lots,€but€then€they€found€out€that€the€purchasers€intended€to€buildÏsixteen€houses€on€the€eight€lots.€€Therefore,€they€refused€to€sign€the€drainage€letter.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€engineering€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€the€developmentÏproposed€by€the€plaintiffs€would€increase€the€runoff€from€the€property€by€fifteenÏœpercent,›€but€the€additional€water€would€raise€the€level€in€the€drainage€ditch€only€oneÏinch.€€The€one€inch€increase€in€the€water€level€would€increase€the€width€of€the€waterÏstream€across€œLot›€œ9›€by€approximately€three€feet.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAfter€hearing€the€proof,€the€chancellor€made€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àTHE€œCOURT:€›€Well,€considering€everything€thatÏhas€been€presented€in€this€case,€I€am€confident€that€Mr.Ïand€Mrs.€Reinhart€understood€that€this€water€was€going€toÏbe€coming€down€on€their€property,€and€they€needed€toÏgive€some€sort€of€easement€for€that€.€.€.€So,€I€amÏconvinced€that€there€needs€to€be€something€concerningÏthe€drainage€from€this€other€property€across€Mr.ÏReinhartððs€property.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à*à  à*à è à*Ð ø4ð-1 ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àœI›€certainly€donððt€think€it€was€intended€by€anybody€toÏlet€these€folks€just€run€water€wherever€they€want€to€on€Mr.ÏReinhartððs€property.€€I€assume€it€was€to€take€the€naturalÏflow.€€Evidently€thatððs€the€natural€drainage€there€right€nowÐ ¨9 26 Ðand€has€been.€€And€œthat€that›ððs€what€he€intended€that€œthey›Ïcould€keep€on€using€that.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àRather€than€issuing€a€mandatory€injunction,€I€wouldÏbe€more€inclined€to€say€that€this€warranty€deed€needs€toÏbe€reformed€so€as€to€contain€an€easement€about€this.€€IÏdo€think€that€an€engineer€or€somebody€that€knows€howÏneeds€œto›€kind€of€show€where€this€drainage,€if€it€is€a€naturalÏdrainage,€and€I€take€it€from€the€testimony€that€it€is,€œthatÏthat›€could€have€some€description€to€it.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à*à  à*à è à*Ð XP  ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àI€really€wouldnððt€feel€comfortable€in€granting€aÏmandatory€injunction€for€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Reinhart€to€sign€thisÏconsent€letter.€€I€would€be€inclined,€and€I€take€it€this€is€allÏof€the€proof€that€either€of€you€could€submit€on€this€issue;ÏI€feel€like€it€would€be€proper€for€me€to€treat€this€as€aÏcomplaint€to€reform€the€deed.€€Put€in€the€deed€aÏdescription€of€the€natural€drainage€of€this€water.€€AndÏwhen€that€is€done,€then€I€think€that€everybody€will€haveÏdone€exactly€what€they€meant€to€starting€out€with.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àThatððs€the€way€I€am€going€to€treat€this.€€Rather€thanÏa€petition€for€mandatory€injunction,€I€am€going€to€treat€it€asÏa€complaint€to€reform€the€deed.€€I€am€going€to€require€anÏorder€that€the€deed€œbe›€reformed€so€as€to€contain€thisÏeasement.€€I€think€thatððs€the€easement€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏReinhart€had€in€mind€when€they€signed€this€contractÏconsenting€to€an€easement.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àThe€final€judgment€contained€an€order€reforming€the€plaintiffsðð€deed€toÏinclude€œa€drainage›€easement€across€œLot›€œ9.›€€The€description€œroughly€follows›€œthe›€ditchÏalong€Highway€41.ÌÌà@zz,êàò òIII.ó óˆÐ x-p&) ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€and€Mrs.€Reinhart€insist€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€finding€that€theyÏagreed€to€grant€the€plaintiffs€a€drainage€easement€across€œLot›€œ9.›€€The€finding€is,€ofÏcourse,€presumed€to€be€correct,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.€€We€think€the€evidence€fully€supports€theÏchancellorððs€findings€„„€even€without€the€presumption.€€The€evidence€from€theÐ ¸8°15 Ðauctioneer,€the€provision€in€the€contract€(even€though€it€does€not€mention€a€òòdrainageóóÐ  Ðeasement),€and€the€testimony€from€the€parties,€make€it€clear€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏReinhart€agreed€that€the€property€they€were€selling€had€to€drain€to€the€south€acrossÏthe€property€they€œintended€to€keep.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€puzzling€thing€about€this€whole€controversy€is€the€fact€that€theÏdevelopment€of€the€property€sold€will€not€change€the€natural€drainage.€€The€surfaceÏwater€œnow€flows›€in€a€southerly€direction,€basically€down€the€highway€side€ditch.€€It€isÏtrue€that€the€development€planned€by€the€plaintiffs€will€increase€the€surface€waterÏrunoff€by€fifteen€percent,€but€the€œexpert€testimony€in€the€record€indicates€that€theÏimpact›€on€œLot›€œ9€will€be€minimal.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€œReinharts›€also€complain€that€the€contract€did€not€contain€aÏdescription€of€the€easement.€€We€find,€however,€that€the€chancellorððs€location€of€theÏeasement€will€have€the€least€impact€on€the€œReinharts›ðð€property.€€œIt›€seems€to€beÏobvious€that€locating€the€easement€along€the€existing€drainage€ditch€is€preferable€toÏlocating€it€at€any€other€place€on€the€property.ÌÌà@oo-êàò òIV.ó óˆÐ È(À!$ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€œReinharts›€also€insist€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€treating€theÏcomplaint€for€a€mandatory€injunction€as€a€complaint€to€reform€the€deed.€€We€note,Ïhowever,€that€the€complaint€contained€a€prayer€for€œð ðsuch›€other€further€and€generalÏrelief€to€which€they€may€be€entitled€in€equity€and€good€conscience€.€.€.€.ðð€€œ€òòGibsonððsÐ (2 +. ÐSuits€in€Chanceryóó€(VI€Ed.€ðð€220)€states€that€ð ð[i]f›€the€plaintiff€is€not€entitled€to€theÐ 4-0 Ðspecific€relief€he€prays,€he€may€under€the€general€prayer€have€such€other€relief€as€theÏpleadings€and€proof€will€justify,€provided€it€is€not€of€a€character€to€take€the€defendantÏby€œsurprise.ðð›€The€œReinharts›€could€hardly€claim€surprise€where€the€original€complaintÐ ¨9 26 ÐÑ /VÑÑX°ÑÑ  Ñœprayed›€for€a€mandatory€injunction€requiring€them€to€execute€a€grant€of€a€generalÏeasement€€and€the€chancellor€reformed€their€deed€to€include€a€grant€of€a€particularÏeasement.€€The€relief€was€for€all€practical€purposes€the€same€as€the€relief€asked€forÏin€the€complaint.€€We€think€the€chancellorððs€action€falls€well€within€his€power€to€grantÏð ðsuch€relief€as€is€consistent€with€the€scope€and€œobject›€of€the€bill.ðð€€òòHayes€v.€œPamplin›óó,Ð ˆ€ Ð2€Tenn.€œCas›.€630,€2€œShannon›€630€(Tenn.€1878).ÌÌà@‹‹-êàò òV.ó óˆÐ (  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€have€already€dealt€with€the€œReinharts›ðð€final€contention€that€the€fifteenÏpercent€increase€in€the€runoff€from€the€plaintiffsðð€property€is€an€unreasonable€burdenÏon€their€property,€a€taking€of€their€property,€and€a€nuisance.€€In€fact,€the€record€œseemsÏto€indicate›€that€the€Reinhart€property€will€œnot€be›€affected€very€œmuch.›€€œRaising›€the€waterÏlevel€in€the€œexisting›€œditch›€œone€inch,€and€causing€the€water€to€spread›€out€three€œfeet›€fromÏits€current€width€can€hardly€be€œconsidered€a›€major€impact€on€the€œland.ÌÌà@oo-êàò òVI.ó óˆÐ %  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs€have€acknowledged€that€they€have€a€duty€to€keep€theÏeasement€cleaned€out€so€that€the€water€will€flow€freely€across€Lot€9.€€The€lower€courtððsÏjudgment€will€be€modified€to€impose€that€duty€on€the€plaintiffs€and€their€successors€inÏtitle€whose€property€is€benefitted€by€the€easement.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed€as€modified€and€the€causeÏis€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Rutherford€County€for€any€further€proceedingsÏnecessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àÓÓà à àà 8 àà  àà è à____________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌ̜Рx