WPC1 Ro=2^RqW>k^gRGȀsx N@ͣɩQ`PsS=jtʁ;3xC7]1Gnoc+ux W͕V/n_1nM[m9wwᄁb#Rh yB? ]nvHԗ H׾4!\(ֳQb&Ӄz9Hz6AiE׹QppY fzD[Qw[~<cRI|EIև',Y^$^Vq(x|8`8Aj4I6OjO@H5BzɴY `uЉSۂNxө8 _|!x8+ c.29$VӝS?7#t/4L`;]ƾyH4KQ % 0 UHp w@ 4   -# -P %} 8 0 0D-=-j8U: D3 0D+ Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL<\( 9Z &Courier RegularX(k\$ X]XXX      TR[A' LegalY,3' LetterA' Legal3' LetterT<09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular E !"#$%D&Ӏ'Ӏw#%3|x1 ##PXd# ##PXd#  D{$XXXX        1    Therewouldbesomemeritinthisargumentexceptfortheadversepossession   oftheMillersastoMr.Sammon'spredecessorintitle. .#PXd#  ((3Ē$ k\! XXXX      TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T      0  (#$  0   ##PXd# ##PXd# .#PXd#   XSXXXOXXS Ad   FILEDO   December17,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular....'dxd(3$ !   d-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd k\! XXXX      TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ݛ      8INTHECOURTOFAPPEALS   'l*6&"h 8 `E tt06H lߛ HH(#(#'ATKNOXVILLE  BROMLEYSAMMONS,   h     )HAMILTON 0x CHANCERY   `     h     )C.A.No. (#(#HH03A019803CH00094  PlaintiffAppellant h     ) P     `     h     )   `     h     )HON.R.VANNOWENSvs.   `     h     )CHANCELLOR      `     h     )   `     h     )FLETCHERMILLERandJEANMILLER,  ) H     `     h     )   `     h     )  DefendantsAppellees    )AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED X D.MITCHELLBRYANT,Cleveland,forAppellant.̜ARVINH.REINGOLD,Chattanooga,forAppellees.  OPINION $    McMurray,J.      Theappellant,BromleySammons,andtheappellees,FletcherandJeanMiller,ownadjoiningtractsoflandinHamiltonCounty,Tennessee.Mr.Sammons'easternpropertylineadjoinstheMillers'westernpropertyline.Mr.Sammonsfirstfiledanactionregardingthesubjectboundarylinein1983,butthatactionwasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Atsometime,theactionwasreinstatedandthendismissedseveraltimesbeforeitwasfinallyheardbythetrialcourtinNovember1997.  Mr.SammonscontendsthattheMillers'fenceisonhispropertyandshouldberemoved.TheMillersassertthattheyhave 9P-:  87XXdXXd7    ' 8#PXd#    'acquiredtitletotherealpropertyindispute,atriangularstrip   ' 87XXdXXd7     87XXdXXd7     87XXdXXd7     87XXdXXd7     87XXdXXd7     87XXdXXd7     8#PXd#    'measuringapproximatelyonetenthofanacre,throughadverse   possessionandprescription.Afterabenchtrial,thetrialcourtresolvedtheissuesinfavoroftheMillers.  ThesoleissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthattheMillershadacquiredtitletothepropertyinquestionthroughadversepossessionandprescription.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  TheMillersboughttheirpropertyonHarrisonOoltewahRoadinHamiltonCounty,Tennesseein1957,andatthattime,Mr.JamesCagleownedthepropertywhereMr.Sammonsnowresides.AccordingtotheMillers,adilapidated,partialfenceranbetweentheirpropertyandMr.Cagle'spropertyfromtherearoftheproperty.In1962,theMillersapproachedMr.CagleaboutreplacingandextendingtheoldfencebetweentheirtwopropertieswithanewfencebecausetheMillerswantedanenclosedspaceforaponytheywerebuyingfortheirdaughterforChristmas.Accordingtothe' 7XXdXXd7  'Millers,Mr.Cagleacknowledgedthathewanteda"linefence,"butneitherhenortheMillersknewwheretheactualboundarylinewas.However,whenthefencewaserected,itappearsthatallbelievedtheywereestablishinga"linefence"closetotheactualpropertyline.  In1977,Mr.SammonsmovedtothepropertythatadjoinstheMillers'property.Mr.SammonsleasedthepropertybeforepurchasingitinMarch1979.AccordingtoMr.Sammons,hediscussedwithMr.Millerthematterregardingtheboundarylinebetweentheproperty,andMr.Milleradmittedthathedidnotknow x7+8  7XXdXXd7  ' 7XXdXXd7   7XXdXXd7  'wheretheboundarylinewas.Mr.Millerstatedthathehadanagreementwiththepriorownerofthepropertytoputupthefence.Duringhistestimony,Mr.Sammonsadmittedthathewasaware"thattherewassomediscrepancy"aboutthefencelinebeforehepurchasedhisproperty.  Numerouswitnessestestifiedregardingtheexistenceandplacementofthefence.Afterconsideringtheconflictingtestimonyofthewitnesses,thetrialcourtruledinfavoroftheMillers.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatthefencewasbuiltintheearly1960sbybothpropertyownersandneitherwascertainoftheactuallocationoftheboundaryline,althoughtheMillersbelievedthatthefencewasalongtheirwesternpropertyline.Thecourt 6 +. furtherconcludedthat"[t]hefencewasplacedalongthelineofapartialfencewhichhadbeeninplacemanyyearspreviousto1962."AlthoughasurveyorhiredbyMr.Sammonsin1979foundthatthefencewasentirelyonhisproperty,thetrialcourtnotedthattheMillershave"refusedtoacquiesceinthesurveyor'sfindingsandhaveheldthepropertyadverselytotheplaintiffsince1979."Therefore,thecourtconcludedthattheMillershaveobtainedtitletothepropertyinquestion.(Toreachthisconclusion,itisnecessarytoconcludefurtherthattheMillersalsoheldadverselytoMr.Sammons'predecessorintitle.Wenotethattherecordissufficienttosupportsuchafinding.)  Theappellantarguesthattheevidencepreponderatedagainstthetrialcourt'sfindingthattheMillershadobtainedtitletothepropertybyadversepossessionandprescription.HecontendsthattheMillersofferednoprooftorebuthisclaimthatthefenceisapproximatelythirtysevenfeetontohisproperty,butinsteadassertedthattheyhadacquiredtitletothestripofpropertybyadversepossessionandprescription.Hefurtherarguesthatsincehedidnotacquirethelanduntil1979andhefiledsuitagainsttheMillersin1983,hewaswithinthesevenyearstatuteoflimitationsforadversepossession(T.C.A.282103).  %  1      כ 3`'* Furthermore,heassertsthattoshowownershipbyprescription,theMillers"wouldhavebeenrequiredtoprove,byclearandconvincingevidence,theiradversepossessionofthispropertyextendedbackuntilatleast1963,twentyyearspriortothefilingoftheinitiallawsuit."  TheMillersarguethattitletothelandpassedtothembyadversepossessionandprescription.Theycontendthattheyerectedthefencein1962foraponytheygavetheirdaughterforChristmas.Theyassertthattitletothepropertypassedtothemsevenyearsafterthefencewaserected.TheydisputeMr.Sammons'contentionthattheelementsofadversepossessionmusthavebeenestablishedwithrespecttohim.Theycontendthatoncetheyacquiredtitletotheproperty,theirtitletotheproperty"remainedeffectiveagainstsubsequentpurchasersoftheCagleproperty,"whichincludedMr.Sammons.Moreover,theMillersrejectMr.Sammons'contentionthattheiruseofthepropertyinquestiondidnotextendbacktwentyyearsbeforetheinitiallawsuitin1983.TheMillersmaintainthatthefencewasbuiltin1962,overtwentyyearsbeforeMr.Sammonsfiledhisinitialactionregardingtheboundary.  OurstandardofreviewunderRule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure,is"[u]nlessotherwiserequiredbystatute, 6 +. reviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtincivilactionsshallbedenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise."SeealsoTennessee X FarmersMut.Ins.Co.v.AmericanMut.Liab.Ins.Co.,840S.W.2d 8 933,936(Tenn.App.1992).AprincipleoflawconcomitantwithRule13(d)isthatwheretheevidenceisconflicting,findingsofthetrialcourtwhicharedependentondeterminingthecredibilityofwitnessesareentitledtogreatweightonappealbecausethetrialjudgehadtheopportunitytoobservethemanneranddemeanorofthewitnesseswhiletestifying.Galbreathv.Harris,811S.W.2d x 88,91(Tenn.App.1990)(citingTownofAlamov.ForcumJamesCo., X  205Tenn.478,483,327S.W.2d47,49(1959)).Thetrialcourtwillnotbereversedonanissuethathingesonwitnesscredibility"unlessthereisfoundintherecordclear,concrete,andconvincingevidenceotherthantheoraltestimonyofwitnesseswhichcontradictthetrialcourt'sfindings."Id.(citation )  omitted).  SinceourSupremeCourt'sdecisioninErckv.Church,87Tenn. X/#& 575,11S.W.794(1889),thelawinTennesseehasbeenthat"whereapurchaseroflandaccidentallyorbymistakeenclosesacontiguousstrip,believingheisplacingthefenceontheboundary,andholdstheenclosedstripfor[seven]years,his 6 +. possessionisadverse,andwillavailagainstthetrueowner."Lemmv.Adams,955S.W.2d70,72(Tenn.App.1997);Peoplesv.   Hagaman,31Tenn.App.398,403,215S.W.2d827,829(1948). x Furthermore,itissufficientthatthepossessionwasduetoignoranceormistakeastothetruelocationoftheboundaryline.Libertov.Steele,188Tenn.529,533,221S.W.2d701,703(Tenn. `  1949);Fosterv.Hill,510S.W.2d520,522(Tenn.App.1973). @  Titleisnotvestedinanadverseholderaftersevenyears,buttheadverseholderdoeshaveadefensewhenanotherpartyseekstodispossesshimoftheproperty.Id.However,legaltitletoreal  propertymaybeacquiredbyprescription,whichistwentyyears'actualadversepossessionwithorwithoutcoloroftitle.Moorev. X  МBrannan,304S.W.2d660,66768(Tenn.App.1957);""#Seealso##""# 8" Hallmarkv.Tidwell,849S.W.2dS.W.2d787*Te (Tenn .!App.1992)!$andthecases $` citedtherein.$!!  Numerouswitnessesprovidedconflictingtestimonyregardingtheexistenceandplacementofthefence.Theevidenceindicatesafencewasbuiltintheearly1960salongwhereapartialfencehadalreadybeeninplaceforseveralyearsandtheMillershaveheldthepropertyinquestionsincetheearly1960s.Mr.Sammonsadmittedduringhistestimonythathewasawareof"some discrepancy"regardingtheboundarylinebeforehepurchasedhis 4@), propertyin1979,yetdidnotactivelypursueanactiontoestablishtheboundaryuntilseveralyearsthereafter.   Afterconsideringtheevidence,thetrialcourtresolvedallissuesinfavoroftheMillersandenteredjudgmentaccordingly.Weareoftheopinionthattheevidencesupportsthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourt.̜%              %   `     h     ___________________________   `     h     DonT.McMurray,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge___________________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge  )  &&&  &   8INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSATKNOXVILLE  BROMLEYSAMMONS,   h     )HAMILTONCHANCERY X    `     h     )C.A.No.03A019803CH00094  PlaintiffAppellant h     ) 8    `     h     )   `     h     )HON.R.VANNOWENSvs.   `     h     )CHANCELLOR P     `     h     )   `     h     )FLETCHERMILLERandJEANMILLER,  )      `     h     )   `     h     )  DefendantsAppellees    )AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  %%$,XXX$%%@  & JUDGMENT  H! Л    ThisappealcameontobeheardupontherecordfromtheChanceryCourtofHamiltonCounty,briefsandargumentofcounsel.Uponconsiderationthereof,thisCourtisofopinionthattherewasnoreversibleerrorinthetrialcourt.  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinallrespects.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourt.   `     h     PERCURIAM