WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u 0dv UB % U6" U>X B) DC AM BOU*l D3-v~`v 0@ AO@ 0D D/J Byf|$3|xZ($ FDGDHDIUJDKDLDMDNDOӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 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<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G d<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#!  ''   YYY FILED'X June26,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk  v !#d#!  $          ""& Themajorityviewessentiallyholdsthatamobilehomedoesnotchangeitscharacterbycoveringitsexteriorandmountingitonapermanentfoundation.&&&&'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !        \RA'\7MXXdd7""R%($A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE ̜FRANKSANJURJO,ETAL.,  )C/ANO.03A019708CH00330      ) PlaintiffsAppellees,  )BLOUNTCHANCERY      )v.      )HON.CHESTERS.RAINWATER,JR.,      )CHANCELLORLOWELLWOODS,   )      )AFFIRMEDAND DefendantAppellant.  )REMANDED̜EDGARA.WILDER,Maryville,forPlaintiffsAppellees.̜ROBERTW.WHITE,SHEPHERD&WHITE,Maryville,forDefendantAppellant.̛̜@ OPINION ̜        Franks,J.Ӝ  Thedeterminativeissueonappealiswhetherrestrictionsindefendantsdeedpreventhisconvertingfourteenunitswhichhadcomprisedmotelrooms,intodwellinghousesontheproperty.TheTrialJudgeenjoineddefendantfrominstallingtheseunitsontherestrictedproperty.  Therestrictionindefendantsdeedstates:0 0 Nomobilehomes,trailers,shacksorothertentsshallbeusedaseithertemporaryorpermanentresidentialornonresidentialstructuresontheabovedescribedproperty.  InDecemberof1996,defendanttransportedtohispropertythefourteenunitsindispute.TheseunitsweretakenfromabuildingwhichhadbeenaRoadwayInnMotel.Defendantremovedthebricksfromaroundtheunits,affixedatowingchassisandwheelsandtransportedtheunitstohisproperty.Plaintiffs,uponobservingtheunitsbeingplacedontheproperty,broughtthisaction,andattrialdefendanttestifiedthateachunithadabedroomandabathandunitswouldbejoinedfordimensionsof28'X40'and28'X60'.Heintendedtoplacetheseunitsonafoundation,removethewheelsandthetowingchassis,andconstructpartialexteriorbrickwallsandroofswithvaryingdesigns.  Defendantonappealraisesthefollowingissues:0 0 TheTrialCourterredbyfailingtorequiretheplaintifftoestablishthemeaningoftheterms trailersand mobilehomesasstatedintherestrictivecovenantofthedeedinquestion,inlightofthefactthatthetermswereambiguous.0 0 TheTrialCourterredbyfailingtoconsideradistinctionbetween mobilehomesand trailersandthedefendantsstructures.  Ourreviewisdenovoontherecordoftheproceedings.TherecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessastotheTrialJudgesevidentiarydeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Rule13(d)T.R.A.P.  Whilerestrictionsonthefreeuseofrealpropertyarenotfavoredandarestrictlyconstrued,theintentofthepartiesasexpressedintherestrictionscontrolsandwillbeenforcedaccordingtotheexpressedintentionoftheparties.BeaconHillsHomeownersAssociation,Inc.,v.PalmerProperties,Inc.,911S.W.2d736,739(Tenn.App.1995).  Infindingthatdefendantsunitsareprohibitedbytherestrictioninthedeeds,theChancellorreliedheavilyonAlbertv.Orwige,731S.W.2d63(Tenn.App.1987),aswellasBeaconHills.  Themajorthrustofdefendantsargumentisthathisunitsare modularbuildingunitsanddonotfallwithintherestrictioninthedeeds,sincemobilehomesaredefinedseparatelyinTennesseeCodeAnnotated551105.  UnderdefinitionsinT.C.A.68126303(6):0 0 Amodularbuildingunitmeansastructuralunit,orapreassembledcomponentunit,includingthenecessaryelectrical,plumbing,heating,ventilatingandotherservicesystems,manufacturedoffsiteandtransportedtothepointofuseforinstallationorerection,withorwithoutotherspecifiedcomponents,asafinishedbuilding,andnotdesignedforreadyremovaltoanothersite.DefendantcontraststhiswiththedefinitionofamobilehomedefinedinT.C.A.551105(a):0 0 Mobilehomeorhousetrailermeansanyvehicleorconveyance,notselfpropelled,designedfortravelonthepublichighways,anddesignedforuseasaresidence,office,apartment,storehouse,warehouse,oranyothersimilarpurpose.  Theevidenceestablishesthatdefendantsunitshavecharacteristicsofamobilehomeortrailer,aswellasamodularbuildingunit.̛  Defendantsunitswereplaceduponachassisandwheelsbydefendant,whichenabledtheunitstotraveluponthepublichighways,butwerealsopreassembledstructuralunitswhichalsocanbesaidofamobilehome.  InAlbertthedefendantshadpurchaseda structureconsistingoftwounits,each52'longandapproximately13'wide.Theyweretowedtothesitebyatractortraileroverapublichighwaywhereconcretefooterswerepouredonthesiteforthefoundations.Thewheels,axlesandtongueswerethenremoved,anditwasarguedthatthestructurewasinfacta modularhomeratherthana mobile͜home.TheCourtinAlbertconcludedthatthesomewhatdifferingconstructioninthatcasevisavisamobilehomewas adistinctionwithoutadifference.Id.at65.  ThisCourtinBeaconHillswasconsideringastructureknownasa manufacturedhome.TheCodealsodefinesamanufacturedhome68126202(4)whichtheCourtcontrastedwiththedefinitionofamobilehomeorhousetrailerdefinedinT.C.A.551105.TheCourtconcludedthattheproposedstructure fallswithineitherdefinition.Id.at737,andheld,relyingontherationaleofAlbert,thatamanufacturedhomeandamobilehomelikewisearedistinctionswithoutadifference.  ThedefendantessentiallyurgesustodepartfromtheseauthoritiesandfollowtherationaleofBrasherv.Grove,551S.W.2d302(Mo.App.1977)wherethecourtheldthatfiveunitswhichweremanufacturedforaHolidayInnofAmericaandhadbeenpartofaHolidayInninNorthLittleRock,Arkansas,couldbeplacedonlandsandutilizedasadwelling,wheredeedrestrictionspreventedtrailersfrombeing constructedontheselands.TheBrasherCourtconcededitsholdingwasinaccordwithinthe minorityviewofcasesfromotherjurisdictions.Albertconsideredthisview,butelectedtofollowthe majorityviewfromotherjurisidctions. )   ׀  WeareconstrainedtofollowtheteachingsofAlbertandBeaconHill.AsBeaconHillnotes,thefactthatthestructureisencapsulatedinapleasingexteriorandaestheticallyappealing,wouldnotdefeattheintentexpressedinlandrestrictions.InthiscasetheChancellorfoundthatdefendantsunitspossessthecharacteristicsofmobilehomesortrailersthatthepartiesintendedtoexcludefromthepropertybytherestrictionsinthedeeds.̀  WeconcludetheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsoftheTrialCourtandaffirmthejudgmentasenteredbelow.  Thecostoftheappealisassessedtotheappellant.       __________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.̜CONCUR:̜___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜___________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.