’WPC_U b#Įl %-^ 3 0ˆ?UNĒw4 z-ҧy ˆ mŠ Ę” Ęg Ę- Ęó 0D¹ Nż 0J’ EI 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hż 0re 0|× 0†S 0Ł 1uišŽ 0dxUN>ÜU*{D“æ5R‡b˜C؇ė!vr$8č'µ *tÕ+‚I.›Ė1°f4L6Sb7ε9Jƒ;­Ķ=Az@»B.ÕF<Hv~?IvÓ½J 0ėP B{Q 0p˜Q D3R D-;R 0KhR AS³RĘS 0¤ĢS 0DpT A«“T˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eČČ,,,,ČČ0»•u&+s (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularŃB+am Files`C ˜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.wpt3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) HILDENBRANDTHeldman CAinLossieLedbetterSpitzerHohenwaldLillieHildenbrandtsMathisw]hether suasponte t]he i]tBemisStarksTallentCatesServsRodellWillinghamGallatinBrenneman Madu HousHartsell DuroAssocsTijernaPlentlChernNaramoreMahaffeyRagsdaleSovranMarressHembree CrimPartonSeelbachParrishYeiserNiston G.S.HinsenThornburgHobbsP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times qŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€following€day,€Ms.€Gladden€acquired€another€contiguous€tract€from€Edna€Harris.€€This€tract,Ļcomprising€approximately€one„third€of€an€acre,€had€separated€the€tract€Ms.€Gladden€had€acquired€from€R.€T.€Ō_ŌLedbetterŌ_ŌĻand€his€wife€from€State€Route€100.€€Following€the€purchase,€a€small€portion€of€Ms.€Gladdenššs€northwesternĻboundary€line€abutted€the€highway.€€Ģ ‰Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌMs.€Gladden€used€this€road€because€other€portions€of€her€property€were€separated€from€the€highway€by€aĻgulch.€€Even€though€there€was€another€road€connecting€Ms.€Gladdenššs€property€with€the€highway,€Ms.€Gladden€andĻher€guests€used€the€Ridge€Road€to€enter€her€property€because€the€other€road€was€so€steep.€€However,€they€used€theĻother€road€to€exit€the€property€because€it€provided€a€safer€entry€onto€the€highway.Ģ +Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€description€of€the€property€in€the€deed€from€Ms.€Gladden€to€the€Savages€did€not€match€the€descriptionĻof€the€property€in€the€deed€from€R.€T.€Ledbetter€to€Ms.€Gladden.€€Mr.€Savage€apparently€retained€a€surveyor€toĻprepare€a€legal€description€of€the€property,€and€this€description€was€used€rather€than€the€earlier€one.Ģ wŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌDon€Hildenbrandt€has€succeeded€to€the€ownership€of€his€parentsšš€property€located€to€the€south€of€the€tractĻformerly€owned€by€Ms.€Gladden.Ģ- ł- ŽŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌMr.€Hildenbrandt€actually€warned€the€Savages€that€if€they€moved€a€mobile€home€onto€their€property,€heĻš šwould€doze€it€Ō_Ōdown.ššŌ_Ō€€Ģ 9Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€intervening€complaint€was€actually€filed€on€Lossie€Ledbetterššs€behalf€by€her€daughter,€Joann€Holder.€ĻMs.€Holder€possessed€her€motherššs€power„of„attorney.€€It€is€perhaps€more€than€coincidence€that€Joann€Holder€is€DonĻHildenbrandtššs€cousin.€€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€were€represented€by€the€same€lawyer€at€trial.Ģ }Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌMr.€White€acknowledged€that€the€1945€deed€from€R.€T.€Ledbetterššs€heirs€to€the€Hildenbrandts€suggestedĻthat€Ms.€Gladden€did€not€own€any€property€south€of€the€northern€edge€of€the€Ridge€Road.€€However,€he€opined€thatĻR.€T.€Ledbetterššs€heirs€could€not€convey€the€.28„acre€tract€south€of€the€Ridge€Road€to€the€Hildenbrandts€because€R.ĻT.€Ledbetter€had€conveyed€it€to€Ms.€Gladden€twelve€years€earlier.Ģ lŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌEven€though€Ms.€Ō_ŌLedbetterŌ_Ō€had€presented€no€evidence€of€damage€to€her€property€caused€by€the€clearingĻundertaken€by€the€Savages,€the€trial€court€authorized€Ms.€Ō_ŌLedbetterŌ_Ō€to€sue€the€Savages€š šat€the€end€of€one€Ō_ŌyearššŌ_Ō€if€theĻš šrunoff€arising€directly€from€the€removal€of€timber€and€undergrowth€along€the€ridge€road€by€the€Ō_Ōplaintiffs.ššŌ_Ō€€Mr.ĻŌ_ŌHildenbrandtŌ_Ō€was€the€only€witness€who€testified€that€he€used€the€trees€planted€along€the€Ridge€Road€to€preventĻerosion€on€his€property.Ģ .Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€Savages€did€not€point€out,€as€they€could€have,€that€the€trial€court€had€erroneously€determined€that€theĻharm€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€had€caused€the€Savages€could€somehow€be€offset€by€the€harm€that€the€Savages€had€causedĻMs.€Ledbetter.€€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€damages€claim€was€unrelated€to€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€damage€claim.Ģ «Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€amount€of€the€trial€courtššs€judgment€was€$6,110.54;€however,€the€only€evidence€in€the€recordĻregarding€the€amount€of€the€Savagesšš€damages€is€that€their€damages€amounted€to€$6,110.50.Ģ jŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌEven€though€this€motion€is€stamped€filed€on€March€29,€1999,€three€days€after€the€hearing,€the€transcriptĻof€the€March€26,€1999€hearing€reveals€that€this€motion€was€presented€to€and€considered€by€the€trial€court€during€theĻhearing.€The€record€does€not€reveal€the€reasons€for€the€three„day€delay€in€the€filing€of€the€motion€that€had€beenĻsubmitted€to€the€trial€court€on€March€26,€1999.Ģ xŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌFor€example,€the€Savagesšš€response€to€the€portion€of€the€statement€of€the€evidence€regarding€Mr.ĻHildenbrandtššs€testimony€was€as€follows:€š šThe€plaintiffs€do€not€agree€with€the€last€sentence€in€the€statement€of€thisĻwitness€that€there€was€proof€in€the€record€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€was€recovering€from€by„pass€surgery.€€Otherwise,Ļwhile€not€accepting€the€testimony€as€truthful,€the€plaintiffs€have€no€objection€with€the€statements€as€to€this€witness.€ĻThe€plaintiffs€do€accept€as€truthful€the€statement€of€this€witness€that€he€told€Mr.€Savage€that€if€he€moved€a€modularĻhome€onto€the€cleared€lot€that€he,€Don€Hildenbrandt,€would€doze€it€down.ššĢ ‘Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€trial€court€explained€in€its€January€22,€1999€order€that€š šit€was€error€to€grant€the€requested€relief€[theĻrelief€requested€in€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€November€20,€1998€motion€to€reconsider]€.€.€.€in€thatĻthese€parties€having€filed€a€pleading€not€authorized€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€designated€as€aĻmotion€to€reconsider,€the€Court€.€.€.€has€no€duty€to€create€a€claim€.€.€..ššĢ ¦Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌWe€have€already€noted€that€the€trial€court€later€recognized€its€error€in€awarding€a€monetary€judgmentĻagainst€Ms.€Ledbetter€and€entered€an€order€on€April€12,€1999,€correcting€its€mistake.Ģ BŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€lawyer€also€filed€the€appeal€bond€required€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€6€on€March€16,€1999.Ģ IŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌIt€is€not€altogether€clear€how€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€to€enter€its€April€12,€1999€order€pursuant€toĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.01€if€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€consider€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€March€29,Ļ1999€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion.€€Fortunately,€deciding€this€case€does€not€require€us€to€address€thisĻconundrum.Ģ ÄŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌWe€have€already€held€that€the€November€20,€1998€€š šmotion€to€Ō_ŌreconsiderššŌ_Ō€filed€on€behalf€of€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€should€be€treated€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.Ģ @Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌFor€the€purpose€of€this€particular€discussion,€it€does€not€matter€that€the€portion€of€the€January€22,€1999Ļorder€denying€Mr.€Ō_ŌHiledenbrandtŌ_Ōššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€November€20,€1998€š šmotion€to€Ō_ŌreconsiderššŌ_Ō€was€erroneous.€ĻThat€matter€could€have€been€taken€up€on€appeal.Ģ £Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€place€great€weight€on€the€account€of€the€trial€contained€in€theĻaffidavit€of€the€lawyer€who€represented€them€at€trial€that€accompanied€their€February€19,€1999€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ļ59.04€motion.€€We€cannot€consider€the€factual€assertions€in€this€affidavit€because€affidavits€cannot€be€used€to€vary€orĻcontradict€the€record€itself.€€ņņParrish€v.€Yeiseróó,€41€Tenn.€App.€690,€694,€298€S.W.2d€556,€558€(1955).€€Ģ 7Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThis€statement€of€the€evidence,€which€was€rejected€by€the€trial€court,€stated€that€š šMs.€Dye€asked€severalĻtimes€during€the€nighttime€hours€for€a€continuance€since€she€had€elderly€witnesses€and€she€was€too€tired€to€representĻher€clients€properly.€€These€requests€were€denied€by€the€trial€Ō_Ōcourt.ššŌ_ŌĢ Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€trial€courtššs€account€of€the€October€5,€1998€trial€differs€from€the€statement€of€the€evidence€the€trialĻcourt€later€approved.€€While€the€statement€of€the€evidence€indicates€that€Ms.€Dye€did€not€comment€about€the€latenessĻof€the€hour€until€after€closing€argument,€the€trial€courtššs€account€indicates€that€Ms.€Dyeššs€comments€were€madeĻwhile€she€was€still€calling€witnesses.€€This€difference€cannot€be€reconciled.€€Likewise,€we€cannot€determine€from€theĻrecord€when€during€the€evening€Ms.€Dye€voiced€her€concern€about€the€lateness€of€the€hour.€€Based€on€the€trial€courtššsĻcomments€about€his€concern€for€Niston€Gladdenššs€ability€to€testify,€Ms.€Dyeššs€comments€must€have€been€madeĻrelatively€early€in€the€evening€because€Mr.€Gladden€was€the€second€witness€after€court€resumed€at€5:30€P.M.Ģ $Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌMs.€Ledbetter€never€claimed€an€interest€in€this€property.Ģ 2Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€'ōŌŌ_ŌThe€Ridge€Road€runs€to€the€south€or€southwest€of€the€Savagesšš€tract.ĢPtPtHHŲ(’į’āłFG(üHHŲ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  Serv Geneva ŅŅ  Serv Geneva Ņ(|G2ęó$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€Q•»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōü}ņ»»Ō d(H"’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3I`$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€Q•»»dXXdģ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€'ŌŌ€'¼ŌŃ#€))¼d#ŃŃ#€))¼d#ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŃ  ŃŃ H ŃŃ\R3Ų'\ŃŌ_ŌŃ8€©XXdģ»»d8ŃŃ  Ńą@ ąŌ€'īŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąAT€NASHVILLEŌ€'¼ŌĢÓ  ÓJanuary€6,€2000€SessionĢŌ€'XŌĢņ ņŌ€'¼ŌJIMMY€JOE€SAVAGE,€ņņet€al.óó€v.€DON€HILDENBRANDTŌ€'XŌó óĢĢņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Perry€CountyĢNo.€3856„II€€€€€€Russ€Heldman,€ChancellorĢĢą@ ąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßĢĢą@ ąNo.€M1999„00630„Ō_ŌCOAŌ_Ō„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€6,€Ō_Ō2001Ō_ŌĢĢßA€V) °°` dE<` Aßó óĢÓ  ÓThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€among€neighbors€arising€out€of€a€coupleššs€decision€to€place€aĻdouble„wide€mobile€home€on€their€property.€After€one€of€their€neighbors€blocked€the€access€road€toĻtheir€property€to€prevent€them€from€setting€up€their€mobile€home,€the€couple€who€owned€the€mobileĻhome€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Perry€County€seeking€injunctive€relief€and€damages.€€InĻresponse,€two€of€the€neighboring€property€owners€requested€the€trial€court€to€establish€the€boundaryĻlines,€to€enjoin€the€couple€from€encroaching€on€their€property,€and€to€award€actual€and€punitiveĻdamages€for€the€damage€that€the€coupleššs€encroachment€had€caused€to€their€property.€€Following€aĻbench€trial€that€continued€past€midnight€and€a€series€of€post„trial€motions€requesting€variousĻcorrections€in€the€judgment,€the€trial€court€eventually€established€the€disputed€boundary€line€andĻawarded€the€couple€a€$6,110.50€judgment€against€one€of€their€neighbors€to€compensate€them€forĻthe€damages€stemming€from€the€delay€in€setting€up€their€mobile€home.€€The€two€neighboringĻproperty€owners€have€appealed.€€They€take€issue€with€(1)€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€hold€courtĻpast€midnight,€(2)€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€considered€and€disposed€of€their€post„judgment€motions,€(3)€the€trial€courtššs€decision€regarding€the€location€of€the€southern€boundary€lineĻof€the€coupleššs€property,€and€(4)€the€trial€courtššs€failure€to€reduce€the€$6,110.50€judgment€by€theĻamount€of€the€damages€the€coupleššs€encroachment€had€caused.€€We€have€concluded€that€the€trialĻcourt€did€not€commit€reversible€error€during€either€the€trial€or€the€post„trial€proceedings€and€that€theĻtrial€courtššs€decision€to€award€the€couple€$6,110.50€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€€However,€weĻhave€also€concluded€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtššs€decision€regarding€aĻportion€of€the€coupleššs€southern€boundary€line.€€Accordingly,€we€remand€the€case€for€the€soleĻpurpose€of€correcting€the€error€regarding€a€portion€of€this€boundary€line.€€ĢĢÓ  Óņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Modified€andĻAffirmedó óĢĢÓ  ÓņņWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andĻņņPatricia€J.€Cottrellóó,€JJ.,€joined.ĢĢDavid€H.€King,€Franklin,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€for€the€appellant,€Don€Hildenbrandt€and€third„party€plaintiff€appellant,€Lossie€Ledbetter.ĢĢMichael€E.€Spitzer,€Hohenwald,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Jimmy€Joe€Savage€and€Frances€JoyĻSavage.ĢĢÓ  Óņ ņOPINIONó óŌ€'¼ŌĢĢŌ€'XŌņ ņI.ó óĢĢÓ  Óą ąR.€T.€Ledbetter€and€his€wife€owned€a€large€tract€of€land€adjoining€State€Route€100€nearĻLinden€in€rural€Perry€County.€€A€significant€portion€of€this€tract€was€wooded.€€In€June€1933,€theyĶconveyed€a€1.73„acre€tract€to€Lillie€Gladden€who€was€their€daughterššs€mother„in„law.× ƒ* ××  ׀€R.€T.ĻLedbetterššs€woodlands€bordered€Ms.€Gladdenššs€tract€to€the€east€and€the€south.€€An€old€dirt€road,Ļvariously€referred€to€as€the€š šRidge€Roadšš€or€the€š šOld€Woods€Roadšš€also€ran€along€the€southernĻboundary€of€Ms.€Gladdenššs€property.€€R.€T.€Ledbetter€used€this€road€for€access€to€his€timber€fromĻState€Route€100.€€Ms.€Gladden€eventually€built€her€house€on€the€southern€portion€of€her€propertyĻnear€the€Ridge€Road,€and€through€the€years,€both€she€and€R.€T.€Ledbetter€used€the€Ridge€Road€toĻgain€access€to€their€property€from€State€Route€100.× ƒ+ ××  ×ĢĢą ąIn€August€1945,€after€R.€T.€Ledbetter€died,€six€of€his€seven€children€sold€their€interests€inĻhis€real€property€to€their€sister,€Norma€Hildenbrandt€and€her€husband,€John€Hildenbrandt.€€InĻOctober€1945,€the€Hildenbrandts€sold€a€portion€of€the€property€to€Sam€Ledbetter,€Ms.ĻHildenbrandtššs€brother.€€Accordingly,€at€the€close€of€1945,€Ms.€Gladdenššs€property€abutted€theĻHildenbrandtsšš€property€to€the€south,€Sam€Ledbetterššs€property€to€the€east,€and€State€Route€100€toĻthe€northwest.€€All€the€parties€continued€to€use€the€Ridge€Road€to€gain€access€to€their€property.€ĻThey€believed€that€the€Ridge€Road€marked€the€boundary€between€Ms.€Gladdenššs€property€and€theĻHildenbrandtsšš€property€and€that€the€boundary€between€Ms.€Gladdenššs€property€and€SamĻLedbetterššs€property€was€an€old€fence€that€ran€through€the€woods.ĢĢą ąAll€the€dealings€between€the€parties€remained€amicable€for€over€fifty€years.€€In€NovemberĻ1986,€Ms.€Gladden€conveyed€her€property€to€her€grandson,€Jimmie€Joe€Savage,€and€his€wife,ĻFrancis€Joy€Savage.× ƒ, ××  ׀€The€Savages€eventually€decided€to€replace€Ms.€Gladdenššs€old€house€with€aĻdouble„wide€mobile€home.€€Accordingly,€they€demolished€Ms.€Gladdenššs€old€house€and€in€the€fallĻof€1997€began€to€prepare€the€site€for€their€mobile€home.€€Shortly€after€they€started€their€siteĻpreparations,€the€Savages€received€notice€from€Don€Hildenbrandt€that€their€improvements€wereĻencroaching€on€his€property.× ƒ- ××  ׀€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€was€not€pleased€with€the€Savagesšš€decision€toĻplace€a€mobile€home€on€their€property× ƒ/ ××  ×,€and€he€eventually€stopped€the€Savages€from€moving€theĻmobile€home€onto€their€property€by€blocking€the€Ridge€Road€with€metal€fence€posts.ĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandtššs€fence€post€barricade€prompted€the€Savages€to€file€suit€against€him€in€theĻChancery€Court€for€Perry€County€to€remove€the€obstructions,€to€enjoin€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€fromĻplacing€other€obstructions€in€the€Ridge€Road,€and€to€recover€the€damages€they€had€incurred€becauseĻof€the€delay€in€moving€into€their€mobile€home.€€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€counterclaimed€for€a€declarationĻof€the€location€of€their€boundary€lines,€an€injunction€against€the€Savages€encroaching€on€hisĻproperty,€and€monetary€damages.€€Eventually,€Lossie€Ledbetter,€Sam€Ledbetterššs€88„year„oldĻwidow,€filed€an€š šintervening€complaintšš€against€the€Savages€likewise€asserting€that€theirĻencroachments€had€damaged€her€property€and€likewise€seeking€an€injunction€against€furtherĻencroachment€and€monetary€damages.× ƒ0 ××  ×ĢĢą ąThe€trial€commenced€around€midday€on€October€5,€1998,€and€continued€past€midnight.€€Mr.ĻSavage€asserted€that€he€and€his€wife€owned€all€the€property€that€had€been€conveyed€to€Ms.€Gladden.€ĻHe€also€insisted€that€the€Ridge€Road€was€on€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€property€and€that€he€had€neverĻclaimed€that€he€owned€š šany€interest€in€the€property€on€the€ššridgešš€side€of€the€ridge€road.šš€€HeĻstated€that€if€the€trial€court€š šgave€the€ridge€road€to€me,€I€would€.€.€.€give€it€back.šš€€However,€Mr.ĻSavage€and€his€other€witnesses€testified€that€Ms.€Gladden€and€her€associates€had€continuously€usedĻthe€Ridge€Road€to€gain€access€to€her€property.ĢĢą ąMr.€Savage€also€acknowledged€that€he€had€cleared€brush€and€scrub€trees€along€the€RidgeĻRoad€in€preparation€of€moving€his€mobile€home€onto€his€property€but€asserted€that€the€brush€andĻscrub€trees€were€north€of€the€Ridge€Road€and€were€on€his€property.€€With€regard€to€the€SavagesššĻdamage€claim,€Mr.€Savage€testified€that€he€and€his€wife€had€sold€their€residence€in€anticipation€ofĻmoving€into€their€new€mobile€home€and€that€because€of€the€obstruction€to€the€Ridge€Road,€they€hadĻbeen€required€to€rent€another€residence€for€nine€months€and€had€also€been€required€to€rent€storageĻunits€for€their€furniture.€€He€also€testified€that€he€had€been€required€to€purchase€materials€to€preventĻdamage€to€the€two€halves€of€the€mobile€home€that€had€been€sitting€unassembled€on€his€property.€ĻThe€total€of€these€expenses€was€$6,110.50.ĢĢą ąThe€Savages€also€presented€the€testimony€of€Thomas€White,€a€registered€surveyor.€€Mr.ĻWhite€testified€that€none€of€the€descriptions€in€the€partiesšš€deeds€closed€and€that€there€wereĻmisdirections€in€the€calls€in€the€1945€deed€from€R.€T.€Ledbetterššs€heirs€to€John€and€NormaĻHildenbrandt.€€Under€questioning€by€the€partiesšš€lawyers€and€extensive€examination€by€the€trialĻcourt,€Mr.€White€opined€that€the€1933€deed€from€R.€T.€Ledbetter€to€Ms.€Gladden€actually€conveyedĻ.28€acres€of€property€south€of€the€Ridge€Road€to€Ms.€Gladden€and,€therefore,€that€the€SavagesĻactually€owned€a€portion€of€the€Ridge€Road,€as€well€as€the€.28„acre€tract€south€of€the€Ridge€Road.× ƒ1 ××  ×ĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€did€not€present€a€surveyor€to€contradict€theĻconclusions€of€Mr.€White.€€They€argued€instead€that€the€partiesšš€deeds€were€so€flawed€that€theyĻshould€play€no€role€in€determining€the€location€of€the€Savagesšš€eastern€and€southern€boundaryĻlines.€€They€also€presented€a€number€of€witnesses€who€testified€that€R.€T.€Ledbetter,€R.€T.ĻLedbetterššs€heirs,€and€Ms.€Gladden€had€always€understood,€despite€the€suggestion€in€Ms.ĻGladdenššs€1933€deed€from€R.€T.€Ledbetter,€that€the€southern€boundary€of€Ms.€Gladdenššs€propertyĶwas€the€Ridge€Road€and€that€the€eastern€boundary€of€her€property€was€a€fence€in€the€woods.€€Ms.ĻLedbetter€presented€no€evidence€regarding€her€claim€that€the€Savagesšš€encroachment€had€damagedĻher€property.€€With€regard€to€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€damage€claim,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€RobertĻMathis€testified€that€Mr.€Savage€had€bulldozed€a€number€of€large€trees€along€the€Ridge€Road€thatĻhad€been€planted€to€prevent€erosion€on€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€property.ĢĢą ąWhen€the€trial€concluded€at€approximately€11:50€P.M.,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€wouldĻproceed€to€rule€from€the€bench€despite€the€lateness€of€the€hour.€€The€court€announced€that€itĻaccepted€Mr.€Whiteššs€conclusions€that€the€southern€boundary€of€the€Savagesšš€property,€as€reflectedĻin€R.€T.€Ledbetterššs€1933€deed€to€Ms.€Gladden,€included€the€.28„acre€tract€south€of€the€RidgeĻRoad.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€reasoned€that€both€the€Savages€and€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€ownedĻportions€of€the€Ridge€Road€and€that€they€both€had€the€right€to€use€the€road€to€enter€and€leave€theirĻproperty.ĢĢą ąWith€regard€to€the€damage€claims,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Mr.ĻMathis€had€wrongfully€prevented€the€Savages€from€using€the€Ridge€Road.€€However,€the€courtĻdeclined€to€award€damages€to€the€Savages€š šbased€upon€equitable€principles€arising€out€of€theĻplaintiffs€[Savages]€cutting€of€trees€that€may€have€been€on€the€third€party€plaintiffššs€[Ms.ĻLedbetterššs]€lands.šš× ƒ2 ××  ׀€A€judgment€reflecting€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€from€the€bench€was€filed€onĻNovember€4,€1998.ĢĢą ąThe€entry€of€the€November€4,€1998€judgment€triggered€lengthy€and€tortuous€post„trialĻproceedings.€€On€November€20,€1998,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€filed€a€š šmotion€toĻreconsideršš€asserting€that€the€trial€court€had€prevented€them€from€effectively€presenting€their€caseĻby€conducting€the€trial€until€12:20€A.M.€and€by€allowing€only€short€recesses€without€a€dinnerĻbreak.€€They€asserted€that€š šsome€of€their€witnesses€were€elderly€and€in€poor€health,šš€that€they€hadĻbeen€in€the€courtroom€since€9:00€A.M.,€and€that€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€had€been€conductedĻhad€been€š švery€difficultšš€for€their€witnesses€š šwho€suffered€from€hunger€and€fatigue.šš€€OnĻDecember€3,€1998,€the€trial€court,€treating€the€motion€to€reconsider€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04Ļmotion,€entered€an€order€that€š šsuspended€or€held€[the€November€4,€1998€judgment]€in€abeyanceššĻand€that€granted€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€a€limited€new€trial€š šonly€for€the€purpose€ofĻhearing€again€from€those€witnesses€who€were€suffering€from€hunger,€fatigue€or€ill€health€at€the€timeĻthey€were€testifying€on€October€5,€1998.šš€€The€order€also€provided€that€[w]hether€the€judgmentĻshould€be€altered€or€amended€is€reserved€pending€said€hearing€to€be€set€by€agreement€of€counsel€atĻthe€earliest€possible€date.ššĢĢą ąOn€December€4,€1998,€the€day€following€the€entry€of€the€order€granting€Mr.€HildenbrandtĻand€Ms.€Ledbetter€a€limited€new€trial,€the€Savages€filed€their€own€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€toĻalter€or€amend.€€The€thrust€of€their€motion€was€directed€at€the€trial€courtššs€conclusion€that€theĻSavagesšš€damages€were€offset€by€the€damages€they€caused€to€the€neighboring€property.€€In€light€ofĻthe€trial€courtššs€decision€regarding€the€location€of€their€southern€boundary€line,€the€Savages€arguedĻ(1)€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€they€removed€trees€that€were€not€theirs,€(2)€that€they€could€notĻhave€caused€damage€to€the€neighboring€property,€and,€therefore,€(3)€that€no€offset€of€their€damagesĶwas€appropriate.× ƒ3 ××  ׀€The€trial€court€decided€to€consider€the€Savagesšš€motion€at€the€same€time€itĻconducted€the€limited€new€trial,€and€informed€the€parties€that€this€hearing€would€be€held€on€JanuaryĻ14,€1999.ĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€retained€a€new€lawyer€shortly€before€the€scheduledĻhearing.€€Their€new€lawyer€asked€the€Savagesšš€lawyer€for€an€extension€of€time€to€become€familiarĻwith€the€case.€€The€Savagesšš€lawyer€accommodated€this€request€and€agreed€to€present€their€jointĻrequest€for€a€thirty„day€continuance€to€the€trial€court€on€January€14,€1999.€€Notwithstanding€theĻpartiesšš€agreement,€the€trial€court€declined€to€grant€the€continuance€and€announced€that€it€wouldĻdispose€of€the€pending€motions€without€hearing€additional€evidence.€€ĢĢą ąOn€January€22,€1999,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€addressing€the€pending€motions.€€First,Ļthe€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€š šsua€sponte€reconsideredšš€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€LedbetterššsĻNovember€20,€1998€motion.€€Reversing€its€earlier€decision€to€treat€this€motion€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ļ59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€it€would€not€consider€their€request€forĻrelief€because€they€had€š šfiled€a€pleading€not€authorized€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilĻProcedurešš€and€that€the€court€had€š šno€duty€to€create€a€claim.šš€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€deniedĻMr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€post„trial€motion€requesting€an€opportunity€to€presentĻseveral€of€their€witnesses€again.€€The€trial€court€also€ordered€that€š š[t]he€judgment€entered€onĻNovember€4,€1998,€is€no€longer€held€in€abeyance€and€shall€be€deemed€a€final€judgment€for€allĻpurposes.šš€€The€trial€court€then€turned€its€attention€to€the€Savagesšš€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€ĻObserving€that€š šthere€has€been€no€response€or€other€rebuttalšš€to€the€motion,€the€trial€court€grantedĻthe€requested€relief€and€awarded€the€Savages€a€$6,110.50× ƒ4 ××  ׀judgment€against€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€andĻMs.€Ledbetter.ĢĢą ąThe€change€in€the€judgment€brought€about€by€the€trial€courtššs€January€22,€1999€orderĻprompted€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€to€file€another€post„trial€motion€on€February€19,Ļ1999.€€In€addition€to€their€original€complaint€about€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€hadĻconducted€the€October€5,€1998€trial,€they€argued€(1)€that€they€had€been€denied€a€fair€hearingĻbecause€Mr.€White,€the€Savagesšš€surveyor,€had€left€the€courthouse€after€being€instructed€to€remainĻbecause€he€was€subject€to€being€recalled€to€the€stand,€(2)€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€by€awardingĻthe€Savages€the€.28„acre€tract€south€of€the€Ridge€Road€when€they€had€not€sought€this€property€inĻtheir€complaint,€(3)€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€to€the€extent€it€had€based€its€decision€regarding€theĻlocation€of€the€boundary€lines€on€the€unreliable€deeds,€and€(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€disposingĻof€the€Savagesšš€December€4,€1998€post„trial€motion€without€giving€them€an€opportunity€to€respond.ĢĢą ąOn€March€1,€1999,€the€Savages€moved€to€dismiss€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€LedbetterššsĻFebruary€19,€1999€motion.€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€motion€on€March€26,€1999.€ĻAt€the€outset,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€supplemented€their€pending€post„trial€motionĶwith€a€š šmotion€for€relief€from€orderšš€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1).× ƒ5 ××  ׀€In€this€motion,€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€asserted€that€they€had€been€š šsurprisedšš€by€the€trial€courtššsĻJanuary€22,€1999€decision€to€dismiss€their€pending€post„trial€motion€without€a€hearing,€toĻš šreinstatešš€the€November€4,€1998€judgment,€and€to€grant€the€Savagesšš€post„judgment€motionĻregarding€their€damages.ĢĢą ąDuring€the€March€26,€1999€hearing,€the€trial€court€informed€the€parties€that€it€hadĻdiscovered€an€error€in€its€January€22,€1999€order.€€Apparently€realizing€that€the€Savages€neitherĻasserted€nor€claimed€that€they€had€been€damaged€by€Ms.€Ledbetter,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€hadĻnever€intended€to€give€the€Savages€a€money€judgment€against€Ms.€Ledbetter€and€that€it€would€enterĻa€separate€order€to€š šcorrectšš€its€January€22,€1999€order.€€Accordingly,€on€April€12,€1999,€the€trialĻcourt€filed€an€order€modifying€its€January€22,€1999€order€to€award€the€Savages€a€$6,110.54Ļjudgment€only€against€Ms.€Ledbetter.€€The€court€stated€that€š š[i]t€was€the€original€intent€of€the€CourtĻfor€[a]€monetary€judgment€to€be€entered€against€Defendant,€Don€Hildenbrandt,€onlyšš€and€that€partsĻof€its€January€22,€1999€order€š šremain€as€stated€therein.ššĢĢą ąFinally,€on€May€24,€1999,€the€trial€court€filed€an€order€denying€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.ĻLedbetterššs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€and€60€motions.€€The€court€explained€that€it€could€not€consider€theĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€motion€without€permission€from€this€court€and€that€it€could€not€consider€theĻFebruary€19,€1999€motion€because€it€had€not€been€timely€filed.€€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€thereafter€perfected€this€appeal.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņII.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Record€on€Appealó óóóĢĢą ą€€Before€taking€up€the€substantive€issues€in€this€appeal,€we€first€address€the€adequacy€of€theĻrecord€on€appeal.€€The€ability€of€the€appellate€courts€to€review€lower€court€proceedings€and€toĻrender€just€and€correct€decisions€depends€upon€being€provided€with€an€appellate€record€thatĻcontains€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€theĻissues€that€form€the€grounds€for€the€appeal.€€The€process€used€to€prepare€the€statements€of€theĻevidence€in€this€case,€as€well€as€the€substance€of€the€statements€of€the€evidence€themselves,Ļdemonstrate€again€that€statements€of€the€evidence€prepared€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c)€are,Ļin€most€cases,€poor€substitutes€for€verbatim€transcripts€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€ņņHunt€v.ĻHuntóó,€No.€M1997„00221„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1030622,€at€*1€n.1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€27,Ļ2000)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ĢĢą ąNone€of€the€parties€retained€a€court€reporter€for€the€October€5,€1998€trial€of€this€case.€€OnĻMay€20,€1999,€the€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€filed€a€statement€of€theĻevidence€containing€his€clientsšš€version€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court€and€the€substance€of€theĻtestimony€of€the€witnesses.€€On€June€3,€1999,€the€Savagesšš€lawyer€filed€objections€to€hisĻadversaryššs€statement€of€the€evidence,€asserting€that€it€š šdoes€not€present€a€fair,€accurate€or€completeĻaccount€of€what€transpired€at€the€trial€of€this€cause.šš€€Rather€than€submitting€his€own€accurateĻstatement€of€the€evidence,€the€Savagesšš€lawyer€stated€that€portions€of€the€statement€of€the€evidenceĻsubmitted€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€were€accurate€but€that€other€portionsĻwere€inaccurate.€€He€also€provided€the€court€with€his€version€of€the€portions€of€the€statement€of€theĶevidence€submitted€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€that€he€believed€to€beĻinaccurate.× ƒ6 ××  ×ĢĢą ąBecause€of€the€disagreement€between€the€parties€regarding€the€contents€of€the€statement€ofĻthe€evidence,€the€trial€court€exercised€it€prerogative€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(e)€to€settle€theĻpartiesšš€differences.€€Rather€than€resolving€the€disputes€regarding€the€content€of€the€statement€of€theĻevidence€and€then€directing€the€appellant€to€file€a€corrected€statement€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€courtĻentered€an€order€on€June€28,€1999,€concluding€that€the€Savagesšš€objections€to€the€statement€of€theĻevidence€prepared€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€were€well€taken€and€approvingĻthe€š šPlaintiffššs€[sic]€Objections€to€the€Statement€of€Evidencešš€filed€on€behalf€of€the€Savages.ĢĢą ąWithin€hours€after€the€entry€of€the€June€28,€1999€order,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€filed€a€motion€to€supplement€the€record€on€appeal€with€a€copy€of€the€statement€ofĻevidence€prepared€on€their€behalf€and€filed€on€May€20,€1999.€€They€argued€that€the€record€onĻappeal€would€not€contain€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€courtĻunless€the€undisputed€portions€of€their€statement€of€the€evidence€were€included€in€the€appellateĻrecord€along€with€the€Savagesšš€objections€to€their€statement€of€the€evidence.€€The€Savages€opposedĻthe€motion€but€admitted€that€their€objections€filed€with€the€trial€court€should€be€š šsupplementedšš€inĻseveral€particulars.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€never€acted€on€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€motion,€at€least€asĻfar€as€this€record€shows.€€Because€the€trial€courtššs€June€28,€1999€approval€of€the€SavagesššĻobjections€to€the€statement€of€the€evidence€necessarily€approved€the€portions€of€the€statement€of€theĻevidence€that€the€Savages€had€not€specifically€objected€to,€we€entered€an€order€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ĻApp.€P.€24(e),€(g)€on€August€9,€2001,€directing€the€clerk€and€master€to€file€a€supplemental€recordĻcontaining€a€copy€of€the€statement€of€the€evidence€filed€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€on€May€20,€1999.€€The€clerk€and€master€has€complied€with€our€order.€€Accordingly,€theĻappellate€record€in€this€case€consists€of€(1)€the€papers€filed€in€the€trial€court,€(2)€the€exhibits€filedĻduring€the€October€5,€1998€trial,€(3)€the€statement€of€the€evidence€filed€on€behalf€of€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€on€May€20,€1999,€except€insofar€as€it€differs€from€the€substance€ofĻthe€objections€filed€on€behalf€of€the€Savages€on€June€3,€1999,€(4)€the€objections€to€the€statement€ofĻthe€evidence€filed€on€behalf€of€the€Savages€on€June€3,€1999,€and€(5)€the€verbatim€transcript€of€theĻproceedings€before€the€trial€court€on€March€26,€1999.ĢĢą ąResolving€the€ambiguity€regarding€the€contents€of€the€appellate€record€does€not€address€theĻadequacy€of€these€records€for€purposes€of€review.€€When€faced€with€a€decision€about€whether€toĻretain€a€court€reporter€or€proceed€to€trial€in€a€civil€case€without€a€court€reporter,€lawyers€and€theirĻclients€should€keep€in€mind€the€fate€that€befalls€appellants€who€fail€to€submit€a€complete€andĻaccurate€record€to€the€appellate€courts.€€An€appellant€who€elects€not€to€file€either€a€transcript€or€aĻstatement€of€the€evidence€will€be€faced€with€the€practically€insurmountable€presumption€that€theĻrecord€contained€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtššs€decision.€€ņņTallent€v.€Catesóó,€45ĻS.W.3d€556,€562€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€ņņManufacturers€Consol.€Servs.,€Inc.€v.€Rodellóó,€42€S.W.3dĻ846,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€ņņKing€v.€Kingóó,€986€S.W.2d€216,€220€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€AnĻappellant€who€submits€a€record€that€is€later€deemed€so€inadequate€that€it€hinders€appellate€reviewĻwill€be€faced€with€the€prospect€of€paying€damages€to€the€appellee€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€27„1„122€(2000).€€ņņBrooks€v.€United€Uniform€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€1984);€ņņRoberts€v.ĻEnglandóó,€No.€M1999„02688„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€575560,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€30,Ļ2001)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ĢĢą ąGiven€the€nature€of€the€issues€in€this€case,€all€parties€made€an€unfortunate€choice€not€to€haveĻa€court€reporter€present€at€the€October€5,€1998€trial.€€Statements€of€the€evidence€are€particularlyĻunsuited€to€boundary€line€disputes€in€which€the€parties€have€introduced€numerous€plats,€deeds,Ļphotographs,€diagrams,€and€drawings€to€prove€their€case.€€Simply€listing€or€identifying€theseĻexhibits€without€correlating€them€to€the€witnessesšš€testimony€based€on€them€further€complicates€theĻtask€of€interpreting€the€significance€of€the€evidence.€€ņņRoberts€v.€Englandóó,€2001€WL€575560,€at€*3.€ĻBoth€the€statement€of€the€evidence€and€the€objections€to€the€statement€of€the€evidence€filed€in€thisĻcase€have€this€flaw.€€While€they€list€the€exhibits€and€identify€the€witness€through€whom€they€wereĻintroduced,€neither€of€them€makes€any€effort€to€correlate€the€substance€of€the€witnessesšš€testimonyĻto€the€exhibits.€€As€will€be€seen€in€the€remainder€of€this€opinion,€the€contents€of€the€statement€of€theĻevidence€and€the€objections€to€the€statement€of€the€evidence€will€prove€outcome„determinative€withĻregard€to€several€issues.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņIII.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņMr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€Post„Trial€Motionsó óóóĢĢą ąThe€scope€of€the€issues€that€can€be€considered€on€appeal€can€be€influenced€by€the€timingĻand€the€substance€of€the€objections€made€in€the€trial€court.€€Since€many€of€the€objections€that€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€are€making€to€the€conduct€of€the€trial€court€are€included€in€theirĻpost„trial€motions,€we€must€first€take€up€the€trial€courtššs€May€24,€1999€order€dismissing€their€Tenn.ĻR.€Civ.€P.€59€and€60€motions.€€This€order€marked€the€culmination€of€what€can€best€be€described€asĻan€unnecessarily€complicated€process€for€considering€post„trial€motions.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņA.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€Motionsó óóóĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€dismissed€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€February€19,€1999€Tenn.ĻR.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€on€the€ground€that€it€was€š šuntimely€filed.šš€€While€the€trial€courtššsĻreasoning€as€reflected€in€the€transcript€of€the€March€26,€1999€hearing€is€not€clear,€we€take€it€that€theĻcourtššs€rationale€proceeded€as€follows:ĢĢą8 ą(1)ą0 ąTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€does€not€permit€post„judgment€motions€to€reconsider;ĢĢą8 ą(2)ą0 ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€filed€a€motion€called€a€š šmotion€toĻreconsideršš€on€November€20,€1998;ĢĢą8 ą(3)ą0 ąThe€December€3,€1998€order€granting€the€November€20,€1998€š šmotion€toĻreconsideršš€was€š šplain€erroršš€because€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilĻProcedure€do€not€permit€trial€courts€to€treat€motions€like€the€November€20,Ļ1998€motion€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend;× ƒ7 ××  ×ĢĢą8 ą(4)ą0 ąBecause€the€December€3,€1998€order€was€š šplain€error,šš€it€could€notĻeffectively€suspend€or€hold€the€November€4,€1998€judgment€in€abeyance;ĢĢą8 ą(5)ą0 ąThe€effect€of€the€January€22,€1999€order€was€to€reinstate€the€November€4,Ļ1998€judgment€as€if€the€December€3,€1998€order€had€never€been€entered;ĢĢą8 ą(6)ą0 ąTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.02€requires€that€Rule€59€motions€be€filed€within€thirtyĻdays€of€the€entry€of€the€judgment;ĢĢą8 ą(7)ą0 ąTherefore,€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€February€19,€1999Ļš šmotion€to€alter€or€amend€or€alternatively€motion€for€new€trialšš€wasĻuntimely€because€it€was€it€was€not€filed€within€thirty€days€following€the€entryĻof€the€November€4,€1998€judgment.ĢĢą ąThe€initial€premise€of€the€trial€courtššs€reasoning€is€flawed.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.01€does€notĻcontain€a€blanket€prohibition€against€all€motions€to€reconsider.€€Rather,€it€provides€that€motions€toĻreconsider€any€of€the€motions€permitted€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€are€not€authorized.€€Regrettably,Ļsome€lawyers€continue€to€call€their€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motions€š šmotions€to€reconsiderššĻdespite€our€repeated€warnings€of€the€confusion€this€practice€causes.€€However,€the€courts€mustĻjudge€motions€by€their€substance€rather€than€their€title.€€ņņBemis€Co.€v.€Hindsóó,€585€S.W.2d€574,€576Ļ(Tenn.€1979);€ņņStarks€v.€Browningóó,€20€S.W.3d€645,€652€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Accordingly,€theĻappellate€courts€have€repeatedly€held€that€initial€post„judgment€motions€called€š šmotions€toĻreconsideršš€should€be€treated€as€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motions€if€they€request€the€sort€of€reliefĻavailable€through€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€€ņņHarris€v.€Chernóó,€33€S.W.3d€741,€743€(Tenn.€2000);ĻņņTennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Farmeróó,€970€S.W.2d€at€455;€ņņWillingham€v.€Gallatin€Group.,ĻInc.óó,€No.€M1998„00990„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€134599,€at€*1,€n.3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€16,€2001)Ļ(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ĢĢą ąBased€on€these€principles,€the€trial€court€was€correct€when€it€entered€its€December€3,€1998Ļorder€construing€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€November€20,€1998€š šmotion€toĻreconsideršš€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€€Unfortunately,€it€committed€error€when€it€reversedĻits€field€two€months€later€and€decided€that€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€did€not€permit€itĻto€consider€the€November€20,€1998€motion€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend.ĢĢą ą€€There€is€one€additional€issue€regarding€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€FebruaryĻ19,€1999€motion€that€should€be€addressed.€€If€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€their€NovemberĻ20,€1999€š šmotion€to€reconsideršš€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion,€it€might€be€argued€that€theĻtrial€court€should€have€denied€their€February€19,€1999€motion€because€it€was€nothing€more€than€aĻsuccessive€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motion€that€is€prohibited€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.01.€This€argument,Ļhowever,€is€not€well„taken.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.01€prevents€the€same€party€from€filing€successiveĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motions;€it€does€not€prevent€a€party€from€filing€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motionĻseeking€to€alter€or€amend€a€judgment€that€has€been€changed€in€response€to€another€partyššs€Tenn.€R.ĻCiv.€P.€59€motion.€€ņņBrenneman€v.€Brennemanóó,€M2000„00890„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€543434,€atĻ*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€23,€2001)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€That€is€preciselyĻwhat€happened€in€this€case.€ĢĢą ąThe€November€4,€1998€judgment€did€not€award€monetary€damages€to€the€Savages.€€OnĻDecember€4,€1998,€the€Savages€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€requesting€the€trial€court€toĻalter€the€November€4,€1998€judgment€and€to€award€them€a€$6,110.50€judgment€because€of€the€lackĻof€evidence€that€they€had€caused€damage€to€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€or€Ms.€Ledbetter.€€The€trial€courtššsĻJanuary€22,€1999€order,€among€other€things,€granted€the€Savagesšš€motion€and€altered€the€NovemberĻ4,€1998€judgment€to€award€the€Savages€a€$6,110.50€judgment€against€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĶLedbetter.× ƒ8 ××  ׀€The€February€19,€1999€motion€filed€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€LedbetterĻaddressed€the€substance€of€the€trial€courtššs€January€22,€1999€order,€the€procedure€employed€by€theĻtrial€court€that€led€to€the€entry€of€the€January€22,€1999€order,€and€the€other€matters€raised€in€theirĻNovember€20,€1998€motion€that€the€trial€court€had€never€addressed€on€their€merits.€€Accordingly,Ļthe€February€19,€1999€motion€was€not€subject€to€dismissal.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņB.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€Motionó óóóĢĢą ąWe€turn€next€to€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motionĻthat€the€trial€court€took€up€at€the€March€26,€1999€hearing.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion€on€theĻground€that€the€case€was€then€within€the€jurisdiction€of€this€court€because€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€andĻMs.€Ledbetter€had€already€filed€a€notice€of€appeal.€€We€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€erredĻwhen€it€declined€to€consider€this€motion€on€the€ground€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€theĻcase.ĢĢą ąThe€procedural€posture€of€this€case€had€become€entirely€ambiguous€by€January€22,€1999,Ļby€virtue€of€the€trial€courtššs€abrupt€change€of€mind€regarding€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.ĻLedbetterššs€right€to€post„judgment€relief.€€It€became€more€complicated€within€the€next€two€monthsĻdue€in€large€part€to€the€disparate€efforts€of€the€lawyer€for€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€toĻobtain€some€sort€of€the€relief€from€the€November€4,€1998€judgment€and€the€January€22,€1999€order.€ĻThe€first€complication€was€the€lawyerššs€decision€to€file€not€one€but€two€notices€of€appeal€š!š€one€onĻFebruary€19,€1999,€and€another€on€March€16,€1999€š!š€from€the€same€orders.× ƒ9 ××  ׀€The€secondĻcomplication€was€the€lawyerššs€request€that€this€court€stay€the€appeal€pending€the€resolution€of€hisĻFebruary€19,€1999€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€€The€third€complication€was€the€lawyerššsĻdecision€to€file€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion€for€relief€from€the€judgment.ĢĢą ąWhen€finally€confronted€with€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion,€the€trial€court€disposedĻof€it€by€finding€that€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€consider€the€motion.€€As€best€we€can€determine,€theĻcourt€reasoned€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€over€the€case€because€either€the€February€19,€1999Ļor€March€16,€1999€notice€of€appeal€had€the€effect€of€transferring€jurisdiction€over€the€case€to€thisĻcourt.× ƒ: ××  ׀€Unfortunately,€the€trial€court€overlooked€the€principle€that€a€premature€notice€of€appeal€š!šĻthat€is€one€filed€before€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment€š!š€does€not€transfer€jurisdiction€over€the€caseĻfrom€the€trial€court€to€the€court€of€appeals.€€The€transfer€of€jurisdiction€does€not€take€place€until€theĻfollowing€three€events€have€occurred:€(1)€a€final€judgment€has€been€entered,€(2)€a€timely€notice€ofĻappeal€has€been€filed,€and€(3)€the€bond€for€costs€required€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€6€or€an€affidavit€ofĻindigence€has€been€filedņņ.€First€Am.€Trust€Co.€v.€Franklin„Murray€Dev.€Co.óó,€No.€M1998„00984„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€459092,€at€*4€&€nn.8„9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€2,€2001).ĢĢą ąTennesseeššs€rules€governing€civil€and€appellate€procedure€promote€the€use€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ĻP.€59€motions€because€they€prevent€needless€appeals€by€providing€trial€courts€with€an€opportunityĻto€correct€errors€before€a€judgment€becomes€final.€€ņņMadu€v.€Maduóó,€No.€M1999„02302„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1586461,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€25,€2000)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€applicationĻfiled).€€Thus,€while€a€trial€courtššs€jurisdiction€over€a€case€comes€to€an€end€thirty€days€after€the€entryĻof€a€final€order€of€judgment,€ņņParks€v.€McGuireóó,€197€Tenn.€32,€35,€270€S.W.2d€347,€348€(1954);ĻņņNewport€Hous.€Auth.,€Inc.€v.€Hartsellóó,€533€S.W.2d€317,€320€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975),€a€timely€filedĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motion€suspends€the€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(b).€ĻThe€purpose€of€suspending€the€time€for€perfecting€an€appeal€is€to€permit€the€trial€court€to€retainĻjurisdiction€over€the€case€for€the€purpose€of€hearing€and€disposing€of€all€timely€filed€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ĻP.€59€motions.€€ņņGreen€Meadow€Park,€Inc.€v.€American€Heritage€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€540€S.W.2d€267,Ļ270€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976)ņņ;€see€also€Innovative€Home€Health€Care,€Inc.€v.€P.T.„O.T.€Assocs.€ofĻthe€Black€Hillsóó,€141€F.3d€1284,€1286€(8th€Cir.€1998).€Orders€that€have€not€become€final€as€a€resultĻof€the€filing€of€a€timely€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motion€are€subject€to€review€and€change€by€the€trialĻcourt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(a);€ņņCrews€v.€Crewsóó,€743€S.W.2d€182,€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).ĢĢą ąAs€we€understand€the€procedural€posture€of€this€case€as€of€March€26,€1999,€jurisdictionĻover€the€case€had€not€passed€from€the€trial€court€to€the€appellate€court€because€the€trial€court€had€notĻyet€finally€decided€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€Finality€did€not€come€until€the€entry€of€theĻtrial€courtššs€May€24,€1999€order.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€filed€its€judgment€on€November€4,€1998.€€Within€thirty€days€following€theĻentry€of€this€judgment,€both€the€Savages€and€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€filed€Tenn.€R.ĻCiv.€P.€59€motions.× ƒ; ××  ׀€Thus,€there€were€two€timely€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motions€pending€when€theĻtrial€court€entered€its€January€22,€1999€order.€€The€January€22,€1999€order€finally€resolved€all€theĻremaining€claims€between€all€the€parties€and€was,€therefore,€a€final€order€for€the€purpose€of€Tenn.€R.ĻApp.€P.€4(a).× ƒ< ××  ׀€However,€within€30€days€after€the€entry€of€the€January€22,€1999€order,€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to,€among€other€things,€takeĻissue€with€the€trial€courtššs€decision€in€the€January€22,€1999€order€to€award€the€Savages€a€$6,110.50Ļjudgment€against€them.€€We€have€already€determined€that€this€motion€was€proper€and€timely.€ĻTherefore,€it€had€the€effect€of€again€suspending€the€time€for€perfecting€an€appeal€and€continuing€theĻtrial€courtššs€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€It€was€precisely€for€this€reason€that€this€court€denied€theĻmotion€for€a€stay€filed€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter.€€ņņSavage€v.€Hildenbrandtóó,ĻNo.€01A01„9903„CH„00166€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€19,€1999).€€There€was€no€reason€for€us€to€stayĻthe€appeal€because€the€trial€court€still€had€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€The€notices€of€appeal€filed€byĻMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€were,€therefore,€premature€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(d)Ļbecause€they€were€filed€before€the€trial€court€had€resolved€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.ĢĢą ąWhen€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€presented€their€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)Ļmotion€to€the€trial€court€during€the€March€26,€1999€hearing,€their€timely€and€proper€February€19,Ļ1999€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€was€also€pending€before€the€court.€€With€the€proceeding€in€thisĻposture,€they€were€not€entitled€to€relief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€because€the€trial€court€had€not€yetĻentered€a€final€judgment.€€ņņCampbell€v.€Archeróó,€555€S.W.2d€110,€112€(Tenn.€1977).€€However,€theĻrelief€they€were€seeking€based€on€alleged€surprise€and€mistake€could€also€have€been€the€basis€forĶrelief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04.€€ņņMadu€v.€Maduóó,€2000€WL€1586461,€at€*5€&€n.6.€€Accordingly,Ļrather€than€treating€their€motion€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion,€the€trial€court€should€haveĻconsidered€its€substance€and€treated€it€as€simply€an€amendment€to€their€already€pending€Tenn.€R.ĻCiv.€P.€59.04€motion.ĢĢą ąIn€summary,€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€Ledbetterššs€Tenn.ĻR.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion€for€three€reasons.€€First,€the€trial€court€still€had€jurisdiction€over€the€caseĻbecause€it€had€not€yet€fully€and€finally€adjudicated€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€Second,€theĻtrial€court€had€a€timely,€proper€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€pending€before€it€when€the€Tenn.€R.ĻCiv.€P.€60.02(1)€motion€was€filed.€€Third,€the€trial€court€should€have€given€effect€to€the€substance€ofĻthe€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion€and€should€have€treated€it€as€an€amendment€to€the€alreadyĻpending€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€€Accordingly,€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€LedbetterššsĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1)€motion€was€not€subject€to€dismissal€for€lack€of€jurisdiction.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņC.ó óĢĢą ąOur€decision€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€post„judgment€motions€filed€by€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€raises€one€final€question€regarding€the€scope€of€review€and€theĻavailable€remedies.€€Must€we€remand€the€case€with€directions€to€consider€the€issues€raised€in€theĻpost„trial€motions,€or€may€we€consider€the€substance€of€these€issues€ourselves?€€The€answerĻdepends€on€the€nature€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.ĢĢą ąHad€the€proceedings€below€been€a€jury€trial,€our€reversal€of€a€trial€courtššs€denial€of€a€motionĻfor€new€trial€on€the€ground€that€it€was€untimely€would€have€triggered€a€remand€with€directions€to€theĻtrial€court€to€consider€the€grounds€raised€in€the€motion.€€ņņStandard€Oil€Co.€v.€Naramoreóó,€30€Tenn.ĻApp.€430,€448,€207€S.W.2d€7,€15€(1947).€€The€remand€would€have€been€required€because€the€filingĻand€consideration€of€a€motion€for€new€trial€are€necessary€prerequisites€to€an€appeal€from€a€jury€trialĻin€a€civil€case.€€The€same€rule€does€not€apply€with€regard€to€non„jury€trials€because€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ĻP.€59€motion€is€not€a€prerequisite€to€an€appeal.€€ņņMahaffey€v.€Mahaffeyóó,€No.€01A01„9306„PB„00251,Ļ1993€WL€496833,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€3,€1993)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);ĻņņGreen€Meadow€Park,€Inc.€v.€American€Heritage€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€540€S.W.2d€at€270.€€The€denial€of€aĻTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€in€a€non„jury€case€brings€up€the€underlying€judgment€for€review.€ĻņņSee€Ragsdale€v.€Hillóó,€37€Tenn.€App.€671,€680„81,€269€S.W.2d€911,€916€(1954).€€Accordingly,€weĻwill€proceed€to€the€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€and,€in€accordance€withĻTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a),€we€will€grant€the€parties€the€relief€on€the€law€and€the€facts€to€which€they€areĻentitled.ĢĢĢĢą@ ąņ ņIV.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Late€Night€Court€Sessionó óóóĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€insist€that€they€were€denied€a€fair€trial€because€the€trialĻcourt€insisted€on€holding€court€until€approximately€12:20€A.M.€despite€their€lawyerššs€protestationsĻthat€she€was€too€tired€to€represent€her€clients€effectively€and€that€the€lateness€of€the€hour€wasĻadversely€affecting€their€elderly€and€physically€infirm€witnesses.€€This€assertion€raises€a€tellingĻpoint€that€would€require€relief€if€it€was€supported€by€the€record.€€However,€the€record€does€notĻsubstantiate€the€claims€either€that€the€trial€court€continued€to€hold€court€over€objection€of€counsel€orĻthat€the€trial€court€declined€to€grant€a€continuance€because€of€the€lateness€of€the€hour.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņA.ó óĢĢą ąTrial€courts€have€broad€discretion€over€the€course€and€conduct€of€trials.€€ņņState€v.€Kingóó,€40ĻS.W.3d€442,€449€(Tenn.€2001);€ņņJustice€v.€Sovran€Bankóó,€918€S.W.2d€428,€429„30€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ļ1995);€ņņMarress€v.€Carolina€Direct€Furniture,€Inc.óó,€785€S.W.2d€121,€129€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€ĻThis€discretion€extends€to€determining€when€court€will€convene€and€when€it€will€adjourn.€ĻAccordingly,€trial€courts€have€discretion€to€determine€how€late€into€the€evening€a€trial€shouldĻcontinue.€€ņņState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41,€47€(Tenn.€1988).ĢĢą ąA€trial€courtššs€exercise€of€its€discretion€over€the€times€for€opening€and€closing€court€shouldĻbe€influenced€by€a€realistic€understanding€of€the€adversary€system.€€A€trial€is€an€arduous€affair€thatĻdemands€the€closest€attention€and€most€alert€responses€a€lawyer€can€muster.€€It€is€a€drain€on€bothĻthe€nervous€energy€and€physical€stamina€of€the€lawyers,€and€it€is€no€less€trying€on€the€parties,€theĻwitnesses,€the€jurors,€the€judge,€and€the€other€court€personnel.€€ņņCommonwealth€v.€Martinóó,€348€A.2dĻ391,€407„08€(Pa.€1975).€€Accordingly,€late€night€trial€sessions,€while€not€per€se€improper,€ņņHembreeĻv.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€235,€243€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€should€only€be€held€when€required€byĻunusual€circumstances.€€ņņState€v.€Partonóó,€817€S.W.2d€28,€33„34€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ĢĢą ąTennesseeššs€appellate€courts€have€declined€to€find€error€in€a€trial€courtššs€decision€to€holdĻcourt€past€9:00€P.M.€in€the€absence€of€proof€that€the€parties€had€been€prejudiced.€€ņņState€v.€Simonóó,Ļ635€S.W.2d€498,€505€(Tenn.€1982).€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€hasĻdeclined€to€find€error€in€holding€court€until€9:13€P.M.€when€the€court€adjourned€court€as€soon€asĻthe€defendantššs€lawyer€pointed€out€the€lateness€of€the€hour,€ņņSeelbach€v.€Stateóó,€572€S.W.2d€267,€271Ļ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)€or€in€holding€court€until€10:05€P.M.€to€avoid€sequestering€the€jury€onĻSunday.€€ņņHolt€v.€Stateóó,€591€S.W.2d€785,€791„92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€However,€the€Court€ofĻCriminal€Appeals€has€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€declining€to€adjourn€court€at€midnightĻwhen€the€defendantššs€lawyers€stated€that€they€could€no€longer€represent€the€defendant€effectively.€ĻņņHembree€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€at€242.€€€€€€ĢĢą@ ąņ ņB.ó óĢĢą ąThe€appellate€record€in€this€case€does€not€support€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€and€Ms.€LedbetterššsĻassertions€that€the€trial€court€insisted€on€holding€court€to€the€late€evening€hours€despite€theĻprotestations€of€their€lawyer.€€For€the€purpose€of€addressing€this€issue,€our€consideration€must€beĻlimited€to€the€facts€properly€before€this€court€contained€in€the€agreed„upon€portions€of€the€statementĻof€the€evidence€as€approved€by€the€trial€court.× ƒ= ××  ×ĢĢą ąThe€partiesšš€versions€of€what€transpired€during€the€October€5,€1998€trial€differ€in€severalĻmaterial€respects.€€As€best€we€can€determine€from€the€competent€portions€of€the€statements€of€theĻevidence,€the€trial€commenced€at€1:00€P.M.,€even€though€it€had€been€scheduled€to€begin€at€9:00ĻA.M.€€At€the€outset,€the€lawyers€informed€the€trial€court€that€they€wanted€to€conclude€the€trial€thatĻday.€€When€the€Savages€concluded€their€case€at€approximately€5:00€P.M.,€the€trial€court€asked€theĻlawyers€if€they€desired€to€take€a€break€to€make€telephone€calls€and€then€resume€the€trial.€€BothĻlawyers€agreed€to€this€suggestion,€and€so€the€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€did€not€begin€calling€her€witnesses€until€approximately€5:30€P.M.€and€did€not€concludeĻpresenting€her€witnesses€until€approximately€11:30€P.M.€€The€parties€then€presented€closingĻarguments,€the€trial€court€ruled€from€the€bench,€and€the€proceeding€adjourned€at€approximatelyĻ12:20€A.M.€on€October€6,€1998.ĢĢą ąDespite€the€assertions€to€the€contrary€in€the€statement€of€the€evidence€submitted€by€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter,× ƒ> ××  ׀the€approved€statement€of€the€evidence€states€affirmatively€thatĻall€the€parties€had€agreed€to€continue€the€trial€after€5:00€P.M.€and€that€š šnot€once€did€anyone€moveĻor€voice€a€concern€regarding€the€hour€of€the€day€or€the€status€of€their€witnesses.šš€€The€approvedĻstatement€of€the€evidence€also€states€that€at€11:50€P.M.,€after€closing€arguments,€the€lawyerĻrepresenting€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€š šstated€to€the€Court€that€she€would€not€opposeĻHis€Honor€taking€the€case€under€advisement.€€She€indicated€at€that€point€that€she€was€tired€and€feltĻlike€opposing€counsel€was,€as€well.šš€€The€trial€court€responded€to€this€statement€by€asserting€thatĻhe€was€prepared€to€š šmake€findings€and€conclusions€and€render€his€judgment.ššĢĢą ąIn€addition€to€the€account€of€the€trial€in€the€approved€statement€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€courtĻdiscussed€its€recollection€of€the€proceeding€during€the€March€26,€1999€hearing.€€According€to€theĻtrial€court,€the€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€made€a€š šcomment€aboutĻthe€lateness€of€the€hour€.€.€.€[some€time]€in€the€evening.šš€€After€the€lawyerššs€comments,€the€trialĻcourt€stated€that€itĢĢą8 ąą8 ątried€to€make€sure€every€time€a€witness€got€on€the€witness€stand,€toĻmake€sure€that€the€witness€was€okay.€€So€I€asked€the€witnessĻquestions:€Are€you€okay?€€Can€you€testify?€€Words€to€that€effect€toĻtry€to€determine€if€a€witness€could€testify€without€any€problem.ĢĢThe€trial€court€then€added:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąWith€respect€to€other€people€who€may€have€had€problems,Ļthey€were€never€identified€in€any€motions€or€any€affidavits.€.€.€.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąą ą*ą0 ąą0 ą*ą0 ąą0 ą*ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąą ąNow,€the€Court€did€not€intend€to€preclude€Ms.€Dye€fromĻasking€the€Court€or€moving€the€Court€or€motioning€the€court€for€aĻcontinuance.€€Ms.€Dye€never€made€a€motion,€an€oral€motion:€I€moveĻthe€Court€to€stop€this€hearing€and€to€continue€it.€€She€voiced€someĻconcerns€and€there€was€discussion€about€it.€€And€in€light€of€herĻconcerns,€the€Court€was€also€attempting€to€be€sensitive.× ƒ? ××  ×ĢĢą ąDespite€the€lawyerššs€apparent€agreement€to€hold€court€after€5:00€P.M.,€this€record€does€notĻdisclose€the€existence€of€the€sort€of€unusual€circumstances€that€might€conceivably€have€justified€theĻtrial€courtššs€decision€to€hear€proof€until€11:30€P.M.€€There€was€no€sequestered€jury,€and€there€is€noĻindication€that€continuing€the€trial€on€Tuesday,€October€6,€1998€would€have€disrupted€the€trialĶcourtššs€docket€or€conflicted€with€the€lawyerššs€other€commitments.€€In€light€of€the€age€of€several€ofĻthe€witnesses€and€the€fact€that€many€of€them€had€been€at€the€courthouse€since€9:00€A.M.,€the€trialĻcourt€either€should€have€allowed€a€more€lengthy€recess€for€dinner€or€should€have€continued€the€caseĻwhen€the€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€expressed€concern€about€theĻlateness€of€the€hour.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€courtššs€error€of€continuing€to€hear€evidence€until€11:30€P.M.€does€not€necessarilyĻmean€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€were€deprived€of€a€fair€hearing€or€that€they€shouldĻbe€given€the€opportunity€to€have€another€hearing€to€enable€them€to€call€again€the€same€witnessesĻthey€called€during€the€October€5,€1998€hearing.€€To€be€entitled€to€a€new€hearing,€Mr.€HildenbrandtĻand€Ms.€Ledbetter€must€demonstrate€that€they€were€somehow€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtššsĻdecision€to€hold€court€until€12:20€A.M.€€ņņState€v.€Simonóó,€635€S.W.2d€at€505€(declining€to€provideĻrelief€to€a€party€who€could€not€demonstrate€prejudice€from€a€trial€courtššs€decision€to€hold€court€pastĻ9:00€P.M.).€€This€they€have€not€done.ĢĢą ąThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€indicating€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€wereĻprevented€from€calling€all€the€witnesses€they€planned€to€call€at€this€trial.€€There€is€likewise€noĻevidence€that€their€direct€or€re„direct€examination€of€any€of€their€witnesses€was€truncated€because€ofĻthe€lateness€of€the€hour.€€While€they€have€complained€that€their€witnesses€were€not€as€forceful€asĻthey€might€otherwise€have€been,€they€have€not€demonstrated€or€described€what€else€their€witnessesĻwould€have€testified€to€had€they€been€fresher€or€more€alert.€€Accordingly,€in€light€of€the€trial€courtššsĻrepresentation€that€he€carefully€determined€that€each€witness€called€after€5:30€P.M.€was€competentĻto€testify,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€have€not€carried€their€burden€of€demonstrating€thatĻthey€were€adversely€affected€by€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€hear€proof€until€11:30€P.M.€€Based€onĻthe€record€before€us,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€hear€proof€until€11:30ĻP.M.,€although€ill„advised,€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€outcome€of€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€App.ĻP.€36(b).ĢĢą ąThere€is€one€other€reason€for€declining€to€grant€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€anĻopportunity€to€present€their€witnesses€a€second€time.€€Based€on€the€approved€record,€the€lawyer€whoĻrepresented€them€at€trial€agreed€to€begin€putting€on€her€case€at€5:30€P.M.€and,€despite€the€latenessĻof€the€hour,€never€objected€to€proceeding€with€the€trial€and€never€requested€a€continuance.€€PartiesĻare€not€entitled€to€relief€on€appeal€from€errors€for€which€they€are€at€least€partially€responsible€or€forĻwhich€they€failed€to€take€reasonably€available€remedial€action.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€In€additionĻto€her€failure€to€object€to€the€lateness€of€the€hour€and€her€failure€to€request€a€continuance,€the€lawyerĻrepresenting€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€failed€to€request€permission€to€call€her€elderly€orĻinfirm€witnesses€out€of€order€to€avoid€the€hardship€of€requiring€them€to€wait€over€eight€hours€toĻtestify.€€In€light€of€their€lawyerššs€strategic€decisions€during€the€October€5,€1998€trial,€we€decline€toĻconclude€that€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€hear€evidence€until€11:30€P.M.€warrants€granting€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€another€opportunity€to€put€on€their€case.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņV.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Denial€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€Motion€Without€a€Hearingó óóóĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€also€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtššs€January€22,€1999Ļorder€denying€their€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€without€a€hearing.€€They€claim€that€they€wereĻdenied€a€fair€hearing€because€the€trial€court€changed€its€mind€between€December€3,€1998€andĻJanuary€22,€1999€about€granting€them€a€š šlimited€new€trialšš€and€because€the€trial€court€altered€theĻNovember€4,€1998€judgment€š šwithout€further€proof€or€supporting€affidavitsšš€and€withoutĻaffording€them€an€opportunity€to€oppose€the€Savagesšš€motion€to€alter€or€amend.ĢĢą ąThis€particular€portion€of€the€post„trial€procedure€is€somewhat€puzzling.€€It€is€not€altogetherĻclear€why€the€trial€court€insisted€on€proceeding€with€the€two€pending€post„trial€motions€on€JanuaryĶ14,€1999,€after€the€lawyer€representing€the€Savages€announced€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€had€retained€a€new€lawyer€and€that€he€had€agreed€with€the€new€lawyerššs€request€for€aĻthirty„day€continuance€of€the€hearing.€€It€is€likewise€difficult€to€understand€the€reason€forĻproceeding€with€the€January€14,€1999€hearing€in€the€absence€of€the€lawyer€representing€Mr.ĻHildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€because€one€of€the€purposes€of€the€January€14,€1999€hearing€wasĻto€permit€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€to€recall€several€of€their€witnesses.ĢĢą ąParties€are€not€necessarily€entitled€to€present€oral€argument€regarding€their€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ļ59€motions.€€ņņCustom€Built€Homes€v.€G.S.€Hinsen€Co.óó,€No.€01A01„9511„CV„00513,€1998€WLĻ960287,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€6,€1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€They€are,Ļhowever,€entitled€to€a€fair€opportunity€to€respond€to€their€adversariesšš€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motions.€ĻBecause€of€the€trial€courtššs€earlier€decision€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€January€14,€1999,€theĻlawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€could€appropriately€have€assumed€that€theĻhearing€would€provide€the€opportunity€to€respond€to€the€Savagesšš€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion.€ĻThe€lawyer€also€had€good€reason€to€assume€that€the€January€14,€1999€hearing€would€be€continuedĻafter€he€and€the€Savagesšš€lawyer€agreed€to€a€thirty„day€continuance.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtššsĻchange€of€mind€regarding€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€its€decision€to€proceed€with€the€January€14,Ļ1999€hearing€in€the€absence€of€the€lawyer€for€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€effectivelyĻprevented€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter€from€opposing€the€Savagesšš€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04Ļmotion.€€ĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€erred€by€insisting€on€proceeding€with€the€January€14,€1999€hearing€withoutĻthe€lawyer€representing€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.€Ledbetter.€€Its€decision,€however,€is€notĻreversible€error.€€It€did€not€affect€the€trial€courtššs€judgment,€and€it€did€not€undermine€our€ability€toĻreview€the€substance€of€the€trial€courtššs€decisions€regarding€the€location€of€the€Savagesšš€southernĻboundary€line€and€the€Savagesšš€damages.€€Both€of€these€decisions€rest€on€the€evidence€presented€atĻthe€October€5,€1998€hearing.€€Because€we€have€already€concluded€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€and€Ms.ĻLedbetter€were€not€entitled€to€recall€the€witnesses€they€had€presented€at€the€October€5,€1998€hearing,Ļwe€can€review€the€trial€courtššs€decisions€regarding€the€boundary€line€and€the€damages€using€theĻstatement€of€the€evidence€presented€at€the€October€5,€1998€hearing.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņVI.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Disputed€Boundary€Lineó óóóĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€award€the€SavagesĻapproximately€.28€acres€of€property€south€of€the€Ridge€Road.× ƒ@ ××  ׀€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredĻby€basing€its€decision€on€the€calls€in€the€admittedly€defective€deeds€rather€than€on€the€testimony€ofĻvirtually€all€the€witnesses,€who€testified€that€the€Ridge€Road€was€the€boundary€between€the€SavagesššĻproperty€and€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€property.€€We€agree.ĢĢą ąWhen€the€Savages€first€filed€this€lawsuit,€they€alleged€that€a€1992€survey€showed€that€theĻdisputed€boundary€š šruns€along€the€ridge€road€which€lies€to€the€west€[sic]× ƒA ××  ׀of€the€plaintiffs€[sic]Ļtract.šš€€They€never€claimed€to€own€any€property€south€of€the€Ridge€Road,€and€they€only€claimed€anĻeasement€over€the€Ridge€Road€itself€for€ingress€and€egress.€€At€the€October€5,€1998€trial,€virtuallyĻevery€witness€who€testified€regarding€the€location€of€this€boundary€line,€including€Mr.€Savage,Ļtestified€that€since€1933€everyone€understood€that€the€boundary€line€ran€along€the€Ridge€Road.€€InĻfact,€Mr.€Savage€said€if€the€trial€court€š šgave€the€ridge€road€to€me,€I€would€.€.€.€give€it€back.ššĢĢą ąViewing€the€boundary€line€evidence€in€its€entirety,€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€courtĻerred€by€relying€exclusively€on€Mr.€Whiteššs€survey€to€determine€the€location€of€the€boundaryĻbetween€the€Savages€and€Mr.€Hildenbrandt.€€In€cases€of€this€sort,€the€trial€court€should€look€first€toĻthe€natural€objects€or€landmarks€on€the€property,€then€to€the€artificial€objects€or€landmarks€on€theĻproperty,€then€to€the€boundary€lines€of€adjacent€property,€and€finally€to€the€calls€in€the€deeds.€€ņņMixĻv.€Milleróó,€27€S.W.3d€508,€513€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€ņņFranks€v.€Burksóó,€688€S.W.2d€435,€438Ļ(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€ņņThornburg€v.€Chaseóó,€606€S.W.2d€672,€675€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€In€lightĻof€the€admittedly€defective€calls€in€the€partiesšš€deeds€and€the€unanimous€agreement€that€theĻboundary€line€ran€along€the€Ridge€Road,€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€portion€of€the€trialĻcourtššs€judgment€that€awards€the€Savages€the€.28„acre€tract€south€of€the€Ridge€Road.€€Accordingly,Ļon€remand,€the€trial€court€shall€modify€the€portion€of€its€order€regarding€this€boundary€line€to€reflectĻthat€the€boundary€line€between€the€Savages€and€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€is€the€northern€edge€of€the€RidgeĻRoad.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņVII.ó óĢą@ ąņņņ ņThe€Set„Off€To€The€Savagesšš€Damagesó óóóĢĢą ąAs€a€final€matter,€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€award€theĻSavages€a€$6,110.50€judgment€against€him.€€While€he€does€not€dispute€the€trial€courtššs€conclusionĻthat€his€obstruction€of€the€Ridge€Road€damaged€the€Savages,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€byĻchanging€its€mind€about€granting€him€a€set„off€based€on€the€damage€to€his€property€caused€by€theĻSavagesšš€clearing€of€brush€and€trees€along€the€Ridge€Road.€€We€have€determined€that€the€evidence,Ļas€portrayed€in€this€record,€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€conclusion€that€the€brushĻand€trees€cleared€by€the€Savages€were€not€on€Mr.€Hildenbrandtššs€property.ĢĢą ąMr.€Hildenbrandt€would€only€be€entitled€to€a€set„off€if€he€proved€either€that€the€SavagesĻcleared€trees€that€belonged€to€him€or€that€the€manner€in€which€the€Savages€cleared€their€propertyĻsomehow€damaged€his€property.€€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€presented€no€evidence€regarding€the€latter;Ļtherefore,€his€only€theory€of€damages€was€that€the€Savages€cut€down€trees€that€belonged€to€him.€ĻMr.€Hildenbrandt€testified€that€trees€had€been€planted€along€the€Ridge€Road€to€prevent€erosion€onĻhis€property€and€that€he€had€the€property€surveyed€several€years€before€the€present€dispute€and€hadĻmarked€the€trees€along€the€boundary€line€with€blue€paint.€€However,€the€record€does€not€reflectĻwhether€these€trees€were€to€the€south€or€north€of€the€Ridge€Road.€€In€response,€Mr.€Savage€and€hisĻbulldozer€operator€testified€that€no€clearing€work€was€performed€across€the€Ridge€Road€and€that€theĻtrees€with€the€blue€paint€that€were€cleared€were€to€the€north€of€the€Ridge€Road.ĢĢą ąThe€trial€court€had€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€and€to€weighĻtheir€credibility,€and€its€findings€of€fact€based€on€these€credibility€determinations€are€entitled€to€greatĻweight€on€appeal.€€ņņRandolph€v.€Randolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€185,€189€(Tenn.€1996);€ņņHobbs€v.€Hobbsóó,Ļ987€S.W.2d€844,€847€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€The€trial€court€determined€that€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€wasĻnot€entitled€to€a€set„off€because€he€had€failed€to€prove€that€any€of€the€trees€cleared€by€the€SavagesĻbelonged€to€him.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€must€necessarily€have€accredited€the€testimony€of€Mr.€SavageĻand€his€bulldozer€operation€regarding€the€location€of€the€cleared€trees€over€Mr.€HildenbrandtššsĻtestimony.€€This€record€provides€us€no€basis€for€overturning€this€conclusion.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņVIII.ó óĢĢą ąIn€summary,€we€have€concluded€that€the€errors€committed€by€the€trial€court€regarding€theĻlateness€of€the€October€5,€1998€hearing€and€its€errors€in€consideration€and€disposition€of€the€post„trial€motions€did€not€affect€the€substantive€outcome€of€this€case.€€We€have€also€determined€that€theĻevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€award€the€Savages€the€.28„acre€tractĶsouth€of€the€Ridge€Road€and€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtššs€decision€to€award€theĻSavages€a€$6,110.50€judgment€against€Mr.€Hildenbrandt€without€a€set„off.€€ĢĢą ąWe€affirm€the€judgment€as€modified€herein€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherĻproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€The€costs€are€taxed€in€equal€proportions€to€DonĻHildenbrandt€and€his€surety€and€to€Jimmy€Joe€Savage€and€Frances€Joy€Savage€for€which€execution,Ļif€necessary,€may€issue.ĢĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą_____________________________€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE