ÿWPC¯ Z|dU]¿ÍZ_Ù¸Ih1qÚŽe’L”²á¿¶Ø÷ÊÙJQ8~ÉxñŒ¦© [«ú}~Ùn¯¹÷GX&t?Ðöø,cºüb’}ŸW P¿…ÁW¬¤ÊVš¿K:¾t…`œÊ¼…Þ¿K'xŠ½Ø¿±¤Üq2·µ©àë6Ó„ #û2“‰[g49@?Š…qÉ[PA‚ƒNÃØìce—O -&¤÷tä¯|I”Nç–Æ·ÍŠ>†®ãJ|)ñéðòÙ? wI ®xn‹0¨ZTà™bçëÆA¼áÇÓßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓÓThis€is€an€action€for€specific€performance€of€an€option€agreement€for€the€sale€of€some€farmlandÐ sà Ðacreage,€from€which€a€60„acre€tract€was€excepted.€€Ô#†¼XB»XX–#ÔÔ‡XX»¼XBÔThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€action,€holding€thatÐ _¯ Ðthe€option€agreement€did€not€satisfy€the€statute€of€frauds€because€the€description€of€the€exceptedÐ K› Ðproperty€was€inadequate€and€that€the€deficiency€could€not€be€remedied€by€parol€evidence.€Ð 7‡ ÐThereafter,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€to€ð ðreopen€the€proofðð€to€introduce€evidence€to€supportÐ #s Ðreformation€of€the€description€of€the€excepted€property.€€The€motion€was€denied.€€The€plaintiffsÐ _ Ðappeal,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€(1)€finding€that€the€option€agreement€did€not€satisfy€theÐ ûK Ðstatute€of€frauds;€(2)€refusing€to€consider€parol€evidence€of€the€location€of€the€excepted€property;€andÐ ç7 Ð(3)€refusing€to€ð ðreopen€the€proofðð€on€the€issue€of€reformation.€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€appealÐ Ó# Ðis€frivolous.€€We€find€that€the€option€agreement€is€sufficiently€definite€to€satisfy€the€statute€of€fraudsÐ ¿ Ðand€that€parol€evidence€should€have€been€admitted€to€locate€the€excepted€property.€€We€thereforeÐ «û Ðvacate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ —ç Ðopinion.€€Ð ƒÓ ÐÓçÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ [ «  ÐVacated;€Case€Remandedó óÐ G!—! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼XB»àXÏ#ÔÔ‡XX.¼XBÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ #o# ÐòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð  $[$ ÐÌWilliam€T.€Alt,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Paul€Ray€Seaton€and€John€Nolan€Seaton.Ð ã%3!& ÐÌJohn€W.€Cleveland,€Sweetwater,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Richard€Rowe,€Individually€and€asÐ »' #( ÐPersonal€Representative€of€the€Estate€of€Zola€G.€Howell,€Faye€Howell€Jones,€David€Howell,€FredrickÐ §(÷#) ÐHowell,€Frankie€Howell,€Steven€Howell,€Roger€Howell,€Debbie€Howell,€James€D.€Parks,€and€BrianÐ “)ã$* ÐJones.Ð *Ï%+ ÐÓ© ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼XB»XXØ #ÔòòóóÐ W,§'- ÐÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼XBÔÐ C-“(.ý ÐÓ  ÓI.€€òòFactsóóÐ ° ÐÓ>ÓÌà  àOn€March€8,€1988,€€the€plaintiffs,€Paul€Ray€Seaton€and€John€Nolan€Seaton,€entered€into€a€ten„Ð ˆØ Ðyear€option€contract€with€Carl€R.€Howell€and€his€wife,€Zola€G.€Howell€(collectively€ð ðthe€optionorsðð),Ð tÄ Ðfor€the€purchase€of€the€Howellsðð€farm.€€The€plaintiffs€exercised€their€option€on€January€13,€1998,Ð `° Ðfollowing€the€death€of€both€optionors.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€personal€representative€and€heirs€of€Ms.€Howellððs€estateÐ L œ Ð(collectively€ð ðthe€defendantsðð)€refused€to€sell€the€property€to€the€plaintiffs,€and€this€lawsuit€ensued.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐIn€their€answer,€the€defendants€allege€that€the€option€is€unenforceable€because€it€was€unfairly€orÐ $ t Ðfraudulently€procured.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€option€agreement€describes€the€Howellsðð€farm€as€two€tracts,€one€consisting€of€318€acresÐ è 8  Ðand€another€consisting€of€263.5€acres,€located€in€the€First€Civil€District€of€Monroe€County.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðmetes€and€bounds€of€these€two€tracts€are€accurately€set€forth€in€the€option€agreement€and€are€notÐ À  Ðdisputed.€€The€option€agreement€provides,€however,€for€two€exceptions׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€these€tracts.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðexception€pertinent€to€our€discussion€provides€as€follows:€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àALSO€EXCEPTED€from€the€above€described€property€that€portionÐ pÀ Ðof€property€leased€by€Carl€R.€Howell€and€wife,€Zola€G.€Howell€toÐ \¬ ÐDiversified€Systems,€Inc.,€a€Tennessee€corporation,€which€LeaseÐ H˜ ÐAgreement€was€entered€into€on€July€11,€1985,€and€which€has€not€beenÐ 4„ Ðrecorded€as€of€the€date€of€execution€of€this€agreement,€a€copy€ofÐ  p Ðwhich€is€attached€hereto€as€an€exhibit,€and€it€further€being€understoodÐ  \ Ðby€and€between€the€parties€hereto€that€said€Lease€Agreement€includesÐ øH Ðapproximately€sixty€(60)€acres,€more€or€less,€all€in€accordance€withÐ ä4 Ðthe€terms€thereof.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌThe€plaintiffs€and€Mr.€Howell€were€shareholders€of€Diversified€Systems,€Inc.,€a€corporation€engagedÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€business€of€solid€waste€disposal.€€The€lease€provides€that€the€property€was€to€be€used€as€aÐ ”ä Ðlandfill.€€Although€Diversified€Systems€paid€rent€under€the€lease€until€the€lease€was€discontinued€inÐ €Ð Ð1990,€a€landfill€was€never€operated€on€the€property.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€referenced€lease€is€attached€to€the€option€agreement€and€is€signed€by€the€Howells€asÐ D!” Ðlessors€and€by€the€plaintiff€Paul€Ray€Seaton€as€the€president€of€Diversified€Systems.€€The€leaseÐ 0"€  Ðdescribes€the€leased€property€as€follows:€Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àLYING€AND€BEING€in€the€First€Civil€District€of€Monroe€County,Ð ô$D # ÐTennessee,€and€being€more€particularly€described€as€follows:Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBEGINNING€at€a€stake€at€the€southeast€corner€of€the€property€hereinÐ ° Ðconveyed€with€property€of€Frankie€Howell,€other€lands€of€the€grantorsÐ œì Ðherein;€thence€westwardly€with€the€line€of€other€lands€of€the€grantorsÐ ˆØ Ðherein,€2,664€feet€to€a€stake€at€the€southwest€corner€of€the€propertyÐ tÄ Ðherein€conveyed€with€Fridley€and€other€lands€of€the€grantors€herein;Ð `° Ðthence€northwardly€with€Fridley,€988€feet€to€a€stake€at€the€northwestÐ L œ Ðcorner€of€the€property€herein€conveyed€with€Fridley€and€Whited;Ð 8 ˆ Ðthence€eastwardly€with€Whited,€2,664€feet€to€a€stake€at€the€northeastÐ $ t Ðcorner€of€the€property€herein€conveyed€with€Whited€and€FrankieÐ  ` ÐHowell;€thence€southwardly€with€Frankie€Howell,€988€feet€to€theÐ ü L  Ðpoint€of€beginning,€containing€approximately€60€acres,€more€or€less.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€shortly€before€trial,€the€parties€learned€that€the€property€description€in€the€leaseÐ À  Ðagreement€exhibited€to€the€option€agreement€is€erroneous.€The€problem,€as€outlined€by€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðin€its€memorandum€opinion,€is€as€follows:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€description€in€the€lease...does€not€work€and€cannot€be€fixed€soÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€leased€premises€can€be€located.€€In€short,€it€describes€nothing;Ð \¬ Ðit€does€not€close€except€as€a€rectangle€containing€sixty€acres€withoutÐ H˜ Ða€point€of€reference€except€the€general€grant.€€If€one€uses€the€distancesÐ 4„ Ðand€directions€to€describe€a€rectangular€tract€from€the€beginningÐ  p Ðpoint,€it€describes€a€tract€of€approximately€sixty€acres€running€east„Ð  \ Ðwest.€€Plaintiffs€assert€that€the€actual€leased€sixty€acres€ran€north„Ð øH Ðsouth€and€are€in€another€part€of€the€farm.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌAs€illustrated€by€an€exhibit€in€the€record,€the€metes€and€bounds€description€does€not€touch€theÐ ¼  ÐFridley€property,€contrary€to€the€assertion€in€the€description€that€the€subject€rectangle€shares€aÐ ¨ø Ðcommon€corner€to€Fridleyððs€property.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€the€trial,€the€defendants€raised€ð!ð€for€the€first€time€ð!ð€the€defense€of€the€statute€of€frauds,Ð l¼ Ðand€they€argued€that€parol€evidence€was€inadmissible€to€locate€the€property.€€The€plaintiffsÐ X ¨ Ðmaintained,€on€the€other€hand,€that€the€leased€property€could€properly€be€located€by€parol€evidence.€Ð D!” ЀRecognizing€that€the€parties€had€just€recently€discovered€the€discrepancy€and€had€not€had€time€toÐ 0"€  Ðbrief€the€legal€issues€involved,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€plaintiffs€to€introduce€extrinsic€evidenceÐ #l! Ðas€to€the€location€of€the€leased€property€and€reserved€ruling€on€the€issue€of€the€statute€of€frauds.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€trial,€the€court€below€entered€a€memorandum€opinion׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€finding€that€the€optionÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€ð ðneither€clear€nor€definite,€nor€complete,ðð€in€that€the€ð ðfailure€to€describe€in€writing€the€exceptionÐ Ì&"% Ðto€a€grant€is€necessarily€a€failure€to€describe€clearly€and€definitely€the€grant€itself.ðð€€The€trial€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðfound€that€the€description€contained€in€the€lease€ð ðdoes€not€work€except€as€a€rectangle€of€preciseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmeasurements€containing€approximately€sixty€acres[;]€it€could€describe€any€number€of€tracts€withinÐ ° Ðthe€larger€tract€from€which€it€is€reserved.ðð€€The€court€decreed€that€the€defect€could€not€be€remediedÐ œì Ðby€parol€evidence,€and€it€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint.€€Thereafter,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motionÐ ˆØ Ðseeking€ð ðto€reopen€the€proofðð€and€to€reform€the€description€of€the€excepted€property€in€the€optionÐ tÄ Ðagreement.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion,€and€this€appeal€followed.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€òòStandardóó€òòofóó€òòReviewóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓï,ÓÌà  àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below;Ð  ` Ðhowever,€that€record€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€factualÐ ü L  Ðfindings€that€we€must€honor€ð ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð è 8  ÐP.€13(d);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddleston,ó óóó€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððsÐ Ô$  Ðconclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€with€no€such€presumption.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€Florida€SteelÐ À  ÐCorp.,ó óóó€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€òòDiscussionóóÐ „Ô  ÐÓ0ÓÌà  àWe€begin€by€addressing€the€fundamental€issue€in€this€case,€òòi.e.óó,€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ \¬ Ðin€holding€that€the€option€agreement€failed€to€adequately€describe€the€property€at€issue€and€that€parolÐ H˜ Ðevidence€was€inadmissible€to€locate€the€excepted€property.Ð 4„ ÐÌò òòòà  àó óóóIn€the€seminal€case€of€òòò òDobson€v.€Litton,€ó óóó45€Tenn.€(5€Cold.)€616€(1868),€the€Supreme€CourtÐ  \ Ðstated€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhere€an€instrument€is€so€drawn€that,€upon€its€face,€it€refersÐ Ð  Ðnecessarily€to€some€existing€tract€of€land,€and€its€terms€can€be€appliedÐ ¼  Ðto€that€one€tract€only,€parol€evidence€may€be€employed€to€show€whereÐ ¨ø Ðthe€tract€so€mentioned€is€located.€€But€where€the€descriptionÐ ”ä Ðemployed,€is€one€that€must€necessarily€apply€with€equal€exactness€toÐ €Ð Ðany€one€of€an€indefinite€number€of€tracts,€parol€evidence€is€notÐ l¼ Ðadmissible€to€show€that€the€parties€intended€to€designate€a€particularÐ X ¨ Ðtract€by€the€description.à À àÐD!”` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€620.€€In€ò òòòDobsonó óóó,€the€instrument€at€issue€described€the€property€to€be€sold€as€ð ða€certain€tractÐ #l! Ðof€land,€containing€nine€acres€and€sixty„six€poles,€near€the€junction€of€Broad€Street,€Nashville,€andÐ $X" Ðthe€Hillsboro€Turnpike,€Davidson€County,€€Tennessee.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€617.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€€instrument€was€insufficient€to€require€specific€performance€because,€ð ð[w]ò òòòó óóóithout€the€aid€of€parolÐ à%0!$ Ðproof€it€does€not€point€out€and€identify€the€premises€and€is€too€vague€and€uncertain€to€be€enforced.ðð€Ð Ì&"% Ðò òòòId.€ó óóóat€618,€619.€€The€Court€noted€that€had€the€property€been€described€as€ð ðòòmyóó€tract€of€nine€acres€andÐ ¸'#& Ðsixty„six€poles,€near€the€junction,ðð€the€description€would€have€adequately€designated€a€particularÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtract,€and€parol€evidence€would€have€been€admissible€to€determine€that€tractððs€boundaries€andÐ )à$( Ðlocation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€619„20€(emphasis€added).€€However,€because€the€property€was€referred€to€only€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðð ða€tract,ðð€the€description€failed€to€identify€a€particular€tract€of€land,€and,€thus,€parol€evidence€wouldÐ h+¸&* Ðbe€ð ðinadmissible,€because€its€effect€is€to€supply€by€parol,€a€material€part€of€the€agreement,€which€theÐ ° Ðstatute€of€frauds€requires€to€be€wholly€in€writing.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÐ œì ÐÌò òòòà  àó óóóThe€principles€set€forth€in€òòò òDobson€ó óóóhave€been€followed€in€numerous€cases.€€In€òòò òDougherty€v.Ð tÄ ÐChesnutt,ó óóó€86€Tenn.€1,€6,€5€S.W.€444,€445€(1887),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€description€of€theÐ `° Ðleased€property€only€as€the€ð ðRose€Hillðð€farm€sufficiently€identified€the€property€to€satisfy€the€statuteÐ L œ Ðof€frauds.€€In€so€holding,€the€Court€noted€that€the€lease€showed€on€its€face€that€both€the€lessor€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðlessee€lived€in€Hawkins€County,€ð ðfrom€which€it€may€be€reasonably€inferred€that€the€lands€lay€in€thatÐ $ t Ðcounty.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Further,€the€Court€noted€that€the€farm€was€recognized€and€generally€known€by€thatÐ  ` Ðname€by€many€people€in€the€community.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€6„7,€5€S.W.€at€445.€€The€Court€thus€found€that€theÐ ü L  Ðintroduction€of€parol€evidence€was€appropriate€ð ðto€show€where€the€property€is,ðð€ò òòòid.ó óóó€at€7,€5€S.W.€atÐ è 8  Ð445,€noting€that€the€admission€of€parol€evidence€was€ð ðnot€to€introduce€any€additional€evidence€asÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€terms€of€the€contract,€but€simply€to€ascertain€if€there€be€lands€or€property€known€by€the€nameÐ À  Ðor€description€given€in€the€writing,€and€where€that€property€is.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€7,€5€S.W.€at€445„46€(quotingÐ ¬ü  Ðò òòòJohnson€v.€Kellogg,ó óóó€54€Tenn.€(7€Heisk.)€262,€265€(1872)).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àò òòòó óóóIn€ò òòòParsons€v.€Hall,ó óóó€184€Tenn.€363,€365,€199€S.W.2d€99,€99€(1947),€the€property€wasÐ pÀ Ðdescribed€as€ð ðone€house€and€lot€in€13€district€of€Coffee€County€near€Corporation€line€in€Tullahoma,Ð \¬ ÐBeginning€at€a€fence€post€in€the€old€Winchester„Tullahoma€Old€Road,€running€southerly€a€distanceÐ H˜ Ðof€100€feet€running€back€205€feet.€€Containing€seven€room€house,€garage€wood€house,€etc.ðð€€TheÐ 4„ ÐCourt€found€the€description€fatally€defective,€as€it€failed€to€identify€a€particular€tract:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€not€clear€what€was€meant€by€ð ðthe€old€Winchester„Tullahoma€OldÐ øH ÐRoad;ðð€whether€the€property€lay€north,€south,€east€or€west€of€it;€orÐ ä4 Ðwhat€was€meant€by€the€words,€ð ðrunning€southerly€a€distance€of€100Ð Ð  Ðfeet€running€back€205€feet.ðð€€The€language€used€is€ð ðone€house€andÐ ¼  Ðlot,ðð€not€òòmy€óóhouse€and€lot.€€Obviously€no€apt€words€were€used€toÐ ¨ø Ðdesignate€a€particular€house€and€lot.Дä` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€367„68,€199€S.W.2d€at€101€(emphasis€in€original).€€Because€no€particular€tract€was€identifiedÐ l¼ Ðin€the€instrument,€the€Court€rejected€the€introduction€of€parole€evidence,€holding€ð ð[p]arol€evidenceÐ X ¨ Ðis€admissible€to€ððapplyðð€the€description€contained€in€the€written€instrument,€but€such€evidence€isÐ D!” Ðinadmissible€to€ððsupplyðð€a€description€omitted€therefrom.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€368,€199€S.W.2d€at€101.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòBranstetter€v.€Barnett,ó óóó€521€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1974),€the€property€wasÐ $X" Ðdescribed€as€ð ð120€acres€located€in€7th€C.D.€of€Morgan€County.ðð€€The€Court€found€that€the€contractÐ ô$D # Ðsufficiently€identified€a€particular€tract:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€distinction€lies€in€those€cases€where€the€tract€is€an€indefiniteÐ ¸'#& Ðone€(a€tract)€as€opposed€to€a€definite€one€(my€tract).€€In€the€instantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcase,€in€the€option€contract€in€question,€prior€to€the€description€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âseller€ð ðcovenants€that€he€is€the€owner€thereofðð.€€This€is€the€same€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðsaying€ð ðmyðð€120€acres€and€parol€evidence€was€admissible€toÐ ° Ðparticularize€the€description€contained€in€the€option€contract.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€821.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòGorbics€v.€Close,ó óóó€722€S.W.2d€672,€673€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986),€the€property€was€describedÐ L œ Ðas€ð ða€one€acre€tract€of€land€on€the€northwest€corner€of€my€land.ðð€€This€Court€found€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdescription€failed€to€identify€which€part€of€the€defendantsðð€land€was€to€be€sold:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€the€present€case,€if€the€description€had€read,€ð ðThe€one€acreÐ ü L  Ðenclosed€by€a€fence€in€the€northwest€corner€of€my€landðð;€and€if€parolÐ è 8  Ðevidence€had€shown€that€the€defendants€owned€only€one€tract€of€land,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€description€might€have€been€valid.€€However,€the€writing€containsÐ À  Ðnothing€which€would€locate€the€one€acre€within€the€land€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendants€or€define€its€limits€or€shape,€except€the€area€of€one€acreÐ ˜è  Ðand€being€at€the€northwest€corner€of€defendantsðð€land.€€ð ðNorthwestÐ „Ô  Ðcornerðð€is€a€general€location,€but€does€not€specify€which€of€numerousÐ pÀ Ðpossible€one€acre€tracts€might€be€within€the€general€location.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€675.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àUpon€our€review€of€the€relevant€authority,€we€find€and€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ  \ Ðdetermining€that€the€option€agreement€in€the€instant€case€failed€to€adequately€identify€the€propertyÐ øH Ðto€be€sold.€€The€description€of€the€property€excepted€from€the€option€as€ð ðthat€portion€of€propertyÐ ä4 Ðleased€by€Carl€R.€Howell€and€wife,€Zola€G.€Howell€to€Diversified€Systems,€Inc.,...which€LeaseÐ Ð  ÐAgreement€was€entered€into€on€July€11,€1985,ðð€is€an€identification€of€a€òòparticularóó€tract€of€land€withinÐ ¼  Ðthe€Howellsðð€farm.€€This€description€could€not€ð ðapply€with€equal€exactness€to€any€one€of€anÐ ¨ø Ðindefinite€number€of€tracts,ðð€òòseeò òDobson,ó óóó€45€Tenn.€at€620,€as€only€one€tract€of€land€was€subject€toÐ ”ä Ðthe€July€11,€1985,€lease€between€Diversified€Systems€and€the€Howells.€€Accordingly,€we€concludeÐ €Ð Ðthat€parol€evidence€is€admissible€ð ðto€show€where€the€tract€so€mentioned€is€located.ðð€€òòSee€ò òid.ó óóóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àWe€recognize€that€any€parol€evidence€introduced€regarding€the€location€of€the€property€willÐ D!” Ðcontradict€or€vary€the€legal€description€of€the€property€contained€in€the€lease.€€Generally€speaking,Ð 0"€  Ðparol€evidence€that€contradicts,€varies,€or€alters€a€complete,€valid,€and€unambiguous€written€contractÐ #l! Ðis€not€admissible.€€ò òòòHarry€J.€Whelchel€Co.€v.€Ripley€Tractor€Co.,ó óóó€900€S.W.2d€691,€692„93€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCt.€App.€1995).€€However,€parol€evidence€is€admissible€to€vary,€contradict,€or€alter€a€written€contractÐ ô$D # Ðterm€if€fraud,€accident,€or€mistake€is€shown.€€ò òòòMcMillin€v.€Great€Southern€Corp.,ó óóó€63€Tenn.€App.€732,Ð à%0!$ Ð740,€480€S.W.2d€152,€155€(1972).€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€legal€description€contained€in€the€leaseÐ Ì&"% Ðis€unworkable;€in€the€words€of€the€trial€court,€ð ðit€describes€nothing.ðð€€However,€the€Howells€andÐ ¸'#& ÐDiversified€Systems€operated€under€this€lease€for€five€years.€€Although€the€land€was€never€used€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðits€intended€purpose,€Diversified€Systems€made€the€required€rent€payments.€€Clearly,€although€theirÐ )à$( Ðlease€described€ð ðnothing,ðð€the€parties€acted€as€if€the€lease€described€ð ðsomething.ðð€€Indeed,€it€was€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðuntil€years€later,€after€the€lease€was€discontinued,€that€the€discrepancy€in€the€legal€description€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðdiscovered€and€a€question€arose€as€to€which€property€was€intended€to€be€covered€by€the€lease.€€GivenÐ ° Ðthese€circumstances,€it€is€logical€to€conclude€that€the€wording€of€the€description€was€the€result€ofÐ œì Ðsome€accident€or€mistake.€€That€being€the€case,€parol€evidence€is€admissible€to€vary€the€lease€so€thatÐ ˆØ Ðit€may€accurately€describe€the€subject€property.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€have€determined€that€parol€evidence€is€admissible€to€establish€the€location€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€excepted€property,€we€hasten€to€add€that€our€decision€in€no€way€predetermines€the€outcome€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthis€litigation.€€We€decline€to€locate€the€property€ourselves€upon€the€record€before€us,€as€we€areÐ $ t Ðmindful€that€the€parties€became€aware€of€the€problematic€description€in€the€lease€only€shortly€beforeÐ  ` Ðtrial€and€had€little€time€to€adequately€prepare€for€the€factual€and€legal€issues€that€resulted€from€thatÐ ü L  Ðdiscovery.€€We€thus€remand€this€case€in€order€to€provide€both€sides€an€opportunity€to€present€parolÐ è 8  Ðevidence€regarding€the€location€of€the€leased€property.€€If€the€court€below€is€able€to€locate€theÐ Ô$  Ðexcepted€property€from€the€evidence€presented,€then€the€court€may€consider€ordering€specificÐ À  Ðperformance€of€the€option€agreement,€as€well€as€any€other€relief€properly€sought€by€the€parties.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@ ìàIV.€€òòFrivolous€AppealóóˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€view€of€our€ruling€in€this€case,€it€follows€that€the€defendantsðð€argument€that€the€plaintiffsððÐ \¬ Ðappeal€is€a€frivolous€one€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  ÓV.€òòConclusionóóÐ  p ÐÓjaÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€vacated.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings,Ð øH Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellees,€Richard€Rowe,€IndividuallyÐ ä4 Ðand€as€Personal€Representative€of€the€Estate€of€Zola€G.€Howell,€Faye€Howell€Jones,€David€Howell,Ð Ð  ÐFredrick€Howell,€Frankie€Howell,€Steve€Howell,€Roger€Howell,€Debbie€Howell,€James€D.€Parks,Ð ¼  Ðand€Brian€Jones.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE