ÿWPCŒ  b %l^ r 0ˆ~UNwT4Xl z{ÒõÇ mÉ#ÁàÆ¡ Æg Æ- Æó 0D¹ Ný Eÿ  0J 0TS 0^§ 0h 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq 0dæU*JUtU >Éub|v~„vÓ 0ëÕ BÀ 0XÝ D35 D-h 0K• ASàÆ3 0¤ù 0D A«á»¨~B+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+,3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Times KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÓ ÓÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÔ_Ô€Joe€Richardson€died€in€1995.€€His€estate€was€substituted€as€a€party€to€this€case.Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÓ ÓÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÔ_Ô€Sandra€Shearron€is€the€daughter€of€Joe€and€Ruby€Richardson,€and€the€niece€of€James€and€Evelyn€JuanitaÏRichardson.Ì- ù-PtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2Üê$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ õ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨ýò»»Ô d(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3T$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ õ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€((¼d#ÑÑ#€((¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ8€UyXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà àà àà àà@ àÔ€*îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€*¼ÔÌÓ  ÓDecember€6,€2000€SessionÌÔ€*XÔÌò òÔ€*¼ÔWILLIAM€B.€SHEARRON,€òòet€al.óó€v.€THE€TUCKER€CORPORATION,€òòetÏalóó.Ô€*XÔó óÌÌà@ àò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÌà@ àNo.€89„62„323€€€€€€James€E.€Walton,€JudgeÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÌÌà@ àNo.€M2000„00624„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€2,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÌó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€is€a€nuisance€case.€€The€plaintiff€landowners€sued€the€developer€of€a€subdivisionÏadjacent€to€their€property€for€digging€a€drainage€ditch€that€caused€frequent€flooding.€€The€defendantÏdeveloper€filed€counter„claims,€including€an€allegation€that€the€plaintiffs€and€the€previous€owners€ofÏhis€property€had€conspired€to€breach€the€agreement€to€sell€the€property€to€the€developer.€€TheÏdeveloper€also€argued€that€the€city€had€taken€steps€to€alleviate€the€flooding.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€developer€had€created€a€permanent€nuisance€by€changing€the€natural€flow€of€water€acrossÏhis€property,€and€dismissed€the€developerððs€counter„claims.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€of€a€nuisance,€but€conclude€that€the€circumstances€created€both€a€temporary€and€aÏpermanent€nuisance,€and€remand€for€recalculation€of€damages€based€on€this€holding.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,ÏReversed€in€Part€and€Remanded.ó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.,óó€andÏòòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.ÌÌJames€D.€Kay,€Jr.,€John€B.€Enkema,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€The€TuckerÏCorporation€and€Richard€Tucker,€Individually.ÌÌJohn€L.€Mitchell,€Ross€H.€Hicks,€for€the€appellees,€William€B.€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ô€and€Sandra€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ô.ÌÌGregory€P.€Patton,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€James€Paul€Richardson€and€wife,ÏEvelyn€Juanita€Richardson,€Estate€of€Joe€L.€Richardson,€Jr.,€and€Ruby€I.€Richardson.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓ ÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€a€nuisance€case.€€In€this€case,€William€B.€Shearron,€Jr.,€and€his€wife,€SandraÏShearron€(collectively€ð ðShearronsðð)€filed€suit€against€The€Tucker€Corporation€and€Richard€B.ÏTucker€(collectively€ð ðTuckerðð).€€Tucker€is€a€developer€who€developed€a€subdivision€adjacent€to€theÏÔ_ÔShearronsÔ_Ôðð€home.€€In€developing€the€subdivision,€Tucker€dug€a€drainage€ditch€on€his€property.€€InÏthe€lawsuit,€the€Shearrons€alleged€that€the€drainage€ditch€caused€frequent€flooding€on€theÏÔ_ÔShearronsÔ_Ôðð€property€and€that€Tucker€had€thereby€created€a€nuisance.€€The€Shearrons€requested€anÏinjunction€requiring€Tucker€to€correct€the€problem.€€In€the€alternative,€the€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ô€sought€moneyÏdamages.Ìà àTucker€filed€an€answer€in€which€he€asserted,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€Shearrons€wereÏcontributorily€negligent€in€causing€their€property€to€flood.€€In€addition,€Tucker€filed€a€third€partyÏcomplaint€against€Richardson€and€Richardson,€Inc.,€James€Paul€Richardson€and€his€wife,€EvelynÏJuanita€Richardson,€Joe€L.€Richardson,€Jr.,× ƒ) ××  ×€and€his€wife,€Ruby€I.€Richardson€(collectivelyÏð ðÔ_ÔRichardsonsÔ_Ôðð).× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€Richardsons€originally€owned€the€land€on€which€Tucker€developed€hisÏsubdivision€(ð ðthe€Richardson€farmðð).€€Tucker€alleged€in€his€amended€third€party€complaint€that€theÏRichardsons€negligently€advised€him€to€build€the€drainage€ditch,€and€that€Richardson€andÏRichardson,€Inc.€negligently€constructed€the€ditch,€which€resulted€in€the€flooding€problem.€€TuckerÏalso€asserted€that€the€Shearrons€and€the€Richardsons€conspired€to€undermine€his€purchase€of€theÏRichardson€farm€by€withholding€a€0.6€acre€tract€that€was€supposed€to€be€included€in€the€transfer.€ÏTucker€contended€that€the€Richardsons€breached€the€contract€for€sale€of€the€property€by€failing€toÏinclude€the€0.6€acre€tract,€and€that€the€Shearrons€were€liable€for€inducing€the€Ô_ÔRichardsonsÔ_Ôðð€breach.€ÏTucker€filed€an€amended€answer€and€counterclaim€asserting€that€the€Shearrons€could€not€recoverÏfor€nuisance€because€they€did€not€have€ð ðclean€hands,ðð€and€asserted€a€claim€against€the€ShearronsÏfor€defamation.Ìà àSubsequently,€Tucker€nonsuited€his€third€party€complaint€against€Richardson€andÏRichardson,€Inc.€for€negligence.€€The€trial€court€later€dismissed€Tuckerððs€defamation€claim€againstÏthe€Shearrons,€as€well€as€his€conspiracy€claims€against€the€Shearrons€and€Richardsons.€€The€onlyÏclaims€remaining€for€trial€were€the€Shearronsðð€nuisance€claim€against€Tucker,€and€Tuckerððs€claimÏfor€breach€of€contract€against€the€Richardsons€and€inducement€to€breach€of€contract€against€theÏShearrons.Ìà àA€bench€trial€was€held€on€December€16„17,€1999.€€At€trial,€William€Shearron€testified€thatÏhe€and€his€wife€had€lived€at€2998€Trough€Springs€Road€since€1983.€€The€evidence€established€thatÏthe€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ôðð€property€was€bounded€by€Trough€Springs€Road€on€the€north,€and€the€RichardsonÏfarm€on€the€west.€The€Richardson€farm€also€fronted€Trough€Springs€Road.€€In€July€1986,€theÏRichardsons€sold€their€farm€to€Tucker,€who€planned€to€develop€it€into€the€Savannah€subdivision.€ÏLots€1€and€2€of€the€subdivision€bordered€the€Shearronsðð€property.€€Tucker€dug€a€drainage€ditchÏalong€the€eastern€border€of€lots€1€and€2,€abutting€the€Shearronsðð€property,€to€allow€water€to€flowÏtoward€Trough€Springs€Road,€under€a€culvert,€and€into€a€pond€located€on€the€other€side€of€the€road.€ÏMr.€Shearron€testified€that€the€drainage€ditch€measured€about€7€or€8€feet€deep,€and€about€35€to€45Ïfeet€wide.Ìà àMr.€Shearron€testified€that€the€first€major€flood€occurred€on€Christmas€Eve,€1988.€€€He€saidÏthat€once€before,€while€they€were€constructing€their€home€in€1983,€he€had€noticed€ð ðminimalððÏflooding€from€the€pond€across€the€street.€€However,€Mr.€Shearron€denied€that€flooding€had€everÏoccurred€on€the€part€of€his€property€which€abutted€the€Richardson€farm.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ô€said€that,Ïafter€the€Savannah€subdivision€was€developed,€his€property€would€flood€approximately€three€or€fourÏtimes€per€year.€€On€occasion,€rocks,€dirt,€and€other€debris€would€wash€down€from€the€TuckerÏproperty€and€deposit€in€the€Shearronsðð€yard,€and€when€the€drainage€ditch€flooded,€the€water€oftenÏspread€50€to€75€feet€from€culvert.€€On€at€least€one€occasion,€the€flooding€entered€the€crawl€space€ofÏthe€Shearronsðð€house,€and€they€had€to€replace€their€water€heater€and€locate€it€elsewhere€in€theirÍgarage€so€it€would€not€be€susceptible€to€flood€damage.€€In€his€Ô_Ôdeposition,TuckerÔ_Ô€did€not€dispute€thatÏthe€Shearronsðð€property€flooded,€nor€did€he€dispute€that€the€flooding€was€caused€by€the€drainageÏditch.Ìà àMr.€Shearron€testified€that€he€often€had€to€reseed€and€fertilize€his€yard€after€floodsÏoccurred.€€In€addition,€he€lost€a€garden€shed€worth€approximately€$350€to€$400,€had€to€replace€andÏrelocate€his€water€heater€at€a€cost€of€approximately€$600,€and€lost€several€trees€as€well.€€Mr.ÏShearron€testified€that€the€flooding€had€resulted€in€a€stigma€attaching€to€his€property,€that€it€wasÏcalled€ð ðLake€Tucker.ðð€€He€admitted€that,€since€the€City€of€Clarksville€had€installed€an€undergroundÏpipe€and€an€enlarged€culvert€under€Trough€Springs€Road€in€1998€to€alleviate€the€problem,€noÏflooding€had€occurred.€€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔHeÔ_Ô€maintained€that€there€had€been€no€heavy€rainfall€to€test€the€new€pipe€andÏculvert,€and€observed€that€during€a€recent€rainfall,€the€opening€to€the€new€pipe€was€almost€totallyÏsubmerged€in€water.€€However,€Jim€Durrett,€Director€of€Streets€for€the€City€of€Clarksville,€testifiedÏthat€the€system€was€designed€for€ð ðthe€hundred„year€storm,ðð€and€that€recently€there€was€a€ð ðbig€rainÏthat€probably€would€have€maxed€the€system€out,€and€it€carried€it.ðð€Ìà àCraig€Johnson,€a€real€estate€appraiser,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Shearrons.€€He€opined€thatÏthe€value€of€the€Shearronsðð€house€and€the€4.7€acres€accompanying€it€had€been€diminished€byÏ$43,500,€due€to€ð ðmarket€stigmaðð€associated€with€the€flooding.€€On€cross€examination,€JohnsonÏadmitted€that€he€had€never€before€appraised€residential€property€in€Montgomery€County,€and€that€heÏused€only€one€property,€located€in€Oak€Grove,€Kentucky,€to€measure€the€ð ðmarket€stigmaððÏassociated€with€prior€flooding€history.Ìà àMr.€Shearron€testified€that,€prior€to€filing€suit€against€Tucker,€he€hired€a€surveyor€toÏdelineate€the€boundaries€of€his€property.€€The€surveyor€discovered€a€pie„shaped€wedge€of€landÏtotaling€about€0.6€acres€between€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ôððs€property€and€Lots€1€and€2,€which€were€originally€partÏof€the€Richardson€farm.€€By€mistake,€the€0.6€acres€was€not€transferred€to€Tucker,€and€theÏRichardsons€retained€title€to€it.€€By€that€time,€Mr.€Shearron€testified,€the€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRichardsonsÔ_ÔÏthought€Tucker€had€already€built€out€lots€1€and€2€and€sold€them€to€homeowners.€€Tucker€had€a€20Ïfoot€drainage€easement€adjacent€to€this€property.€€Consequently,€the€Shearrons€believed€that€the€0.6Ïacres€was€ð ðvoid€property,ðð€and€that€the€only€logical€thing€for€the€Richardsons€to€do€was€to€transferÏthe€0.6€acre€tract€to€the€Shearrons.€€Mr.€Shearron€denied€that€he€and€his€wife€or€the€RichardsonsÏsought€to€harm€Tucker€by€withholding€the€0.6€acres€from€him.€€Mr.€Shearron€denied€that€TuckerÏwould€be€able€to€eliminate€the€flooding€problems€by€utilizing€the€0.6€acres,€because€of€its€unusualÏpie„shape.€€However,€it€was€undisputed€that€the€City€of€Clarksville€ultimately€condemned€the€0.6Ïacres€and€utilized€it€to€eliminate€the€flooding€problem.Ìà àMrs.€Shearron€testified€as€well.€€She€corroborated€her€husbandððs€testimony€that€they€hadÏhad€no€flooding€problems€prior€to€development€of€the€Savannah€subdivision.€€She€said€that,€afterÏthat,€they€had€flooding€problems€whenever€it€rained€two€inches€or€more.€€Regarding€the€0.6€acres,ÏMrs.€Shearron€testified€that€her€mother,€Ruby€Richardson,€was€especially€concerned€when€sheÏfound€out€that€the€Richardsons€had€retained€title€to€the€0.6€acres,€and€she€wanted€to€transfer€itÏimmediately€so€they€would€not€be€liable€if€an€accident€occurred€on€the€property.Ìà àTucker€also€testified€at€trial.€€Tucker€admitted€that€he€changed€the€natural€flow€of€waterÏacross€the€Richardson€farm€and€directed€it€toward€the€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ôðð€property.€€A€benefit€of€this€was€toÏavoid€having€the€water€flow€across€certain€lots€in€the€Savannah€subdivision.€€He€said€that€he€did€notÏknow€much€water€would€be€diverted€to€the€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ôðð€property.€€Ìà àTucker€testified€that,€when€the€flooding€problem€became€apparent,€he€offered€to€construct€aÏdeepened€concrete„lined€ditch€and€enlarge€the€pipe€under€Trough€Springs€Road.€€He€said€that€theÏShearrons€responded€with€two€alternatives:€Tucker€could€either€re„route€the€water€drainage€to€itsÏoriginal€pattern,€or€buy€their€house€and€one€acre€for€$160,000.€€No€further€negotiations€occurredÏuntil€after€the€Shearrons€filed€suit.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€know€that€the€Richardsons€hadÏinadvertently€retained€title€to€the€0.6€acres€until€after€the€flooding€occurred,€and€it€was€impossibleÏfor€him€to€fix€the€problem€without€access€to€the€0.6€acres.€€Tucker€acknowledged€that€the€surveyorÏhe€hired€had€made€the€mistake€in€describing€the€farmððs€boundaries€in€the€deed.€€He€said€that€neitherÏthe€Shearrons€nor€the€Ô_ÔRichardsonsÔ_Ô€told€him€a€mistake€was€made€in€his€survey,€but€Tucker€admittedÏthat€he€had€never€asked€them€to€transfer€the€0.6€acres€to€him.€€Ìà àAfter€the€trial€concluded,€the€trial€court€issued€an€extensive€memorandum€opinion.€€In€itsÏopinion,€the€trial€court€held€that€Tucker€was€liable€for€creating€a€permanent€nuisance€by€changingÏthe€natural€flow€of€water€across€the€Richardson€farm,€thereby€resulting€in€regular€flooding€on€theÏShearronsðð€property.€€He€cited€the€inexperience€of€the€Shearronsðð€property€appraiser,€Johnson,€inÏappraising€residential€property€in€Montgomery€County,€and€awarded€the€Shearronsðð€damages€in€theÏamount€of€$30,000,€rather€than€the€$43,500€they€sought.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€Tuckerððs€cross„claim€against€the€Richardsons€for€breach€of€contract,€because€Tucker€had€not€shown€any€damagesÏresulting€from€the€failure€to€transfer€the€0.6€acres.€€Likewise,€the€trial€court€dismissed€TuckerððsÏcounter„claim€against€the€Shearrons€for€inducement€to€breach€of€contract.€€From€this€order,€TuckerÏnow€appeals.€€€€€€€€Ìà àAn€appeal€from€a€bench€trial€is€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€in€theÏtrial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóóÏwith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòSee€Ridings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsonsó óóó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.Ï1996).Ìà àOn€appeal,€Tucker€raises€several€issues,€but€the€primary€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erredÏin€finding€a€permanent€nuisance,€in€light€of€the€undisputed€testimony€that€the€flooding€problem€hadÏbeen€ð ðfixedðð€by€the€City€of€Clarksville€when€it€installed€an€underground€pipe€and€a€new€culvertÏunder€Trough€Springs€Road.€€In€addition,€Tucker€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€hisÏbreach€of€contract€and€conspiracy€claims.Ìà àIt€is€well„settled€that€if€a€property€owner€changes€the€natural€flow€of€water€across€his€land€inÏa€manner€that€causes€flooding€on€adjacent€property,€he€is€liable€for€creating€a€nuisance.€€ò òòòSeeÏZollinger€v.€Carteró óóó,€837€S.W.2d€613,€615€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€This€remains€true€even€if€the€cityÏor€municipality€in€which€the€property€is€located€has€approved€the€ownerððs€plan€to€change€the€naturalÏdrainage€pattern.€€ò òòòSee€id.€€ó óóóIn€the€instant€case,€Tucker€does€not€dispute€that€he€changed€the€naturalÏflow€of€water€across€the€Richardson€farm,€nor€does€he€dispute€that€the€changes€he€made€causedÏflooding€on€the€Shearronsðð€property.€€Under€these€circumstances,€there€is€no€error€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Tucker€created€a€nuisance€to€the€Shearronsðð€enjoyment€of€their€property.€òòò òÌà àó óóóThe€amount€of€Tuckerððs€liability€for€creating€the€nuisance€depends€on€whether€the€nuisanceÏis€permanent€or€temporary.€€A€temporary€nuisance€ð ðcan€be€corrected€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€orÏmoney,ðð€while€a€permanent€nuisance€is€one€that€will€ð ðcontinue€indefinitely€and€is€at€onceÏproductive€of€all€the€damage€that€can€ever€occur€from€it.ðð€€ò òòòSee€Kearney€v.€Barrettó óóó,€No.€Ô_Ô01A01Ô_Ô„9407„Ô_ÔCH00356Ô_Ô,€1995€WL€1690,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.4,1995).€€The€measure€of€damages€for€aÏpermanent€nuisance€is€the€amount€of€diminution€in€market€value€of€the€property.€€ò òòòSee€Bennett€v.ÏCumberland€Hardwoods,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€Ô_Ô01A01Ô_Ô„019111„Ô_ÔCH00419Ô_Ô,€1992€WL€135808,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.ÍApp.€June€19,€1992).€€If€the€nuisance€is€temporary,€the€measure€of€damages€is€ð ðthe€injury€to€theÏvalue€of€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€property,€which€is€usually€shown€by€evidence€of€the€extentÏthat€the€rental€value€of€the€property€is€diminished€by€the€nuisance,ðð€during€the€period€of€time€inÏwhich€the€nuisance€existed.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó(quoting€ò òòòPate€v.€City€of€Martinó óóó,€614€Ô_ÔS.W.2dÔ_Ô€46,€48€(Tenn.€1981)).Ìà àIn€ò òòòKearneyó óóó,€this€Court€addressed€the€distinction€between€a€permanent€nuisance€and€aÏtemporary€nuisance,€stating:Ìà8 àThe€common€definition€of€a€temporary€nuisance€describes€it€as€one€that€can€beÏcorrected€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€or€money.€.€.€.€€Conversely,€a€permanentÏnuisance€is€one€of€such€character€that€it€will€be€presumed€to€continue€indefinitelyÏand€is€at€once€productive€of€all€the€damage€which€can€ever€result€from€it.€.€.€.€ÏNeither€of€these€attempts€at€classification€is€entirely€satisfactory.€€Obviously,€nearlyÏevery€nuisance€could€be€abated€by€the€devotion€of€enough€time€and€money€to€it;€andÏa€permanent€improvement€to€property€may,€in€conjunction€with€the€forces€of€nature,Ïcause€harm€only€periodically.Ìà8 àIn€older€cases€the€courts€took€what€seems€to€us€a€more€pragmatic€view€and€looked€atÏthe€question€of€whether€the€harm€resulted€from€reasonable€and€lawful€operations€ofÏthe€defendantððs€property.€€If€the€defendantððs€operations€were€reasonable€and€lawfulÏ(as€opposed€to€negligent)€and€still€interfered€with€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€Ìà8 àplaintiffððs€property,€the€nuisance€was€considered€to€be€permanent.€.€.€.€[W]here€theÏdamage€will€continue€so€long€as€the€defendant€maintains€operations€on€his€propertyÏand€no€change€in€operations€is€contemplated,€the€nuisance€is€permanent.Ìò òòòKearneyó óóó,€1995€WL€1690,€at€*2€(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€under€ò òòòKearneyó óóó,€it€appears€that€theÏquestion€of€whether€a€nuisance€is€permanent€or€temporary€depends€in€part€on€whether€theÏdefendantððs€operations€ð ðstill€interfere[]€with€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€plaintiffððs€property.ðð€Ïò òòòId.óóó ó€€Ìà àIn€ò òòòBennett€v.€Cumberland€Hardwoods,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€Ô_Ô01A01Ô_Ô„019111„Ô_ÔCH00419Ô_Ô,€1992€WLÏ135808€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€19,€1992),€a€nuisance€was€created€by€interference€with€the€naturalÏflow€of€water,€resulting€in€flooding€on€the€plaintiffððs€property,€as€well€as€the€accumulation€of€trashÏand€debris€on€the€plaintiffððs€property.€€The€Court€found€both€a€temporary€and€a€permanentÏnuisance,€finding€that€the€flooding€was€a€permanent€nuisance,€while€the€accumulation€of€trash€andÏdebris€could€be€abated€and€was€therefore€a€temporary€nuisance.€€ò òòòBennettóóó ó,€1992€WL€135808€at€*5.òòÌà àóóIn€this€case,€the€flooding€can€be€corrected€by€the€expenditure€of€labor€and€money,€and€inÏfact€has€been€so€corrected.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThe€Ô_ÔShearronsÔ_Ô€argue€that€the€system€installed€by€the€City€isÏð ðuntested,ðð€and€note€that€Tucker€has€done€nothing€to€change€the€flow€of€water€away€from€theÏShearronsðð€property.€€They€acknowledge€that€the€measures€taken€by€the€City€ð ðmay€have€alleviatedÏthe€flooding€in€part,ðð€but€contend€that€water€still€runs€across€and€underneath€their€property,Ïresulting€in€a€permanent€negative€effect€on€the€value€of€their€property.€€Mr.€Shearron€testified€thatÏthe€open€ditch€and€pipe€under€the€road€made€the€property€less€desirable€to€prospective€purchasers.€Ìà àThe€burden,€of€course,€is€on€the€Shearrons€to€prove€each€element€necessary€for€recovery.€Ïò òòòId.€€ó óóóThis€includes€the€fact€that€the€nuisance€is€permanent,€rather€than€temporary.€€While€theÍShearrons€characterize€the€measures€implemented€by€the€City€in€1997€as€ð ðuntested,ðð€there€is€aÏdearth€of€evidence€that€the€flooding€remained€a€problem€after€the€Cityððs€actions.€€Consequently,€toÏthe€extent€that€the€flooding€has€been€alleviated,€the€nuisance€must€be€characterized€as€temporary.Ìà àHowever,€as€in€ò òòòBennettó óóó,€we€must€conclude€that€the€circumstances€create€both€a€temporaryÏnuisance€and€a€permanent€nuisance.€€The€Shearrons€presented€€Ô_ÔunrefutedÔ_Ôò ò€ó ótestimony€that,€because€ofÏTuckerððs€interference€with€the€natural€flow€of€water,€excessive€water€flows€across€and€underneathÏhis€land,€that€the€open€ditch€and€underground€pipe€affect€the€market€value€of€his€land,€and€that€aÏstigma€on€his€property€remains€for€some€period€of€time€even€if€the€flooding€has€been€alleviated.€ÏThese€conditions€persist€so€long€as€Tucker€ð ðmaintains€operations€on€his€property€and€no€change€inÏoperations€is€contemplated.€.€.€.ðð€€ò òòòKearneyó óóó,€1995€WL€1690,€at€*2.€€Therefore,€to€the€extent€that€theÏmeasures€taken€by€the€City€do€not€fully€remedy€the€problem,€we€conclude€that€there€is€a€permanentÏnuisance.Ìà àUnder€these€circumstances,€the€damages€must€be€recalculated.€€For€the€temporary€nuisanceÏcaused€by€the€flooding,€the€measure€of€damages€is€ð ðthe€injury€to€the€value€of€the€use€andÏenjoyment€of€the€property,€which€is€usually€shown€by€evidence€of€the€extent€that€the€rental€value€ofÏthe€property€is€diminished€by€the€nuisance.€.€.ðð€during€the€period€of€time€in€which€the€nuisanceÏexisted.€€ò òòòBennettó óóó,€1992€WL€135808,€at€*5.€€As€to€the€effects€of€the€nuisance€which€remain,€i.e.€theÏadditional€water€flow€across€and€under€the€Shearronsðð€land,€the€open€ditch€and€underground€pipe,Ïand€any€remaining€stigma€attached€to€the€property,€the€effect€on€the€market€value€of€the€propertyÏmust€be€determined.€€Therefore,€the€cause€must€be€remanded€for€a€redetermination€of€the€damagesÏin€light€of€our€holding.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€may,€in€its€discretion,€hear€additional€proof€on€theÏissue€of€damages.€Ìà àTucker€also€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€counter„claims€andÏcross„claims€alleging€conspiracy€and€breach€of€contract.€€These€claims€arise€out€of€the€0.6€acresÏthat,€Tucker€claims,€should€have€been€transferred€to€him€under€the€sale€contract€with€theÏRichardsons.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€Tuckerððs€breach€of€contract€cross„claim€against€theÏRichardsons€and€his€counter„claim€for€inducement€to€breach€of€contract€against€the€ShearronsÏbecause€Tucker€could€not€show€that€he€suffered€any€damages€as€a€result€of€the€Richardsonsðð€failureÏto€convey€the€0.6€acres.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Tucker€developed€his€subdivision,€and€there€was€noÏevidence€that€he€received€less€money€for€the€lots€that€would€have€included€the€0.6€acres.€€There€wasÏno€other€evidence€of€damages€from€the€failure€to€convey€the€0.6€acres.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ïwe€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Tuckerððs€cross„claim€for€breach€of€contract€againstÏthe€Richardsons,€as€well€as€his€counter„claim€for€inducement€to€breach€of€contract€against€theÏShearrons.€€In€addition,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Tuckerððs€conspiracy€claim.€ÏAs€to€any€remaining€issues,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded,€as€set€forthÏin€this€Opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€the€Appellants,€the€Tucker€Corporation€andÏRichard€Tucker,€individually,€and€to€the€Appellees,€William€B.€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ô,€Sandra€Ô_ÔShearronÔ_Ô,€JamesÏPaul€Richardson,€Evelyn€Juanita€Richardson,€Estate€of€Joe€L.€Richardson,€Jr.€and€Ruby€I.ÏRichardson,€and€their€sureties,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€ÌÌÌÓ ÓÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGE