ÿWPCð /# ¢UN­ %û 0(b)w@14q…” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU>ÝB) AQD Æ• 0D[ 0@Ÿ 0Dß DC# D/f B• B² D3Ï AM U*O &y v~Ÿ vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ‹:DŒ:D: Ž:D:D:U‘:’:“:Ó€:ê‚_#3|xŸ:2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌJuly€1,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€fXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÙ€!ÙßR€*,%A1-j|§"` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ON€à àà à)ÌRELATION€OF€ERVIN€SMITH,€andà à)à àSmith€ChanceryÌERVIN€SMITH,€individually,à àà à)à àNo.€€5668Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌL.€B.€FRANKLIN€and€ALEXà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌRICHMOND,€CITY€OF€CARTHAGE,à à)à à01A01„9710„CH„00546ÌTENNESSEE,€a€municipal€corporation,à à)ÌMAYOR€DAVID€BOWMAN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SMITH€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€CARTHAGE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€C.€K.€SMITH,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  Óó óÌÌStephen€L.€Edwards,€#3489ÌThe€Pilcher€Bldg.,€Suite€100Ì144€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÌÌÌJack€W.€Robinson,€Jr.,€#11656à àà àJacky€O.€Beller,€#3157Ì230€4th€Avenue€No.,€3rd€Floorà àà à212€Main€StreetÌP.O.€Box€198888à àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€332ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„8888à àà àCarthage,€Tennessee€37030ÌÌDerrick€C.€Smith,€#13961Ì300€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201„1107ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,ÌREVERSED€IN€PART,ÌREMANDED.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌœ›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌœWILLIAM›€B.€CAIN,€œJUDGEÌÌCONCUR€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌò òSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE€ON€à àà à)ÌRELATION€OF€ERVIN€SMITH,€andà à)à àSmith€ChanceryÌERVIN€SMITH,€individually,à àà à)à àNo.€€5668Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌL.€B.€FRANKLIN€and€ALEXà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌRICHMOND,€CITY€OF€CARTHAGE,à à)à à01A01„9710„CH„00546ÌTENNESSEE,€a€municipal€corporation,à à)ÌMAYOR€DAVID€BOWMAN,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌó óÌà@ àòòò òÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Ervin€Smith,€has€appealed€from€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€as€to€hisÏrights€in€regard€to€an€alleged€public€right„of„way€on€property€adjoining€plaintiffððs€land.ÌÌà àœThe€original€complaint€was€filed€July€26,€1994.€€The›€amended€complaint€alleges€theÏfollowing€pertinent€facts:ÌÌà àPlaintiff€owns€property€at€1120€North€Main€Street,€Carthage,€Tennessee.€€AdjoiningÏthe€east€(rear)€boundary€of€said€property€there€has€been€an€alley,€lane€or€right„of„way€known€asÏFranklin€Lane€or€Negro€Cemetery€Lane,€extending€south€to€Smotherman€Street.€€Defendants,ÍFranklin€and€Richmond€are€the€owners€of€land€east€of€said€lane.€€In€the€development€of€saidÏland€defendants€have€obstructed€said€lane€with€debris,€have€elevated€the€level€of€their€land€€andÏhave€violated€the€City€Zoning€and€Building€Codes€by€€construction€on€their€property€across€theÏsubject€alley,€lane€or€right„of„way.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€prays€for€an€injunction€against€obstructing€the€lane€or€alley,€for€aÏdeclaration€that€it€is€a€public€street€or€that€plaintiff€has€an€easement€thereon,€that€the€city€beÏrequired€to€enforce€its€zoning€regulations,€and€for€damages€and€fees.ÌÌà àThe€answer€of€the€City€of€Carthage€and€its€mayor€denies€that€Franklin€Lane€is€a€cityÏstreet€or€that€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€any€relief€from€them.ÌÌà àThe€answer€of€Franklin€and€Richmond€asserts€that€they€are€the€owners€of€the€disputedÏproperty€and€that€they€have€not€unlawfully€used€it.€€Said€defendants€pled€the€statutes€ofÏlimitations,€T.C.A.€ðððð€28„2„103,€105,€109,€and€110,€and€denied€that€said€defendants€haveÏattempted€to€make€Franklin€Lane€a€city€street.ÌÌà àAll€defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àOn€October€16,€1996,€the€Trial€Judge€entered€judgment€providing:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àIt€is€therefore€ORDERED€that€the€Cityððs€and€MayorððsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€PlaintiffððsÏclaim€for€a€writ€of€mandamus€is€premature€is€hereby€denied.ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED€that€Plaintiffððs€claimsÏconcerning€zoning€and€the€use€of€Alex€Richmondððs€and€L.ÏB.€Franklinððs€property€for€miniwarehouse€or€ministorageÍpurposes€is€hereby€voluntarily€dismissed€with€prejudice€as€toÏall€Defendants.ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED€that€the€Plaintiffððs€claimsÏagainst€the€City€of€Carthage,€Tennessee€and€Mayor€DavidÏBowman€for€damages,€punitive€damages,€and€attorneysððÏfees€shall€not€be€considered€by€this€Court€and€are€herebyÏtransferred€to€Circuit€Court.ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED€that€the€Motion€for€PartialÏSummary€Judgment€of€Defendants€Richmond€and€FranklinÏis€granted€as€to€the€issues€of€easement€by€prescription€andÏeasement€by€necessity,€and€Plaintiff€shall€have€no€easementÏby€prescription€or€easement€by€necessity.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àOn€November€26,€1996,€counsel€for€plaintiff€moved€to€amend€the€judgment€to€allowÏ$34,207.00€litigation€expenses.ÌÌà àOn€December€21,€the€Trial€Judge€entered€an€order€providing:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àIt€is€hereby€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€the€public€right„of„way€heretofore€known€asÏFranklin€Circle€or€Franklin€Lane€is€a€50„foot€right„of„wayÏfrom€Smotherman€Drive€running€northward€along€theÏeasterly€boundary€line€of€the€properties€owned€by€DavidÏLollar,€Dr.€David€McDonald,€Jerry€Shores€and€plaintiffÏErvin€Smith,€and€continuing€northwardly€to,€but€excluding,Ïthe€property€taken€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€the€by„pass;ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€a€Writ€of€Mandamus€shall€issue€to€theÏdefendant€City€of€Carthage,€Tennessee,€and€its€mayor,Ïdefendant€Mayor€David€Bowman,€requiring€said€defendantsÏto€cure€the€blockage€of€the€public€right„of„way€heretoforeÏknown€as€Franklin€Circle€or€Franklin€Lane€by€requiringÏdefendants€L.€B.€Franklin€and€Alex€Richmond€to€unblockÏand€open€said€right„of„way;ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€defendants€L.€B.€Franklin€and€AlexÏRichmond€shall€prevent€the€drainage€from€the€fill€area€fromÏgoing€onto€plaintiffððs€property€and€to€cover€the€area€in€someÏmanner,€by€grass€or€otherwise,€to€make€it€not€look€soÏunsightly;ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€plaintiff€have€a€recover€from€defendants€L.ÏB.€Franklin€and€Alex€Richmond€the€œsum›€of€ONEÏTHOUSAND€TWO€HUNDRED€SEVENTY„NINE€ANDÏ01/100€DOLLARS€($1,279.01),€for€which€execution€shallÏissue,€if€necessary.ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€plaintiff€have€and€recover€from€defendantsÏL.€€B.€Franklin€and€Alex€Richmond€the€œsum›€of€œ€FIVE›ÏHUNDRED€DOLLARS€($500.00),€but€which€shall€beÏabated€in€full€and€stayed€in€the€event€said€defendants€eitherÏclean€the€mud€off€the€concrete€floor€of€plaintiffððs€basementÏor€cause€the€mud€to€be€cleaned.€€In€the€event€defendants€shallÏfail€to€do€so,€execution€shall€issue€upon€motion€of€plaintiff,Ïif€necessary.ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€plaintiff€shall€recover€no€punitive€damagesÏfrom€defendants€L.€B.€Franklin,€Alex€Richmond,€City€ofÏCarthage,€Tennessee,€and€Mayor€David€Bowman.€ÌÌà àIt€is€further€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED€that€the€costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€one„half€toÏthe€defendant€City€of€Carthage,€Tennessee,€and€one„half€toÏdefendants€L.€B.€Franklin€and€Alex€Richmond,€for€whichÏexecution€shall€issue,€if€necessary.Ìà àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àà àÌà àOn€April€29,€1996,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€plaintiff€judgment€against€the€City€ofÏCarthage€for€$44,268.84€legal€expenses.ÌÌà àThe€œCity€filed›€notices€of€appeal€from€the€judgment€entered€on€April€29,€1997.€ÌÌà àThe€City€œpresents›€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓI.à àWas€mandamus€the€proper€procedure€for€determiningÏwhether€Franklin€Circle€had€become€a€public€right„of„way?ÌÌII.à àWas€it€proper€to€award€attorneysðð€fees€to€theÏprevailing€party€in€a€mandamus€action?ÌÌIII.à àWas€the€amount€of€attorneysðð€fees€awarded€contraryÏto€the€evidence€submitted€in€support€of€the€award€and€theÏtrial€courtððs€parameters€for€the€fees€it€would€allow?ÌÌIV.à àWas€it€improper€for€the€trial€Court€to€deny€the€cityððsÏrequest€for€discovery€regarding€claimed€attorneysðð€fees€and€aÏhearing€regarding€same?ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àFranklin€and€Richmond€present€the€following€issues:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓA.à àWhether€the€driveway€in€question€is€a€public€right„of„way.ÌÌB.à àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€finding€that€theÏright„of„way€is€50€feet€wide.ÌÌC.à àWhether€the€Plaintiffððs€claims€for€equitable€relief€(forÏhimself€and€others)€are€barred€because€of€laches.ÌÌD.à àWhether€the€Plaintiffððs€claims€relating€to€theÏdriveway€and€the€land€in€question€are€barred€by€applicableÏstatutes€of€limitations.ÌÌE.€à àWhether€Mr.€Franklin€and€Mr.€Richmond€areÏresponsible€for€the€water€and€mud€damage€to€the€plaintiffððsÏproperty€in€May,€1995.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àPlaintiff€presents€the€issues€in€the€following€form:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓI.à àWhether€a€writ€of€mandamus€was€the€properÏprocedure€for€opening€a€blocked€public€right„of„way€whereÏthe€opponents€denied€it€was€a€public€right„of„way.ÌÌII.à àWhether€in€an€action€for€writ€of€mandamus€it€isÏlawful€to€award€reasonable€attorneyððs€fees€to€the€prevailingÏprivate€citizen€against€the€defaulting€government.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓIII.à àWhether€the€award€of€attorneysðð€fees€in€successfulÏwrit€of€mandamus€action€was€reasonable€and€upon€theÏproper€procedure.ÌÌIV.à àWhether€the€claimed€roadway€in€question€was€indeedÏa€public€right„of„way€by€virtue€of€implied€dedication.ÌÌV.à àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€finding€that€theÏright„of„way€was€50€feet€wide.ÌÌVI.à àWhether€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€for€equitable€relief€areÏbarred€by€the€doctrine€of€laches.ÌÌVII.à àWhether€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€for€equitable€relief€areÏbarred€by€applicable€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌVIII.à àWhether€the€actions€of€abutting€landowners,ÏFranklin/Richmond,€caused€the€water€damages€to€theÏplaintiffððs€real€property€in€May,€1995.ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àPlaintiffððs€brief€does€not€discuss€the€differences€between€a€òòpublic€roadóó€which€the€publicÏauthority€has€accepted€and€obligated€itself€to€maintain,€a€public€òòeasementóó€or€òòright„of„wayóó€whichÏthe€general€public€has€the€right€to€use,€and€a€private€easement€which€belongs€to€a€private€personÏor€is€appurtenant€to€a€particular€tract€of€land.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€insists€that€the€lane€in€question€became€a€public€road€by€acquiscence€of€certainÏmunicipal€officials,€by€their€oral€statements€or€acts€of€maintenance.€€There€is€no€evidence€thatÏsuch€acquiescence€or€action€was€committed€by€an€official€or€body€having€authority€to€obligateÏthe€city€to€accept€and€maintain€the€subject€way€as€an€official€city€street.€€There€is€no€evidenceÏthat€the€municipal€legislative€body€or€any€other€city€official€with€authority€to€do€so€has€so€actedÏin€respect€to€the€subject€lane.ÌÌà àA€dedication€is€not€a€completed€transfer€of€right€or€title.€€It€is€merely€an€offer€which€isÏinaffective€and€cancellable€until€accepted€by€the€agency€having€the€power€to€do€so.ÌÌà àSince€there€is€no€evidence€of€€authoritative€acceptance,€the€City€of€Carthage€has€noÏduties€or€liabilities€in€regard€to€the€subject€lane.ÌÌà àAll€œparts›€of€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€which€impose€responsibility€or€liability€onÏthe€city€are€reversed.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€next€insists€that€the€subject€lane€was€a€ð ðpublic€way,ðð€that€is,€an€easementÏacquired€by€public€use.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€subject€lane€has€been€used€continuouslyÏby€the€public€for€the€time€necessary€to€create€an€easement€by€prescription.€€It€is€uncontradictedÏthat€the€lane€was€completely€blocked€by€heavy€and€dense€vegetation€until€cleared€by€theÏdefendants,€Franklin€and€Richmond.€€Moreover,€it€is€uncontroverted€that€former€users€of€theÏlane€now€use€an€entirely€different€route.€€All€parts€of€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€whichÏdeclare€a€public€or€private€easement€of€the€location€and€size€urged€by€plaintiff€are€reversed.ÌÌà àThe€only€other€easement€claimed€by€plaintiff€is€a€drainage€easement.ÌÌà àThe€occupant€of€a€town€lot€or€other€lands,€if€injured€in€his€possession€by€theÏobstruction€of€his€natural€drainage€of€surface€water€over€the€lower€adjacent€land,€may€recoverÏdamages€for€the€injury€done.€€òòCarlin€v.€Aurinóó,€103€Tenn.€555,€55€S.W.€940,€48€LRA€862,€76ÏAm.€St.€Rep.€699€(1899),€òòTalley€v.€Bakeróó,€3€Tenn.€App.€321€(1926).ÌÌà àA€wrongful€interference€with€the€natural€flow€of€surface€water€from€property€on€aÏhigher€elevation€to€and€across€lower€adjacent€property€constitutes€an€actionable€nuisance.òò€ÏZollinger€v.€Carteróó,€Tenn.€App.€1992,€837€S.W.2d€613.€€òòKind€v.€Johnson€Cityóó,€63€Tenn.ÏApp.€666,€478€S.W.2d€63€(1970).ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€surface€water€on€the€land€of€plaintiff€naturally€flowed€to€andÏacross€the€subject€lane€to€and€across€the€land€of€Franklin€and€œRichmond€until€about€motherððsÏday,€1994,€when€Franklin€and€Richmond€obstructed€the€subject€lane€with€debris€and€raised€theÏlevel€of€their€land€by€filling,€and›€that€prior€to€the€obstruction€of€the€lane€by€debris€and€theÏraising€of€the€level€of€the€land€of€Franklin€and€Richmond€by€filling,€plaintiff€was€neverÏtroubled€by€excessive€surface€œwater;›€but€that,€upon€said€obstruction€and€filling,€his€land€andÏbasement€were€flooded€with€surface€water.ÌÌà àIt€is€true€that€the€construction€of€the€ð ðby€passðð€by€the€public€authority€produced€a€largerÏvolume€and€concentration€of€surface€œwater€flow,›€but€there€is€no€evidence€to€show€that€thisÏadditional€flow€of€water€would€have€reached€the€plaintiffððs€premises€if€the€lane€has€not€beenÏobstructed€or€the€land€of€Franklin€and€Richmond€œhad€not€been€raised›€by€œfilling.€€PlaintiffððsÏsuit,€filed€in€July,€1994,€was€clearly€within€the€statute€of€limitations.›ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Judge€found€that€plaintiff€suffered€$500€damages€by€flooding€and€mud€in€his€Ïbasement€caused€by€the€wrongful€acts€of€the€defendants,€Franklin€and€Richmond,€and€renderedÏjudgment€against€them€therefor.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€part€of€theÏjudgment€which€œis›€affirmed.€€TRAP€Rule€13(d).€€In€event€of€future€flooding,€plaintiff€€retainsÏthe€right€to€sue€for€recurrent€damage.€€òòSmith€v.€City€of€Covingtonóó,€Tenn.€App.€1985,€734ÏS.W.2d€327.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€evidence€to€support€the€remainder€of€the€judgment€which€is€reversed€andÏvacated.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€and€of€the€Trial€Court€are€taxed€against€the€appellees,€FranklinÏand€Richmond.ÌÌà àThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€entry€and€enforcement€of€judgment€inÏconformity€with€this€opinion.€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,ÌREVERSED€IN€PART,ÌREMANDED.ó óÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLEÏSECTIONÌÓ  ÓÌœCONCUR:›ÌœÌ›œ›œÌ_____________________________›ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌ̛̜œCONCUR€IN€SEPARATE€OPINION:ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ›