WPC I/:бmKɥvr bZuFŵ8 /D<h-!—G.%yi: 196M؛0픎Qg=nXUb()/X/AY `8P=˭@x:C֜TЖ<]@L(~gYlRm8ZI3=TMb&nw8g?\`PBYzwsqB OfÑ` vv6LJ/i6XdOârcVF p nHJg,A]dQ~?Lo@|0,DG 1>:ej;1gFgUrVts;" pnqz%_O܀"VESN&~# $a-x/Q'MzOzŗg e.:Z?]-W'am _,Y(j FBJ5"b#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz 1    j 0D0Ntv 0c~E 1UNj 1u 72-W___________________b 0 B 0 D3j D- 0K ASh 0. 0D AHP LaserJet 40500c- (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*:i+00 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|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) M R$      1  XX  _XXXXSomedefendantsfiledAnswersprosetothePetition.Atotalof21opposedthePetition,  and29hadnoobjection.#XXXX~#- -(|G2$ !.8Ddd8         0  XX d(|3ǃ$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǃ$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _D8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @ June25,2002Session $ XXD #DXX#  RICHARDTAYLOR,ANITATAYLOR,andCLINTONLYNNTAYLOR, " v.STEVENWAYNEBURLESON,BILLYFARRELLSNYDERand  6 FARRELLE.SNYDER,etal.XXD   J @0 0  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWashingtonCounty  J @ No.33877Hon.ThomasJ.Seeley,Jr.,CircuitJudge  6     `     h FILEDAUGUST15,_2002_@*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E200102381COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }  Inthisdeclaratoryjudgmentaction,plaintiffslotowners,soughttoinvalidatesubdivisionrestrictive d covenantsongroundsotherlotownershadviolatedtherestrictions.TheTrialCourtrefused.We P affirm. < #DXX#XXD Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed.  d HerschelPickensFranks#DX_#XX.D,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#DX&#XX.D < P.J.,andCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,#DX#XX.DJ.,joined. ( ThomasC.McKee,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,forAppellants,RichardTaylor,AnitaTaylorand  ClintonLynnTaylor.  EarlR.Booze,JohnsonCity,Tennessee,forAppellee,LindaZollinger. `!  @66' OPINION #DXX3#XXDԈ %` $ #DXX #XXD   ` Inthisdeclaratoryjudgmentaction,theTrialCourtrefusedtodeclareXXXXԀinvalidcertain ($( subdivisionrestrictionsonplaintiffsproperty,andplaintiffshaveappealed. )$)    ` PlaintiffsareownersoflotsinSlaughterAcresSubdivision,subjecttorestrictions +&+ whichdesignatethatthelotsaretobeusedforresidentialpurposesonly.Plaintiffsattackthese p,', restrictionsonthegroundsthatoneofthelotsisusedbyachurch,andtherewasalotthatwasused \-(- asanursinghome,andotherlotshavebeenusedfor cottageindustries,suchasapetshop,beauty  salonandphotostudio.     ` DefendantZollingerfiledanAnswerthroughcounsel,statingthatshepurchasedher t lotsinrelianceontheresidentialuserestrictions,andthatplaintiffshadnoticeoftherestrictions ` whentheypurchasedthepropertyinquestion,andotherdefendantsrespondedprose. #  1       L     ` PlaintiffRichardTaylortestifiedthatheownedabusinesswhichdistributedproducts $ t forahomedecorationcompany,andthathewouldreceiveoneshipmentperweekbytractortrailer,  ` andthatthisshipmentwouldbedeliveredthroughouttheweekbytwosmallertrucksthatheowned.  L  Hisproposedbuildingwouldhavesomeofficespace,andtherestwouldbeusedtosortandstore  8  themerchandise.Hesaidthathehadthreeemployees,andthatseptictankusewouldnotbea $  problem.      ` Theissueofwhethertherehasbeenawaiverofarestrictivecovenant,is aquestion   offacttobedeterminedonthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.Gordonv.Hirsch,1990Tenn.   App.Lexis162(Tenn.Ct.App.March6,1990).Wereviewthetrialcourtsrulingontheseissues p denovowithapresumptionofcorrectness,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefinding. \ Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Whilerestrictivecovenantsarenotfavoredinthelaw,theyarestrictly H construedand,likeothercontracts,willbeenforcedaccordingtotheclearlyexpressedintentionof 4 theparties.Bentonv.Bush,644S.W.2d690,691(Tenn.Ct.App.1982). x    p      ` Restrictivecovenantscanlosetheirforcewhentheyfailtoserveausefulpurpose. H Hewgleyv.Vivo,1997Tenn.App.Lexis153(Tenn.Ct.App.March5,1997).TheHewgleyCourt 4 explainedthatrestrictivecovenantsmaybe renderedunenforceableifradicalchangesinthe   characteroftheneighborhoodcompletelydefeatthepurposeofthecovenant,andthatin   determiningwhetherthishashappened,thecourtwillbeconcerned primarilywiththecontinuing  valueoftherestrictivecovenanttotheentireneighborhood,andnotthepartiesattemptingtoavoid  therestrictivecovenant.Id.     ` Plaintiffsclaimtherestrictionsatissueshouldnotbeenforcedbecausetheyhavebeen X  abandoned.Abandonmentoccurswhenthereis communityacquiescencetocontinuedviolations D! oftherestrictions,andtheabandonmentmustbesogeneral astofrustratetheobjectofthescheme 0"  withtheresultthatenforcementoftherestrictioninvolvedwouldseriouslyimpairthevalueofthe #l! burdenedlotwithoutsubstantiallybenefittingtheadjoininglots.Scandlynv.McDillColumbus $X" Corp.,895S.W.2d342(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). $D #    ` Inordertoconstituteabandonment,violationsmustbe sowidespreadastovitiate %0!$ therestrictivecovenantatissue.Ruthv.CoveCreek,LLC,1999Tenn.App.Lexis195(Tenn.Ct. &"% App.March24,1999).Accord:Wilsonv.WoodlandPresbyterianSchool,2002Tenn.App.Lexis '#& 462(Tenn.Ct.App.June25,2002).Inacasefactuallyanalogous,theCourtinHardestyv.Silver, (#' 302S.W.2d578(Ky.Ct.App.1956),foundthattherewerehomeownerswithhomebased  businessesinthedevelopment,butconcludedthatacquiescencein slightandinconsequential  violationswouldnotpreventanotherpropertyownerfromobjectingtoasubstantialviolation.  Similarly,inthiscasethepriorviolations,abeautyshop,anantiqueshop,andanursinghome,as t wellasthecurrentviolationsofapetshopandphotostudio,haveallconsistedofresidenceswhich ` hadanincidentalbusinessuseinthemaswell.Theonlyexceptionisthechurch,butithasnotbeen L  characterizedas commercialbyanyonebuttheplaintiffs,anditwasclearthatnoneofthe 8  homeownersevenknewitwasinthesubdivisionuntilthisactionwasfiled.Thehouseswiththe $ t businesseswerenotalteredinanyway,andinmostcases,therewasnooutwardmanifestationwhich  ` wouldindicatethatanybusinesswaslocatedtherein.Thesepastandcurrentusesaresignificantly  L  differentfromplaintiffsproposeduse,whichwillbealarge,completelycommercialstructurein  8  bothappearanceandpurpose. $     ` WeholdthattheTrialCourtwascorrectinfindingthattheresidentialcharacterof   theneighborhoodhasnotbeenabandoned.Theevidencepreponderatesthattherehasbeenno   communityacquiescencewhichwouldbesufficient tofrustratetheobjectoftheschemewiththe   resultthatenforcementoftherestrictioninvolvedwouldseriouslyimpairthevalueoftheburdened p lotwithoutsubstantiallybenefittingtheadjoininglots.Scandlynv.McDillColumbusCorp.,895 \ S.W.2d342(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). H    ` Next,plaintiffsarguethatthehomeownershavewaivedthe residentialonly  p restrictionbyfailingtoenforceitinthepast.Inacasedealingwiththeenforcementofrestrictions,  \ thisCourthaspreviouslyexplainedthatwaiveristhe voluntaryrelinquishmentofaknownright, H andthatitmustbeprovenby acourseofactsandconduct,orbysoneglectingandfailingtoact, 4 astoinduceabeliefthatitwashisintentionandpurposetowaive.Stricklerv.Garrison,1997   Tenn.App.Lexis882(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.11,1997);seealsoHicksv.Cox,978S.W.2d544   (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).     ` Inthiscase,defendantZollingertestifiedthatshewasunawareoftheotherviolations  untilthislawsuitwasfiled.Otherhomeownerstestifiedthattheymighthavebeenawareofoneor l two,butnotofotherviolations.Noneofthehomeownersseemedtoknowthatthechurchwas X  involved,becauseitwasnot inthesubdivision,butratherwaslocatedonthehighwayonthe D! outskirtsofthesubdivision,anddidnotuseanyofthesubdivisionroadsforaccess.The 0"  homeownersagreedthattheincidentalviolationsdidnotcreatetrafficproblemsorotherconcerns, #l! andthattheneighborhoodremainedaquiet,familyplaceandretaineditsresidentialcharacter. $X"      ` Ontheotherhand,bycontrast,theplaintiffspropertywouldbeusedentirelyfor %0!$ commercialuse,andwhileplaintiffsbusinesswouldfrontonthehighway,thepropertyisnextto &"% amainsubdivisionaccessroadwhichwouldbeevidenttoanyoneenteringorexitingthe '#& subdivision,andoncetherestrictionswerevoided,theundisputedproofwasthatthepropertycould (#' besoldandthenusedforanycommercialpurposeallowedbythezoning. )$(    ` WeaffirmtheTrialCourtsfindingthattheplaintifffailedtocarrytheburdento h+&* showtherestrictionshadbeenwaivedbyanyactionorinactionofthehomeowners.     ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmtheJudgmentoftheTrialCourt,andremand,  withthecostoftheappealassessedtoplaintiffsRichardTaylor,AnitaTaylor,andClintonLynn t Taylor. ` #XXXX ##DXX #XXD   `     h     _________________________  8     `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. $  XXXX#DXX/#XXD̀#XXXX+1##DXXm1#XXD