ÿWPC² ™ƒPä&ƒ VDÌ&ÄRî¹>\öÌh`kjlãxíÐM&䱺„áé9cŒhƒ}R’mD—2œþñè‚–´Ô€u/•BÒ'Áó-L¿eÉ£yC $h©Á.ì j¿t¦YʳºÆ»Žo£'•äˆþTí~?`|à¨@i÷ÈF~ÍéëwN”$^îÎ6¾ÑÿˆÉGœ<,Ï'Ž8‘ÊzÞ,DÝDÕb4´ñÒ=KPiÊ«ôsPWÊöÝýe ä$m»r¶ÔhŸý®þtA!¿ ­M1‚éƒ>æBVCQ"PàT$ĵ¨—XÙ¦Ks_Ÿ~×XxÌôo7»ÉyOãDp*qÁ!Æ–2óo?rô#³ñc\ö+Œ«‰´‹kÖ<. ­D‡¬ bÀ‡ô›Yòo‚Q#è݉($(¡VöþHúŒÝUs—œÑ"V††VÊ–-/»ºH ¨ð£">?NäûVq’ê3 #}mú†iÚjd©$ÅNhhÆD¿¯¦O?So.©ÝŠÞÜ,g5ç%={ ‡#Üø¦ÄÔ9éŒ2›°–&”êóä,qêÎhd§âü±8 y£o][êÈ=?Sº¥ø'HL½8G®,9eÞ‚ñòiR΀;Û*ºâ¨jb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq U!Nù G d zw Òñ /à ùò^ ë 0D÷Æ;ÆÆÇÆwSNW4YmE|~ m€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€b———————————————————————————————+Ÿ=ʦ 0ë­­­­ B˜˜ 0¤µ D5Y D-Ž 0K»» ASÆY 0¤ 0Dà A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€argument€basically€objected€to€the€Stateððs€use€of€a€condemnation€proceeding€to€take€land€belonging€toÐ ° Ðthe€United€States. Ý ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€State€conceded€that€it€had€no€right€to€take€any€interest€of€the€Appellee€except€for€the€improvements.€Ô_ÔÔ_Ô ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt %Ý ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€State€appears€to€concede€that€it€was€required€to€pay€as€damages€the€value€of€the€cedar€duplex€cabin€insofarÐ ° Ðas€no€issue€is€presented€on€appeal€regarding€the€jury€award€of€$52,725.€€As€we€understand€the€Stateððs€position,€this€wasÐ tÄ Ðthe€only€amount€which€it€owed€as€the€cabin€was€the€only€part€of€the€land€taken€through€the€Stateððs€power€of€eminentÐ 8ˆ Ðdomain. ïÝ ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€There€is€no€issue€in€regards€to€the€transfer€of€the€lease,€and€we€will€assume€that€it€was€valid€in€all€respects.°žL)â (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ;)2Æx€TcaTC3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- !Ý ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€When€we€refer€to€the€ð ðUnited€States,ðð€we€are€referring€to€the€governmental€entity€represented€in€this€case€byÐ ° Ðthe€Secretary€of€the€Army. 3Ý ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€State€contends€that€its€refusal€to€offer€proof€was€based€on€its€belief€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€subject„Ð ° Ðmatter€jurisdiction€to€adjudicate€damages. œÝ ƒRŠY$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€argument€is€based€on€rather€strange€logic.€The€State€contends€that€the€only€damage€it€caused€was€theÐ ° Ðdamage€it€legally€could€cause.€€In€other€words,€the€State€only€took€the€cedar€cabin€because€that€is€the€only€thing€it€couldÐ tÄ Ðlegally€take.€€(|G2ŠY$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÍò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Y…»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î@tY…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Y…»îî@t #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJUNE€12,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XiX»¼Y…ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Y…»XXiò#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€DEPARTMENT€OF€TRANSPORTATIONòòóó€v.Ð úJ ÐSUNSET€MARINA€AND€RESORT,€INC.,€AND€TONY€SLOANòòóóÔ‡XiX»¼Y…Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€789;€The€Honorable€John€Ô_ÔMadduxÔ_Ô,€Judge€€€€€€,€Ð ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00880„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€12,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XiXXXiÔThis€appeal€arises€out€of€what€can€loosely€be€defined€as€a€condemnation€case.€€The€State€ofÐ ŒÜ ÐTennessee,€acting€through€the€Department€of€Transportation,€received€an€easement€from€the€CorpsÐ xÈ Ðof€Engineers€for€the€purpose€of€building€a€bridge€across€Dale€Hollow€Lake€in€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County,Ð d´ ÐTennessee.€€The€bridge€was€to€be€built€across€land€owned€by€the€United€States€and€operated€by€theÐ P  ÐDefendants€as€a€resort€and€marina€under€a€lease€for€commercial€purposes.€€The€State€filed€a€PetitionÐ <Œ Ðfor€Condemnation€against€the€leaseholder€in€the€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court€seeking€to€take€theÐ (x Ðland€under€its€power€of€eminent€domain.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€State€could€not€take€theÐ d Ðland€based€on€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€However,€the€State€hadÐ P Ðalready€begun€work€on€the€project,€and,€ultimately,€the€bridge€was€completed.€€The€court€held€a€trialÐ ì< Ðto€determine€the€damages€which€the€leaseholder€had€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€bridge€being€placedÐ Ø( Ðacross€the€leasehold.€€The€trial€court€granted€a€partial€directed€verdict€and€awarded€the€leaseholderÐ Ä Ð$287,115.€€The€trial€court€also€awarded€the€leaseholder€$100,000€as€attorneysðð€fees€in€lieu€ofÐ ° Ðinjunctive€relief.€€The€State€appeals€from€the€partial€directed€verdict€and€the€award€of€attorneysðð€fees.Ð œì ÐÔ#†XiXXXiV#ÔÔ#†¼Y…»XXiº#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼Y…ÔÌÓJÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð `!°  ÐReversed€in€Partó óÐ L"œ! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Y…»àXi #ÔÔ‡XiX.¼Y…ÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòHollyÐ $$t# ÐKirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð %` $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€WilliamÐ è&8"& ÐE.€James,€Senior€Counsel,€for€AppellantÐ Ô'$#' ÐÌJon€E.€Jones,€Phillips€M.€Ô_ÔSmallingÔ_Ô,€for€AppelleesÐ ¬)ü$) ÐÓÎ ÓÌò òÌÌÐ \-¬(-ý ÐOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Y…»XXiý #ÔÔ‡XiX»¼Y…ÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Y…»XXi@#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼Y…ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XiXXXiÔThe€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court.€€For€theÐ ˆØ Ðreasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€court€in€part€and€reverse€in€part.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òFacts€and€Procedural€HistoryÐ L œ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óIn€the€late€1940's,€Mildred€Harrison,€d/b/a/€Sunset€Boat€Dock,€entered€into€a€ð ðlease€forÐ $ t Ðcommercial€concession€purposesðð€to€operate€a€commercial€resort€and€boat€dock€on€Dale€HollowÐ  ` ÐLake.€€€The€lessor€was€the€Corps€of€Engineers,€and€the€underlying€fee€was€held€by€the€Secretary€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€Army€for€the€United€States€of€America.€òòóóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€July€28,€1993,€the€Secretary€of€the€Army€granted€the€State€of€Tennessee,€acting€throughÐ À  Ðthe€Department€of€Transportation€(hereinafter€referred€to€as€€ð ðthe€Stateðð),€a€ð ðSecond€SupplementalÐ ¬ü  ÐEasementðð€to€an€unnumbered€easement€dated€ð ð31€October€1949"€for€the€relocation€of€State€RouteÐ ˜è  Ð42€upon,€over,€and€across€government€owned€lands€within€the€Dale€Hollow€Dam€and€ReservoirÐ „Ô  Ðproject€in€Ô_ÔPickettÔ_Ô€County,€Tennessee.€€òòóóAt€least€part€of€the€land€contemplated€by€the€easement€fellÐ pÀ Ðwithin€the€leasehold€of€Mildred€Harrison.€€Paragraph€16€of€the€Second€Supplemental€EasementÐ \¬ Ðprovided€that€the€easement€was€granted€subject€to€the€lease€of€Mildred€Harrison,€and€it€would€be€theÐ H˜ Ðresponsibility€of€the€State€to€reach€an€agreement€with€Mildred€Harrison€for€compensation€forÐ 4„ Ðdamages€resulting€from€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€granted€right„of„way.€òòóóÐ  p ÐÌà  àOn€November€5,€1993,€the€State€filed€a€Petition€to€Condemn€against€Mildred€Harrison,€d/b/aÐ øH ÐSunset€Boat€Dock.€òòóó€€In€its€complaint€and€attached€exhibit,€the€State€sought€to€condemn€MildredÐ ä4 ÐHarrisonððs€entire€leasehold€interest€for€the€purpose€of€building€a€bridge€across€Dale€Hollow€Lake.€Ð Ð  ÐAn€order€of€possession€purporting€to€transfer€the€entire€leasehold€interest€of€Mildred€Harrison€to€theÐ ¼  ÐState€was€entered€on€November€17,€1993.€òòóóÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€January€6,€1994,€Sunset€Marina€and€Resort,€Inc.€filed€a€motion€to€intervene€in€theÐ €Ð Ðcondemnation€proceeding€filed€by€the€State€against€Mildred€Harrison.€òòóó€€The€motion€alleged€thatÐ l¼ ÐMildred€Harrison€had€assigned€all€of€her€right,€title,€and€interest€in€the€leasehold€to€Sunset€MarinaÐ X ¨ Ðand€Resort,€Inc.€òòóó€€The€parties€entered€an€agreed€order€on€November€28,€1995,€substituting€SunsetÐ D!” ÐMarina€and€Resort,€Inc.€and€Tony€Sloan€(ð ðAppelleeðð)€as€party€defendant€in€the€place€of€MildredÐ 0"€  ÐHarrison.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóóÐ #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Appellee€answered€the€complaint€and€asserted€various€arguments€as€to€why€the€StateððsÐ ô$D # Ðpetition€for€condemnation€could€not€be€sustained.€òòóó€€First,€the€Appellee€argued€that€the€proposedÐ à%0!$ Ðcondemnation€was€illegal€under€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution.׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóó€€Also,€theÐ Ì&"% ÐAppellee€argued€that€the€condemnation€was€a€violation€of€the€language€of€the€conditional€easementÐ ° Ðgranted€to€the€State€by€the€Corps€of€Engineers€because€the€State€failed€to€obtain€an€agreement€withÐ œì ÐMildred€Harrison€or€the€Appellee€regarding€compensation€for€the€taking.€òòóó€€Based€on€these€arguments,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€Appellee€filed€a€motion€for€injunction,€asking€the€trial€court€to€enjoin€the€State€from€enteringÐ tÄ Ðonto€the€leasehold€and€to€prohibit€all€further€construction€activity.€òòóó€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDuring€pretrial€proceedings,€the€parties€discovered€that€the€original€complaint€had€sought€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðtake€Mildred€Harrisonððs€entire€leasehold€and€concession.€òòóó€€The€State€asked€the€courtððs€permissionÐ $ t Ðto€withdraw€its€original€petition€and€to€file€an€amended€complaint.€€òòóóThe€permission€was€granted,€andÐ  ` Ðthe€State€filed€an€amended€petition€in€which€it€sought€to€take€certain€improvements€located€withinÐ ü L  Ðthe€area€of€construction,€namely€a€cedar€duplex€cabin€which€was€removed€in€order€to€place€a€supportÐ è 8  Ðpillar€for€the€bridge.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòóóÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àOn€April€8,€1996,€the€parties€appeared€before€the€trial€court€for€determination€of€title€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðimprovements€sought€to€be€acquired€by€the€State€and€on€the€motion€for€injunction.€€At€the€conclusionÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€State€had€no€right€to€condemn€the€property€because€it€hadÐ „Ô  Ðfailed€to€obtain€an€agreement€with€the€Appellee€or€the€Appelleeððs€predecessor.€òòóó€€The€court€also€ruledÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€United€States€Constitution€prohibited€the€State€from€condemningÐ \¬ Ða€lease€granted€by€the€United€States€of€America.€òòóó€€The€court€vacated€the€order€of€November€17,€1993,Ð H˜ Ðwhich€purported€to€transfer€the€entire€leasehold€interest€to€the€State,€and€denied€the€StateððsÐ 4„ Ðapplication€for€a€new€order€of€possession.€òòóó€€Finally,€the€trial€court€announced€that€an€injunctionÐ  p Ðwould€be€entered€on€May€15,€1996,€prohibiting€further€construction€on€the€bridge.€€At€that€time,€theÐ  \ Ðbridge€was€under€construction,€and€over€twelve€million€dollars€($12,000,000.00),€approximatelyÐ øH Ðthree„fourths€of€the€total€estimated€cost,€had€been€expended€toward€completion€of€the€project.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Appellee€subsequently€withdrew€its€request€for€an€injunction,€and€asked€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðto€determine€and€award€damages€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€òòóó€€The€Appellee€asserted€that€the€measureÐ ¨ø Ðof€damages€should€be€based€on€a€consideration€of€both:€1)€the€cost€to€the€State€to€find€and€constructÐ ”ä Ðan€equally€feasible€and€adequate€alternative€location€for€the€bridge€and€roadway€and€2)€the€value€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€property€taken€and€damaged.€òòóó€€The€State€contended€that€the€measure€of€damages€should€beÐ l¼ Ðrestricted€to€the€value€of€a€duplex€cabin€removed€from€the€property€during€construction€of€the€bridge.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÌà  àThe€case€was€tried€to€a€jury€on€January€29€and€30,€1997,€on€the€issue€of€damages.€òòóó€The€StateððsÐ #l! Ðonly€proof€related€to€the€value€of€the€cabin€located€within€the€easement€granted€by€the€Corps€ofÐ $X" ÐEngineers.׃NT×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóó€€The€Appellee€presented€proof€regarding€all€damages€caused€to€their€leasehold€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðconstruction,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€the€value€of€the€cabin.€òòóó€€At€the€close€of€proof,€the€StateÐ à%0!$ Ðmoved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€all€damage€issues,€and€the€Appellee€moved€for€a€partial€directedÐ Ì&"% Ðverdict€in€its€favor€on€all€condemnation€damage€issues€except€for€the€value€of€the€cabin.€The€attorneyÐ ° Ðfor€the€State€acknowledged€that€the€State€had€not€offered€any€evidence€regarding€any€damage€issuesÐ œì Ðother€than€the€value€of€the€cabin,€and€that€there€was€no€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€juryÐ ˆØ Ðcould€derive€any€damage€awards€except€for€those€damage€figures€testified€to€by€the€AppelleeððsÐ tÄ Ðexpert,€with€the€exception€of€the€value€of€the€cabin.€€òòóóThe€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€for€directedÐ `° Ðverdict€made€by€the€State€and€granted€the€Appelleeððs€motion€for€partial€directed€verdict.€Based€onÐ L œ Ðthe€Ô_ÔunrebuttedÔ_Ô€evidence€introduced€in€the€case,€the€trial€court€entered€a€directed€verdict€in€favor€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Appellee€in€the€amount€of€$287,115.00.€òòóó€€Thereafter,€counsel€for€both€parties€made€closingÐ $ t Ðarguments€to€the€jury€regarding€the€damages€that€should€be€awarded€for€the€taking€of€the€cabin.€òòóó€TheÐ  ` Ðjury€returned€a€verdict€in€the€amount€of€$52,725.00.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€AppelleeÐ ü L  Ð$100,000.00€for€attorneysðð€fees€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€€The€trial€court€reasoned€that€such€anÐ è 8  Ðaward€was€the€only€way€the€Appellee€could€have€justice€for€the€Stateððs€illegal€activities€since,€butÐ Ô$  Ðfor€the€Stateððs€actions,€the€Appellee€would€not€have€incurred€attorneysðð€fees.€òòóó€€The€court€ruled€thatÐ À  Ðupon€payment€of€the€$100,000,€the€property€rights€in€the€land€under€the€bridge€would€vest€in€theÐ ¬ü  ÐState,€and€the€Appelleeððs€right€to€an€injunction€would€be€extinguished.€òòóóÐ ˜è  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€State€brings€the€present€appeal€claiming€error€in€the€partial€directed€verdict€granted€inÐ pÀ Ðfavor€of€the€Appellee,€as€well€as€the€$100,000€awarded€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€€The€State€doesÐ \¬ Ðnot€claim€error€in€the€$52,725€jury€verdict€rendered€in€favor€of€the€Appellee.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òLaw€and€AnalysisÐ  p ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óWe€are€faced€with€two€claims€of€error€in€this€appeal.€€The€first€is€the€Stateððs€claim€that€theÐ øH Ðtrial€court€erred€in€the€award€of€$287,115€as€condemnation€damages.€€The€second€issue€relates€to€theÐ ä4 Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€to€award€attorneysðð€fees€of€$100,000€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€€We€shallÐ Ð  Ðconsider€each€of€these€claims€in€turn.ò ò€Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óòòó óI.€Condemnation€DamagesòòÐ ˜è ÐÌóóò òóóó óÓ  Óà  àIn€support€of€its€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€Appellee€a€directed€verdict€inÐ pÀ Ðthe€amount€of€€ò òÓÓó ó$287,115,€the€State€basically€presents€three€contentions.€€First,€it€argues€that€the€trialÐ \ ¬ Ðcourt€lacked€jurisdiction€to€award€damages€at€all.€€Second,€the€State€contends€that€any€damagesÐ H!˜ Ðarising€from€this€entire€scenario€resulted€not€from€the€Stateððs€building€of€the€bridge,€but€rather€fromÐ 4"„  Ðthe€granting€of€the€easement€to€the€State€by€the€Secretary€of€the€Army.€€Third,€the€State€contends€thatÐ  #p! Ðâ âit€did€not€ð ðtakeðð€any€leasehold€interest€of€the€Appellee€other€than€the€improvement€constructed€uponÐ  $\" ÐÔ_Ôthe€land.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€To€some€extent,€all€three€of€these€arguments€are€inter„related€insofar€as€they€involve€theÐ ° Ðrole€of€the€United€States.׃M ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рœì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€believe€the€Stateððs€arguments€rest€on€fundamental€mis„characterizations€of€the€facts.€€TheÐ tÄ ÐState€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€dispute€becauseÐ `° Ðit€involved€the€construction€of€rights€granted€by€the€United€States€of€America.€€According€to€theÐ L œ ÐStateððs€position,€this€dispute€could€only€be€adjudicated€in€a€proceeding€in€a€United€States€DistrictÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt.€€We€believe€this€argument€fails€from€the€outset.€€The€United€States,€through€the€Corps€ofÐ $ t ÐEngineers€and€the€Secretary€of€the€Army,€certainly€had€a€role€in€the€evolution€of€this€case€as€itÐ  ` Ðgranted€both€the€lease€and€the€easement.€€However,€that€role€did€not€extend€to€causing€the€damagesÐ ü L  Ðwhich€are€the€subject€of€this€appeal.€€While€the€Corps€of€Engineers€did€grant€the€State€an€easementÐ è 8  Ðto€build€the€bridge,€it€did€so€with€the€express€intent€of€protecting€the€Appelleeððs€lease.€€The€easementÐ Ô$  Ðwas€specifically€designed€to€be€subservient€to€the€lease,€and€the€easement€required€that€the€StateÐ À  Ðreach€an€agreement€with€the€leaseholder€prior€to€exercising€the€rights€granted€by€the€easement.€€OurÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€of€the€record€leads€us€to€two€inescapable€conclusions.€€First,€there€was€no€federal€claimÐ ˜è  Ðadjudicated€in€the€trial€court,€nor€was€the€United€States€a€necessary€party.€€The€dispute€in€this€caseÐ „Ô  Ðexisted€solely€between€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€the€leaseholder,€the€Appellee.€€Second,€the€damageÐ pÀ Ðcaused€to€the€Appelleeððs€leasehold€was€not€the€fault€of€the€United€States.€€The€granting€of€theÐ \¬ Ðeasement€did€not,€as€the€State€contends,€cause€the€damage.€€Rather,€the€illegal€exercise€of€thatÐ H˜ Ðeasement€by€the€State€caused€the€damages.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWe€can€perceive€of€no€claim€that€the€Appellee€could€have€asserted€against€the€United€States,Ð  \ Ðand€we€summarily€reject€any€argument€by€the€State€attempting€to€transfer€liability.€€Both€of€theÐ øH ÐStateððs€arguments€rest€on€the€premise€that€the€United€States,€through€the€Corps€of€Engineers,€isÐ ä4 Ðresponsible€for€the€damages.€€There€is€no€support€for€such€a€conclusion.€€The€State€disregarded€anÐ Ð  Ðexpress€provision€in€the€easement€granted€by€the€Corps€of€Engineers€by€not€reaching€an€agreementÐ ¼  Ðwith€Mildred€Harrison€prior€to€building€the€bridge.€€The€State,€not€the€United€States,€built€the€bridgeÐ ¨ø Ðthat€caused€the€damages.€€It€is€unreasonable€to€conclude€that€the€Stateððs€actions€are€somehow€theÐ ”ä Ðresponsibility€of€the€United€States.€€The€easement€granted€by€the€Corps€of€Engineers€containedÐ €Ð Ðsafeguards€which,€if€followed,€would€have€protected€the€Appelleeððs€interests.€€The€mere€granting€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€easement€did€not€damage€the€Appelleeððs€leasehold.€€The€responsibility€for€those€damages€liesÐ X ¨ Ðsquarely€with€the€State.€€Therefore,€we€reject€any€argument€advanced€by€the€State€which€is€based€onÐ D!” Ðthe€premise€that€the€United€States€was,€or€should€have€been,€a€party€to€this€action.€€Accordingly,€weÐ 0"€  Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€have€jurisdiction€to€adjudicate€the€dispute,€and€the€Stateððs€argumentÐ #l! Ðplacing€responsibility€on€the€United€States€is€without€merit.Ð $X" ÐÔ_ÔÐ ô$D # Ðà  àThe€Stateððs€final€argument€also€rests€on€a€mis„characterization€of€its€actions.€€The€State€Ð ° Ðcontends€that€it€only€ð ðtookðð€the€improvement€which€had€been€constructed€on€the€land.׃O×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€thisÐ œì Ðregard,€the€State€contends€that€the€only€damages€owed€to€the€Appellee€was€the€value€of€the€cedarÐ ˆØ Ðduplex€cabin€which€was€removed.€€In€regard€to€this€argument,€we€note,€with€approval,€the€statementsÐ tÄ Ðof€the€trial€court:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àIt€is€undisputed€in€this€case€that€the€bridge€and€highway€which€are€under€constructionÐ 8 ˆ Ðcompletely€dissect€the€lease.€The€State€has€located€large€massive€concrete€pillars€andÐ $ t Ðabutments€on€the€land€within€the€leasehold€concession.€In€addition,€the€State€isÐ  ` Ðconstructing€an€impassable€drainage€ditch€through€the€middle€of€the€lease.€TheÐ ü L  ÐDefendants€assert€that€persons€and€property€on€the€leasehold€adjacent€to€the€bridgeÐ è 8  Ðwill€potentially€be€endangered€by€debris€thrown€from€the€bridge.€They€contend€thatÐ Ô$  Ðwater€on€the€bridge€is€collected€into€drains€which,€during€heavy€rains,€concentrate€theÐ À  Ðwater€into€dangerous€streams€which€fall€onto€their€property€from€several€hundred€feetÐ ¬ü  Ðabove.€They€say€they€have€lost€building€sites€and€dockage€space€and€that€the€road€andÐ ˜è  Ðbridge€have€damaged€the€value€of€their€lease,€both€within€and€outside€the€area€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðproposed€easement.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àBased€on€the€plans€for€the€construction€filed€in€court€and€on€the€admissions€of€theÐ H˜ ÐState€in€open€court,€it€is€obvious€that€the€Stateððs€position€that€it€is€not€taking€anyÐ 4„ Ðleasehold€interest€except€for€improvement€is€a€fallacy.€The€State€asks€this€court€toÐ  p Ðpretend€that€the€defendants€will€not€suffer€and€damages,€except€to€improvements,Ð  \ Ðbecause€the€State,€by€its€own€admission,€had€no€power€to€take€or€damage€theÐ øH Ðdefendantsðð€leasehold.€òòThe€fact,€however,€that€the€State€did€not€have€power€to€takeÐ ä4 Ðdoes€not€change€the€reality€of€the€fact€that€the€State€did€take,€and€is€continuing€toÐ Ð  Ðtake,€leasehold€rights€and€that€the€construction€and€operation€of€the€bridge€damagesÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendantsðð€economic€rights€in€their€leasehold€over€and€above€the€value€of€theirÐ ¨ø Ðimprovements.€The€Stateððs€position€that€it€is€attempting€to€take€only€improvementsÐ ”ä Ðcannot€be€reconciled€to€the€reality€of€the€plans€and€the€actual€construction.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌóó(emphasis€added).€€The€trial€court€accurately€stated€the€complete€fallacy€of€the€present€argument.€Ð X ¨ ÐRegardless€of€what€the€state€could€take,€or€thought€it€was€taking,€the€conclusion€is€inescapable€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€construction€of€the€bridge€damaged€the€Appellee€far€beyond€removing€the€cabin.€€€€€€€€€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€find€no€merit€in€the€Stateððs€argument€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdictionÐ $X" Ðto€adjudicate€the€issue€of€damages€to€the€Appelleeððs€leasehold.€€Similarly,€we€reject€the€StateððsÐ ô$D # Ðargument€that€they€were€not€responsible€for€the€damages€sustained€by€the€Appellee.€€Finally,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âbelieve€it€to€be€clear€that€the€State€caused€damages€beyond€those€associated€with€the€improvementsÐ Ì&"% Ðconstructed€on€the€leasehold.€€As€such,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€granting€of€the€AppelleeððsÐ ° Ðmotion€for€partial€directed€verdict.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  ÓòòII.€Attorneysðð€FeesÐ tÄ ÐÌóóÓ  Óà  àThe€remaining€issue€for€our€consideration€is€the€question€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ L œ Ðawarding€the€Appellee€$100,000€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€€The€State€argues€that€there€is€noÐ 8 ˆ Ðauthority,€statutory€or€otherwise,€upon€which€to€base€this€award.€€The€Appellee€argues€that€this€awardÐ $ t Ðis€sustainable€because€there€was€no€other€method€through€which€the€trial€court€could€compensate€Ð  ` Ðit€for€the€actions€of€the€State.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€certainly€sympathize€with€the€plight€of€the€Appellee€in€this€case.€€However,€we€mustÐ Ô$  Ðagree€with€the€Stateððs€argument€that€there€is€no€basis€for€the€trial€court€to€have€awarded€theÐ À  Ðattorneysðð€fees€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief.€€The€Appellee€has€not€pointed€to€any€authority€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðwould€allow€us€to€sustain€the€award.€€While€we€recognize€the€ends€which€the€trial€court€wasÐ ˜è  Ðattempting€to€achieve,€we€are€unable€to€approve€of€the€means€absent€some€authority.€€While€no€issueÐ „Ô  Ðhas€been€presented€regarding€the€injunction,€we€note€that€an€injunction€is€an€available€remedy€inÐ pÀ Ðcases€such€as€the€present.€€The€fact€that€an€injunction€was€not€feasible€in€this€case€does€not€allow€theÐ \¬ Ðcourt€to€substitute€remedies.€€The€Appellee€dropped€their€request€for€an€injunction,€and€we€can€findÐ H˜ Ðno€authority€which€would€allow€them€an€alternative€remedy.€€Therefore,€we€are€bound€to€concludeÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€Appellee€attorneysðð€fees€of€$100,000€in€lieu€of€injunctiveÐ  p Ðrelief.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  Óò òConclusionÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€Appelleeððs€motion€forÐ ¼  Ðpartial€directed€verdict€and€awarding€$287,115€as€condemnation€damages€is€affirmed.€€The€awardÐ ¨ø Ðof€$100,000€in€lieu€of€injunctive€relief€is€hereby€reversed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ ”ä ÐAppellant,€State€of€Tennessee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€Ô#†XiXXXiÉ#ÔÔ#†¼Y…»XXiž#ÔÔ€XiX»¼Y…ÔÐ €Ð ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE