ÿWPCõ ψâÙ¯1”–Ù(;•G®T‚i½ú†ûש·ÐJ³M9„Sx Âúùðæ‡ücˆœ ïúMܵàß"™ÆÞZx“f+ÖËéï©_ô š¬\ŒëåGCýãxæ9 hŸ](?®XN=ËÁ¾ð’.MGa˜ ¼xß-çç\8’¾Ã0ͦ>ƒq¶† 5bìx!b‘ûY–í¨ðX"•fòNÞÐ+‘vú®ÌòAAJÆâ¯Æd™äu/ÓOk—ï0b ÖiBub#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0c0N“ 0D•UNÙE')) 1u; 72°âââââââââââââââââââbêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêê 0ëòòòò BÝÝ 0¤ú D3ž D-Ñ 0Kþþ ASIÆœ 0¤b 0D A«J˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¨™;+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+¤k  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular öÝ ƒR©$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€29„20„102(4)€defines€ð ðinjuryðð€as€ð ðdeath,€injury€to€a€person,€damage€to€or€loss€of€property€or€any€otherÐ ° Ðinjury€that€one€may€suffer€to€oneððs€person,€or€estate,€that€would€be€actionable€if€inflicted€by€a€private€person€or€suchÐ tÄ Ðpersonððs€agent.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„102(4)€(2000).€€€€€Ð 8ˆ Ð Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒR©$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€29„14„107(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€provides€that€ð ðwhen€declaratory€relief€is€sought,€all€persons€shallÐ ° Ðbe€made€parties€who€have€or€claim€any€interest€which€would€be€affected€by€the€declaration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€29„14„Ð tÄ Ð107(a)€(2000).€€The€act€defines€ð ðpersonsðð€to€include€municipal€corporations.€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2©$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûMò»»Ô d(|3‰e$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰e$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼^¥»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î]Ô^¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼^¥»îî]Ô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€9,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÙX»¼^¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼^¥»XXÙñ#ÔEARL€J.€VAN€WINKLE,€òòet€al.óó€v.€CITY€OF€LaVERGNEòòóóÔ‡XÙX»¼^¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€39528€€€€€€Robert€E.€Corlew,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01784„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€27,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XÙXXXÙÔThis€appeal€involves€the€disputed€ownership€of€water€lines.€€The€City€of€LaVergne€appeals€the€trialÐ xÈ  Ðcourtððs€ruling€that€the€city€was€the€owner€of€the€water€lines€and€responsible€for€their€continuedÐ d´ Ðmaintenance€and€repair.€€LaVergne€also€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$3037.31€to€the€VanÐ P  ÐWinkles.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.Ð <Œ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌò òòòóóÔ#†XÙXXXÙÇ#ÔÔ#†¼^¥»XXÙq#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼^¥ÔÓ»ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ d ÐRemandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^¥»àXÙ#ÔÔ‡XÙX.¼^¥ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highersóó€and€òòHolly€K.Ð Ø( ÐLillard,€J.J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJohn€E.€Quinn€and€Todd€C.€McKee,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€City€of€LaVergne.Ð œì ÐÌJosh€A.€McCreary€and€Jeff€Reed,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Earl€J.€Van€WinkleÐ tÄ Ðand€wife,€Pauline€Van€Winkle,€individually,€and€d/b/a€Rip€Van€Winkle€Mobile€Home€Park.Ð `° ÐÌÓÑÓò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^¥»XXÙ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»¼^¥ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌÔ#†¼^¥»XXÙ] #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÙX»¼^¥ÔÔ‡XÙXXXÙÔò òòòóóó óà  àEarl€Van€Winkle€and€Pauline€Van€Winkle€(the€Van€Winkles)€are€the€owners€of€a€mobileÐ #`" Ðhome€park€known€as€Rip€Van€Winkle€Mobile€Home€Park€on€Blair€Road€in€the€City€of€LaVergne.€Ð ü#L# ÐAfter€years€of€using€well€water€as€the€primary€watering€system€for€the€park,€the€Van€WinklesÐ è$8 $ Ðpetitioned€the€City€of€LaVergne€(LaVergne)€for€water€service.€€LaVergne€agreed€to€supply€the€VanÐ Ô%$!% ÐWinkles€with€water,€but€the€city€required€the€Van€Winkles€to€bear€the€costs€related€to€this€service.€Ð À&"& ÐFurther,€in€order€to€connect€to€the€existing€water€line€on€Waldron€Road,€the€Van€Winkles€had€to€getÐ ¬'ü"' Ðeasements€from€the€other€property€owners€on€Blair€Road.€€The€Van€Winkles€collected€the€signaturesÐ ˜(è#( Ðof€the€property€owners€on€Blair€Road€and€returned€these€easements€to€LaVergne.€€Neither€partyÐ „)Ô$) Ðpresently€knows€the€location€of€the€original€easements.€€Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àAt€LaVergneððs€request,€the€Van€Winkles€hired€Barge,€Waggoner,€Sumner,€and€Cannon€toÐ H,˜', Ðdesign€the€water€system€that€extended€out€Blair€Road€and€eventually€into€the€mobile€home€park€TheÐ 4-„(-ý ÐVan€Winkles€also€hired€the€contractor€who€installed€the€water€line,€and€paid€for€the€materials€used€Ð ° Ðin€the€installation€of€the€water€line.€€LaVergne€permitted€the€Van€Winkles€to€recover€tap€fees€fromÐ œì Ðthe€other€residents€on€Blair€Road€to€help€defray€the€costs€of€the€water€line.€€However,€once€the€cityÐ ˆØ Ðaccepted€the€water€line,€the€tap€fees€would€go€to€LaVergne.€€On€October€27,€1982,€LaVergne€wroteÐ tÄ Ðthe€Van€Winkles€a€letter€stating€that€ð ð[t]he€Van€Winkle€water€lines€have€been€completed€andÐ `° Ðaccepted.€€They€have€been€checked€by€water€control€of€Tennessee€and€found€negative.ðð€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWithin€the€mobile€home€park,€the€water€lines€are€connected€to€individual€water€metersÐ $ t Ðadjacent€to€each€mobile€home.€€These€lines,€which€are€located€on€the€Van€Winklesðð€property,Ð  ` Ðrequired€service€several€times€prior€to€this€suit.€€It€was€stipulated€that€LaVergne€repaired€the€linesÐ ü L  Ðas€many€as€15€to€20€times€prior€to€1996.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€1996,€LaVergne€passed€Ordinance€96„6.€€Pursuant€to€this€ordinance,€LaVergne€placed€twoÐ À  Ðmaster€water€meters€on€the€road€outside€of€the€Van€Winkle€property.€€After€the€city€installed€theseÐ ¬ü  Ðmaster€meters,€LaVergne€refused€to€repair€the€water€lines€on€the€Van€Winklesðð€property.€€The€cityÐ ˜è  Ðbilled€the€Van€Winkles€for€the€water€lost€from€those€lines.€€The€Van€Winkles€paid€$3,037.31€in€waterÐ „Ô  Ðbills€as€a€result€of€this€water€loss.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€January€1998,€the€Van€Winkles€filed€a€complaint€against€LaVergne€to€determineÐ H˜ Ðownership€of€the€lines€on€the€Van€Winklesðð€property€and€to€recover€the€payments€made€to€LaVergneÐ 4„ Ðas€a€result€of€the€lost€water.€€The€case€came€to€trial€in€December€1999.€€Early€in€the€trial,€the€VanÐ  p ÐWinkles€offered€the€documents€signed€by€the€property€owners€on€Blair€Road€as€evidence€ofÐ  \ Ðeasements.€€Counsel€for€LaVergne€objected,€citing€that€the€documents€did€not€contain€the€signatureÐ øH Ðof€city€officials,€and€therefore,€were€not€accepted€by€the€city.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objectionÐ ä4 Ðstating:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àTo€the€extent€that€the€documents€are€offered€as€easements,€perhaps€Mr.€McKeeððsÐ ¨ø Ðobjection€is€proper.€€And€Iððll€sustain€it.€€To€the€extent€that€the€documents€areÐ ”ä Ðphotocopies€of€paper€writings,€the€original€of€which€cannot€be€located€and€to€theÐ €Ð Ðextent€that€they€demonstrate€some€offer€perhaps€or€some€intent€on€the€part€of€someÐ l¼ Ðindividual,€at€least€the€Plaintiffs€perhaps,€it€is€appropriate€to€allow€them€to€beÐ X ¨ Ðadmitted.€€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo,€again,€I€guess€for€the€limited€purpose,€Iððll€allow€the€document€to€beÐ #l! Ðpresented.€€As€to€whether€it€is€an€easement,€as€to€whether€itððs€an€offer€for€anÐ $X" Ðeasement,€or€as€to€what,€in€fact,€it€is,€I€suppose€Iððll€reserve€that€issue€and€hear€theÐ ô$D # Ðfurther€proof€concerning€the€documents€and€otherwise.€€But€at€this€point,€Iððll€allowÐ à%0!$ Ðthem€then€for€the€limited€purpose€to€be€marked€as€the€next€exhibit.€.€.€.€€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌAfter€both€sides€presented€their€respective€cases,€the€trial€court€entered€judgment€holding€thatÐ ¤(ô#' ÐLaVergne€is€the€owner€of€the€water€lines€and€€responsible€for€their€repair,€maintenance,€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âreplacement.€€Additionally,€the€court€awarded€the€Van€Winkles€$3037.13,€representing€the€cost€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€water€lost€after€the€city€installed€the€master€meters.€€The€trial€court€listed€several€factors€asÐ ° Ðsignificant€in€reaching€its€conclusion:€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` à1)€the€entire€Blair€Road€Project,€serving€a€number€of€residences€and€propertyÐ tÄ Ðowners€was€directed€by€the€City;€2)€the€City€initially€mandated€the€preparation€of€andÐ `° Ðfollowing€of€the€project€manual;€3)€easements€for€the€project€were€obtained€in€theÐ L œ Ðname€of€the€City;€4)€the€City€selected€the€engineers€to€design€the€project€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðapproved€the€design;€5)€the€City€directed€the€types€of€materials€to€be€used;€6)€the€CityÐ $ t Ðmonitored€and€approved€the€workmanship;€7)€the€City€ððacceptedðð€the€waterlines,Ð  ` Ðwhatever€meaning€the€City€may€have€intended€some€18€years€ago;€8)€the€CityÐ ü L  Ðmaintained€the€water€lines€for€a€number€of€years;€9)€the€City€granted€or€denied€waterÐ è 8  Ðservice€to€individual€tenants€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€trailers,€requiring€or€waiving€deposits,Ð Ô$  Ðand€individually€billing€those€tenants€as€its€customers.€ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€City€of€LaVergne€raises€two€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:Ð ˜è  ÐÓ€ (5h83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÓÓà8  àÝ‚3£ç$ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€rendering€judgment€against€the€City€ofÐ pÀ ÐLaVergne€when€the€Plaintiffs/Appellees€stated€no€basis€to€abrogate€the€cityððsÐ \¬ Ðsovereign€immunity.݃3£ç$2%ÝŒÐH˜` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà8  àÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£·&ÝÔ25hÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€relying€upon€documents€as€evidence€ofÐ  p Ðeasements€in€formulating€its€holding,€after€it€had€refused€to€admit€the€veryÐ  \ Ðsame€documents€as€evidence€of€easements€during€trial.݃3£·&ä&ÝŒÐøH` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÌAs€this€matter€was€tried€before€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð  Ðfindings€of€fact€is€ò òòòde€novo€ó óóówith€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ ¼  Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€With€respect€to€the€courtððs€legal€conclusions,Ð ¨ø Ðhowever,€our€review€is€ò òòòde€novoóóó ó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòBain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,Ð ”ä Ð622€(Tenn.€1997).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€first€consider€LaVergneððs€assertion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€rendering€judgment€inÐ X ¨ Ðfavor€of€the€Van€Winkles€when€the€Van€Winkles€stated€no€basis€to€abrogate€the€cityððs€sovereignÐ D!” Ðimmunity.€€Citing€sections€29„20„101€to€29„20„406€of€the€Tennessee€Code,€LaVergne€maintains€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€does€not€permit€suits€against€governmental€entities€to€determineÐ #l! Ðownership€of€utilities€or€to€award€damages€associated€with€utilities.€€Therefore,€LaVergne€argues,Ð $X" Ðthe€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€enter€judgment€in€favor€of€the€Van€Winkles,€as€the€Van€WinklesÐ ô$D # Ðdid€not€state€grounds€in€their€suit€for€removing€LaVergneððs€immunity.€€In€support€of€this€argument,Ð à%0!$ ÐLaVergne€relies€on€the€following€statutory€provision:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àExcept€as€may€be€otherwise€provided€in€this€chapter,€all€governmental€entities€shallÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€immune€from€suit€for€any€injury€which€may€result€from€the€activities€of€suchÐ )à$( Ðgovernmental€entities€wherein€such€governmental€entities€are€engaged€in€the€exerciseÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€discharge€of€any€of€their€functions,€governmental€or€proprietary.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(a)€(2000).€€€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity€was€a€common€law€doctrine€which€protected€the€stateÐ ˆØ Ðand€its€governmental€subdivisions€from€liability€for€damages€caused€by€their€tortious€acts.€€òòò òKirby€v.Ð tÄ ÐMacon€Countyó óóó,€892€S.W.2d€403,€406€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€Tennessee€legislature€codified€thisÐ `° Ðcommon€law€doctrine€as€it€applies€to€local€governmental€agencies,€municipalities,€and€counties€byÐ L œ Ðenacting€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€in€1974.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€This€was€an€act€of€grace€through€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€General€Assembly€provided€immunity€from€tort€liability€to€all€governmental€entities,€butÐ $ t Ðremoved€it€in€limited,€specific€instances.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€As€its€name€suggests,€the€intent€of€the€legislature€wasÐ  ` Ðto€limit€governmental€tort€immunity,€while€providing€standards€and€procedures€to€protect€the€publicÐ ü L  Ðinterest.€€òòò òCruse€v.€City€of€Columbiaó óóó,€922€S.W.2d€492€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòò òSimpson€v.€SumnerÐ è 8  ÐCountyó óóó,€669€S.W.2d€657,€659„60€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983)).€€Therefore,€it€is€evident€that€the€doctrineÐ Ô$  Ðof€sovereign€immunity,€and€its€subsequent€codification,€only€functions€to€protect€local€governmentsÐ À  Ðfrom€suits€sounding€in€tort.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€previously€illustrated€this€limitation€of€governmental€immunity.€€In€ò òòòSimpsonÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Sumner€Countyóóó ó,€669€S.W.2d€657,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€the€Middle€Section€of€this€CourtÐ pÀ Ðheld€that€an€action€for€the€breach€of€contract€was€not€within€the€GTLA.€€The€court€placed€importanceÐ \¬ Ðon€the€name€of€the€Act€and€its€legislative€history€when€it€concluded€that€ð ð[t]he€Act€taken€as€a€wholeÐ H˜ Ðis€incapable€of€reasonable€interpretation€if€causes€of€action€for€matters€other€than€ððtortðð€are€included.ðð€Ð 4„ Ðòòò òId.ó óóó€at€660.€€The€court€concluded€by€stating€that€the€definition€of€ð ðinjuryðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€GLTA€does€notÐ  p Ðcover€damages€resulting€from€a€breach€of€contract.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€this€Court€has€determined€that€the€GLTA€does€not€provide€a€county€immunityÐ ä4 Ðin€an€action€for€a€declaratory€judgment.€€ò òòòHackett€v.€Smith€Countyóóó ó,€807€S.W.2d€695,€698„99€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCt.€App.€1990).€€In€that€case,€the€court€held€that€a€plaintiff€has€standing€to€seek€a€declaration€thatÐ ¼  Ðcertain€roads€were€public€roads€pursuant€to€the€declaratory€judgment€act.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€699.€€The€courtÐ ¨ø Ðnoted€that€the€case€did€not€contain€allegations€of€tortious€activity,€nor€did€it€seek€to€impose€liability.€Ð ”ä Ðòòò òIdó óóó.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€GTLA€does€not€provide€LaVergne€immunity€from€suit.€€As€statedÐ X ¨ Ðabove,€the€GTLA,€like€the€doctrine€of€sovereign€immunity,€functions€to€provide€immunity€andÐ D!” Ðexceptions€from€immunity€in€tort€actions.€€The€Van€Winklesðð€action€is€to€determine€who€ownsÐ 0"€  Ðcertain€water€pipes€on€their€property€and€to€recover€the€money€the€Van€Winkles€paid€the€city€afterÐ #l! Ðthe€installation€of€the€master€meters.€€Similar€to€the€situation€in€ò òòòHackettóóó ó,€the€Van€Winkles€do€notÐ $X" Ðhave€to€assert€grounds€under€the€GTLA€in€order€to€seek€a€declaration€that€LaVergne€owns€the€waterÐ ° Ðlines€in€issue.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€GTLA€does€not€prohibit€the€Van€Winkles€from€seeking€to€recover€costs€they€incurredÐ tÄ Ðafter€LaVergneððs€installation€of€the€master€meters.€€The€water€costs€did€not€arise€from€any€tortiousÐ `° Ðaction€by€LaVergne.€€These€costs€arose€due€to€the€disputed€ownership€of€the€water€lines.€€WaterÐ L œ Ðleaked€from€the€lines,€and€LaVergne€billed€the€Van€Winkles€for€the€water€loss,€asserting€the€VanÐ 8 ˆ ÐWinkles€owned€the€lines.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAs€in€ò òòòSimpsonóóó ó,€the€injuries€defined€by€the€GTLA€do€not€encompass€the€Van€Winklesðð€actionÐ ü L  Ðfor€reimbursement.€€The€GTLAððs€definition€of€injury€contemplate€situations€where€one€partyÐ è 8  Ðtortiously€damages€anotherððs€property€or€their€person.€€In€the€present€case,€the€Van€Winkles€seek€toÐ Ô$  Ðrecover€costs€paid€to€the€city€as€a€result€of€water€leaking€from€the€lines€on€the€Van€WinklesððÐ À  Ðproperty.€€LaVergne€did€not€negligently€or€intentionally€damage€any€of€the€Van€Winklesðð€property.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€Van€Winkles€suffered€no€ð ðdamage€to€or€loss€of€propertyðð€that€was€ð ðinflictedðð€by€LaVergne.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àLaVergneððs€reliance€on€ò òòòPaduch€v.€City€of€Johnson€Cityó óóó€is€misplaced.€€òòò òPaduch€v.€City€ofÐ pÀ ÐJohnson€Cityó óóó,€896€S.W.2d€767€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€òòò òPaduchóóó ó,€the€city€required€a€landowner€to€pay€theÐ \¬ Ðpaving€costs€of€a€street€before€the€city€would€issue€the€landowner€a€building€permit€adjacent€to€theÐ H˜ Ðstreet.€€Ownership€of€the€street€became€an€issue€after€the€landowner€paved€the€street.€€The€landownerÐ 4„ Ðwas€successful€in€his€suit€to€determine€the€city€owned€the€street,€but€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ  p Ðreversed€the€lower€courtððs€award€of€damages€to€the€landowner€as€compensation€for€paving€the€street.€Ð  \ ÐAfter€noting€that€the€city€was€under€no€obligation€to€pave€the€road€in€issue,€the€court€determined€thatÐ øH Ðthe€GTLA€provided€the€city€immunity€for€its€decision€to€deny€the€building€permit€until€theÐ ä4 Ðlandowner€paved€the€public€road.€€The€court€held€that€the€landowner€did€not€assert€a€basis€of€liabilityÐ Ð  Ðunder€the€Act,€and€that€the€Act€had€a€specific€provision€providing€immunity€for€a€cityððs€failure€toÐ ¼  Ðissue€a€building€permit.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àHere,€the€Van€Winklesðð€action€is€not€asserting€LaVergne€made€a€negligent€decision€inÐ €Ð Ðdisclaiming€ownership€of€the€lines.€€The€action€is€to€determine€ownership€of€the€lines.€€Consequently,Ð l¼ Ðif€LaVergne€owns€the€lines,€it€is€obligated€to€pay€for€water€lost€through€those€lines.€€Unlike€ò òòòPaduchó óóó,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€instant€action€is€to€enforce€that€obligation,€not€to€recover€damages€for€a€negligent€or€tortiousÐ D!” Ðdecision.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAs€the€GTLA€does€not€provide€immunity€to€LaVergne€in€this€action,€we€must€now€turn€toÐ $X" ÐLaVergneððs€second€issue,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€relying€on€documents€as€evidence€ofÐ ô$D # Ðeasements€when€reaching€its€holding,€after€it€refused€to€admit€those€documents€as€evidence€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðeasements€during€trial.€€LaVergne€maintains€that€evidence€of€easements€is€the€only€objective€proofÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€the€city€would€have€agreed€to€own€or€maintain€the€water€lines€on€the€Van€Winklesðð€property.€Ð ¸'#& ÐThus,€according€to€LaVergne,€when€the€trial€court€refused€to€rule€that€the€documents€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeasements,€the€court€erred€in€reaching€its€ultimate€conclusion€that€LaVergne€owns€the€water€linesÐ )à$( Ðâ âand€must€pay€costs€incurred€by€the€Van€Winkles€after€the€installation€of€the€master€meters.€€WeÐ |*Ì%) Ðdisagree.€€If€the€trial€court€did€rely€on€the€documents€as€evidence€of€easements,€it€was€not€improperÐ ° Ðfor€the€court€to€do€so.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAn€easement€is€a€real€property€interest€that€confers€on€its€holder€a€right€to€use€the€propertyÐ tÄ Ðof€another€for€a€specific€purpose.€€ò òòòPevear€v.€Huntó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€114,€115€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€Ð `° ÐParties€may€create€easements€in€a€number€of€different€ways.€€òòò òBradley€v.€McLeodó óóó,€984€S.W.2d€929,Ð L œ Ð934€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Parties€may€create€easements€by€an€express€grant,€by€reservation€in€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeed,€by€implication,€by€prescription,€by€estoppel,€or€by€eminent€domain.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€As€an€interest€in€realÐ $ t Ðproperty,€an€easement€created€by€an€express€grant€must€comply€with€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€ò òòòMillerÐ  ` Ðv.€Streetóóó ó,€663€S.W.2d€797,€798€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€The€Statute€of€Frauds€requires€the€documentÐ ü L  Ðto€contain€a€sufficient€description€of€the€land€and€it€must€be€ð ðsigned€by€the€party€to€be€charged.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó;Ð è 8  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101€(2000).€€The€ð ðparty€to€be€chargedðð€is€the€owner€of€the€real€property.€Ð Ô$  Ðò òòòLusky€v.€Keiseróóó ó,€164€S.W.€777€(Tenn.€1914);€ò òòòPatterson€v.€Davisóóó ó,€192€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð À  ÐApp.€1946).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€as€in€other€real€property€transactions,€an€express€easement€must€be€deliveredÐ „Ô  Ðto€and€accepted€by€the€grantee.€€òòò òMorris€v.€Simmonsóóó ó,€909€S.W.2d€441,€446€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);Ð pÀ Ðòòò òMast€v.€Shepardó óóó,€408€S.W.2d€411,€413€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1966).€€If€the€easement€is€beneficial€to€theÐ \¬ Ðgrantee,€the€court€may€presume€acceptance€of€the€easement.€€28A€C.J.S.€òòò òEasementsó óóó€ðð€56€(1996).€Ð H˜ ÐFurther,€acceptance€may€be€implied€by€admissions,€conduct,€or€other€circumstances.€€9€TennesseeÐ 4„ ÐJurisprudence€òòò òDeeds€óóó óðð€11€(1993).€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€testimony€established€that€LaVergne€could€only€enter€the€Van€WinklesððÐ øH Ðproperty€to€repair€the€water€lines€if€the€leaks€constituted€a€nuisance€or€if€the€city€had€an€easementÐ ä4 Ðover€the€Van€Winklesðð€property.€€Ms.€Van€Winkle€testified€that€the€city€required€all€the€propertyÐ Ð  Ðowners€on€Blair€Road€to€grant€easements€to€the€city€prior€to€the€installation€of€the€water€lines.€Ð ¼  ÐLaVergne€did€not€rebut€her€testimony€on€that€issue.€€Therefore,€it€was€undisputed€that€LaVergneÐ ¨ø Ðrequired€easements€prior€to€the€construction€of€the€water€lines.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMs.€Van€Winkle€introduced€documents€into€evidence€which€she€claimed€to€be€easements.€Ð l¼ ÐThese€documents€purported€to€grant€easements€to€LaVergne€from€the€property€owners€on€Blair€Road,Ð X ¨ Ðincluding€the€Van€Winkles.€€The€document€the€Van€Winkles€assert€is€an€easement€over€their€propertyÐ D!” Ðnamed€LaVergne€as€the€grantee€of€an€easement.€€Further,€the€Van€Winkles€signed€the€document,€andÐ 0"€  Ðthe€document€gives€a€sufficient€description€of€the€easement.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIt€is€also€undisputed€that€Ms.€Van€Winkle€took€the€original€document€to€city€hall€and€that€itsÐ ô$D # Ðwhereabouts€are€presently€unknown.€€The€parties€could€not€locate€the€document€in€the€public€recordsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€city€of€LaVergne.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€documents€at€issue€are€indeed€easements,€and€if€the€trial€court€reliedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðon€them€as€such,€it€was€not€in€error€to€do€so.€€LaVergne€asserts€that€they€did€not€sign€the€documentsÐ )à$( Ðâ âand,€therefore,€the€easements€are€not€valid€as€to€them.€€As€stated€above,€the€document€does€not€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€be€signed€by€the€grantee€to€be€given€legal€effect.€€The€only€signature€required€is€that€of€the€grantor,Ð ° Ðas€they€are€the€ð ðparty€to€be€charged.ðð€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAdditionally,€LaVergne€argues€that€the€city€did€not€accept€the€documents,€and€as€a€result,Ð tÄ Ðthere€can€be€no€transfer€of€a€real€property€interest€to€LaVergne.€€We€believe€the€events€in€this€caseÐ `° Ðillustrate€acceptance€by€LaVergne.€€First,€Ms.€Van€Winkle€took€the€documents€to€city€hall€asÐ L œ ÐLaVergneððs€officials€instructed€her€to€do.€€Second,€LaVergne€wrote€the€Van€Winkles€a€letter€statingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€ð ðwater€lines€have€been€completed€and€accepted.ðð€€Third,€LaVergne€repaired€the€water€linesÐ $ t Ðas€many€as€24€times€before€the€city€installed€the€master€meters.€€Finally,€the€water€lines€are€beneficialÐ  ` Ðto€LaVergne€as€the€city€collects€the€tap€fees€from€the€lines€and€receives€money€from€the€residents€onÐ ü L  Ðthe€mobile€home€park€due€to€their€use€of€water.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€realize€there€was€considerable€debate€over€the€meaning€of€ð ðacceptedðð€as€used€inÐ À  ÐLaVergneððs€letter€to€the€Van€Winkles.€€LaVergne€maintains€that€acceptance€means€the€city€approvedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€quality€and€construction€of€the€lines.€€The€Van€Winkles€argue€the€letter€indicates€an€acceptanceÐ ˜è  Ðof€ownership€of€the€lines.€€We€believe€the€Van€Winklesðð€interpretation€to€be€the€better€of€the€two.€Ð „Ô  ÐLaVergne€told€the€Van€Winkles€that€the€Van€Winkles€could€collect€the€tap€fees€until€the€cityÐ pÀ Ðaccepted€the€line.€€After€acceptance,€the€city€would€collect€the€tap€fees€for€the€line.€€This€indicatesÐ \¬ Ðto€us€that€LaVergne€accepted€ownership€of€the€lines.€€Further,€in€light€of€the€undisputed€testimonyÐ H˜ Ðthat€LaVergne€required€the€Van€Winkles€to€grant€an€easement€over€their€property,€the€letter€acceptingÐ 4„ Ðthe€lines€provides€additional€proof€that€the€city€accepted€ownership€of€the€lines.€€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àWe€also€note€that€LaVergne€claims€they€repaired€the€water€lines€only€because€the€linesÐ øH Ðconstituted€a€nuisance€and€not€because€they€accepted€the€easement.€€Although€we€acknowledge€thisÐ ä4 Ðposition,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€continued€maintenance€is€conduct€which€illustratesÐ Ð  Ðacceptance€of€the€easement.€€Several€factors€illustrate€this€conclusion.€€Prior€to€the€installation€of€theÐ ¼  Ðmaster€meters,€the€city€continually€maintained€the€lines,€usually€without€protest.€€In€fact,€LaVergneÐ ¨ø Ðrepaired€the€water€lines€often€out€of€request€by€the€Van€Winkles€or€mobile€home€tenants.€Ð ”ä ÐAdditionally,€LaVergne€failed€to€bill€the€Van€Winkles€for€the€€repairs€or€attempt€to€make€the€VanÐ €Ð ÐWinkles€claim€responsibility€for€the€water€lines.€€This€conduct€by€the€City€of€LaVergne€amounts€toÐ l¼ Ðacceptance€of€the€easement€and€the€water€lines.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€documents€areÐ X ¨ Ðeasements,€and€that€if€the€trial€court€relied€on€the€documents€as€such,€it€was€not€in€error€to€do€so.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà@%ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ #l! ÐÓ °X°œXÓÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€The€costs€of€this€appealÐ ð$@ # Ðare€taxed€to€the€appellant,€the€City€of€LaVergne,€and€its€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ Ü%,!$ Ðnecessary.à ` à€€€€Ô#†XÙXXXÙà #ÔÐ È&"% ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð x*È%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE