ÿWPCŒ% ># tUN %Í 0 4Ó 0³bºw@Â4%j- 0D—NÛ^ Ýé 0Jë m5 0TL 0^  0hþ 0rf 0|Ø AQT 0D¥ 0†é 0o Bÿ Æ 0Dâ 0@& D/f B• D3² 1uå 0dZU>¾B)üDC% AMhU*µFßé%כ廀v~;vÓ¹˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó(c(2q•$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X^ÄX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- h Di \ej Àk Àl am En ao p Ó€z ê‚_#3|xz villages v. westermann - opinion Î  '  0 .   (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úó󇞳$ˆ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd!#4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌJune€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔArt.€V€of€the€Villages€of€Brentwood€restrictive€covenants€provides€in€applicable€part:ÌÌà@ àARCHITECTURAL€CONTROLÌà8 àà àNo€building,€fence,€wall€or€other€structure€shall€be€commenced,€erected€orÏmaintained€upon€the€Properties,€nor€shall€any€exterior€addition€to€or€change,Ïincluding€color,€or€alteration€therein€be€made€until€the€plans€and€specificationsÏshowing€the€nature,€kind,€shape,€height,€materials,€and€location€of€the€same€shallÏhave€been€submitted€to€and€approved€in€writing€as€to€harmony€of€external€designÏand€location€in€relation€to€surrounding€structures€and€topography€by€the€Board€ofÏDirectors€of€the€Association,€or€by€an€architectural€committee€composed€of€three€(3)Ïor€more€representatives€appointed€by€the€Board.Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€would€reach€the€same€conclusion€were€we€to€address€the€merits€of€this€issue.€€TheÏthirty„day€period€in€Article€V€of€the€restrictive€covenants€did€not€begin€to€run€on€March€26,€1996Ïbecause€the€plans€submitted€to€the€homeowners€association€were€not€complete.€€After€theÏÔ_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€submitted€a€complete€set€of€plans€on€June€6,€1996,€the€architectural€committeeÏdeclined€to€approve€the€plans€on€June€26,€1996€„€well€within€the€thirty„day€period.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€addition,€without€a€factual€record,€we€have€no€basis€for€determining€that€theÏarchitectural€committee€acted€unreasonably€when€it€determined€that€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€projectÏwould€change€or€retard€the€flow€of€groundwater,€that€it€would€likely€have€a€substantial€negativeÏimpact€on€neighboring€property,€and€that€it€could€result€in€the€diminution€of€the€value€of€theÏadjacent€property.Ì ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€2XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€restrictive€covenants€do€not€prescribe€specific€fence€heights;€however,€Article€VÏempowers€the€architectural€committee€to€consider€the€ð ðharmony€of€external€design€and€location€inÏrelation€to€surrounding€structures.ðð€€In€light€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€ð ðall€other€fences€in€theÏdevelopment€are€six€feet,ðð€we€assume€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€are€challenging€the€validity€of€Article€V€asÏapplied€to€them.ÌPtPtHHØ(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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ „ ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ô_ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€ö¦¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќԀ2„Ôò ò›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€!ÙœßR€574A1-j|Lÿ`` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÔ€2¼ÔÌÌÌÌVILLAGES€OF€BRENTWOODà àà à)ÌHOMEOWNERS€ASSOCIATION,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3733„IIIÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌSTEVEN€J.€Ô_ÔWESTERMANNÔ_Ô€and€wifeà à)à à01A01„9708„CH„00388ÌMARIA€A.€Ô_ÔWESTERMANNÔ_Ô,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÔ€2îÔà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àFOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€Ô_ÔHOBBSÔ_Ô€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌÔ€2¼ÔÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendants/Appellantsóó:ÌÌRobert€F.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€A.€Ô_ÔAscioneÔ_ÔÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÔ€2„Ôò òÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÔ€2¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇÑ ° ÑÓ€ÓÔ€2„Ôò òòòœ›à@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€2¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€the€enforcement€of€the€restrictive€covenants€in€aÏNashville€subdivision.€€After€two€residents€began€to€construct€improvements€onÏtheir€property€without€first€obtaining€approval€of€the€subdivisionððs€architecturalÏcommittee,€the€homeowners€association€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€forÏDavidson€County€seeking€injunctive€relief€to€enforce€the€architectural€controlÏprovisions€in€the€subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenants.€€The€trial€court€heard€theÏcase€without€a€jury€and€issued€an€injunction€directing€the€residents€to€cease€theÏconstruction€and€to€restore€their€property€to€a€condition€consistent€with€theÏsubdivision€covenants.€€The€residents€have€appealed.€€Since€neither€party€has€filedÏa€verbatim€transcript€of€the€proceedings€or€a€statement€of€the€evidence,€we€haveÏreviewed€the€papers€filed€in€the€trial€court€and€have€determined€that€they€containÏno€basis€for€reversing€the€trial€court.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€ó óÌÌà àIn€March€1993€Steven€and€Maria€Ô_ÔWestermannÔ_Ô€bought€a€house€in€aÏNashville€subdivision€called€the€Villages€of€Brentwood.€€Their€property,€like€theÏother€property€in€the€subdivision,€was€subject€to€recorded€restrictive€covenantsÏgoverning€such€things€as€maintenance€assessments,€dwelling€size,€andÏarchitectural€uniformity.€€One€of€the€restrictions€required€residents€desiring€toÏbuild€a€fence,€wall,€or€other€structure€on€their€property€to€first€obtain€theÍapproval€of€the€board€of€directors€of€the€homeowners€association€or€anÏarchitectural€committee€appointed€by€the€board.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€September€1995€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€began€constructing€an€in„ground€pool,Ïa€retaining€wall,€a€privacy€fence,€and€an€expansion€of€their€deck€without€firstÏseeking€the€approval€of€the€homeowners€association.€€Soon€after€constructionÏbegan,€the€homeowners€association€notified€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€in€writing€that€theirÏproject€violated€the€subdivisionððs€restrictive€covenants€because€their€plans€had€notÏbeen€reviewed€or€approved.€€The€homeowners€association€requested€theÏÔ_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€to€cease€construction€and€to€take€steps€to€obtain€approval€of€theirÏproject.€€The€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€ignored€the€homeowners€associationððs€letter€andÏcontinued€construction.€€ÌÌà àThe€homeowners€association€sent€a€second€letter€to€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€onÏOctober€19,€1995.€€When€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€disregarded€this€letter,€theÏhomeowners€association€filed€suit€on€November€29,€1995€in€the€Chancery€CourtÏfor€Davidson€County€requesting€injunctive€relief€to€enforce€the€subdivisionððsÏrestrictive€covenants.€€The€trial€court€issued€a€temporary€restraining€orderÏstopping€the€construction.€€Approximately€three€months€later,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€directing€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€to€submit€their€plans€to€theÏhomeowners€association€for€review€and€approval.€€The€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€submittedÍplans€to€the€homeowners€association€on€March€26,€1996.€€On€April€8,€1996,€theÏattorney€representing€the€homeowners€association€informed€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€thatÏtheir€plans€were€incomplete€and€requested€a€more€complete€set€of€plans.€€TheÏÔ_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€provided€new€plans€on€June€7,€1996,€€and€on€June€26,€1996,€theÏarchitectural€review€committee€disapproved€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€project.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€heard€the€evidence€on€December€4,€1996€and€entered€aÏdetailed€memorandum€opinion€on€January€24,€1997.€€The€trial€court€concludedÏthat€the€architectural€committee€had€acted€reasonably€and€in€good€faith€andÏdirected€the€parties€to€attempt€to€reach€an€agreement€concerning€theÏÔ_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€project.€€After€the€parties€were€unable€to€agree€to€a€mutuallyÏsatisfactory€resolution€of€their€differences,€the€trial€court€entered€a€final€order€onÏApril€10,€1997,€ordering€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€to€remove€all€construction€materialsÏfrom€their€property€and€to€restore€the€property€to€a€condition€consistent€with€theÏsubdivisionððs€restrictive€covenants.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àWe€turn€first€to€a€preliminary€issue€concerning€the€scope€of€this€appeal.€ÏTwo€settled€principles€of€appellate€review€come€into€play€here.€€First,€appellateÏcourts€cannot€review€the€evidence€de€novo€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(d)€in€the€absence€of€a€verbatim€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€and,Ïtherefore,€presume€that€a€trial€courtððs€order€has€adequate€evidentiary€support€inÏthe€absence€of€an€evidentiary€record.€€òòSee€Word€v.€Wordóó,€937€S.W.2d€931,€932Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWixÔ_Ôóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€783€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1992);€òòÔ_ÔScarbroughÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔScarbroughÔ_Ôóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€ÍSecond,€appellate€courts€will€ordinarily€decline€to€consider€issues€being€raised€forÏthe€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòSee€Civil€Service€Merit€Bd.€v.€Ô_ÔBursonÔ_Ôóó,€816€S.W.2d€725,Ï734„35€(Tenn.€1991);€òòDepartment€of€Human€Ô_ÔServsÔ_Ô.€v.€Ô_ÔDefrieceÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€954,Ï960€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Thus,€arguments€not€asserted€at€trial€are€deemedÏwaived€on€appeal.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔDevorakÔ_Ô€v.€Pattersonóó,€907€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).ÌÌà àEvery€one€of€the€issues€raised€by€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€on€appeal€are€affectedÏby€one€or€both€of€these€principles.€€The€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€argue€for€the€first€time€onÏthis€appeal€that€the€committee€should€be€deemed€to€have€approved€theirÏconstruction€plans€because€it€did€not€decline€to€approve€their€project€within€thirtyÏdays€after€they€first€submitted€a€set€of€plans€on€March€26,€1996.€€Because€theÏrecord€contains€no€indication€that€they€presented€this€argument€to€the€trial€court,Ïwe€find€that€they€have€waived€their€right€to€assert€this€issue€for€the€first€time€onÏappeal.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€same€fate€must€befall€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€argument€relating€to€theÏspeculative€nature€of€the€architectural€committeeððs€decision€because€this€argumentÏwas€likewise€not€presented€to€the€trial€court.Ô_Ô× ƒ: ××  ×Ô_ÔÌà àThe€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€remaining€issues€challenge€the€reasonableness€of€theÏarchitectural€committeeððs€disapproval€of€their€project.€€The€question€of€whetherÏthe€architectural€committee€acted€reasonably€is€heavily€fact„dependent€and€mustÍbe€considered€in€light€of€the€unique€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòSee€Indian€HillsÏClub€Homeowners€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€Cooperóó,€No.€01A01„9507„CH„00319,€1995€WLÏ763823,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€29,€1995)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).€€This€record€lacks€a€verbatim€transcript€of€the€proceedingsÏbefore€the€trial€court€or€even€a€statement€of€the€evidence.€€In€addition,€the€recordÏdoes€not€contain€the€exhibits€filed€with€and€considered€by€the€trial€court.€€Thus,Ïwe€are€unable€to€examine€the€review€criteria€used€by€the€architectural€committeeÏto€determine€whether€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€project€should€be€approved.€€In€theÏabsence€of€this€evidentiary€material,€we€are€able€only€to€review€the€legal€issuesÏraised€by€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€that€can€be€decided€based€on€the€technical€recordÏalone.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àRestrictive€covenants€conditioning€the€right€of€property€owners€to€makeÏimprovements€on€the€approval€of€a€homeowners€association€or€architecturalÏcommittee€are€generally€valid€and€enforceable.€€òòSee€Association€of€Owners€ofÏRegency€Park€Condominiums,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔThomassonÔ_Ôóó,€878€S.W.2d€560,€563„565Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòsee€also€Ô_ÔSnowmassÔ_Ô€Am.€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔSchoenheitÔ_Ôóó,€524€P.2dÏ645,€647„48€(Colo.€Ct.€App.€1974);€òòÔ_ÔHollingsworthÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSzczesiakÔ_Ôóó,€84€A.2d€816,€821Ï(Del.€Ch.€1951).€€The€prevailing€view€in€this€jurisdiction€is€that€these€sorts€ofÏrestrictive€covenants€will€be€enforced€as€long€as€the€entity€administering€themÏacts€reasonably€and€in€good€faith.€€òòSee€Indian€Hills€Club€Homeowners€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.Ïv.€Cooperóó,€1995€WL€763823,€at€*3.ÌÌà àRestrictive€covenants€are€enforceable€even€though€they€vest€discretionaryÏpowers€with€the€architectural€committee.€€òòSee€Country€Club€of€La.€Prop.€OwnersÍÔ_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€Dornieróó,€691€So.€2d€142,€150€(La.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(Ô_ÔFitzsimmonsÔ_Ô,ÏJ.,€concurring).€€The€courts€will€uphold€review€criteria€as€long€as€they€provide€aÏreasonable€framework€for€the€committeeððs€decision,€òòsee€Ô_ÔWinsletteÔ_Ô€v.€Keeleróó,€137ÏS.E.2d€288,€289€(Ga.€1964),€and€as€long€as€the€committee€developing€the€criteriaÏis€acting€reasonably€and€in€good€faith.€€òòSee€Indian€Hills€Club€Homeowners€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,ÏInc.€v.€Cooperóó,€1995€WL€763823,€at€*4;€òòCountry€Club€of€La.€Prop.€OwnersÏÔ_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€Dornieróó,€691€So.€2d€at€150.€€When€the€€restrictive€covenantsÏestablish€a€review€committee€but€do€not€contain€specific€criteria€for€theÏcommittee€to€follow,€the€validity€of€the€criteria€and€the€committeeððsÏinterpretation€of€the€criteria€will€be€judged€by€a€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòSeeÏ4626€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔMerriamÔ_Ôóó,€329€So.€2d€885,€889€(La.€Ct.€App.€1976).Ìà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àIn€light€of€these€authorities,€we€decline€to€find€as€a€matter€of€law€that€theÏhomeowners€association€of€the€Villages€of€Brentwood€was€acting€unreasonablyÏwhen€it€prepared€criteria€that€would€be€used€to€determine€the€acceptability€ofÏproposed€improvements€to€houses€in€the€subdivision.€€On€the€contrary,€we€findÏthat€the€homeowners€association€could€establish€criteria€as€long€as€they€wereÏconsistent€with€Article€V€of€the€restrictive€covenants€that€permits€considering€theÏð ðnature,€kind,€shape,€height,€materials,€and€locationðð€of€proposed€buildings,Ïfences,€walls,€or€other€structures.€€Because€the€review€criteria€employed€by€theÏVillages€of€Brentwood€are€not€in€the€appellate€record,€we€will€presume€they€areÏconsistent€with€the€restrictive€covenants,€that€they€are€reasonable,€and€that€theyÏprovided€a€reasonable€basis€for€the€architectural€committeeððs€decision.ÌÌà àThe€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€ignorance€of€the€existence€or€substance€of€the€reviewÏcriteria€is€of€little€consequence.€€The€restrictive€covenants€in€their€deed€put€themÍon€notice€that€the€homeowners€association€retained€the€right€to€approve€exteriorÏimprovements€to€their€property.€€Had€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€complied€with€Article€VÏbefore€they€commenced€construction,€they€would€have€learned€of€the€reviewÏcriteria€and€would€have€been€able€to€conform€their€improvements€to€the€criteriaððsÏrequirements.€€By€deciding€to€proceed€with€construction€without€first€seeking€andÏobtaining€the€required€approvals,€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€assumed€the€risk€that€theirÏproposed€improvements€would€not€be€acceptable€to€the€architectural€committee.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àThe€Westermanns€also€insist€that€the€architectural€committeeððs€refusal€toÏpermit€them€to€construct€their€privacy€fence€deprives€them€of€the€free€and€fullÏuse€and€enjoyment€of€their€property.€€Specifically,€they€assert€that€limiting€theÏheight€of€their€fence€to€six€feet× ƒ; ××  ×€is€unreasonable€because€it€will€interfere€withÏtheir€privacy.€€Because€of€the€sloping€elevation€of€their€lot,€they€insist€they€shouldÏbe€able€to€build€a€fence€taller€than€six€feet.€€ÌÌà àWe€find€it€impossible€to€review€this€argument€based€on€the€record€beforeÏus.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€a€civil€engineer€testified€that€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_ÔÏrequired€a€retaining€wall€on€their€property€ð ðbecause€of€the€slope€of€the€yardðð€andÏthat€a€retaining€wall€that€was€six€feet€high€would€not€ð ðbe€adequate€to€retain€theÏproposed€improvement.ðð€€However,€we€find€nothing€in€the€technical€record€thatÍsheds€any€light€on€the€relationship€between€the€privacy€fence,€the€retaining€wall,Ïand€the€slope€of€the€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ôðð€yard.€€While€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWestermannsÔ_Ô€state€in€theirÏbrief€that€ð ðthe€effect€of€a€six€feet€privacy€fence€erected€at€the€lower€side€of€[their]Ïyard€.€.€.€is€reduced€substantially,ðð€the€mere€contentions€in€a€partyððs€brief€cannotÏbe€considered€as€evidence.€€òòSee€Outpatient€Diagnostic€Ctr.€v.€Christianóó,€No.Ï01A01„9510„CV„00467,€1997€WL€210842,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€30,€1997)Ï(No.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€In€the€absence€of€an€evidentiaryÏrecord,€we€are€precluded€from€considering€this€issue.€€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800ÏS.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1990).ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àWe€do€not€have€before€us€a€record€of€the€evidence€considered€by€the€trialÏcourt,€including€the€written€criteria€considered€by€the€architectural€committee.€ÏThe€trial€court€had€that€evidence€before€it€and€applied€the€correct€standard€ofÏreview.€€Accordingly,€we€will€presume€that€the€evidence€supported€the€trialÏcourtððs€conclusion€that€the€architectural€committee€acted€reasonably€and€in€goodÏfaith.€€Based€on€that€presumption,€we€affirm€the€judgment€and€remand€the€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€tax€theÏcosts€of€this€appeal€to€Steven€J.€Ô_ÔWestermannÔ_Ô€and€Maria€A.€Ô_ÔWestermannÔ_Ô€and€theirÏsurety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_______________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÓ€Óœ›