’WPCr T# ØUN³ % 0GU:Nw@ˆ4ČÜėĘóL¹U:  D/G Bv D3“ 0JĘ 0T 0^d 0hĀ 0r* 0|œ 0† 0ž 1u. AQ£ Ęō 0Dŗ 0dž 0Db 0@¦ Bę D+U>.U*lB)–DCæ AMOfVv~¼vÓ: AY Ęf 0F,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlĪ(ČhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$””Ō€XåŁXXMXŌ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 8U9U:D;D<=g>D?@ӀL ƒ‰#x3|xLLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTĀ"Arial Regular'÷’ dxdü’P Pd'''''’’dxd2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) !%#Cž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Æ$¢¢Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ d'ČČČČdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd %0Cž’ << G’’ żŻ ƒ!ŻŌ€-ŌŌ€.ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ!"ŻŻ  ŻŌ€.ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€.XŌĢĢņ ņDecember€17,€1997ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€.ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ń\R AŲ'\ŃPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŲ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  ion-F Geneva ŅŅ  ion-F Geneva ŅR%S(Mü’ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ņ ņ(Ś  Ś1Ś  Ś)ó óŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€-ŌŌ€.ŌŻ  ŻÓ  ӛœŃ7€LŪXXdšXXdš7ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŁ€ ŁßR€120A1-j|…` Å `€€@’Rß›Ž ŽĢą@ ąņ ņIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONĢĢĢJAMES€C.€WALLACE€and€wife,ą ąą ą)ĢSUE€H.€WALLACE,ą ąą ąą ą)€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,ą ąņ ņ)€€Gibson€Chancery€No.€12357Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢVS.ą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9702„CH„00048Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢBOBBY€J.€HARDIN€and€wife,ą ąą ą)ĢFRANCES€L.€HARDIN,ą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąó óDefendants/Appellees.ą ąņ ņ)ó óĢœĢ›Ģą@ ąAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€GIBSON€COUNTYĢą@ ąAT€TRENTON,€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€R.€ELLIS,€CHANCELLORĢ̜ĢĢĢĢ›ĢĢņ ņFLOYD€S.€FLIPPINó óĢņ ņB.€CHADWICK€RICKMANó óĢņ ņADAMS,€RYAL€&€FLIPPIN,€ATTORNEYS„P.C.Ģó óHumboldt,€TennesseeĢAttorneys€for€AppellantsĢœĢ›Ģņ ņBILLY€C.€BLOWó óĢMcLemoresville,€TennesseeĢAttorney€for€AppelleesĢĢ̜ĢĢĢĢĢ›Ģņ ņAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART̜ĢĢĢĢ›ĢĢĢó óą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąņ ņALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ĢĢHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óą ąœĢÓÓą ąIn›€this€action€to€reform€a€deed,€Plaintiffs,€James€C.€Wallace€and€Sue€H.€WallaceŃ€3ŃĒŃ7€äXXdšXXdš7Ń(š šWallacesšš),€appeal€the€trial€courtššs€judgment€œratifying,›€approving,€and€confirming€theĻ1993€warranty€œdeed€(š šdeedšš)›€and€granting€œDefendants€Bobby€J.€Hardin€and€Frances€L.ĻHardin€(š šHardinsšš)€$1,000›€in€œattorney›€fees.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Wallace€also€appeal€the€trialϜcourtššs›€œdenial›€of€their€motion€to€alter€judgment€and/or€for€a€new€trial.€€For€reasonsĻstated€hereinafter,œ€we€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€judgment€in€part€and€reverse€in€part.ĢĢÓ  Óņ ņFACTSņņĢĢÓ  Óó óóóą ąOn€November€12,€1995,€the€Wallaces€filed€a€complaint€to€reform€a€deed€in€theĻChancery€Court€of€Gibson€County,€Tennessee,€naming€the€Hardins€as€defendants.€ĻThereafter,€on€December€29,€1995,€the€Hardins€filed€their€answer€and€€a€counterĻcomplaint€seeking€ratification,€approval,€and€confirmation€of€the€deed,€as€well€asĻdamages€and€expenses.€€The€Wallaces€filed€their€answer€to€the€counter€complaint€onĻJanuary€22,€1996.€€The€trial€court€heard€this€matter€on€August€27,€1996,€and€renderedĻa€decision€in€open€court€on€August€28,€1996,€ratifying,€approving,€and€confirming€theĻdeed.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€taxed€an€attorney€fee€of€$1,000€against€the€Wallaces.€ĻThis€order€was€entered€on€September€26,€1996.€€Subsequently,€on€October€21,€1996,Ļthe€Wallaces€filed€a€motion€to€alter€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and/or€a€motion€for€aĻnew€trial.€€The€Hardins€filed€a€response€to€these€motions€on€October€25,€1996,€whichĻincluded€a€prayer€for€an€additional€attorney€fee€of€$250€to€be€taxed€to€the€Wallaces.€ĻOn€December€4,€1996,€the€trial€court€heard€oral€arguments€on€these€motions€andĻrendered€its€decision€in€open€court€denying€the€Wallacesšš€motions€and€denying€theĻHardinsšš€prayer€for€an€additional€$250€in€attorney€fees.€€This€order€was€entered€onĶDecember€13,€1996.€€The€Wallaces€filed€their€notice€of€appeal€on€January€3,€1997.€ĢĢą ąIn€1993,€the€Hardins€approached€the€Wallaces€regarding€whether€the€WallacesĻwould€be€interested€in€selling€certain€property€to€the€Hardins€commonly€known€asĻš šRogers€Farm.šš€€The€Wallaces€had€purchased€this€farm€in€1973€from€Modeane€FlowersĻ(š šFlowersšš)€and€Annie€Clayton€(š šClaytonšš).€€Later,€the€Wallaces€indicated€that€theyĻwould€be€interested€in€selling€the€farm.€€James€Wallace€(š šMr.€Wallacešš)€and€BobbyĻHardin€(š šMr.€Hardinšš)€met€at€the€farm€and€performed€a€š šwalk€aroundšš€whereby€Mr.ĻHardin€marked€the€boundary€lines€of€the€farm€at€the€direction€of€Mr.€Wallace.€€AlthoughĻthe€Wallaceššs€deed€from€Flowers€and€Clayton€indicated€the€farm€consisted€ofĻapproximately€63€acres,€Mr.€Wallace€informed€Mr.€Hardin€that€the€actual€acreage€of€theĻfarm€was€approximately€51€to€53€acres.€€Mr.€Wallace€had€learned€that€his€farmĻencompassed€less€acreage€than€the€Flowers€and€Clayton€deed€indicated€when€heĻhad€a€survey€conducted€by€Jack€Jetton€in€1981€(š šJetton€surveyšš).€€The€parties€agreedĻto€a€purchase€price€of€$35,000.€ĢĢą ąMr.€Hardin€advised€Mr.€Wallace€that€he€wanted€to€have€the€farm€surveyed€toĻwhich€Mr.€Wallace€had€no€objection.€€Thereafter,€the€survey€was€performed€by€Mr.ĻHardin€and€his€son,€Steve€Hardin€under€the€supervision€of€Lyndell€Daniel,€who€visitedĻthe€farm€twice.€€This€survey€depicted€the€farm€as€consisting€of€52.84€acres.€ĢĢą ąThe€Wallaces€first€learned€of€a€dispute€regarding€the€farm€more€than€a€year€afterĻthe€sale.€€The€Wallaceššs€son€went€to€the€back€side€of€the€Wallaceššs€homesteadĶproperty,€which€borders€the€property€sold€to€the€Hardins,€in€order€to€š šbushhogšš€thisĻproperty.€€The€Wallaceššs€son€discovered€that€the€property€had€already€been€cut.€€ĻThereafter,€Mr.€Wallace€called€Mr.€Hardin€to€thank€him€for€š šbushhoggingšš€Mr.€WallaceššsĻproperty.€€Mr.€Hardin€indicated€that€the€property€in€question€belonged€to€him€and€notĻMr.€Wallace.€€This€cause€ensued.Ģą ąĢą ąThe€disputed€boundary€line€is€the€western€boundary€line€of€the€farm€in€question.€ĻMr.€Wallace€testified€that€the€boundary€line€ran€due€south€from€Steve€HardinššsĻsoutheast€corner€along€an€old€fence€row,€and€that€this€was€the€boundary€used€in€hisĻš šwalk€aroundšš€with€Mr.€Hardin€to€mark€the€western€boundary€of€the€farm›€being€sold.€ĻœMr.›€Hardin€opposed€this€testimony€stating€that€Mr.€Wallace€and€he€used€the€ditch€œlineĻto›€establish€the€boundary€in€question€at€the€š šwalk€around.šš€ĢĢą ąIt€was€at€the€closing€that€the€Wallaces€first€learned€that€the€survey€conducted€byĻthe€Hardins€indicated€that€the€area€of€the€farm€was€52.84€acres.€€œThere›€is€some€disputeĻas€to€whether€the€Wallaces€were€shown€the€plat€of€the€Hardin€survey€at€the€closing.€ĻThe€Wallaces€contended€that€they€were€only€provided€with€œthe›€description€of€the€œ€farm›Ļcontained€in€the€œdeed.›€€œThe›€Hardins€contended€that€the€plat€was€provided€to€theĻWallaces.€€œIt›€is€undisputed€that€the€description€in€the€œdeed›€clearly€mentions€the€ditch€asĻthe€western€boundary.€€œHowever,€the›€Wallaces€asserted€that€they€did€not€understandĻthe€description€and€signed€the€œdeed›€because€the€derivative€clause€indicated€that€theϜfarm›€being€conveyed€was€the€same€œfarm›€purchased€from€Flowers€and€Clayton€inĻ1973.€ĢĢą ąThe€Wallaces€called€five€witnesses€œall›€œof€which€testified›€that€the€Wallace€toĻHardin€deed€did€not€contain€an€accurate€description€of€the€farm€originally€sold€to€theĻWallaces€by€Flowers€and€Clayton.€€All€five€witness€testified€that€they€were€familiar€withĻthe€boundary€in€question€and€that€this€western€boundary€followed€the€old€fence€lineĻand€not€the€ditch€œline€as›€the€Hardins€œcontended.›€€Additionally,€four€of€these€witnessesĻasserted€œthey›€saw€the€markings€that€€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin€had€placed€on€theirĻš šwalk€aroundšš€on€the€eastern€boundary€but€found€no€such€markings€on€the€westernĻboundary€of€the€farm.€€€None€of€these€witnesses€œwas€privy€to€the›€negotiations€œnor›Ļœpresent€at€the€š šwalk€aroundšš€with›€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin.€€ĢĢą ąThe€Wallaces€called€Tony€Reasons€(š šReasonsšš),€a€civil€engineer€and€€surveyor,Ļwho€had€plotted€both€the€Jetton€survey€of€1981€and€the€survey€prepared€by€theĻHardins.€€œReasons›€testified€that€the€property€involved€in€both€surveys€was€œdifferent,›Ļand€that€the€Hardinššs€survey€did€not€close€within€an€acceptable€degree€of€surveyingĻaccuracy.€€œReasons,€however,›€did€not€survey€or€inspect€the€œfarm.›€€Lyndell€DanielĻtestified€that€he€is€a€surveyor€for€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€and€hasĻsurveyed€over€200,000€pieces€of€property.€€œHe›€disagreed€with€Reasons€testimony€thatĻthe€survey€did€not€close€within€an€acceptable€degree€of€accuracy€and€asserted€thatĻconsidering€the€many€crooks,€turns,€and€angles,€it€was€not€surprising€that€the€surveyĻfailed€to€close.ĢŃ7€̰XXdšXXdš7ŃĢą ąThe€last€witness€called€by€the€Wallaces€was€Linda€Tilley€(š šTilleyšš),€the€ChiefĶDeputy€of€the€Gibson€County€Assessor€of€Property.€€Ms.€Tilley€testified€that€the€deedĻfrom€the€Wallaces€to€the€Hardins€contained€a€different€description€of€the€farm€than€wasĻrecognized€by€the€Flowers€and€Clayton€deed€to€the€Wallaces.€œTilley›€was€not€present€atĻthe€negotiations€between€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin.ĢĢą ąBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Wallaces€failed€toĻcarry€their€burden€of€proof€in€establishing€a€need€for€reformation€of€the€deed€inĻquestion.€€The€trial€court€ratified,€approved,€and€confirmed€the€deed€from€the€WallacesĻto€the€Hardins€and€awarded€the€Hardins€$1,000€in€attorney€fees.€€This€appealĻfollowed.ĢĢÓ  Óņ ņœDISCUSSIONņņ›ĢĢÓ  Óą ąó óóóInasmuch€as€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€below€sitting€without€a€jury,€thisĻcourtššs€review€on€appeal€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€ProcedureĻ13(d),€which€directs€us€to€review€the€case€ņņde€novoóó.€€ņņRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€Bd.€ofĻEduc.óó,€692€S.W.€2d€863,€865€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€ņņHaverlah€v.€Memphis€Aviation,ĻInc.óó,€674€S.W.2d€297,€300€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984);€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€In€conducting€a€ņņdeĻnovoóó€review€of€the€record€below,€however,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtššsĻfindings€of€fact€are€correct.€€Under€this€standard€of€review,€we€must€affirm€the€trialĻcourtššs€decision€unless€the€trial€court€committed€an€error€of€law€affecting€the€result€orĻunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtššs€findings.€€ņņRobertsóó,€692ĻS.W.2d€at€865.€€In€this€regard,€when€a€conflict€in€testimony€requires€the€trial€court€toĶmake€a€determination€regarding€the€credibility€of€a€witness€or€witnesses,€such€aĻdetermination€is€š šbinding€on€the€appellate€court€unless€from€other€real€evidence€theĻappellate€court€is€compelled€to€conclude€to€the€contrary.šš€€ņņHudson€v.€Cappsóó,€651ĻS.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).ĢĢą ąThis€is€an€action€to€reform€a€deed.€€A€court€of€chancery€has€the€power€to€reformĻand€correct€errors€in€deeds€produced€by€fraud€or€mistake.€€ņņBarnes€v.€Gregoryóó,€38€Tenn.Ļ(1€Head)€230€(1858).€€A€court€of€equity€œhas›€the€power€to€reform€a€deed€if€the€parties€inĻinterest€are€before€the€court€and€have€an€opportunity€to€be€heard,€and€the€case€isĻmade€out€by€full€and€satisfactory€proof.€€ņņMcClelland€v.€Payneóó,€84€Tenn.€709,€712Ļ(1886).€€To€be€the€subject€of€correction,€a€mistake€in€an€instrument€must€have€beenĻmutual€or€there€must€have€been€a€mistake€of€one€party€influenced€by€the€fraud€of€theĻother.€€ņņPittsburg€Lumber€Co.€v.€Shellóó,€189€S.W.€879€(1916).€ĢĢą ąA€mutual€mistake€is€one€common€to€both€parties€to€a€contract,€each€laboringĻunder€the€same€misconception;€more€precisely,€it€is€one€common€to€all€the€parties,Ļwherein€each€labors€under€the€same€misconception€respecting€a€material€fact,€theĻterms€of€the€agreement,€or€the€provisions€of€the€written€instrument€designed€to€embodyĻsuch€agreement.€€17€C.J.S.€Contracts€šš€144€(1963).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļą ąĢą ąThis€is€not€a€case€involving€mutual€mistake.€€œThe€Wallaces€and€the€HardinsĻwere€not€laboring€under€the€same€misconception.€€On€the€contrary,€the€HardinsĻbelieved€that€the€farm€included€the€acreage€bounded€by€the€ditch€line€while€theĶWallaces€maintained€the€farm€encompassed€the€acreage€bounded€by€the€old€fenceĻrow.€€These€misconceptions€are€diametrically€opposed.€€The›€œWallacesšš›€basicĻcontention€in€this€case€is€that€the€description€in€the€Wallace€to€Hardin€deed€was€forĻmore€property€than€the€Wallaces€intended€to€convey.€The€Wallaces€contend€that€thereĻwas€a€mistake€made€due€to€the€incorrect€survey€measurements€of€Mr.€Hardin.€ĻHowever,€the€Hardins€insist€that€the€deed€was€œcorrect.›€œ€The€Hardins€further€assert€thatĻthe€deed€is€representative›€of€the€œboundaries€established€via€the€negotiations€andĻš šwalk€aroundšš€by€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin.›€ĢĢą ąThe€description€in€the€deed€came€from€the€survey€prepared€by€Mr.€Hardin€andĻLyndell€Daniel.€€The€central€dispute€is€whether€the€conveyance€on€the€southwest€sideĻshould€follow€a€ditch€or€an€old€fence€row.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.ĻHardin€performed€a€š šwalk€aroundšš€wherein€œMr.€Wallace€directed€Mr.€Hardin€where€toĻmark€the€boundaries€of€the€farm.€€Mr.›€Hardin€had€no€knowledge€concerning€the€œfarm›€orĻthe€boundaries€prior€to€the€š šwalk€around.šš€œ€€Just€where€these€boundaries€were€markedĻon€the€western€boundary€on€this€š šwalk€aroundšš€is€the€point€at€which€the€testimonies€ofĻMr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin€run€converse€to€one€another.€€Mr.€Wallace€testified€thatĻwhen€Mr.€Hardin€and€he€reached€the€south€end€of€the€farm,›€the€two€walked€up€an€oldĻfence€row€and€marked€the€trees€along€the€œway.€€Mr.€Hardin,€on€the€other€hand,€testifiedĻthat€when€the€two€reached€the€south€end,€they€walked€up€a€ditch€to€establish€theĻwestern€boundary.€Ģ›€€Ģœą ąWithout›€question,€the€description€in€the€deed€clearly€mentions€the€ditch.€€TheĶdeed€provides,€š šthence,€with€center€line€of€ditch€and€Wallace€homeplace€line€.€.€.€to€aĻiron€pin€in€Stephen€Hardinššs€fenced€property€line;€.€.€.šš€€The€Wallaces€testified€that€theyĻdid€not€understand€the€description€and,€as€a€result,€relied€on€the€last€paragraph€in€theĻdeed€stating€that€the€œfarm›€to€be€sold€was€œthe›€œfarm›€the€Wallaces€had€obtained€fromĻFlowers€and€œClayton.›€œ€It€seems€that€Mr.€Hardin€had€no€knowledge€that€the€farmĻobtained€by€the€Wallaces€from€Flowers€and€Clayton€was€any€different€from€theĻdescription€in€the€deed.€€As›€mentioned€above,€Mr.€Hardin€had€no€knowledge€of€theĻboundaries€of€the€œfarm›€prior€to€their€establishment€during€the€š šwalk€around.šš€€Further,Ļhe€testified€that€œhe€first€acquired€knowledge€of€the€boundaries€of€this€farm€when€Mr.ĻWallace€directed€him€to€place€the€boundary€markings€on€the€ditch€line€and€not€on›€anĻold€fence€œrow€during€the€š šwalk€around.šš€Therefore,›€according€to€œthe›€œMr.€HardinššsĻtestimony,›€œthe€derivative€clause€in€the€deed€containing€reference€to€the€Flowers€andĻClayton€farm›€and€what€was€in€the€metes€and€bounds€description€within€the€deed€wereĻone€and€the€same.ĢĢą ąœTo›€authorize€a€reformation€for€mistake,€the€evidence€must€be€clear€andĻconclusive,€ņņDavidson€v.€Greeróó,€35€Tenn.€(3€Sneed)€384€(1855);€clear,€certain,€andĻsatisfactory,€ņņBailey€v.€Baileyóó,€27€Tenn.€(Humph)€230€(1847);€clear,€convincing,€andĻsatisfactory,€ņņJones€v.€Jonesóó,€€150€Tenn.€554€(1925);€clear,€cogent,€and€convincing,ĻņņWhitaker€v.€Mooreóó,€14€Tenn.€App.€204€(1938);€full,€clear,€and€unequivocal,€ņņPerry€v.ĻPearsonóó,€20€Tenn.€(1€Humph)€431€(1839).€€Ģą ąĢą ąœMany€witnesses€testified€on€the€Wallacesšš€behalf.€€Five€of€these€witnessesĶtestified€that€the€western€boundary€followed€an€old€fence€line.€€Four€testified€that€thereĻwere€no€markings€on€the€western€boundary€of€the€property.€€However,€not€one€of€theseĻwitnesses€€was€present€during€the€š šwalk€aroundšš€with€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin€andĻnone€was€privy€to€the€negotiations.€€As€a€result,€ultimately,€the€trial€court€was€faced€withĻone€manššs€word€versus€that€of€another„„Mr.€Wallaceššs€testimony€concerning€theĻnegotiations€and€š šwalk€aroundšš€versus€that€of€Mr.€Hardin.€€After€hearing€the€evidence,Ļthe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Wallaces€had€not€carried€their€burden€to€prove€mutualĻmistake€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€We€agree.ĢĢą ąThe›€evidence€in€this€record€does€not€œevince€a€mutual€mistake€between€theĻparties€and,€thereby,€does€not€qualify›€by€the€foregoing€œstandards.›€œ€Therefore,›€the€deedĻcannot€be€reformed€on€this€basis.€€œThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theĻfindings€of€the€trial€court.€€We€affirm›€the€œjudgment€of€the€trial›€œcourt›€finding€no€mutualĻmistake€and€œratifying,›€œapproving,›€and€confirming€the€warranty€deed€given€by€theĻWallaces€to€the€Hardins.ĢĢą ąConcerning€the€issue€of€mistake€induced€by€fraud€raised€by€the€Wallaces€onĻappeal,€the€Hardins€contend€that€fraud€was€not€œpled›€at€trial€and,€œas€a€result,›€cannot€beĻraised€on€appeal.€€Although€fraud€was€not€alleged€in€the€œWallacesšš›€pleadings,€we€findĻthat€evidence€on€this€issue€was€entered€at€trial€without€objection.€€Additionally,€the€trialĻcourt€ruled€œon›€this€œissue€of€fraud„induced€mistake.›€€œHence,›€this€issue€is€appealable.ĢĢą ąTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€15.02€provides:ĢÓÓą8 ąœą8 ąWhen›€issues€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€are€tried€byĻexpress€or€implied€consent€of€the€parties,€they€shall€œbe›Ļtreated€in€all€respects€as€if€they€œhad€been›€raised€in€theĻpleadings.€€Such€amendment€of€the€pleadings€as€may€beĻnecessary€to€cause€them€to€conform€to€the€evidence€and€toĻraise€these€issues€may€be€œmade›€upon€motion€of€any€partyĻat€any€time,€even€after€judgment;€but€failure€so€to€amendĻdoes€not€affect€the€result€of€the€trial€of€these€issues.ĢĢÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.02.ĢThis€rule€itself€abrogates€the€time€factor€by€providing€that€š šfailure€so€to€amend€does€notĻaffect€the€result€of€the€trial€of€these€issues.šš€€ņņSeeóó€Charles€Alan€Wright€&€Arthur€R.€Miller,ĻFederal€Practice€and€Procedure€šš€1494€at€475€(1971).€€Moreover,€Rule€15.02€does€notĻrequire€that€a€conforming€amendment€be€made€and€there€is€no€penalty€for€failing€to€doĻso.€€The€rule€clearly€states€that€the€absence€of€a€formal€amendment€or€a€request€forĻleave€to€amend€does€not€affect€the€result€of€the€trial€of€those€issues€actually€litigated.€ĻņņSee€also€óóMoore,€Federal€Practice,€15.13(2)€at€œ168„170€(›€noting€that€š š[i]n€effect€.€.€.€theĻparties€may,€by€express€consent,€or€by€the€introduction€of€evidence€without€objection,Ļamend€the€pleadings€at€œwill.šš).›ąŠ ąĢĢą ąThus,€it€is€clear€that€Rule€15.02€seeks€to€place€substance€over€form,€and€the€realĻquestion€before€us€is€whether€or€not€the€parties€actually€tried€the€issue€delineated€byĻthe€amendment.€€In€short,€the€ultimate€inquiry€is€whether€there€was€implied€consentĻfrom€all€parties€in€this€case€to€try€the€issue€of€mistake€induced€by€fraud.ĢĢą ąGenerally€speaking,€trial€by€implied€consent€will€be€found€where€the€partyĻopposed€to€the€amendment€knew€or€should€have€reasonably€known€of€the€evidenceĶrelating€to€the€new€issue,€did€not€object€to€this€evidence,€and€was€not€prejudicedĻthereby.€€Because€of€the€proof€problems€at€trial,€the€commentators€warn€that:ĢÓÓą8 ąœą8 ąImplied›€consent€.€.€.€is€much€more€difficult€to€establish€andĻseems€to€depend€on€whether€the€parties€recognized€that€anĻissue€not€presented€by€the€pleadings€entered€the€case€atĻtrial.€€A€party€who€knowingly€acquiesces€in€the€introductionĻof€evidence€relating€to€issues€that€are€beyond€the€pleadingsĻis€in€no€position€to€contest€a€motion€to€conform.€€Thus,Ļconsent€generally€is€found€when€evidence€is€introducedĻwithout€objection,€or€when€the€party€opposing€the€motion€toĻamend€himself€produced€evidence€bearing€on€the€issue.ĢĢÓÓņņZack€Cheek€Builders€v.€McLeodóó,€597€S.W.2d€888,€890„91€(Tenn.€1980)(quotingĻCharles€Alan€Wright€and€Arthur€R.€Miller,€ņņsupraóó,€šš€1493€at€462„63).ĢĢą ąWe€do€not€take€lightly€the€Courtššs€warning€regarding€the€difficulty€of€findingĻimplied€consent.€€Substantial€evidence€bearing€on€the€issue€of€mistake€induced€byĻfraud€was€introduced€by€the€œWallacesšš›€counsel.€€Mr.€Wallace€and€Mr.€Hardin€testifiedĻthat€they€extensively€marked€the€western€boundary€of€the€œfarm›€in€question.€€However,Ļfour€witnesses€testified€that€boundary€markings€were€found€on€the€eastern€boundary€ofĻthe€œfarm›€but€that€no€markings€were€found€on€the€western€boundary€in€dispute.€€œOne›Ļwitness€for€the€Wallaces€only€saw€one€marking€on€the€western€boundary.€€œCounsel›€forĻthe€Wallaces€highlighted€this€point€in€his€closing€remarks€to€the€trial€œcourt€claiming€thatĻMr.€Hardin€had€removed€said€markings€from€the€western€boundary€of€the€farm.›€ĢĢą ąIn€order€to€reform€a€deed,€a€court€has€to€find€mutual€mistake€or€mistake€inducedĻby€fraud.€€The€Hardins€knew€that€this€was€an€action€to€reform€a€deed€whereby€mutualĻmistake€or€mistake€induced€by€fraud€had€to€be€proven€by€the€Wallaces€in€order€toĶrecover.€€In€light€of€this€fact,€the€Hardins€reasonably€should€have€known€that€theĻevidence€of€the€five€witnesses€relating€to€boundary€markings€were€aimed€at€provingĻfraud.€€They€did€not€object€to€this€evidence.€€œAdditionally,€the€trial€court€ruled€on€thisĻmatter,€finding€that€the€Wallaces€had€failed€to€carry€their€burden€in€proving€mistakeĻinduced€by€fraud.€€Accordingly,›€Rule€15.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureĻcauses€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€this€evidence€thereby€allowing€the€issue€of€fraud€toĻenter€into€this€case€and€be€appealed€as€if€it€were€pled€in€the€original€complaint.ĢĢą ąAs€mentioned€above,€mutual€mistake€or€mistake€induced€by€fraud€must€beĻproven€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Although€there€was€some€evidence€at€trialĻpointing€to€œfraud,›€there€is€still€a€lack€of€proof€that€the€Wallaces€had€been€induced€byĻfraud€to€sign€the€deed.€€There€has€been€no€œdirect€evidence›€other€than€the€testimony€ofĻMr.€Wallace€that€the€š šwalk€aroundšš€did€not€include€the€ditch€in€œquestion,€and€thisĻevidence€was€sharply€disputed€by€Mr.€Hardinššs€testimony.›€€œThe›€Wallaces€could€haveĻand€should€have€examined€the€description€with€more€œprudence›€before€signing€theĻdeed.€œThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€onĻthis€matter.€€We›€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€finding€no€inducement€of€fraud€byĻthe€Hardins€and€confirming€the€deed€given€by€the€Hardins€to€the€Wallaces.ĢĢą ąThe€final€issue€concerns€attorneyššs€fees.€€We€adhere€to€the€rule€in€TennesseeĻthat€€attorneyššs€fees€are€not€recoverable€in€the€absence€of€a€statute€or€a€contractĻspecifically€providing€for€such€recovery.€€œņņKultura,€Inc.€v.€Southern€Leasing€Corp.óó,€923ĻS.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.€1996)(citing€ņņPullman€Standard,€Inc.€v.€Abex€Corp.óó,€693ĶS.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€1985)).€€In›€this€case,€we€find€neither.€€We€hold€that€the€trialĻcourt€erred€in€awarding€the€Hardins€œ$1,000›€in€attorneyššs€fees€and,€therefore,€reverseĻthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€concerning€this€matter.ĢĢÓ  Óņ ņœCONCLUSIONó ó›ĢĢÓ  Óą ąBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€andĻreversed€in€part.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€appellants,€for€whichĻexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.€œĢĢĢÓÓą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļóóą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąHIGHERS,€J.ĢĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ņņĢóóóóFARMER,€J.ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóĢLILLARD,€J.›Ģ