ÿWPCÿ  ‡9xAhl#BCŽVÊx|ªÍK¾5@j@{¤w$Ô€–±¡¹À‘-,Ÿ=»Ícӥܨ6f,|>ÒgZ-Z…É$jîõ®¶º‚¡ÞT—}©±A|¶Í'°öÝߨ êH$Vù ?‡ç‘/2[5Àƒí„º°æ¯t6‰éU¶bÒ©ãžkÒqD¨ ·1…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ Ù UNö U:D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D UB~ %À À À À À À À À À À À BÆ Æ Æ Æ Æ D3ã ã ã 0D                                                                                  AOZ Æ© © 0Do D/³ Bâ ýhµ&ÔøÔô3|x©($¡¡ •D–—˜™šE›œžÓ€ Ô€XXXXÔÔ€îiÀîXXÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€WºîîiÀÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€21,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÏÌ ôWºÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñžñ›ñžñѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€š^XXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X@zXXXÔÔ€ŠtïŠXX@zÔñžñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órß›ñžñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌÌRUTH€L.€WILLIAMS,à < àà ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03101„9807„CH„00239Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)€LOUDON€CHANCERYÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€FRANK€V.€WILLIAMS,€IIIÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€CHANCELLORÌJAMES€BOTTS€and€wife,€BRENDAà ì à)Ð   ÐBOTTS,à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendants„Appellees.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌÌCHRIS€RALLS,€Maryville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌREX€A.€DALE,€JOHNSON€&€DALE,€Lenoir€City,€for€Defendants„Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ # ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€action,€the€issue€is€the€width€of€plaintiffððs€right„of„way€across€aÏportion€of€defendantsðð€property.€€The€Trial€Court€œdetermined›€the€width€to€be€25€feetÏand€the€plaintiff€has€appealed.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€Ruth€Williams€and€her€husband€Murray,€now€deceased,€ownedÏa€tract€of€land€in€Loudon€County.€€In€1975,€œthe›€Williams€swapped€a€tract€of€land€withÏC.L.€Williams,€to€gain€access€to€Highway€321€(formerly€Highway€95).€€The€landÏacquired€by€C.L.€Williams€œis›€now€owned€by€the€Creeks.€€It€is€uncontested€that€RuthÏWilliams€possesses€a€sixty„foot€wide€easement€running€from€the€northwest€corner€ofÏthe€Creek€property€to€Highway€321.Ð ;þ34ýS Ðà 4 àà Œ àOn€November€11,€1975,€plaintiff€and€her€late€husband€sold€part€of€theirÏproperty€to€defendant€James€Botts.€€The€deed€provided€a€twenty„five„foot€wideÏeasement€beginning€at€the€northwest€corner€of€the€property€and€running€east€toÏHighway€321.€€On€April€6,€1978,€the€Williams€sold€a€tract€to€Larry€and€Robin€Young,Ïand€by€a€deed€dated€June€30,€1978,€the€Williams€granted€the€Youngs€a€twenty„five„¼foot€easement€extending€from€the€southwest€corner€of€the€property€to€Highway€321.€ÏOn€January€15,€1979,€the€Williams€sold€another€tract€to€Carroll€Price€and€granted€aÏtwenty„five„foot€easement€extending€from€the€southwest€corner€of€the€property€toÏHighway€321.€Murray€Williams€died€in€1979,€and€James€Botts€eventually€acquiredÏboth€œPrice›€and€Youngsðð€tracts.€€Botts€purchased€the€tract€which€is€the€subject€of€thisÏdispute€from€Ruth€Williams€in€August€1994.€€Both€parties€signed€a€correction€deed€onÏDecember€15,€1994,€to€clarify€a€matter€not€here€in€dispute.€€Neither€the€originalÏwarranty€deed€nor€the€correction€deed€mentions€any€easement.€œñœñ€Ruth€Williams€sold€aÏtract€of€property€west€of€the€red€tract€acquired€by€Botts€in€1975€to€her€daughter€inÏ1996.€€ñœñ›Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€parties€stipulated€that€Loudon€County€requires€a€fifty„foot€wideÏstrip€to€consider€the€land€for€dedication€as€a€county€road.€Ìà 4 à€à Œ àThis€action€was€filed€in€1997,€alleging€that€the€plaintiff€€possessed€aÐ % Ðsixty„foot€easement,€and€sought€reformation€of€the€two€deeds€to€reflect€the€sixty„footÏeasement.€€She€alleged€that€the€omission€was€based€on€mutual€mistake€or€alternatively,Ïa€unilateral€mistake€induced€by€the€Bottsðð€fraudulent€conduct.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àUpon€trial,€the€Chancellor€held€that€Ruth€Williams€possessed€a€sixty„¼foot€easement€extending€from€Highway€321€to€the€northwest€corner€of€the€Creek€tract,€Ïand€a€twenty„five„foot€wide€easement€thereafter€across€the€Bottsðð€tracts.Ìà 4 àà Œ àð ð[R]eview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civil€actions€shall€beÏòòdeóó€òònovo€óóupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÐ 5.. Ðcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€ÏT.R.A.P.€13(d).€€The€same€presumption€does€not€apply€to€conclusions€of€œlaw.›Ð 922 ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @ àÓ`Óà 4 àà Œ àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€recognizing€andÏœinvoking›€James€Bottsðð€judicial€admission€that€the€plaintiff€possessed€a€fifty„footÏeasement€extending€from€the€southwest€corner€of€the€Young€tract€to€Highway€321.€ÏAll€of€the€deeds€for€the€Price€and€Young€tracts€refer€to€a€twenty„five„foot€easement.€ÏJames€Botts€testified€that€he€ð ðassumedðð€this€easement€extended€to€the€northernÏboundary€of€his€twenty„five„foot€easement€associated€with€one€of€the€tracts€he€hadÏpurchased€from€the€Williams.€€He€stated€ð ðI€think€itððs€side€by€side.ððÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€sworn€œtestimonyññ€at€trialññ›€of€a€party€to€a€case€is€a€conclusiveÏadmission,€binding€upon€him€or€her€in€the€disposition€of€the€case,€unless€there€isÏcredible€evidence€of€other€facts€which€would€negate€the€effect€of€the€fact€admitted€byÏa€party.€òòOsborne€v.€Hartford€Accident€&€Indem.€Co.óó,€476€S.W.2d€256€(Tenn.App.Ð XP Ð1971).€€In€this€case,€the€Trial€Court€examined€the€deeds€for€the€Price€and€Young€tractsÏand€determined€that€the€proper€boundary€line€for€a€portion€of€the€Price€and€YoungÏtracts€extended€into€the€middle€of€€the€purported€sixty„foot€easement.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€œChancellor›€found€credible€evidence€to€support€œhis›€finding€of€a€single€twenty„five„¼foot€wide€easement.€€Bottsðð€testimony€was€equivocal€and€is€negated€by€the€evidence€toÏthe€contrary.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÏdetermination€on€this€issue.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€plaintiff€also€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€ruling€against€herÏon€her€claim€of€mutual€mistake€or€unilateral€mistake€œinduced›€by€fraud€or€concealmentÏof€material€facts.€€In€order€to€reform€a€written€instrument€for€mistake,€there€must€haveÏbeen€either€a€mutual€mistake,€or€a€mistake€of€one€party€influenced€by€the€otherððsÏfraud.€€òòMcMillin€v.€Great€S.€Corp.óó,€480€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.App.€1972).€€A€ð ðmistakeððÐ ¸3°,, Ðis€an€act€which€would€not€have€been€done,€or€an€omission€which€would€not€haveÏoccurred,€but€from€ignorance,€forgetfulness,€inadvertence,€mental€incompetence,Ïsurprise,€misplaced€confidence,€or€imposition,€and€it€must€be€mutual€or€fraudulent.€Ð Ð9È22 ÐòòTown€of€McMinnville€v.€Rhea,óó€316€S.W.2d€46€(Tenn.App.€1958).€€Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€partiesðð€lack€of€discussion€concerning€theÏeasement,€and€the€failure€of€the€deeds€to€mention€it€is€evidence€that€the€parties€wereÏoperating€under€a€mutual€mistake.€€The€Trial€Court,€in€finding€that€plaintiff€failed€toÏprove€her€claim,€said:€ð ðThereððs€been€no€showing€of€a€mutual€mistake€here.€€Mr.€BottsÏclearly€intended€the€25„foot€easement€when€the€last€deeds€were€prepared€.€.€.€and€IÏthink€those€deeds€are€valid€and€reflect€the€agreement€of€the€parties€exactly€as€theyÏexist€there€.€.€.€ð ð.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion.€ÏJames€Botts€testified€that€he€intended€for€the€plaintiff€to€have€only€a€twenty„five„footÏeasement.€€He€testified€that€the€only€easement€the€parties€ever€discussed€was€twenty„¼five€feet€wide.€€Additionally,€the€plaintiff€did€not€mention€the€sixty„foot€easement€atÏthe€closing.€€The€surveys€done€for€both€the€original€warranty€deed€and€the€correctionÏdeed€depict€the€northern€edge€of€the€twenty„five„foot€easement€as€the€southernÏboundary€of€the€adjoining€tract.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€also€found€œagainst›€the€plaintiff€on€her€claim€of€unilateralÏmistake€induced€by€œfraud.€€He›€said:€ÌÓÓà 4 àà0 Œ àThereððs€been€no€misrepresentation€made€by€the€Botts€to€her€of€anyÏmaterial€fact,€been€no€concealment€on€the€part€of€the€Botts€of€anyÏmaterial€fact€that€Ms.€Williams€was€entitled€to€know€about.€€There€wasÏno€reliance€on€her€part€of€any€misrepresentation€of€a€material€fact,€noÏresulting€damage€to€her€because€of€any€representation€made€by€theÏdefendants€or€any€fraudulent€concealment€of€a€fact€that€the€defendantsÏhad€a€duty€to€disclose€to€her.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓŸ!Óà 4 àà Œ àAgain,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÏœfindings.›€€œThe€›Trial€Court€found€that€although€Murray€Williams€may€have€onceÏintended€a€sixty„foot€easement,€the€proof€was€insufficient€to€find€that€James€Botts€wasÏever€aware€of€œñ”ñthe€deceasedððsñ”ñ›€intention.€€€Additionally,€the€Trial€Court€œñ•ñfoundñ•ññ–ñnotedñ–ñ›€that€theÏplaintiff€was€intelligent€and€articulate€and€did€not€appear€to€be€under€the€control€orÐ Ð9È22 Ðinfluence€of€Botts.€€He€also€found€that€plaintiff€was€not€confused€or€coerced€at€theÏclosing.€€The€testimony€of€the€attorney€who€handled€the€closing€and€his€secretary,Ïsupported€the€conclusion€reached€by€the€Trial€Court.€œñ—ñ€Accordingly,€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Judgeððs€finding.ñ—ñ›Ìà 4 àà Œ àFinally,€plaintiff€contends€that€the€defendants€defrauded€her.€€She€listsÏfive€ð ðbadges€of€fraudðð€which€she€claims€are€the€basis€of€this€fraud.€€As€previouslyÏstated,€the€Trial€Court€found€no€fraud€œñ˜ñpracticed€ñ˜ñby›€the€defendants,€and€made€extensiveÏfindings€on€the€issue€of€fraud€and€the€plaintiffððs€mental€condition.€€The€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€œñšññ™ñ\\\ñ™ñconclusionsñšññ›ñfindingsñ›ñ.›€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remandedÏwith€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ d\ Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð h` Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì