ÿWPCÙ ªvò]øKú U•鈊—èèÝJú ô0ìVv-ÿF²pT"ƒ+¹œbñ!Áö=EB§\sŒ×åÐÛƒŽG !žoŽâÖaxæâ²¢Öåêœ91t£ú:Ü¥?åó¤Õ¤w3Y/ÇCÞ~ðáŒ'òô~H 'Jà‹–Z,…ÿؼë)A6”®¬§MQ«ë[ƒÕ©á„’–˜¤Æq¸¿^ÒÙÖƒ3’¦ð—¹?Z6ÀïÛBà?’o³k£Hû©ïö²¯‡(Ü 2¤ÎÎþ¢<›¥|3aý–zTêÑâøâg“`‘·-•'=Íúhd²ùEÖð3d85ë–}…Á·ê.³ª1~ ü˜Ý9¬4Â#f»_î(oœ`Û ?+(öïÌ[¯vCåàVŽ!Õ”kè¦(Ïã¼lÛÜØ²ßIò3ïıø†Éì‚YämäØÁXÿ¬¯FÔà#¡ÑWSÕüÓƒ1"Áp“ çí:}­(7Õ­ 7R°?“2i[¬Ò/3Ò]ÄõÄâ†wAkÝ–WOÖ*ò2}ÄDÚÛú3¦ˆÖ÷â jíLö2å ™b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U!N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ -™ ÆÆ ÆŒÆRÆ 0DÞN"UN$rEzi|såÕXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXb------------------------------------ 0ë5555 B   0¤= D5á D- 0KC AŸŽ AS-Æ€ 0¤F 0Dê A«.˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»æŽ1î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularINŽ1ê:i¢×+00 ˜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 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ #Ý ƒRM¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€parties€claim€that€the€disputed€parcel€was€part€of€the€tract€belonging€to€their€predecessors€in€interest,€thusÐ ° Ðcolor€of€title€is€disputed.€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  _Ý ƒRM¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLike€the€facts€before€us,€the€defendants€in€òòCatlettóó€presented€evidence€that€the€lower€tract€had€been€droppedÐ ° Ðfrom€the€tax€records€after€1942€and€was€not€assessed€for€taxes€again€until€1972,€when€the€tax€maps€were€revised.Ð tÄ ÐDefendants€further€insisted€that€the€lower€tract€was€owned€by€a€previous€ownerððs€heirs,€most€of€whom€had€conveyed€theirÐ 8ˆ Ðinterest€in€the€land€to€the€defendants€by€deeds€which€were€of€record.€ iÝ ƒRM¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOpal€Reed€had€owned€the€property€since€1948.€€Counting€the€time€Ms.€Reed€owned€the€property,€PlaintiffÐ ° Ðcontends€that€she€and€her€predecessors€in€interest€have€adversely€possessed€the€disputed€parcel€for€fifty€years. ËÝ ƒRM¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€acreage€actually€changed€but€only€by€an€insignificant€fraction€of€a€acre.- ù-(|G2M¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáýò»»Ô d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€\µ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼\µ»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îSä\µÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼\µ»îîSä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€9,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼\µÔÌò òÔ#†¼\µ»XXñö#ÔTHELMA€WILLIAMSòòóó€v.€JEFF€TROYER,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XñX»¼\µÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Maury€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02„489€€€€€€Robert€Holloway,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01573„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€15,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPlaintiff€filed€suit€asserting€that€she€was€the€owner€by€adverse€possessionÔ#†¼\µ»XXñn#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼\µÔ€of€four€acres€of€farmlandÐ ŒÜ  Ðin€Maury€County.€€Defendants,€who€purchased€adjoining€property€in€2001,€assert€that€they€are€byÐ xÈ  Ðdeed€the€true€and€rightful€owners€of€the€disputed€parcel.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€Plaintiff€was€theÐ d´ Ðowner€of€€the€property€by€adverse€possessionÔ#†¼\µ»XXñ&#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼\µÔ€based€on€a€finding€that€she€and€her€predecessors€inÐ P  Ðinterest€had€possessed€the€property€visibly,€exclusively,€actually,€continuously,€openly,€andÐ <Œ Ðnotoriously€for€twenty€years.€€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÓ¬ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼\µ»àXñ³#ÔÔ‡XñX.¼\µÔFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,óóÐ Ø( Ðand€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌTrippe€S.€Fried,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Jeff€and€Sherry€Troyer.Ð œì ÐÌScott€C.€Williams€and€Stephanie€S.€Maxwell,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€ThelmaÐ tÄ ÐWilliams.Ð `° ÐÓMÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼\µ»XXñ|#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼\µÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼\µ»XXñ’ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XñX»¼\µÔà  àThis€appeal€arises€out€of€the€filing€of€a€Complaint€for€Declaration€of€Title€by€AdverseÐ #`" ÐPossession.€€In€1972,€Plaintiffððs€husband,€Clyde€Williams,€purchased€77„11/30€acres,€identified€asÐ ü#L# ÐTax€Map€31,€Parcel€7,€Maury€County,€Tennessee,€from€Opal€Reed.€€Plaintiff€inherited€the€propertyÐ è$8 $ Ðfrom€her€husband€Clyde€Williams€upon€his€death€in€January€1996.€€She€contends€that€the€disputedÐ Ô%$!% Ðparcel,€approximately€four€acresòòóó,€was€part€of€the€property€her€husband€purchased€from€Ms.€Reed€inÐ À&"& Ð1972.€€Further,€Plaintiff€contends€that€she€and€her€predecessors€in€interest€have€actually,€visibly,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðopenly€and€notoriously€exercised€dominion€and€control€over€the€disputed€parcel€for€more€than€thirtyÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âyears.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defendants,€who€purchased€adjoining€property€in€2001,€claim€the€property€they€purchased,Ð „)Ô$)ý Ðdesignated€as€Tax€Map€31,€Parcel€18,€contains€the€disputed€parcel€and€that€Plaintiff€has€no€right,€titleÐ ° Ðor€interest€in€the€disputed€parcel.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àPrior€to€the€1980's,€tax€maps€in€the€office€of€the€Assessor€of€Property€for€Maury€CountyÐ tÄ Ðidentified€Map€31,€Parcel€7€(Plaintiffððs€property)€as€containing€77„11/30€acres.€€The€tax€maps€of€theÐ `° ÐAssessor€of€Property€were€redrawn€in€the€1980s.€€Ever€since€the€tax€maps€were€redrawn,€the€disputedÐ L œ Ðparcel€has€been€identified€as€part€of€Parcel€18,€not€Parcel€7€as€before.€€However,€the€records€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐAssessor€of€Property€also€reveal€that€the€total€of€the€assessed€acreage€for€Plaintiffððs€property€at€MapÐ $ t Ð31,€Parcel€7€did€not€change€when€the€tax€maps€were€redrawn€and€that€Plaintiff€has€been€taxed€on€theÐ  ` Ðsame€acreage€since€her€husband€acquired€the€property€in€1972.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Plaintiff€confirmed€this€by€testifyingÐ ü L  Ðthat€neither€she€nor€her€husband€ever€received€a€notice€from€the€Assessor€of€Property€that€the€acreageÐ è 8  Ðupon€which€her€property€was€taxed€had€changedòòóó.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAfter€purchasing€the€adjoining€property€in€2001,€Defendants€installed€a€gate€in€the€fenceÐ ¬ü  Ðbordering€the€disputed€parcel.€€It€was€shortly€after€the€installation€of€the€gate€that€Plaintiff€learnedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€ownership€of€the€parcel€was€disputed,€which€prompted€Plaintiff€to€commence€this€action.€òòóóÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€Plaintiff€was€the€owner€of€the€disputedÐ \¬ Ðparcel.€€The€final€order€reads€in€pertinent€part:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àPlaintiff,€and€her€predecessors€in€title,€have€possessed€the€property€in€questionÐ  p Ðvisibly,€exclusively,€actually,€adversely,€continuously,€openly,€notoriously,€and€underÐ  \ Ðclaim€of€right,€for€more€than€twenty€years,€the€period€required€for€adverse€possessionÐ øH Ðwithout€claim€of€right€or€title.€€Plaintiff€has€title€to€the€disputed€property€throughÐ ä4 Ðadverse€possession.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDefendants€appeal€arguing€that€Plaintiff€failed€to€establish€the€elements€of€adverse€possessionÐ ¨ø Ðand€that€they€are€the€true€owners,€by€deed,€of€the€disputed€parcel.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà@žž!ìàò òStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ l¼ ÐÌÔ‡XñXXXñÔà  àÔ#†XñXXXñ¨#ÔOn€appeal€from€a€bench€trial,€òòóóÔ‡XñXXXñÔwe€review€the€record€òòde€novo€óóand€presume€that€the€findingsÐ D!” Ðof€fact€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Ô#†XñXXXñ#ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€Ð 0"€  ÐÔ‡XñXXXñÔWe€also€give€great€weight€to€a€trial€courtððs€determinations€of€credibility.€€òòEstate€of€Walton€v.€Youngóó,Ð #l! Ð950€S.W.2d€956,€959€(Tenn.€1997);€òòB€&€G€Construction,€Inc.€v.€Polkóó,€37€S.W.3d€462,€465€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCt.€App.€2000).€€However,€if€the€trial€judge€has€not€made€a€specific€finding€of€fact€on€a€particularÐ ô$D # Ðmatter,€we€will€review€the€record€to€determine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies€withoutÐ à%0!$ Ðemploying€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòGanzevoort€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€requires€appellate€courts€to€weigh€the€evidence€to€determine€in€whichÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpartyððs€favor€the€weight€of€the€aggregated€evidence€falls.€€There€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€aÐ )à$( Ðproposition€is€true€when€there€is€more€evidence€in€its€favor€than€there€is€against€it.€€Thus,€theÐ ° Ðprevailing€party€is€the€one€in€whose€favor€the€evidentiary€scale€tips,€no€matter€how€slightly.€€òòParksÐ œì ÐProps.€v.€Maury€Countyóó,€70€S.W.3d€735,€741€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòRealty€Shop,€Inc.€v.€RRÐ ˆØ ÐWestminster€Holding,€Inc.óó,€7€S.W.3d€581,€596€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€presumption€of€correctness€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)Ô#†XñXXXñ*#ÔÔ‡XñXXXñÔ€requires€appellate€courts€to€deferÐ L œ Ðto€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòRawlings€v.€John€Hancock€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€78€S.W.3d€291,€296Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Because€of€the€presumption,€an€appellate€court€must€leave€a€trial€courtððsÐ $ t Ðfinding€of€fact€undisturbed€unless€it€determines€that€the€aggregate€weight€of€the€evidenceÐ  ` Ðdemonstrates€that€a€finding€of€fact€other€than€the€one€found€by€the€trial€court€is€more€likely€to€be€true.€Ð ü L  ÐòòParks€Props.€v.€Maury€Countyóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€742.€€For€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€a€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourtððs€finding€of€fact,€it€must€support€another€finding€of€fact€with€greater€convincing€effect.€€òòWalkerÐ Ô$  Ðv.€Sidney€Gilreath€&€Assocs.óó,€40€S.W.3d€66,€71€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€presumption€of€correctness€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€applies€only€to€findings€of€fact.€Ð ˜è  ÐÔ#†XñXXXñ× #ÔNo€such€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law.€€òòCarvell€v.Ð „Ô  ÐBottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€Ô‡XñXXXñÔ€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€review€a€trial€courtððsÐ pÀ Ðresolution€of€legal€issues€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€and€reach€their€own€independentÐ \¬ Ðconclusions€regarding€these€issues.€€òòJohnson€v.€Johnsonóó,€37€S.W.3d€892,€894€(Tenn.€2001);€€òòNuttÐ H˜ Ðv.€Chamption€Intððl€Corpóó.,€980€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1998).Ð 4„ ÐÔ#†XñXXXñ¹%#ÔÌà@ºº!ìàò òAdverse€Possessionó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àTo€establish€adverse€possession,€a€plaintiff€must€show€that€she€had€exclusive,€actual,€adverse,Ð ä4 Ðcontinuous,€open€and€notorious€possession€of€the€disputed€parcel€for€the€entire€prescriptive€period.Ð Ð  ÐòòTidwell€v.€Van€Deventer,óó€686€S.W.2d€899,€902€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€For€those€individuals€whoseÐ ¼  Ðpossession€thereof€is€by€color€of€right€or€title,€that€prescriptive€period€is€set€by€statute€at€seven€years.€Ð ¨ø ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„2„101.€€A€plaintiff€without€claim€of€right€or€title€to€the€property€mustÐ ”ä Ðdemonstrate€that€he€or€she€adversely€possessed€the€property€for€twenty€years.€€òòLemm€v.€Adamsóó,€955Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€70,€73€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997);€òòHallmark€v.€Tidwellóó,€849€S.W.2d€787,€792„93€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1992).€€In€ruling€on€this€matter,€the€trial€court€applied€the€latter€criteria,€thus€requiring€proof€of€aÐ X ¨ Ðprescriptive€period€of€twenty€years.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€presented€evidence€that€she,€her€husband€and€son€had€used€the€disputed€parcelÐ #l! Ðgrowing€tobacco,€grazing€cattle,€cutting€hay€and€maintaining€a€wire€fence€that€partitions€off€theÐ $X" Ðdisputed€parcel€from€Defendantsðð€land€since€her€husband€purchased€it€in€1972.€€Evidence€wasÐ ô$D # Ðpresented€to€establish€that€the€now€somewhat€dilapidated€fence€along€the€disputed€boundary€line€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€there€for€decades.€€She€explained,€ð ðItððs€been€there€ever€since€we€owned€it.€€Of€course,€we€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðhad€to€patch€it€up,€like€if€a€tree€blows€over€it€or€if€a€cow€comes€through€it€and€knocks€it€down.€.€.€.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àPlaintiffððs€son,€Harold€Williams,€worked€the€77€acre€farm,€and€the€disputed€parcel,€for€moreÐ ° Ðthan€thirty€years.€€He€testified€that€he€tended€the€land€while€his€mother€owned€it,€while€his€fatherÐ œì Ðowned€it,€and€even€prior€to€that€while€he€and€his€family€worked€the€land€as€sharecroppers.€€HeÐ ˆØ Ðidentified€the€disputed€parcel€as€being€part€of€the€farm€referred€to€as€the€ð ð9„acre€field.ðð€€He€testifiedÐ tÄ Ðas€to€the€variety€of€ways€he€and€his€family€utilized€the€disputed€parcel,€stating€that€at€ð ðone€time€weÐ `° Ðhad€a€tobacco€patch€there,€and€we€had€a€little€garden€there€beside€of€it.€€Weððve€cut€hay€off€of€thatÐ L œ Ðfield€.€.€.€several€times.€€Just€whatever€we€needed€to€do,€weððve€done€it,€because€that€is€our€land.€€WeÐ 8 ˆ Ðjust€used€it€for€whatever€we€wanted€to€do€with€it.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àOpal€Reedððs€son,€Harold€Reed,€was€raised€on€the€property€his€mother€sold€to€Mr.€Williams.€Ð ü L  ÐHe€testified€that€the€disputed€parcel€was€part€of€that€property€and€that€he€and€his€family€erected€theÐ è 8  Ðfence€that€partitions€off€the€disputed€parcel€in€order€to€maintain€their€cattle.€€He€also€testified€thatÐ Ô$  Ðno€one€had€ever€questioned€his€familyððs€ownership€of€the€disputed€parcel.Ð À  ÐÌà  à€Defendants€testified€that€when€they€purchased€their€property,€there€were€no€indications€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€ownership€of€the€now€disputed€parcel€might€be€in€question.€€Jeff€Troyer€stated€that€he€never€sawÐ „Ô  ÐPlaintiff€on€the€property€and€that€he€bush„hogged,€cut€down€trees,€picked€up€trash€and€even€hit€golfÐ pÀ Ðballs€on€the€disputed€parcel.€€However,€both€Defendants€admitted€that€they€had€€seen€Plaintiffððs€cowsÐ \¬ Ðon€the€disputed€parcel.€€They€also€admitted€that€they€were€aware€that€Plaintiff€had€given€someoneÐ H˜ Ðpermission€to€hunt€on€the€disputed€parcel€in€consideration€for€bush„hogging€the€property.€òòóóÐ 4„ ÐòòóóÌà  àThe€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€one€alleging€adverse€possession.€òòSee€Tipton€v.€Smithóó,€593Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€298,€300€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€Adverse€possession€is€never€to€be€presumed.òò€€Drewery€v.Ð øH ÐNelmsóó,€177€S.W.€946,€947„48€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1915).€€In€order€to€be€adverse,€the€possession€mustÐ ä4 Ðbe€open,€notorious,€continuous,€actual€and€visible.€òòSequatchie€Val.€Coal€&€Iron€Co.€v.€Coppingeróó,Ð Ð  Ð32€S.W.€465€(Tenn.€1895).€€The€caliber€of€proof€necessary€to€show€the€required€elements€isÐ ¼  Ðdependent€upon€the€use€to€which€the€land€is€susceptible.€òòBlankenship€v.€Blankenshipóó,€658€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ð125,€127€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€The€degree€of€proof€necessary€to€establish€the€requirements€ofÐ ”ä Ðadverse€possession€depends€on€the€nature€and€character€of€the€land€in€question.€€òòPanter€v.€Milleróó,€698Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€634,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985)€(citing€òòBlankenship€v.€Blankenshipóó,€658€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCt.€App.€1983)).€€Therefore,€the€burden€is€on€our€plaintiff€and€in€order€to€prevail€on€her€adverseÐ X ¨ Ðpossession€claim,€she€must€prove€that€the€possession€was€open,€notorious,€continuous,€actual€andÐ D!” Ðvisible,€òòsee€Panteróó,€689€S.W.2d€at€636,€and€the€caliber€of€that€proof€is€dependent€upon€the€use€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðproperty€or€that€to€which€it€is€susceptible.€€òòSee€Blankenshipóó,€658€S.W.2d€at€127.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThis€court€took€into€consideration€the€nature€and€character€of€the€land€in€determining€whetherÐ ô$D # Ðthe€claimant's€possession€had€been€sufficient€to€establish€ownership€in€òòPanter€v.€Milleróó,€wherein€theÐ à%0!$ Ðparty€claiming€ownership€by€adverse€possession€was€the€defendant.€€The€proof€showed€that€in€1972Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€disputed€land€was€marked€by€the€defendant's€predecessor€in€title€who€bulldozed€and€clear€cut€aÐ ¸'#& Ðline€around€the€land,€that€in€1974€the€defendant€purchased€the€land,€planted€trees,€put€up€posted€signsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaround€the€property€and,€on€occasion,€picnicked€on€the€property€making€plans€for€the€constructionÐ )à$( Ðof€their€home,€and€in€1978€erected€outbuildings€in€contemplation€of€building€a€home.€€Based€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðabove€evidence,€the€òòPanteróó€court€held€that€ð ðbulldozing€and€clear€cutting€around€one's€claimed€lineÐ h+¸&* Ðand€placing€posted€signs€on€rural,€unimproved€land€constitutes€notice€to€the€world€of€an€adverseÐ ° Ðclaim€just€as€much€as€fencing€in€city€property€would€constitute€an€open€and€notorious€claim.ðð€€689Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€at€636,€òòsee€also€Pullen€v.€Hopkins,€Clark€&€Co.óó,€69€Tenn.€741€(1878).€€That€court€went€onÐ ˆØ Ðto€state:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àOne€does€not€ordinarily€fence€in€inaccessible€mountain€land€to€showÐ L œ Ðownership.€€It€is€ordinarily€done€by€marking€or€painting€trees€and€putting€up€signs.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThis€is€exactly€what€the€defendant€did.€€The€land€was€not€susceptible€to€farming.€Ð $ t ÐAbout€the€only€other€thing€the€defendant€could€have€done€to€make€his€possessoryÐ  ` Ðclaim€any€clearer€to€the€public€at€large€would€have€been€to€hire€armed€guards€to€shootÐ ü L  Ðanyone€who€set€foot€on€the€land.€òòÐè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌPanteróó,€689€S.W.2d€at€636.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThis€court€again€took€into€consideration€the€nature€and€character€of€the€land€in€determiningÐ ˜è  Ðwhether€the€claimant's€possession€had€been€sufficient€to€establish€ownership€in€òòCatlett€v.€Whaleyóó,Ð „Ô  Ð731€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€The€dispute€in€òòCatlettóó€pertained€to€land€that€had€beenÐ pÀ Ðabandoned€and€on€which€no€taxes€had€been€paid€since€1942€until€it€was€purchased€at€a€tax€sale€inÐ \¬ Ð1960€by€Dexter€Moore,€the€plaintiffs'€predecessor€in€title.€€The€Clerk€of€the€Circuit€Court€issued€aÐ H˜ Ðdeed€to€Moore,€by€virtue€of€which€Moore€held€himself€out€as€the€owner€of€property€which€includedÐ 4„ Ðthe€disputed€property.€€Moore€used€the€disputed€property€to€pasture€his€cattle€and€harvest€timber.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€òòCatlettóó€plaintiffs€purchased€the€property€from€Moore€in€1968.€€Thereafter,€the€òòCatlettóóÐ øH Ðdefendants€claimed€ownership€of€the€disputed€property,€insisting€the€deed€issued€to€Moore€in€the€taxÐ ä4 Ðsale€did€not€include€or€convey€the€disputed€property.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€concluded€the€deed€did€notÐ Ð  Ðinclude€or€convey€the€disputed€property€to€Moore;€nevertheless,€the€trial€court€held:Ð ¼  ЀÌà8  à[T]here€was€evidence€that€the€plaintiffs€exercised€dominion€and€control€over€theÐ ”ä Ðsubject€property.€€Indeed,€the€dominion€and€control€as€exercised€by€them€was€aboutÐ €Ð Ðas€"adverse"€as€one€could€imagine€ð!ð€they€sold€parcels€off€of€it.€€Plaintiffs'€predecessorÐ l¼ Ðin€title,€Mr.€Dexter€Moore,€pastured€cattle€on€the€subject€premises.€€Although€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐDexter€Moore€certainly€could€have€made€use€of€this€property€in€some€manner€thatÐ D!” Ðwould€have€been€more€"adverse"€to€the€owners€than€he€actually€did,€nevertheless€heÐ 0"€  Ðdid€exercise€such€dominion€and€control€over€it€and€did€so€openly,€so€that€suchÐ #l! Ðdominion€and€control€amounted€to€adverse€user.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCatlettóó,€731€S.W.2d€at€545.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€the€trial€courtòòóó€awarded€the€disputed€propertyÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€plaintiffs€and€the€defendants€appealed.€€The€issues€on€appeal€required€the€court€to€examine€theÐ Ì&"% Ðnature€and€character€of€the€land.€€The€record€established€that€from€1942€to€1960€the€disputedÐ ° Ðproperty€was€landlocked€and€of€little€value€but€that€in€1960€Moore€began€using€the€property€toÐ œì Ðpasture€his€cows€and€cut€timber€from€the€land€and€that€a€dike€was€built€by€an€adjoining€landownerÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€1970's€enabling€the€development€of€the€property.€€After€the€plaintiffs€purchased€the€propertyÐ tÄ Ðin€1972,€they€built€a€road,€erected€a€fence€with€a€locked€gate,€and€allowed€friends€to€hunt,€fish€andÐ `° Ðcamp€on€the€land.€€The€òòCatlettóó€plaintiffs€also€cut€and€sold€timber€from€the€disputed€property.€€TheÐ L œ Ðappellate€court€found€this€evidence€sufficient€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablished€ownership€by€adverse€possession.€€òòCatlett,óó€731€S.W.2d€at€546.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àHere,€Plaintiff€established€that€she,€her€husband€and€son€had€continuously€used€the€disputedÐ ü L  Ðparcel€for€thirty€years€growing€tobacco,€grazing€cattle,€cutting€hay,€tending€a€garden€and€maintainingÐ è 8  Ðthe€wire€fence€at€issue.€€As€her€son€testified,€they€just€did€ð ðwhatever€we€needed€to€do,€weððve€doneÐ Ô$  Ðit,€because€that€is€our€land.€€We€just€used€it€for€whatever€we€wanted€to€do€with€it.ðð€€We€find€theÐ À  Ðcaliber€of€evidence€before€us€to€be€as€convincing€as€that€in€òòPanteróó€and€òòCatlettóó,€wherein€each€partyÐ ¬ü  Ðclaiming€adverse€possession€prevailed.€€Therefore,€we€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÐ ˜è  Ðagainst€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€that€Plaintiff€and€her€predecessors€in€interest€had€exclusive,€actual,Ð „Ô  Ðadverse,€continuous,€open€and€notorious€possession€of€the€disputed€parcel€for€twenty€years.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà@••$ìàò òIn€Conclusionó óˆÐ H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àThis€matter€is€before€us€accompanied€by€the€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€facts€asÐ  p Ðfound€by€the€trial€court,€which€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€to€theÐ  \ Ðcontrary,€and€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ øH Ðfindings.€€We€also€find€no€error€of€law.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÐ ä4 Ðremand€this€matter€for€such€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€againstÐ Ð  Ðthe€Appellants,€Jeff€Troyer€and€Sherry€Troyer.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ D!” ÐÌ