### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE AT NASHVILL E
Marc h 2 7, 2 01 3 S es si on

MICH AEL T. a nd DANA N. BERNIER v . ROBERT ( “S HAWN” ) an d JAMI E MORROW

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r S u m n e r C o u n t y N o

. 2 0 1 1 C V 2 3 4 C

. L

. R o g e r s , J u d g e

N o

. M 2 0 1 2

- 0 1 9 8 4

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

- F i l e d A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 1 3

T h is case p resen ts th e q u estio n o f w h eth er certain n o tes o n a f in al su b d iv isio n p lat co n stitu te restrictiv e c o v en an ts, w h ich p rev en t th e p u rch asers o f p ro p erty in th e su b d iv isio n f ro m i n stallin g an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem o n th eir p ro p erty o r o n an

easem en t f

o r t h e b e n e f

i t o f th eir p ro p erty

. T h e trial co u rt co n clu d ed th at th e p lat n o tes

co n stitu te r e strictiv e co v en an ts p rev en tin g th e in stallatio n , an d p erm an en tly en j o in ed th e
p u rch asers f

ro m in stallin g o r co n stru ctin g su c h a s y s t e m o n th eir o w n p ro p erty o r o n th e

easem en t. We af

f irm an d rem an d

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3

. A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t A f f i r m e d a n d
R e m a n d e d

J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D , J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t
, i n w h i c h A LA N E

. H IG H E R S
, P

. J

. , W

. S

. , a n d H O LLY M

. K IR B Y , j o i n e d

.

P h i l i p C

. K e l l y a n d G w y n n K

. S m i t h

, G a l l a t i n , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t s , R o b e r t ( “ S h a w n ” ) a n d J a m i e M o r r o w

.

W i l l i a m L

. M o o r e , J r

. , G a l l a t i n , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l e e s , M i c h a e l T

. a n d D a n a N

. B e r n i e r

.

O P I N I O N

I. B a ckg ro u n d

T h e P lain tif

f s/A p p ellees M ich ael T

. (“S h aw n ”) B ern ier an d D an a B ern ier (to g eth er, “th e B e r n i e r s ” o r “A p p ellees”) o w n certain lak e-f ro n t p ro p erty o n O d o m s B en d R o ad in
G allatin

, T en n essee. In 2 0 0 9

, th e B ern iers su b d iv id ed th e p ro p erty p u rsu an t to a F in alS u b d iv isio n P l a t ( “ F i n a l S u b d iv isio n P lat” o r “P lat”) reco rd ed in th e P lat B o o k in th e

R eg ister’s O f

f ice f o r S u m n er C o u n ty
, T en n essee. T h e B ern ier’s h o m e sits o n L o t # 1 o f th e
p ro p erty

. T h e B ern iers co n v ey ed L o t # 2 to th e D ef en d an ts/A p p ellan ts R o b ert S h aw n M o rro w an d Jam ie M o rro w (to g eth er, “th e M o rro w s” o r “A p p ellan ts”). T h e tran sf er f ro m th e B ern iers to th e M o rro w s w a s ma d e p u r s u an t to a w arran ty d eed o f reco rd

, w h ich w as also reco rd ed in th e R eg ister’s O f f ice f o r S u m n er C o u n t y , T en n essee. T h e w arran ty d eed states, in p ertin en t p art:

B ein g L o t N o

. 2 o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat f o r M ich ael T

. B ern ier an d w if

e, D an a N

. B ern ier, a p lat o f w h ich is o f reco rd in P lat B o o k 2 6

, p ag e 2 0 8

, R eg ister’s O f f ice o f S u m n er C o u n ty
, T en n essee, t o w h i c h ref eren ce is h ereb y m ad e f o r a m o re

co m p lete d escrip tio n o f

said lo t.

T h e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat N o tes ref eren ced in th e d eed state, in p ertin en t p art:

1 1 . A p o rtio n o f

lo t # 3 sh o w n is to b e u sed f o r th e su b su rf

ace

sew ag e d isp o sal o f lo t # 2

, as sh o w n in th e resp ectiv e easem en t
p ro v id ed

.

* * *

1 4

. T h e sh ad ed areas are r e s erv ed f o r th e in stallatio n o f th e

su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. . . .

1 5

. L o t # 2 is ap p ro v ed f o r a m ax im

u m th ree (3 ) b e d r o o m resid en ce w ith u se o f a co n v en tio n al su b su rf ace s e w a g e d isp o sal sy stem

.

In o rd er to b u ild a h o m e o n th e p ro p erty
, a sew ag e sy st e m w as req u ired

. H o w ev er, th e so il co n d itio n s o f L o t # 2 p ro v ed u n su itab le f o r th e in stallatio n o f a co n v en tio n al

su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e B ern iers co n v ey ed to th e M o rro w s a

su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal easem en t f o r th e u se an d b en ef

it o f L o t # 2

. T h e easem en t w as lo cated o n a p o rtio n o f

L o t # 3

, w h ich th e B ern iers also o w n ed

. T h e M o rro w s so u g h t, an d

o b t ain ed f

ro m th e T en n essee D ep artm en t o f E n v iro n m en t an d C o n serv atio n D iv isio n o f
G ro u n d W ater P ro tectio n (“T D E C ”) a p erm it to in stall an u n d erg ro u n d lo w p ressu re p ip e

sew ag e sy stem (“lo w p ressu re sy stem ”) o n L o t # 3

. T h e lo w p ressu r e sy stem w as in stalled

an d is p resen tly in u se b y th e M o rro w s f o r th e b en ef

it o f L o t # 2

. T h e T D E C f

u rth er req u ired th at th e lan d b e su itab le f o r a seco n d ary sy ste m, s h o u l d t h e n eed f o r o n e ev er arise.
H o w e v er, d u rin g in stallatio n o f th e p rim ary sy stem
, it w as d eterm in ed th at th e so il i n t h e

-2-area w as u n su itab le f o r th e seco n d ary lo w p ressu re sy stem

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e M o rro w s

so u g h t an d o b tain ed f

ro m th e T D E C p erm issio n to in stall an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

f o r u se as th e seco n d ary

w aste d isp o sal sy stem

f o r L o t # 2

.

T o p rev en t th e in stallatio n o f th e w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem
, o n M arch 2

, 2 0 1 1

, th e B ern iers f

iled a C o m

p lain t an d A p p licatio n f

o r T em p o rary R estrain in g O r d e r in th e S u m n er C o u n ty C ircu it C o u rt. T h e B ern iers arg u ed th at th e w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

w as in v io latio n o f th e r e s t r ictiv e co v en an ts co n tain ed o n th e F in al P lat. T h e B ern iers asserted th at th ese restrictiv e co v en an ts req u ired th e M o rro w s to in stall a “co n v en tio n al,”
“su b su rf ace” sew ag e sy stem

. T h e B ern iers attach ed to th eir co m p lain t a letter f

ro m M ark
D ew , a C er t i f

i e d T en n essee S o il C o n su ltan t. In h is letter, M r. D ew stated th at th e

ex p erim en tal w etlan d sy stem so u g h t b y th e M o rro w s w as n o t a su b su rf ace sy stem b ecau se

a p o rtio n o f th e sy stem w as ab o v e g ro u n d

. In ad d itio n , M r. D ew n o ted th at, w ith o u t p ro p er

m ain ten an ce, w etlan d sy stem s can cau se o d o rs an d ab o v e g ro u n d ex p o su re to w astew ater.

T h e trial co u rt g ran ted th e B ern iers’ req u est f o r an em erg en cy tem

p o rary restrain in g

o rd er o n M arch 2

, 2 0 1 1

. A h earin g w as sch ed u led to d eterm in e w h eth er a t e mp o rary i n j u n ctio n sh o u ld b e g ran ted o n M arch 9

, 2 0 1 1

. In ad v an ce o f th e tem p o rary in j u n c t i o n h e a r i n g , o n M arch 8

, 2 0 1 1

, th e B ern ier’s f iled a M em o ran d u m o f L aw in su p p o rt o f t h e i r
p o sitio n

. In th e M em o ran d u m , th e B ern iers’ ag ain arg u ed th at th e w etlan d sy stem w as n o t a “su b su rf

ace” sy stem

as req u ired b y

th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat.

O n M arch 1 1

, 2 0 1 1

, th e B ern iers am en d ed th eir co m p lain t to ad d a cau se o f

actio n f o r b reach o f o th e r su b d iv isio n restrictio n s, as w ell as to n am e P h illip D

. D ick erso n as a d ef en d an t to th e actio n

. M r. D ick erso n created a m ap o f th e area th at erro n eo u sly stated th at th e area w as su itab le f

o r a seco n d ary lo w p ressu re sy stem

. T h e co m p lain t w as later am en d ed

to rem o v e M r. D ick erso n as a d ef en d an t an d th e B ern iers’ claim ag ain st h im w as n o n -su ited

. O n M arch 2 3

, 2 0 1 1

, th e trial co u rt en tered an o rd er en j o in in g th e M o rro w s f

ro m

co n stru ctin g th e w etlan d sew ag e sy stem an d req u irin g th e B ern iers to p a y a b o n d in th e

am o u n t o f

$ 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0

.

O n M arch 3 1

, 2 0 1 1

, th e M o rro w s f iled an an sw er to th e B ern iers’ co m p lain t. In th eir

an sw er, th e M o rro w s d en ied th at th e w etlan d sew ag e sy stem w as ab o v e g ro u n d

, b u t asserted th at it w as, in f

act, a su b su rf

ace sew ag e sy stem

. In ad d itio n , th e M o rro w s d en ied th at M r. D ew w as co m

p eten t to testif

y as to an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e sy stem b ecau se h e ad m itted h e h ad o n ly en co u n tered o n e su ch sy stem th ro u g h o u t h is career. O n M ay 5

, 2 0 1 1

, th e M o rro w s also so u g h t leav e to f ile a th ird -p arty co m

p lain t ag ain st M r. D ick erso n

. O n th e

sam e d ay , th e trial co u rt en tered an ag reed o rd er allo w in g th e th ird -p arty co m p lain t. T h e M o rro w s su b seq u en tly f

iled th eir co m

p lain t, w h i c h a l l e ge d t

ha t Mr

. Di c ke r s on wa s n eg lig en t in m ap p in g th e area.

-3-O n M ay 1 6

, 2 0 1 1

, th e B ern iers f iled a s e c o n d m o tio n f

o r a T em p o rary In j u n ctio n

. T h is m o tio n so u g h t an in

j u n ctio n to p rev en t th e M o rro w s f ro m co n stru ctin g an ex p erim en tal

w e t l a n d s e w a g e d isp o sal sy stem o n L o t # 2

, th e lo t th e B ern iers h ad co n v ey ed to th e M o rro w s f

o r co n stru ctio n o f

a h o m e. T h e B ern iers raised th e ad d itio n al arg u m en t th at th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat N o tes sp ecif ically req u ire th at th e sew ag e sy stem b e “co n v en tio n al,”

an d arg u ed th at an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e sy stem d o es n o t m eet th at req u irem en t.

T h e M o rro w s f

iled a resp o n se to th e m o tio n o n M ay 1 9

, 2 0 1 1

, ag reein g th at th ey h ad b ee n a p p r o v e d b y th e T D E C to in stall a w etlan d sy stem o n th eir o w n lo t, L o t # 2

, b u t d en y in g th at th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat in an y w ay restricted th eir ab ility

to d o so

.

O n M ay 2 4

, 2 0 1 1

, th e M o rro w s f iled a co u n ter-co m

p la i n t a g a i n st th e B ern iers, alleg in g th at th ey h ad su f f ered d am ag es f

o r b reach o f w arran ty
, n eg lig en ce an d in ten tio n al

an d n eg lig en t m isrep resen tatio n f ro m th e B ern ier’s ref

u sal to co n sen t to th e M o r r o w s

co n stru ctin g th e n eed ed seco n d ary sew ag e sy stem o n t h e i r e a s e m en t an d th eir o w n lo t, as

w ell as b y f

ailin g to en su re th at th e so il in th e p ro p erty co n v ey ed to th em w as su itab le f o r th e stated p u rp o se o f th e lo t, i.e., to b u ild a th ree-b ed ro o m h o m e w ith a sew ag e sy stem

. O n Ju n e 7

, 2 0 1 1

, th e B ern iers f iled an an sw er to th e co u n ter-co m p lain t, d en y in g th e m aterial alleg atio n s co n tain ed th erein

. O n th e sam e d ay , th e B ern iers also f iled a cro ss-claim ag ain st th ird -p arty d ef

en d an t M r. D ick erso n

. T h e M o rr o w s w e r e later allo w ed to am en d th eir

co u n ter-co m

p lain t ag ain st th e B ern iers to in clu d e m o re sp ecif ic f actu al alleg atio n s.

O n O cto b er 1 9

, 2 0 1 1

, M r. D ick erso n f iled a M o tio n f

o r S u m m ary Ju d g m en t, arg u in g th at it w as u n d isp u ted th at h e p r e p a r e d th e so il m ap in acco rd an ce w ith th e reco g n ized

stan d ard o f p ro f

essio n al care f

o r th o se in h is f

ield

. T h e M o rro w s resp o n d ed w ith an af f id av it f ro m a licen sed so il scien tist, w h o o p i n e d th at M r. D ick erso n ’s co n d u ct f ell b elo w th e

reco g n ized stan d ard o f care. E v en tu ally

, th e M o rro w s v o lu n tarily d ism isse d t h eir claim

ag ain st M r. D ick erso n an d M r

. D i c k e r s o n o b tain ed su m m ary j u d g m en t in h is f av o r w ith

reg ard to th e B ern iers’ claim

. T h e B ern iers d o n o t ap p eal th is ru lin g

. T h u s, M r. D ick erso n is n o t a p arty

to th is ap p eal.

O n M arch 1 9

, 2 0 1 2

, th e B ern iers ag ain am en d ed th eir co m p l a i n t t o ad d a claim o f

an ticip ato ry n u isan ce an d to clarif y th eir o th er claim s. O n Ju n e 1

, 2 0 1 2

, th e M o rro w s f iled

a M o tio n f

o r S u m m ary Ju d g m en t b ased o n th e B ern ier’s alleg ed f ailu re to state a claim u p o n

w h ich relief m ay b e g ran ted

. A ttach ed to th e m o tio n w as th e af f id av it o f th e D irecto r o f th e T D E C

, B ritto n D o tso n , w h o stated th at an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e sy stem is, in f act,

a su b su rf ace sy stem

. O n A u g u st 1

, 2 0 1 2

, th e trial co u rt g ran ted p artial su m m ary j u d g m en t in f av o r o f th e M o rro w s, co n clu d in g th at th e B ern iers f ailed to state a claim w ith reg ard to

-4-th e ex p ress su b d iv isio n restrictio n s o f reco rd o r th e an ti c i p a to ry n u isan ce claim

. 1

A cco rd in g ly

, th e B ern ier’s o n ly rem ain in g claim in v o lv ed th e im p lied restrictiv e co v en an ts alleg ed ly created b y

th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat.

T h e trial co u rt h eld a b en ch trial o n th e B ern ier’s o n e rem ain in g issu e, as w ell as th e M o rro w ’s co u n ter-claim

, o n Ju ly 3 0

, 2 0 1 2

. A t trial, th e M o rro w s g av e o ral n o tice o f th eir in ten t to v o lu n tarily d ism iss th eir co u n ter-claim

. O n A u g u st, 7

, 2 0 1 2

, th e trial co u rt en tered

an o rd er v o lu n tarily d ism issin g th e M o r r ows ’ co u n ter-claim ag ain st th e B ern iers. O n A u g u st 9

, 2 0 1 2 , th e trial co u rt en tered a f in al o rd er g ran tin g th e B ern ier’s a p erm an en t in j u n ctio n
pr e ve ntin g th e M o rro w s f

ro m co n stru ctin g an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e sy stem on e i t he r L o t # 2

, o r o n th e easem en t o n L o t # 3

, u n less an d u n til th e B ern iers ag ree to am en d th e F in al
S u b d iv isio n P lat. In th e trial co u rt’s o ral f in d in g s, in co rp o rated in to th e f in al o rd er b y ref eren ce, th e trial co u rt stated , in p ertin en t p art:

N o w , th e su b d iv isio n pl at, th e rep resen tatio n , th e d eed o f [ th e M o rro w s] all h av e a co n d itio n in th ere th at th e su b su rf ace

sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem in d icated lo t tw o is ap p ro v ed n atu rally f o r a th ree b ed ro o m resid en ce w ith th e u se o f a co n v en tio n a l

su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. T h e C o u rt f

in d s th at th is w etlan d ex p erim en tal sy stem is

n o t, b ased o n th e p rio r testim o n y o f th e S t a t e , also th e d escrip tio n s o f th ese sy stem s, is n o t a co n v en tio n al su b su rf ace

sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. A n d th en it states th at a p o rtio n o f lo t th ree, ag ain p lat co n d itio n , is to b e u sed f o r a su b su rf

ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. . . . T h at’s w h at ev ery b o d y th o u g h t th ey

w ere
g o i n g to g et, an d ref

ers to it as su b su rf

ace sew ag e d isp o sal

easem en t f

o r th e b en ef

it o f lo t tw o

. T h e p la t i s a p p l icab le to lo t tw o , th e d eed is. It’s a

co n d itio n set o u t. It can o n ly b e ch an g ed in th e C o u rt’s o p in io n b y th e o w n er o f

lo t th ree, w h ich rem ain s [ th e B ern iers]

. . . .

T h u s, th e trial co u rt h eld th at th e N o tes o n th e F in al S u b d iv is i o n P l a t c r eated a restrictiv e

co v en an t th at an y sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem in stalled f o r th e b en ef

it o f L o t # 2 , eith er o n L o t # 2

, o r o n th e easem en t o n L o t # 3

, b e co n v en tio n al, an d f u rth er h eld th at th e p ro p o sed

w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem
, b ein g ex p erim en tal, d id n o t m eet t h a t req u irem en t. T h e M o rro w s ap p eal.

II. Issu es P resen ted

T he Be rni er s do not app eal th e t ri al cou rt ’s summ ar y dismissa l o f t hes e c la ims. 1

-5-T h e M o rro w s raise tw o issu es f o r rev iew , as slig h tly

restated f ro m th eir b rief

:

1

. Wh eth er th e p lat n o tes o n th e B ern iers’ su b d iv isio n p lat

o r t h e easem en t o n L o t # 3 am o u n t to restrictiv e

co v en an ts, w h ich p ro h ib it th e M o rro w s’ in stallatio n o f

a w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem o n th eir easement?
2

. E v en if th e su b d iv isio n p lat n o tes are co n stru ed as restrictiv e co v en an ts, w h eth er th e co v en an ts g o so f ar as
to b ar th e M o rro w s f

ro m co n stru ctin g a w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

o n th eir o w n lo t, L o t # 2 ?

In th eir b rief

, th e B ern iers also seek

d am ag es f

o r a f riv o lo u s ap p eal.

III. S ta n d a rd o f

R ev iew

T h is case w as tried b y th e t r i a l c o u r t w ith o u t a j u ry

. W e r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t d e n o v o w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s

o t h e r w i s e

. T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 3 ( d )

. N o p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , h o w e v e r , a t t a c h e s t o t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a n d o u r r e v i e w i s d e n o v o

. B l a i r v
. B r o w n s t o n e , 1 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d
6 8 1

, 6 8 4 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g B o w d e n v
. W a r d

, 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 3

, 9 1 6 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 0 ) )

. T h e issu es in th is case in v o lv e th e ex is t e n c e an d co n stru ctio n o f restrictiv e easem en ts. “T h e

co n stru ctio n o f restrictiv e co v en an ts, lik e o th er w ritten co n tracts, is a q u es tio n o f law .”
M a ssey v. R .W

. G ra f, In c. , 2 7 7 S .W.3 d 9 0 2

, 9 0 8 (T en n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 8 ) (citin g M a p les
H o m eo w n ers A ss'n , In c. v. T & R N a sh ville L td

. P 'sh ip , 9 9 3 S .W.2 d 3 6

, 3 8

– 3 9 (T en n

. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 )).

IV. A n a ly sis

In th is case, th e M o rro w s arg u e th at th e trial co u rt erred in co n clu d i n g t h a t a restrictiv e co v en an t ex ists p rev en tin g th em f ro m i ns t a l l i ng a we t l an d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

o n th eir easem en t o n L o t # 3 o r o n th eir o w n lo t, L o t # 2

. T h e d isp u te co n cern s w h eth er th e N o tes o n th e F in al S u b d iv is i o n P l a t co n stitu te restrictiv e co v en an ts o n th e u se o f th e
p ro p erty
, an d if so , w h eth er th o se restrictiv e co v en an ts p rev en t th e in stallatio n o f a w etlan d

sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. We b eg in f irst w ith a d iscu ssio n o f w h eth er th e N o tes o n th e F in al
S u b d iv isio n P lat co n stitu te restrictiv e co v en an ts.

T h e R estatem en t (T h ird ) o f P ro p erty d ef in es a “restrictiv e co v en an t” as “ a n eg ativ e

co v en an t th at lim its p erm issib le u ses o f lan d .” R estatem en t (T h ird ) o f P ro p erty (S erv itu d es) § 1 .3 (2 0 0 0 ). T en n essee co u rts h av e reco g n ized an d en f o rced im p lied restrictiv e co v en an ts

u n d er certain circu m stan ces. S ee g en era lly S

tra cen er v. B a iley

, 7 3 7 S .W.2 d 5 3 6 (T en n

. C t.

-6-A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). A s ex p lain ed b y th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt:

O rd in arily w h en th e o w n er o f th e tract o f lan d su b d iv id es it an d sells d if f eren t lo ts to sep arate g ran tees, an d p u t s i n each d eed restrictio n s u p o n th e u se o f th e p ro p ert y co n v ey ed

, in

a cco rd an ce w ith th e g en eral b u ild in g , im p ro v em en t o r d ev e l o p m en t p lan

, su ch restrictio n s m ay b e en f o rced b y an y g ran tee ag ain st an y o th er g ran tee. L ik ew ise, th e p ro p erty

rem ain in g in th e h an d s o f th e v en d o r m ay also b e h eld in eq u ity

to b e s u b j e c t to a serv itu d e so as n o t to b e u sed in a m an n er d if f eren t f ro m th at co n tain ed in th e restrictio n s.

L a n d D evelo

p ers, In c. v. M

a x w ell

, 5 3 7 S .W.2 d 9 0 4

, 9 1 2 (T en n

. 1 9 7 6 ). It is u n d isp u ted th at

n o restrictiv e co v en an ts are reco rd ed o n th e d eed co n v ey in g L o t # 2 t o t h e M o rro w s. It is

w ell-settled

, h o w ev er, th at “[ r] estrictiv e co v en an ts m ay b e im p lied b y ref

eren ce to a p lat.”
H u g h es v. N

ew L ife D evelo

p m e n t C o r p
. , 3 8 7 S .W.3 d 4 5 3

, 4 8 4 (T en n

. 2 0 1 2 ); see a lso
S tra cen er , 7 3 7 S .W.2 d at 5 3 9 (“T h e w eig h t o f au th o rity su p p o rts a h o ld in g th at eq u itab le

serv itu d es m ay b e created b y restrictio n s n o ted o n a p lat w ith r e f e ren ce to w h ich lo ts are

so ld .”). T h u s, “a p lat m ay b e u tilized in estab lish in g im p lied restrictiv e co v en an ts if th e d eed

o f th e p arty seek in g to im p o se th e restrictio n ref

ers to th e p lat.” A rth u r v. L a k e T a n si V ill.,
In c. , 5 9 0 S .W.2 d 9 2 3

, 9 2 9 (T en n

. 1 9 7 9 ). “A d eed an d th e p lat w h ich in clu d es th e p ro p erty
g ran ted m u st b e read to g eth er, an d w h atev er ap p ears o n th e p lat is to b e co n sid ered as a p art

o f th e d eed .” 2 0 A m . Ju r. 2 d C o v en an ts, E tc. § 1 6 1

.

A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, th e d eed in th is case sp ecif ically ref eren ces th e P lat, n o tin g th at ref eren ce to th e P lat “is h ereb y m ad e f o r a m o re co m

p lete d escrip tio n o f said lo t.” T h e M o rro w s, h o w ev er, p o in t to th e af f id av it o f C a rro ll C arm an , th e T en n essee L icen sed

su rv ey o r w h o d rew th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat, to arg u e th at th e N o t e s c o n tain ed th erein

w ere n o t in ten d ed as restrictiv e co v en an ts. In h is af f id av it, M r. C arm an stated th at th e N o tes

o n th e P lat ref

errin g to th e “co n v en tio n al su b su rf ace sew ag e s y s t e m” w ere p laced o n th e

m ap f o r d escrip tiv e p u rp o ses an d to satisf y T D E C r u l e s. A cco rd in g to th e M o rro w s, M r. C arm an ’s af

f id av it sh o w s th at th e P lat N o tes w ere n o t “in ten d ed to m an d ate, n o r d id [ th ey ]

serv e to m an d ate, th e sp ecif i c t y p e o f sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem th at m ay u ltim ately b e
p erm itted .” T h e M o rro w ’s relian ce o n th is p aro l ev id en ce, h o w ev er, is m isp laced w ith o u t

so m e f in d in g o f am

b ig u ity in th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e P lat. In stead

, th is C o u rt m u st ap p ly th e w ell-settled ru les o f

co n tract in terp retatio n :

R u les g o v ern in g th e co n stru ctio n o f co v en an ts im p o sin g restrictio n s o n th e u se o f lan d a re g en erally th e sam e as th o se
ap p licab le to an y co n tract o r co v e n a n t, in clu d in g th e ru le th at

-7-w h ere th ere i s n o a m b ig u ity in th e lan g u ag e u sed

, th ere is n o

ro o m f o r co n stru ctio n , an d th e p lain m ean in g o f th e l a n g u ag e
g o v ern s. P rim arily

, th e q u estio n is o n e o f in ten tio n , su b j ect to th e f u rth er p rin cip le th at res t rictiv e co v en an ts are strictly

co n stru ed in f

av o r o f th e f ree u se o f p ro p erty

.

2 0 A m

. Ju r. 2 d C o v en an ts, E tc. § 1 6 8 (f o o tn o tes o m itted ). A s recen tly e x p l a i n e d b y th is
C o u rt:

B ecau se th e in stan t case in v o lv es t h e in terp retatio n o f

restrictiv e co v en an ts, w e ap p ly w ell-estab lish ed r u les o f

co n stru ctio n an d law in o rd er to co n stru e th e term s o f th e

co v en an ts. P

a rk s v. R ich a rd

so n , 5 6 7 S .W.2 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 7 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 7 7 ).

. . . T h u s, if th e “m ean in g o f th e co v en an t is

reaso n ab le an d u n am

b ig u o u s, th ere is n o n eed to seek f u rth er clarif icatio n o u tsid e its lan g u ag e.” S h ea v. S a rge nt
, 499 S. W.2 d
8 7 1

, 8 7 4 (T en n

. 1 9 7 3 ). If th e lan g u ag e o f th e restrictiv e

co v en an t is u n am

b ig u o u s , a n d its p lain m ean in g is f air an d

reaso n ab le, th en its term s m ay n o t b e altered o r v aried b y p aro l

ev id en ce. H

ick s , 9 7 8 S .W.2 d at 5 4 7

– 4 8 (citatio n s o m itted ).
H o w e v e r, if [ p aro l ev id en ce is] n eed ed

, th en w e w o u ld also i n t e r p r e t [ t h e c o v e n a n t s ] i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e

w ell-estab lish ed ru les g o v ern in g in terp retatio n o f o th er w ritten

co n tracts, w h ere th e p rim ary g o al is to ascertain th e in ten tio n o f th e p arties as ex p ressed b y th e lan g u ag e o f th e d o cu m en t itself

. S ee H ick s v. C o x , 9 7 8 S .W.2 d 5 4 4

, 5 4 7 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 9 8 ).
T h e w o rd s o f a co n tract m u st b e g iv en th eir u su al an d o rd in ary

m e an in g

. H

ick s , 9 7 8 S .W.2 d at 5 4 7 (citin g A ld rid g e v. M o r gan , 9 1 2 S .W.2 d 1 5 1

, 1 5 3 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 9 5 ); R a in ey v. S ta n sell , 8 3 6 S .W.2 d 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 )).

G ra n d V a lley L a k es P

ro p erty O w n e r

s A ss'n , In c. v. B u rro w , 3 7 6 S .W.3 d 6 6 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 1 1 ); see a lso 2 0 A m

. Ju r. 2 d C o v en an ts, E tc. § 1 6 9 (n o tin g th at th e s u r r o u n d in g circu m stan ces are o n ly “tak en in to co n sid eratio n in d eterm in in g th e in ten tio n in so m e cases,

w h ere it is n ecessary to d o so b y r e a so n o f th e u n certain ty o r am b ig u ity in th e lan g u ag e
g iv in g rise to th e restrictio n ”).

F ro m o u r rev iew o f th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat, w e m u st co n clu d e th at th e P lat N o tes

u n am b ig u o u sly create restrictiv e co v en an ts in th is case. A s p rev io u sly n o ted

, a restrictiv e

co v en an t is a co v en an t o r ag reem en t th at restricts th e u se o f th e lan d

. T h e N o tes o n th e

-8-S u b d iv isio n P l a t c o n t a i n clear restrictio n s o n th e u se o f th e lan d

, in clu d in g lim itin g

c ons t r uc t i on on e a s e m e nt a

r e a s , r e qui r i ng co m

p lian ce w ith ap p licab le p erf o rm an ce s t a

nda r ds

an d su b d iv i s i o n reg u latio n s, an d

, im p o rtan tly

, reserv in g an easem en t o n an area o f th e
p ro p erty co n tain ed o n th e P lat f o r th e in stallatio n o f th e su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem f o r th e b en ef

it o f L o t # 2

. In d eed

, th e M o rro w s d o n o t d isp u te th at th e e a s e me n t w as

co n v ey ed to t h e m so lely as a resu lt o f th e d raw in g s an d N o tes co n tain ed o n th e F in al
S u b d iv isio n P lat. It w o u ld b e u n reaso n ab le to c o n c l u d e t h a t th e o th er N o tes co n tain ed o n th e P lat d o n o t also o p erate to af f ec t t h e p r o p e rty at issu e o r b in d th e p arties. F u rth er, w e

n o te n o th in g in th e p lain lan g u ag e o f t h e F i n a l S u b d iv isio n P lat o r th e w arran ty d eed to d isreg ard th e w ell-settled ru le th at N o tes to a su b d iv isio n p lat m ay b e co n sid ered restrictiv e

co v en an ts o n th e u se o f

th e p ro p erty

.

In d eed

, f ro m o u r research

, n o n e o f th e cases in w h ich T en n essee C o u r t s h a v e

co n clu d ed th at P lat N o tes d o n o t co n stitu te restrictiv e co v en an ts are an alo g o u s to th e p resen t

case. F o r ex am

p le, in A rth u r v. L a k e T a n si V illa g e, In c. , th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt af f irm ed th e C o u rt o f A p p eals’s ru lin g t h a t a p lain tif f w as n o t en titled to rely o n certain

reco rd ed p l a t s w h e n : (1 ) th e p lats at issu e w ere n o t in clu d ed as a p art o f th e reco rd o n
ap p eal; an d (2 ) th e p lats relied o n b y th e p lain tif f d id n o t in clu d e th e p lain tif f s o w n p ro p erty

a n d

, th u s, w ere n o t in co rp o rated b y ref eren ce in to th e p lain tif

f ’s d eed o f co n v ey a n c e

. A rth u r , 5 9 0 S .W.2 d at 9 2 9

. In a recen t case, th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt lik ew ise

co n clu d ed th at n o restrictiv e co v en an t s lim itin g d ev elo p m en t o f p o rtio n s o f a su b d iv isio n
to f o rest p reserv es w ere created b y th e n o tes o n th e su b d iv isio n p lat b ecau se th e p lat n o tes th at alleg ed ly co n tain ed th e m en tio n o f th e p reserv es w ere illeg ib le. S ee H u g h es , 3 8 7 S .W.3 d at 4 8 3

– 4 . A s ex p lain ed b y th e S u p rem e C o u rt:

[ T ] h e 2 0 0 2 p lat in th is case b ears n o leg ib le ref eren ce to f o rest p reserv es. S h eets 2 th ro u g h 5

, w h ich co n tain n o illeg ib le

w ritin g , co n tain n o ref

eren ce w h atso ev er to f

o rest p res e r v e s. S h eet 1 co n tain s v irtu ally n o leg ib le w ritin g w ith resp ect to th e tract, an d n o t s u r p risin g ly co n tain s n o leg ib le ref eren ce to an E ast P reserv e o r a West P r e s erv e. T h u s, h av in g ex am in ed all f iv e sh eets co m

p risin g th e 2 0 0 2 p lat, w e can o n ly co n clu d e th at th e 2 0 0 2 p lat d o es n o t clearly d esig n ate an E ast P r e s e r v e o r a West P reserv e . . . .

Id

. at 4 8 4

. In th is case, h o w e v er, th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat co n tain s clearly leg ib le restrictio n s o n th e u se o f th e p ro p erty an d co n tain s a clear ref eren ce to th e p ro p erty o w n ed b y th e M o rro w s. T h ere is n o d isp u te th at th e M o rro w s h ad n o tice o f th e N o tes o n th e F in al
S u b d iv isio n P lat p rio r to th e co n v ey an ces at issu e. In ad d itio n , th e P lat is clearly ref eren ced in th e d eed o f co n v ey an ce. T h u s, w e m u st co n clu d e th at th e N o tes o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n

-9-P lat at issu e u n am b ig u o u sly p lace restrictiv e co v en an ts o n th e u se o f lan d co n tain ed th erein (i.e., L o t# 2 an d L o t # 3 ). We n ex t tu rn to co n sid er w h eth er th e restrictiv e co v en an ts at issu e

o p erate to b ar co n stru ctio n o f th e p ro p o sed w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem o n b o th L o t # 2

an d L o t # 3

.

T h e M o rro w s arg u e th at ev en if th e P lat N o tes are co n sid ered restrictiv e co v en an ts,

a p ro p er co n stru ctio n o f th e N o tes d o es n o t p re v e n t t h e i n s tallatio n o f a w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem o n eith er th e easem en t o n L o t # 3

, o r o n th eir o w n p ro p erty
, L o t # 2

. A s
p rev io u sly d i s c u s s e d

, th e co n stru ctio n o f a restrictiv e co v en an t is a q u estio n o f law

. In

co n stru in g restrictiv e co v en an ts, h o w ev er, w e m u st k eep in m in d th at: “[ b ] ecau se restrictiv e

co v e n a n t s a r e i n d ero g atio n o f th e f u n d am en tal rig h t o f f

ree u se an d en

j o y m en t o f real

p ro p erty
, th ey are n o t f

av o red u n d er T en n essee law .” M a ssey , 2 7 7 S .W.3 d at 9 0 8 (citin g W illia m s v. F

o x , 2 1 9 S .W.3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 7 )). A s ex p lain ed b y th is C o u rt:

R estrictiv e co v en an ts are strictly co n stru ed

. A r t h u r [ v. L a k e T a n si V ill., In c. , 5 9 0 S .W.2 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 7 (T en n . 1 9 7 9 )]

. A n y d o u b t co n cern in g th e ap p licab ility o f a restrictiv e

co v en an t w ill b e reso lv ed ag ain st th e restrictio n , R ic h a r d s v. A b b o ttsfo rd H

o m eo w n ers A ss'n

, 8 0 9 S .W.2 d 1 9 3

, 1 9 5 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 9 0 ) an d

, lik ew ise, an y am b ig u ity in th e term s o f th e
restr i ctiv e co v en an t w ill b e reso lv ed ag ain st th e restrictio n

. P a rk s v. R ich a rd

so n , 5 6 7 S .W.2 d 4 6 5

, 4 6 7

– 4 6 8 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 7 7 ). S im ilarly

, w h en t h e t e rm s o f a co v en an t m ay b e

co n stru ed m o re th an o n e w ay , th e co u rt s m u st reso lv e an y

am b ig u ities ag ain st th e p arty seek in g to en f

o rce th e restrictio n

an d in a m an n er w h ich ad v an ces th e u n restricted u se o f th e
p ro p erty

. H

illis v. P o w ers, 8 7 5 S .W.2 d 2 7 3

, 2 7 5

– 7 6 (T en n

. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); P

a rk s , [ 5 6 7 S .W.2 d ] at 4 6 8

.

M a ssey , 2 7 7 S .W.3 d at 9 0 8 . H o w ev er,

[ s] u c h c o n stru ctio n in f

av o r o f th e u n restricted u se

. . .
m u st b e reaso n ab le. T h e s t rict ru le o f co n stru ctio n as to restrictio n s sh o u ld n o t b e ap p lied in su ch a w ay as to d ef eat th e
p lain an d o b v io u s p u rp o ses o f a restrictio n , n o r w ill th e ru le o f strict co n stru ctio n ren d er co v en an ts u n en f o rceab le. S im ilarly

, th e ru le th at a d eed m

u st b e co n stru ed m o st strictly ag ain st th e
g ran to r h as n o ap p licatio n w h ere in th e lig h t o f th e su rro u n d in g circu m stan ces th e m ean in g o f th e lan g u ag e o f th e d eed is p lain

.

-10-2 0 A m . Ju r. 2 d C o v en an ts, E tc. § 1 7 0 (f o o tn o tes o m itted ).

A s p rev io u sly d iscu ssed

, w e f irst tu rn to th e lan g u ag e o f th e restrictiv e co v en an ts at issu e. In p ertin en t p art, th e N o tes o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat state:

1 1 . A p o rtio n o f

lo t # 3 sh o w n is to b e u sed f o r th e su b su rf

ace

sew ag e d isp o sal o f lo t # 2

, as sh o w n in th e resp ectiv e easem en t
p ro v id ed

.

* * *

1 4

. T h e sh ad ed areas are reserv ed f o r th e in s t allatio n o f th e

su b su rf ace sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

. . . .

1 5

. L o t # 2 is a p p r o v ed f o r a m ax im

u m th ree (3 ) b ed ro o m resid en ce w ith u se o f a co n v en tio n al su b su r f a c e sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

.

T h e B ern iers arg u e th at N o te 1 5 's sta t e me n t th at L o t # 2 is ap p ro v ed f o r a h o m e w ith a

co n v en tio n al su b su rf

ace sew ag e sy stem am o u n ts to a req u irem en t th at an y h o m e b u ilt o n L o t # 2 u se o n ly a co n v en tio n al su b su rf ace sew ag e sy stem

. It is u n d isp u ted th at th e w e t l a n d

sew ag e d isp o s a l s y s tem so u g h t b y th e M o rro w s is an ex p erim en tal, rath er th an a

co n v en tio n al sy stem

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e B ern iers arg u e th at th e w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal 2

sy stem is p ro h ib i t e d p u r s u an t to th e restrictiv e co v en an ts ab o v e. T h e B ern iers rely o n th e

case o f S tra cen er v. B a iley

, 7 3 7 S .W.2 d 5 3 6 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 8 6 ) t o s u p p o rt th eir

p o sitio n

. In S

tra cen er , th e d ef

en d an t-d ev elo p er su b d iv id ed a larg e tract o f lan d p u rsu an t to

a su b d iv isio n p lat, w h ich w as f iled w ith in th e co u n ty

reg ister’s o f

f ice. T h e p lat co n tain ed

an area th at w as m ark ed as a “f u tu re p ark .” T h e p lain tif

f s p u rch ased o n e o f th e su b d iv id ed lo ts. Wh en th e d ev elo p er m o v ed to d ev elo p th e p ro p erty m ark ed as a f u tu re p ark in to m o re resid en ces, p u rch asers o f certain su b d iv id ed p ro pe r t y s ue d t o e njoi n t

he de fe ndan t-d ev elo p er f ro m d ev elo p in g th e area in to an y th in g b u t a p ark

. Id

. at 5 3 7

. T h e d isp o sitiv e q u estio n in th e

T he tr ia l cou rt
, in it s fi ndi ngs of fa ct and con cl u s i o n s o f l a w , made an exp re ss fi ndi ng tha t the 2

wet la nd s ewage di spo sal syste m was not a c onvent ion al syste m bas ed on the te st imony

of T DEC Dir ect or D o t s o n

. Mr

. Dots on te st if ie d tha t a wet la nd syste m is an exp er imenta l syste m and doe s not qua li fy as a

con venti ona l system. Noth ing in the re cor d prepo nde ra te s ag ai nst th is fi ndi ng, nor do the Mor rows app ear to ta ke is su e w i t h t he tr ia l cou rt ’s con cl usi on. I nde ed, T enn ess ee Com pil ed Rule s and Regulat ion s 1200

- 01- 06- .16 def

ine s an exp er imenta l sewa ge syste m as one “i n li eu of tho se pro vided her ei n,” suc h as the

con venti ona l syste m s def ine d by T enn ess ee Com pil ed Rule s and Regulat ion s 1200

- 01- 06- .02 (“ “Con venti ona l Subs urf ace Sewage Dis pos al System” m ean s a dis pos al syste m th at pr e- tr eat s s ewage by

use of a s ept ic ta nk and a ppl ie s e ff lue nt to the soi l a s de scr ibe d i n Rul e 12 00- 01- 06- .07.” ).

-11-case w as w h eth er th e n o te o n th e p lat, m ark in g th e area as a “f u tu re p ark ,” w as su f

f icien t to
create a restrictio n o n th e u se o f th e p ro p erty f o r an y th in g o th er th an a p ark

. T h e C o u rt o f
A p p eals co n clu d ed th at th e n o te o n th e reco rd ed p lat, d esig n atin g th e area as a f u tu re p ark

,
w as su f f icien t to create a restrictiv e co v en an t p rev en tin g th e area at issu e f ro m b ein g d ev elo p ed in to an y

th in g o th er th an a p ark

. Id

. at 5 3 8

– 3 9

. In S

tra cen er , th e r e s t r i c t i v e

co v en an t at issu e d id n o t co n tain a n eg ativ e lim itatio n (e.g ., th is p ro p erty m ay n o t b e u sed f o r resid en tial p u rp o ses), b u t rath er co n tain ed a n a f f i r ma tiv e restrictio n o n th e u se o f th e
p ro p erty b y ex p ressly n am in g th e f u tu re u se (i.e., a f

u tu re p ark )

. I

d

. T h u s , th e C o u rt o f
A p p eals co n clu d ed th at an ex p ress d esig n atio n as to w h at u se t h e p r o p e r ty m ay b e p u t created a restrictio n o n th e lan d ag ain st an y u se th at w as in co n sisten t w ith th at restrictio n

. Id

. S im ilarly

, in th is case, th e B ern iers arg u e th at th e P lat N o t e a p p r o v i n g L o t # 2 f o r a

co n v en tio n al su b su rf

ace sew ag e sy stem is a restrictiv e co v en an t, w h ich p rev en ts th e M o rro w s f

ro m in stallin g an y sew ag e sy stem th at d o es n o t m eet th at req u irem en t, i.e. a n o n

co n v en tio n al sy stem

.

In co n trast, th e M o rro w s co n ten d th at th e trial co u rt in terp reted N o te 1 5 o n th e F in al
S u b d iv isio n P lat “to o n arro w ly ” in co n clu d in g th at it req u ire d t h e u se o f a “co n v en tio n al

su b su rf ace sew ag e sy stem ,” to th e ex clu sio n o f all o th er ty p es o f sy stem s. T h e M o rro w s
arg u e th at b ecau se th e co n stru ctio n o f th e w etlan d sy stem is co n sisten t w ith th e p u rp o se o f th e easem en t, to allo w th e M o rro w s to b u ild a h o m e o n L o t # 2 w ith an ad eq u ate, stat e

ap p ro v ed sew ag e sy stem
, th e trial co u rt erred in en j o in in g th e M o rro w s f

ro m d o in g so

. T h e M o rro w s rely o n tw o T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt cases to su p p o r t t h eir co n ten tio n th at
p rev en tin g th eir in stallatio n o f th e w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem is to u n reaso n ab ly

ex p an d

, b y im

p licati o n , t h e r estrictiv e co v en an ts co n tain ed o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat.
F irst, in T u rn ley v. G

a rfin k el

, 3 6 2 S .W.2 d 9 2 1 (T en n

. 1 9 6 2 ), th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt h eld th at an ex p ress restrictio n th at “[ n ] o t m o re th an o n e d w ellin g b e b u ilt o n an y lo t” d id

n o t o p erate to b ar a p ro p erty o w n er f ro m re-s u b d i v id in g h is o w n lo t in to tw o , th ereb y allo w in g tw o h o m es to b e b u ilt o n th e o rig in al lo t. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt ex p lain ed :

S in ce th e co v en an ts i n t h is case co n tain n o ex p ress restrictio n ag ain st a resu b d iv isio n o f an y o f th e lo ts, th ey can n o t b e ex ten d e d b y im

p licatio n to p rev en t co m p lain an ts'

re-su b d iv isio n o f th eir lo t. N o r can su ch restrictio n b e im p lied f ro m th e co n v ey an ce o f th es e lo ts w ith ref eren ce to th is

reco rd ed p lat sh o w in g th e d im en sio n s o f th e lo ts. Wh ile w e h av e n o d ecisio n u p o n th is p articu lar p o in t, w e th in k i t is g en erally w ell settled o n p rin cip le an d au th o rity

,
w h ich w e d eem so u n d an d are co n t e n t to f o llo w , th at su ch a

co n v ey an ce o f th e lo ts b y ref eren ce to a reco rd ed p lat raises n o i mp l ied co v en an t th at th e lo ts sh all rem ain as sh o w n o n t h e

-12-m ap , o r th at th ey m ay n o t later b e su b d iv id ed

.

Id

. at 9 2 3

. In a m o re recen t case, W illia m s v. F

o x , 2 1 9 S

. W.3 d 3 1 9 (T en n

. 2 0 0 7 ), th e T en n essee S u p rem e C o u rt lik ew ise h eld th at a co v en an t restrictin g th e co n s t ru ctio n o r in stallatio n o f “m o b ile h o m es” o r “trailers” o n th e p ro p erty co u ld n o t b e ex ten d ed b y im p licatio n to restrict th e co n stru ctio n o r in stalla tio n o f “m o d u lar h o m es.” T h e C o u rt

reaso n ed th at th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e co v en an t d id n o t ex p ressly restrict th e in stallatio n o f

m o d u lar h o m es, an d th at m o d u lar h o m es w ere d ef in ed b y statu te an d case law as sep arate f ro m m o b ile h o m es o r trailers. Id

. at 3 2 6

. T h ese cases, h o w ev er, are in ap p o site to th e caseat-b ar. In b o th T

u rn ley an d W

illia m s , o n e p ro p erty o w n er arg u ed th at th e ex p ress co v en an ts
at issu e in th e case sh o u ld b e ex ten d ed b y im p licatio n to p ro h ib it actio n s, i.e. re-su b d iv id in g th e p ro p erty o r in stallin g a m o d u lar h o m e, t h a t w a s n o t ex p ressly p ro h ib ited b y th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e co v en an ts. In th is case, h o w ev er, th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e co v en an ts at issu e

ex p ressly states th at th e h o m e to b e c o n stru cted o n L o t # 2 is to u tilize a “co n v en tio n al”

su b su rf ace sew ag e sy stem

. A s p rev io u sly d iscu ssed

, th e C o u rt can n o t co n stru e a restrictiv e

co v en an t “to d ef

eat th e p lain an d o b v i o u s p u rp o ses o f a restrictio n .” 2 0 A m

. Ju r. 2 d
C o v en an ts, E tc. § 1 7 0

. In stead

, w h ere “th e m ean i n g o f t h e l a n g u ag e o f th e [ co v en an t] is

p l a i n ” t h e r e s trictio n n eed n o t b e co n stru ed ag ain st th e g ran to r an d m ay b e en f o rced as

w ritten

. Id

. H ere, th e restrictiv e co v en a n t s co n tain ed o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat “p lain [ ly ] an d o b v io u s[ ly ] ” state th at th e h o me o n L o t # 2 is ap p ro v ed f o r a co n v en tio n al

su b su rf ace sew ag e sy stem

. B ecau se ref eren ce to a co n v en tio n al sy stem is clearly co n tain ed in th e P lat N o tes, th is C o u rt is n o t re q u i r ed to ex ten d th e co v en an t at issu e b y im p licatio n
to co m e to th e co n clu sio n th at th e P lat N o tes co n tem p late th e u se o f a co n v en tio n al sy stem f o r th e b en ef

it o f th e h o m e o n L o t # 2

.

In stead

, w e ag ree w ith th e r e a s o n i n g in S tra cen er th at a restrictio n th at ex p ressly d esig n ates w h at m ay b e p laced o n th e p ro p erty o p erates as a b ar to an y n o n -co n f o rm in g u ses

o f th e p ro p erty

. S

ee S tra cen er , 7 3 7 S .W.2 d at 5 3 8

– 3 9

. T h e p lan lan g u ag e o f th e restrictiv e

co v en an ts co n tain ed o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P la t c l e arly states th at th e M o rro w s are
ap p ro v ed to in stall a “co n v en tio n al” sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem f o r th e b en ef

it o f th e h o m e o n L o t# 2

. F o llo w in g th e reaso n in g o f S tra cen er , th e ex p ress d esig n atio n th at th e h o m e o n L o t # 2 h av e a “co n v en tio n al” sy stem is a b ar to th e in stallatio n o f an y n o n -co n v en tio n al sy stem
, i.e. an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sy stem

. In ad d itio n , th is restrictio n ap p lies eq u ally to a sy stem b u ilt o n L o t # 2 o r to o n e b u ilt o n th e easem en t o n L o t # 3 b ecau se th e p lain lan g u ag e states th at th e h o m e o n L o t # 2 is ap p ro v ed f o r th e co n v en tio n al sy stem
, rath er th an lim itin g su ch restrictio n to o n e lo t o r th e o th er. It is u n d isp u ted th at an y sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem in stalled b y th e M o rro w s, w h eth er o n L o t # 2 o r o n th e easem en t o n L o t # 3

, w o u ld b e f o r th e u se an d b en ef it o f th e h o m e o n L o t # 2

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e restrictiv e co v en an ts lim itin g th e h o m e o n L o t # 2 to th e u se o f a co n v en tio n al sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem ap p ly w ith eq u al f o rce reg ard less

o f w h eth er th e M o rro w s ch o o se to in stall th e sy stem o n L o t # 2 o r o n th e easem en t o n L o t

-13-# 3

.

T h e M o rro w s n ex t arg u e th at, ev en if th e restrictiv e co v en an ts at i s s u e r eq u ire th e

in stallatio n o f a co n v en tio n al sy stem
, th e co u rt sh o u ld allo w th e in stal l a t i o n o f th e

ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem b ecau se th is sy stem is co n sisten t w ith th e
p u rp o se o f t h e c o n tract b etw een th e M o rro w s an d th e B ern iers— to allo w th e M o rro w s to b u ild a h o m e o n L o t # 2 w ith an ad eq u ate, state-ap p ro v ed sew ag e sy stem

— an d

, th eref

o re, is n o t a n o n -co n f

o rm in g u se o f th e p ro p erty

. T o su p p o rt th is arg u m en t, th e M o rro w s cite th e

r e c e nt c ase o f R o

g ers v. R o a ch

, N o

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 0 7 9 4 -C O A -R 3 -C V

, 2012 W L 2337616 ( Te nn. C t. A p p

. Ju n e 1 9

, 2 0 1 2 ). R o g ers in v o lv ed th e ex te n t o f an eg ress/in g ress easem en t. T h e
p arties d i d n o t d isp u te th at th e p lain tif f h eld an im

p lied easem en t to cro ss th e d ef en d an t’s

p ro p erty o n th e b asis o f n ecessity an d p rio r u se. T h e d isp u te co n cern ed t h e w i d t h o f th e

easem en t an d w h eth er th e o w n er o f th e serv ien t estate w as p erm itted to p lace a f en ce clo se
to th e easem en t, w h ich d ecreased th e u seab le area o f th e easem en t. T h e trial co u rt d ism issed th e p lain tif

f ’s in terf eren ce claim . T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals, h o w ev er, rev ersed an d rem an d ed f o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s, co n c l udin g th at th e p lain tif f h ad p resen ted ev id en ce estab lish in g th e
p rim a fa cie elem en ts o f h er in terf eren ce claim

. In an o th er case, R eg en v. E a st F o rm F a rm s L P

, N o

. M 2 0 0 8 -0 1 4 1 4 -C O A -R 3 -C V

, 2 0 0 9 WL (T en n

. C t. A p p

. N o v

. 4

, 2 0 0 9 ), th is C o u rt h eld th at an in crease in traff ic o n an easem en t w as n o t u n reaso n ab le b ecau se th e easem en t

c o n t a i n e d n o restrictio n s reg ard in g th e n u m b er o r ty p e o f v eh icles th at co u ld u se th e

easem en t, o r an y o th er restrictio n s f ro m w h ich th e C o u rt co u ld co n clu d e th at th e in creased traf f ic w o u ld create an u n reaso n ab le in crease in b u rd en o n th e serv ien t estate. T h e cases cited b y th e M o rro w s are in ap p o site to th e case-at-b ar, h o w ev er, b ecau se th ey co n cern o n ly th e u n reaso n ab le u se o f an easem en t as in f erred f ro m th e circu m stan ces o f th e case. In th is

case, th e B ern iers d o n o t arg u e th at th e u se o f th e p ro p ert y a t i s s u e f o r a w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

is an u n reaso n ab le b u rd en , b u t th at th e ex p ress lan g u ag e o f th e restrictiv e

co v en an ts p rev en ts su ch a u se. A cco rd in g ly

, th e reaso n ab len ess o r u n reaso n ab len ess o f th e

u se o f th e p r o p e r t y is n o t at issu e. T h e q u estio n in th is case sim p ly co n cern s th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat. R eg ard less o f w h eth er an y restrictio n is reaso n ab le

o r u n reaso n ab le, th is C o u rt sim p ly can n o t rew rite th e p arties’ co n tract. “O u r co u rts w ill n o t

rew rite co n tracts j u st b ecau se th ey are ill ad v ised o r th e p arties m iscalcu lated f u tu re ev en ts.”
W ilso n v. S co tt
, 6 7 2 S .W.2 d 7 8 2 (T en n

. C t. A p p

. 1 9 8 4 ). In stead

, w e m u st en f o rce th e

co n tract, o r in th is case, th e restrictiv e co v en an t, as w ritten

. S ee P la n ters G in C

o
. v. F ed

. C o m p ress & W

a reh o u se C

o
. , 7 8 S .W.3 d 8 8 5

, 8 8 9

– 9 0 (T en n

. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e r e s t r i c tiv e

co v en an ts co n tain ed o n th e F in al S u b d iv isio n P lat ex p ressly req u ire th at th e sew ag e d isp o sal

sy stem u sed b y th e h o m e o n L o t # 2 b e “co n v en tio n al.” A s p rev io u s l y d iscu ssed

, it is

u n d isp u ted th at th e ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem so u g h t b y th e M o rro w s is “ex p erim en tal,” rath er th an “co n v en tio n al.” A cco rd in g ly

, reg ard less o f w h eth er t h e u se

o f th e lan d f

o r a w etlan d sy stem is reaso n ab le, it is p ro h ib ited b y th e p lain lan g u ag e o f

th e
p arties’ co n tract, as ev id en ced b y th e P lat N o tes. T h eref o re, th e j u d g m en t o f th e trial co u rt

-14-en

j o in in g th e M o rro w s f

ro m in stallin g o r co n s tru ctin g an ex p erim en tal w etlan d sew ag e d isp o sal sy stem

o n eith er L o t # 2 o r th e easem en t o n L o t # 3 is af f irm ed

.

F i n ally

, w e co n sid er th e B ern iers’ arg u m en t th at th ey sh o u ld b e aw ard e d t h e i r
atto rn ey s f

ees o n ap p eal p u rsu a n t to T en n essee C o d e A n n o tated S ectio n 2 7 -1 -1 2 2

, w h ich

p ro v id es:

Wh en it ap p ears to an y rev iew in g co u rt th at th e ap p eal f ro m an y

co u rt o f reco rd w as f

riv o lo u s o r tak en so lely f

o r d elay

, th e co u rt

m ay , eith er u p o n m o tio n o f a p arty o r o f its o w n m o tio n , aw ard j u st d am ag es ag ain st th e ap p ellan t, w h ich m ay in clu d e b u t n eed

n o t b e lim ited to
, co sts, in terest o n th e j u d g m en t, an d ex p en ses in cu rred b y

th e ap p ellee as a resu lt o f th e ap p eal.

“ I m p o s i n g a p e n a l t y f

o r a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l i s a r e m e d y w h i c h i s t o b e u s e d o n l y i n o b v i o u s

c a s e s o f f

r i v o l i t y a n d s h o u l d n o t b e a s s e r t e d l i g h t l y o r g r a n t e d u n l e s s c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e ,

w h i c h i s r a r e

. ” H e n d e r s o n v
. S A I A , I n c
. , 3 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 2 8

, 3 4 2 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 0 )

. A l t h o u g h w e h a v e n o t d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e u s i n t h e M o r r o w ’ s f a v o r , w e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h i s

a p p e a l i s f

r i v o l o u s o r t a k e n s o l e l y f o r d e l a y

. W e , t h e r e f

o r e , d e c l i n e t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s
t o t h e B e r n i e r s

.

V

. C o n c l u s i o n

T h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e S u m n e r C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a n d t h i s c a u s e i s

r e m a n d e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a l l f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s a s m a y b e n e c e s s a r y a n d a r e c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

. T h e c o s t s o f t h i s a p p e a l a r e t a x e d t o A p p e l l a n t s R o b e r t M o r r o w a n d J a m i e M o r r o w , a n d t h e i r s u r e t y

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D

, J U D G E

-15-