1 At the time the quit claim d eed was executed M r. Mitchell owned

1/6 inte rest in the propert y and E dward Watso n the oth er 5/6. T he quit c laim deed M r. Mitch ell signed was als o signed by Mr . Watso n, who is not a p arty to this suit a nd, app arently, d oes not contest t he valid ity of the quit claim deed tra nsferring his intere st. 

# FILED June 2, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXV ILLE

RAYMON D MITCHELL ) HAWKINS C OUNTY ) 03A01-9709-CH-00394 Plaintiff/C ounter- ) Defendant/Appellant ) ) ) v . ) HON. THOMAS R. FRIERS ON, ) CHANCELLOR ) CAMELOT UTILITY DIS TRICT ) FOR HAWKINS COUN

TY, TENNESSEE )

) Defen dant/C ounter- ) Plaintiff/Appellee ) AFFIRMED AND REM ANDED

C. CHRI STOPHER RAI NES, J R., OF MT. CARMEL FOR AP PELLANT JAMES O. PHILLIPS, III, OF ROGERSVILLE FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

God dard, P.J.

Plaintif f Raymond Mitchell sues Def endant Camelot Utility Distri ct of Hawkins County, Tennessee. He alleges that Camelot, in acquiring a qu it claim deed 1 from hi m convey ing t w o2

tracts of land, one that contains an artesian well and the o ther equipment in connect ion with dist ribution of water to the adjac ent are a. He conte nds th

at as a c onsid eration for the

quit claim d eed, Joh

n Valetta , Presiden t of Cam elot, repres ented to him that Cam

elot wo uld prov ide wa ter taps for two of h is lots free of charge and, upon acq uisition of an alternate water
sou rce , wou ld r e-c onve y th e qui tcl aime d lo ts t o hi m .

The Trial Court f ound adversely t o Mr. Mitchell and he appeals, raising the following th ree issues:

1 . Did the Chan cery Court err in requiring the Plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing eviden c e that John Valetta, chief officer of Defendant, ma de a prom ise to prov ide wa ter taps an d a wa ter line to Plaintif f in the f uture as an induc ement or considerat ion for the e xecution of hi s deed? 2 . Assuming Issue No. 1 is resolved i n the affirmati ve, does fai lure of the promised consider ation amount to fraud so as t o require re cision of t he deed? 3 . Must the deed from Plaintiff to Defendant be reform ed to pro

vide for reversion o f the land to Plain tiff at an

y poin t of tim e in the future , and, if so, upon what conditions would the reversion take place?

As to the first i ssue, the Trial Court did make reference in his memorandum opinion to cl ear and convinci n g evidence when addressing the question of whether Camelot was guilty of fraud. Ho wever , it is clear to u s that the s tandard that he appli ed was a preponderance of the evidence as to the question of failure of consideration. Moreove r, in reviewing the2 The indexing of the judgment should show Camelot as grantor and

Mr. Mitchell as grantee. 3 record d e novo and applying the preponderance of evidence standar

d, we fin

d that the

evidenc e prepo nderate s against M r . Mitch ell's conten tions relative to prom ises made by Mr. Valetta relative to th

e water

taps and , conseq uently, the Trial C ourt acted pr operly in dismissin

g his com

plaint.

Our d isposition

of issue o ne rend ers issue two mo ot.

Apro pos o f issue th

ree, the

Trial C ourt fo und, a nd his finding is supported by the minutes of t he board of Camelot, that its Pres ident agreed that in

the event C ame lot "ab andoned o r did not nee d the pro

perty" th e title to the p roperty w ould revert to Mr. Mitchell. It is cl ear that t his was a conditi on of the transfe r and a

right to

which M r. Mitchell was enti tled. Accordingly, Mr. Mitchell may recor d the Trial J udge's judgment which incorporat ed his memorandum opinion in the Regi ster of Deeds Office 2 as a muniment of his int erest and as not ice of third partie s of his righ ts. In light o f this, it is unn ecessary that the deed be reformed to accompli sh this end.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is aff irmed and the cause r emanded to the Chancery Court of Haw kins County for

such fu rther pro ceeding s as ma y be nec essary and collection of costs below. Costs of app eal are adjudged against Mr. Mitchell and his surety.4 _______________________________ Hou ston M . God

dard, P.J.
CONCUR:

________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________ William H. Inm

an, Sr.J.