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 o
2

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 th at 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 th e 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 re version 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 fra ud. 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 the 
2

The indexing of the judgment should show Camelot as grantor and

Mr. Mitchell as grantee.

3

record d e novo and applying the prepo nderance of evidence

standar d, we fin d that the evidenc e prepo nderate s against M r .

Mitch ell's conten tions relativ e to prom ises ma de by M r. Valetta

relative to th e water taps and , conseq uently, th e Trial C ourt

acted pr operly in dismissin g his com plaint.

Our d isposition of issue o ne rend ers issue tw o 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 a greed that in the ev ent C ame lot "ab ando ned o r did

not nee d the pro perty" th e title to the p roperty w ould rev ert to

Mr. Mitchell. It is cl ear that t his was a conditi on of the

transfe r and a right to whic h M r. Mitc hell w as 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 Co unty 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.