1 Ten n. R. Ct. App . 10 states:
Th is Co urt, with the c onc urren ce of a ll judge s partic ipating in the cas e, may affirm, rev erse o r mo dify the act ions of t

he t ria l cou rt by memorandu m opini on when a for mal opi nion woul d h ave no preceden tial

value. When a case is decided by memo randum opinion it shallbe design ate d “MEMORANDU M OPIN IO N,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason i n any un relat ed case. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs O ctober 30, 2002 TRUST EES OF THE LAK EWOOD P

ARK TR USTEES HIP v. RAMSEY A. JOHNSON, SR. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 30,733 John Wiley Rollins, Judge

No. M2002-00244-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 7, 2003

The trusteesof a res identia l/re creational development sued the owner of a numbe r of lots in the development

for failure to pay

assessments for several y ears. The owner appeals arg uing there was in sufficientpro of he received the notices for the y ears in question. We affirm the trial court’s judgmen t in favor of the tru stees. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed and Remanded P AT RICIA J. C OTT RELL , J., deliver ed the opinion of the

court, in which Ben H. Cantrell, P. J., M.S., and W IL LI AM C. K OCH , J R ., J., joined. Joseph E. Ford, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ramsey A. Johnson, Sr. Mark A. Nobles, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellee, Trustee s of the L akewood Park Trusteeship. MEMORAN DUM OP

INION 1 Ramsey Johnson, Sr. owns a number of lots located in Lakew ood Park, a residential and recreationaldevelopment in Coffee Cou nty , Tennessee. Under the gover ning document of the developm ent, the Intr

astate E xemption Stat

ement, the Truste es are a

uthorized to make ass essments on the lots and parce

ls of land in La kewood Pa

rk. Acc ording t

o that docume nt, the Trustees are2 The trial court declined to aw ard attorney’s fees. -2- allowedto make an assessment of $60.00 per lot per y ear for the purpose of carr ying out the general duties and powers of the Trustees, and may make special assessments of up to $25.00 per lot per year. Mr. Johnson did not pay the assessments on his lots for a number of years, a nd the Trustees brought suit in General Ses sions Court for “fa ilure to pay Park asse ssments and failure to pay Road assessme nts, plus inter

est on ea ch, pursu ant to cov enants found in Trust Deed Book 305, Page 895.” The General Sessions Court entered judgment for the T rustees in the amoun

t of $1,530 .12 plus co sts. Mr. Johnson app ealed to

the Circuit Court, where the matter was tried de novo by the court sitting without a jury. The trial cour t entered a final order finding tha t Mr. Johnson owed the Trustees $2,150.96. 2 Mr. Johnson appeals. The record herein consists of the Technical Record, two exhibits introduced at trial, and a Statement of t he Evide nce approved by the trial court which attache s a copy

of the I ntrastat e Exemption

Statemen t. The St ateme nt of t he Evi dence i nclud es the follo wing: Article II I(2) of the same doc

ument [the Intrastate Exemption Statement] indicates as follows: a

ll assess me nts, either general or special, made by the Trustees f

or the purpose herein above enum erated, shall be made in the manner and subject to the foll owing p rocedur

e, to wit: A . “Notice

of all ass essments may

be give n by mail addressed to a last known or usual post office addressof the hol der of legal title or lotpurchas er and de

posited in the Unite d States Ma

il, post age pre-p aid or may be givenby posting

a brief notice of the assessment upon the lot itself. Service in either of the above methods shall be sufficient.” Ms. June Walker, one of the five Trustees of Lakewood Park, testified on beha lf of L ake wood Park in both the General Sessions Court of Coffee County , Tennessee, and at the Circu

it Court lev el. Ms. Walk er explain

ed how the individ

ual prope rty owner’s ass essme nts are calculated and testified as to how notices are given. Alth ough Lakewood Park has the option of posting not ices on the prope

rty , Ms. Walker testified that Lakewood Park’smethod of giving notice is through the United States Pos tal Service . Ms. Walke r testified that L akewood Park send s notices to every pr operty owner

for whom an address is known. Ms. Walker further testified that Mr. Ramsey Johnson’s address was known to the Trustees and that notices were sent twice a y

ear, ev ery ye ar, to Mr . Johnso n’s last known address. She further t estified that these

notices w ere not r

eturned to La kewood Pa

rk. Alth ough Ms

. Walker could not t

estify that she p ersonally ma

ile d Mr. Johnson ’s notice , she did testify th at she participated in the mailing process and that it was customary for Lakewood Park to mail notices to eac h and every

property owne

r.-3-

Fi na ll y, Ms. Walker

testifie d that the

most recent notice was sent to Mr. Johnson at the same address as the prior no tices, bu t this notice was sent c ertifie d mail. Ms. Walker testified that the certified mail was accepted. In addition to Ms. Walker’s testimony at the trial in Circuit C ourt, Tru stee J. R. Campbell also testi fied on be

half of L akewood Park. Mr. Campbell s tated tha t it was Lakewood

Park’s custom to send noticesto each p roperty owner, t o the last a

ddress that such property owner had given L akewood Park. He was unable to swear tha t he persona lly d eposited

Mr. Johnson’ s notice in the Unite d States Ma

il; but he di d testify that it was the policy of L

akewood Park to mail notices to all property owners for whom an address was known and that the Park had an addr ess for Mr. Johnson. Therefore, he would have rec eived notice. In Cir cuit Court, Scarlett Johnson (wife of defendant Ramsey Johnson) testified on Mr. Johnson’s behalf. Ms. Johnson admitted rece iving not ices between 1992 and 1995, but claims she did not receive notice from 1996 onward. On appeal, Mr. Johnson asserts that the testimony of the trustees regarding their pra ctice for mailing notices was insufficient to raise the presumption that the mail was received. Therefore, he argue s, there was no proof he received the notices and the Trustees ar e not entitled to judgment for the fees. Th

e Truste es asser

t they proved th at the not

ices wer e mailed in complia

nce with the governing document and that proof is suffic ient to support the judgment. We agree with the

Trustees. The evidence does not preponderate a gainst a finding that the Trustees complied with the requirements of the Intra state Exemption Statement. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Consequently, we affirm the judgment

of the tri al court . Costs of th is appea l are taxe d to the appellant, Ramsey A . Johnson.

___________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTREL L, JUDGE