### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Fe br ua ry 2, 200 4 S es sio n JANI CE FORSYTH , ET AL 

### . v. MA RYN. CR OSS Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Mor gan Coun ty No. 02-29 F rank Will iam s III, Chan cellor
F ILED FEBRUARY25, 2004
No. E2003-01338-COA- R3-CV
This is a boundary -line ca se. The D efe ndant’s surve y evi dence was e x cluded, a nd reputation e vid e nc e of

fe re d b y the Pla int if

f a s to the c omm on

bo un da ry lin e wa s a dmi tte d. De fe nd ant a pp e a ls. We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed
W I L L I AM H. I

NMAN , S R
. J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J J ., joined.
Jame s F ra

nk Wils on , Wart

burg , T e nn e sse e , A tto rn e y fo r A pp e lla nt, Ma ry N. Cr os s. J oe R. J udkins, W artburg , Tenne ssee, Attorne y for Appe llees, Janice For sy th and Paul For sy

th.
OP IN ION
I.
The De fenda

nt and her dece ased husba

nd acquir ed a f

arm in 1972, adjoining the land of the Plaintiffs. L itigation later arose betwee n the par

ties conce rning the location of the boundary betwee n the re spective tra cts . Numerous witnesse s testified, including survey or L acke y who surveyed the aff ecte d proper

ties and desc ribed the loc ation of the disputed line. He conducte d an extensive sear ch of re cords a

nd made a

n exha u s t i v e i nvestig ation of the a ffe cted lands a nd the re putation in the c omm un ity of the pr e c ise loc a tio n o f t

he dis pu te d b ou nd ary . Fr om h is r e c or ds se arc h, his fi e ld examination, and his investigation of the r eputational location of the boundary , he wa s able to surve y the b o u n d ar y
. Kevin Walls, the Plainti ffs Janice F orsy th and Paul For sy

th, and an a djoining landowner

Thomas Kring , all testified, without objection, that the re putation of the boundary was c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e s u r

v e y b y M r
. L a c k e y. Duringthe pe n d ency

of this action, the De fenda nt employ ed Noe l Peterson as a surveyor. He did not immediately survey the prope rty

beca use the De fenda

nt appar ently

intended to re ly

on-2-

the equitable de fense of adve rse possession. This r eliance fell throug h, and Mr. Peterson surve y ed the Def endant’ s land in January 2003, completing it on Fe bruar y 3, 2003, the day

befor e trial of the c a se . H e wa s th e pr inc ipa l w itn e ss f or the De fe nd ant; we are f

ra nk to s tate that hi s te sti mony is convoluted to an unusua l ext ent, r e q u irin g 1 3 0 p a g es of tra

nscript and f

reque ntly involving re sponses sever al pag es in leng th. The thrust of Mr. Peter son’s testimony is that th e l an d o n wh ich the boundary is located is owned by

the Def endant.
II.
The Chanc ellor found f

rom a preponder ance of t he proof that the disputed boundary is the line descr ibed in the survey of Mr. L acke y , and rendere d judgme nt for the Plaintiffs. The D efe ndant ap p ea l s , an d p rese nts for re view the issues of whether the Chance llor err ed in (1) e x cluding the Def endant’ s survey ; (2) the a dmission of reputation al evidenc e of the common boundary line; (3) in a dmi tti ngstate me nts in a nc ie nt d oc ume nts . O ur

re vie w i s de novo o n t h e re cord with a pr e su mpt ion

of the c or re c tne ss of the jud g me nt a s to fa c tua l matte rs un le ss t he e vid e nc e oth e rw ise pr e po nd e rate s, Rul e 13 (d ) T e nn . R. Ap p. P.
III . The Def endant’ s surveyor, Mr. Peterson, prese nted a survey on the day of trial. P l aintiffs ob je c te d to thi s su

rv e y be c a us e of its late ne ss. Th e De fe nd a nt r e sp on de d th a t th e re me dy a va ila ble to t he Pla int if

fs wa s to se e k a con tin

ua nc e
. Th e Cha

nc e llo r de c lin e d to or de r a c on tin ua nc e be c a us e the ca se had be en prev i o u s l y co n t inued, but rese rved a ruling on the motion to ex clude the Def endant’ s survey
. The surve y or, Mr. Peter son, testified, as we have show n, but his actual surve y was e x cluded f

or the re asons that the De fenda nt had one y ear within which to ar rang e a sur

vey and the un fa ir ne ss of a llo wi ng the int

ro du c tio n o f a

surv e y c omp le te d o n th e da

y of tr ia l w a s ma

nif e st. I n any event, the Cha

ncellor c ommented that he ha d considere d the t estimony and conte ntions of Mr. Peterson, all of which he rejecte d. The trial judge has the pre rog ative of a cce pting the te stimony of one expert as contra sted to another. See, Rob e rts v . Ro be rts , 827 S.W .2d 788 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Sc t- O- La ne Ga s Se rv ic e v

. Ha ll , 248 S.W. 2d

39 8 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 1 95 1) ; Gibson v. Ferguson , 562 S.W .2d 188 (Tenn. 1976)

. IV.
The De fenda

nt-Appellant c omplains of the admission of reputational evidence conce rning the disputed boundary . A number of witnesses testified that the bou n d ary as found by

surveyor L acke y had a long -standing reputation as such. This testimony was not o b

j ec t ed t o and the issue c ann ot b e c on sid e re d o n app eal

. I n a ny e ve nt, Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f E vid e nc e 80 3( 20 ) d e sc ri be s a he ars ay e xce pti on : “ Re pu tatio n in a c omm un ity , ari sin g be fo re the c on tr ov e rs y and e xistin g thi rt

y y ear s, as to the boundar ies of or c ustoms affec ting lands in the communi ty .” This Rule of Evidence c le arl y pe rm itt e d th e te sti mon

y qu e sti on e d o n a

pp e a l.-3- V.
Ce rt a in a ncien t do c ume nts we re c on sid e re d b y the Pla int if

fs ’ s ur ve y or duri nghis inv e sti g a tio n o f t

he loc a tio n o f t

he dis pu te d b ound ary . I t is a pp are nt tha

t the us e and uti lity of

the se document s we re of minimal value in the ca se, but the De fenda nt made no objec tions to t he introduction of these docu m en ts and ca nnot now be hea

rd to complain. In any

event, Te nnessee Rules of Evidence 803(16) pe rmits the consideration, as an exception to t h e h ea rs ay rule, of state me nts in a

do c ume nt i n e xiste nc e thi rt y y e a rs or mor e purp or

tin gto e sta

bli shor e ff e c t an in te re st in property , the authenticity of which is esta

blished.
Th e jud g me nt i s a ff

ir me d at th e c os ts o f t

he Ap pe lla

nt, Ma ry N. Cr os s.

___________________________________ WI L L I AM H. I

NMAN, SENI OR J UDGE