Li nd a Jane B roo m ’s rel at i o n t o Jo e and A l vana B roo m i s no t s p eci f i ed i n t he reco rd; ho wever, t here i s no 1 di s pu t e t h at s h e h ad pr oper a u t h or i t y t o t r an s fer t h e per t i n en t t r ac t s of l an d. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON A pr il 20, 200 4 S es sio n
DAVID HODG E, ET AL 

### . v. SH ELL Y RENAE CORNELI SON, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Madison Coun ty No. 59080 The Honorabl e Joe C . Morr is, Chan cellor

No. W2003-00962-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Augu st 12, 2004

I n boundary

line dispute, owner of southern tra ct of re al prope rty (appe llee) br oug ht action ag ainst adjac ent land owne r to the north (a ppellant) to quiet title and restra in a ppellant from a lleg ed offe nding use of disputed pi ec e of pr operty . Appellant filed c ounter-c laim to quiet tit le and ha ve ap p e l l e e e j e c t e d f r o mp r o p e r t y. T r i a l c o u r td e c r e e d a p p e l l e e l a w f u l o w n e r o f d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y, rely ing upon e vidence of three iron pins refe renc ed in d ee d t o ap pellee a s the proper boundary
mark e rs . 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. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

T. Holland McKinnie of Fr anklin for Appe llants, ShellyRenae Cornelis o n an d Christopher Cornelison

J o h n S

. L i t t l e o f J ac k s o n fo r A p p el l ee s , Da v i d Ho d ge a n d C i n d y Ho d ge
OP IN ION

T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a

b o u n d ar y l i n e d i s p u t e b e t w e e n r e a l p r o p e r t y o w n e r s i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y, Te nn e sse e . I n 1 97 2, Joe a ndAl va na B ro om w e re the ow ne rs of a 25 2 a c re tr a c t of

re a l pr op e rt y located on L

i b er t y C l aybrook Road in Madison County . By deed dated May

8, 1972, L inda J ane Br oom convey ed to J ohn Washburn, and his wife, Regina Washburn, a parce l of land located in the

1
so uth e rn re g ion of

the B ro om t

ra c t, d e sc ri be d a s f

oll ow s:-2- BEG I NN I N G a t a n ir o n p in in th e w e s te r n ma r g in r ig h t- o f

-wa y Li b e r t y
- C l a y

b r o o k R o a d , s a i d p o i n tb e i n g s o u t h e a s tc o r n e r o f J o e L. Br oom tract; runs thence we s t a distance of 318 fee t to an iron pin; runs thence south with boundary of Ge org e Curtis tract, a

distance of 600 fee t to an iron pin on the western marg in of L iberty -C l ay brook R o ad ; ru n s t h en ce wi t h t h e w es t er n m ar gi n o f sa i d ro ad fo l l o wi n g a curve to the northea st a distance of 780 fee t more or less to the point of be g inn ing , a ndc on ta ini ng tw o ( 2) a c re s mo re or le ss.
Th is p arc e l sh a ll b e he re ina ft e r r e fe rr e d to a s th e so uth e rn tr a c t. On May 13, 1972, L inda J ane B room conve y ed b y deed to Robert Aspell, a par cel of land fr om the B ro om t

ra c t de sc ri be d a s f

oll ow s:
BEG I NNING at a n iron pin in the western m arg in of rig ht-of-w ay of the L iberty

Clay brook Road, said point being the northea st corner of [J ohn E.] W ashburn tra ct; runs thence 318 fee t to an iron pin; runs the nc e no rth a dis ta nc e of 31 0 fe e t to a n ir on pin ; run s th e nc e e a st a distance o f 3 28 fee t to an iron pin; runs thence south following the L iberty Clay brook Road a distanc e of 310 f eet to the point of be g inn ing , s a id t

ra c t c on ta ini ng tw o ( 2) a c re s, mor e or le ss.
Th is p arc e l sh a ll b e he re ina ft e r r e fe rr e d to a s th e no rthe rn tr a c t.
Rob e rt As pe ll d ie d o n Se pte mbe r 2 9, 19 75 , d e vis ing his int e re st i n th e no rthe rn tr a c t by wi ll to Catherine Ka

rp and Ma rg are t Morris. Catherine Kar p and Mar g are t Morris eventually transfe rre d th eirin ter est s i n t hi s p rop ert y by deed to Ro nal d S . Ke ss lerand hi s w if e, S haro n Bry ant Kes sl er. By deed dated Marc h 15, 1977, Sharon Bry ant Kessler transfe rre d her undivided inter est in the northern trac t to Rufert Way ne Rog ers ( “Rufert Roge rs”) and his wife, Linda Rog ers. Thedescription in t he Kessler to Roge rs dee d is identical to that of the B room to Aspell deed.

I n A pr il 199 5, John Was hb ur n tr a ns fe rr e d h is i nte re st i n th e so uth e rn tr a c t to the app e lle e s, Da vida ndCin dy

Ho dg e (“ the Ho dg e ’s ” or “ Ap pe lle e s” ). Th e de e d, date d April 6, 1 99 5, e rr on e ou sly
s t at ed t h at t h e s o u t h er n t ra ct ra n fr o mt h e w es t er n m ar gi n o f L i b er t y C l ayb ro o k

R o ad “f o l l o wi n g a c u r v e t o the no rt he a st a d ist anc e of 88 0 f e e t more or

le ss ....” (e mphasis added) . The pa rties
s t i p u l at ed t h at t h e de ed d es cr i p t i o n s h o u l d re ad “7 8 0 fe et m o re o r l es s
. ” T h e W as h b u rn t o Ho d ge deed de scription of the prope rty is identical to the description li sted in the Br oom to Washburn de ed in a ll o the r r e sp e c ts.

On Se pte mbe r 24 , 20 01 , Ru fe rt a ndL ind a

Rog e rs sig ne d a

de e d c on ve y ing the ir

int e re sts in the n o r th e r n p r o p e r ty

to th e ir d a u g h te r , ap p e ll a n t S h e ll y Re n a e Co r n e li s o n , a n d h e r h u sband,-3-

Christopher Cornelison (“the Cornelison’s” or “ Appellants”) . The description in the dee d from the Rog e rs ’s to the Corne lis on ’s is i de nti c a l to the de sc ri pti on c on ta ined i n the de e d f ro m B ro om t o As pe ll. The prope rties owned by the parties in this m atter a djoin at the northern bou n d ar y of the Ho dg e ’s pr op e rt y a nd the so uth e rn bo un da ry of the Corne lis on ’s tr a c t. T he so le dis pu te inv olv e s a pie-shape d wedg e of pr operty consisting of

approximately

one-third of an acr e of la nd, located at or ne ar the pa

rt ie s’ re sp e c tiv e no rthe rn a ndso uth e rn bo un da ry lin e s. Th e pa

rt ie s sp e c if

ic a lly dis pu te the prope r loca tion or starting point for the northe ast corne r of the Hodg e’s property

. Both pa rties
c l a i mr i g h to f

o w n e r s h i p t o t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y.

On Octobe r 10, 2001, the Hodge’ s filed a complaint ag ainst Rufert and L inda Rog ers to quiet tit le in the dis pu te d tr a c t of la nd , a ndfo r the e

je c tme nt of the Rog e rs fr om the la nd . A pp e lle e s’ complaint pray s, inte r a lia , that the co u rt o rder Rufert a nd L inda Rog ers to re move, at their ow n expense, “a ny

and all fixtures which they have e rec ted or c aused to be ere cted upon the subje ct property in full or partial state of constructio n , ” an d to pay to the Hodg e’s f

ull damag es for

any wa ste , d a ma g e , o r i nju ry

to p ro pe rt y

c a us e d b y

the Rog e rs
. This same day , the Hodge’ s filed a motion for a temporary

restra ining or der a g ainst Rufert
a nd L ind a Rog e rs to e njo in the Rog e rs “ a ndthe ir a g e nts or e mpl oy e e s f

ro m e re c tin g imp ro ve me nts altering the cha

rac ter of [the] land, or the per formanc e of a ny work u p o n a tra ct of land w hich Def endants ar e a tt e mp ti n g to p o s s e s s a n d ap p r o p riate f o r th e ir o w n u s e a n d tr e s p a s s u p o n
. ” The court g ranted the Hodg e’s motion and, by ag ree d order

enter ed Oc tober 29, 2001, the te mporary re str a ini ng or de r w a s e xten de d “ ind e fi nit e ly pe nd ing fu rthe r o rd e rs ” of the tr ia l c ou rt

. On Octobe r 29, 2001, an a g ree d order was enter ed substitut ing Christopher and Shelly

Renae Cornelison as party defe ndants. The pa rties ag ree d that the exist ing te mporary restra ining or der w as bin din g a s to the ne wl y

su bs titute d p art y

de fe nd a nts

. The Corne lison’s filed an ans wer and counte r-c laim on November 5, 2001, seeking dismiss al of the Ho dg e ’s c omp la int

. Ap pe lla nts ’ c ou nte r- c la im to qu ie t tit le to the dis pu te d p ro pe rt y state s in pe rt ine nt p art :
The Counter-Plaintiffs alleg e that any claims which CounterDef endants may

make a s to the above de scribed pr em i s es of the Cou nte r- Pla int if

fs are inv a lid a nd of

no fo rc e a nde ff

e c t a ndthat a ll such cla ims have bee n exti ng uished and ba rre d by deli v er yof the afor ementioned de eds to the Counter-Plaintiffs or in the alternative, b y a c t s o f a c o n t i n u i n g n a t u r e w h i c h h a v e c o n t i n u e d f o r a p e r i o d in
e xce ss o f t

ha t r e qu ir e d b y

statut e for

the ve sti ng of

tit le by a dv e rs e po sse ssi on a n d

th e Cou nte r- Pla int if

fs are se ize d a ndpo sse sse d o f s a id-4- premises fr ee of

, and wholly

discharg ed fr o m , any

and eve ry

such
c la im.

Th e Cou nte r- De fe nd ants ha ve e nc ro a c he d o r o the rw ise trespasse d upon the prope rty of t he C ounter-Plaintiffs, and should be perman en t ly

enjoined fr om such enc roac hment or trespa ss in the future.

A n on -j ury

tr ia l on the Ho dg e ’s c omp la int a ndthe Corne lis on ’s a ns we r andc ou nte r- c la im was he l d o n J anuary

27, 2003. David Ha ll testified as an e x pert witness at the hearing on the Ho dg e ’s be ha lf . H a ll i s a lic ens ed lan d s ur ve y or

wh o w a s r e ta ine d b y

Da vidHo dg e to p e rf

or m a survey of the lot ref

ere nced a s the southern t ra ct

. J ames Akin, a licensed e ng ineer

and surve y or, te sti fi e d a s a n e xpe rt

wi tne ss f or the app e lla nts

. The trial c ourt’s “F indings of F act a nd Conclusions of L aw ” fr o m t h e J an uary 27, 2003 he ari ng we re fi le d o n M arc h 5 , 2 00 3, a ndpr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art a s f oll ow s:
A. F ind ings of

F act
1. T h i s matter involves a pr operty line dispute over the appropriate delineation of the s o uthern bounda ry of the Corne lison property and the northern bounda

ry of the Hodg e property

. The a rea in dispute consists of [ a] “pie” or wedg e shape d are a of la nd.

2. Bo th the Cornelison’s and Hodg e tra cts of land we re div ide d f ro m a sin g le larg e r t

ra c t ow ne d b y

L ind a Jane B ro om. 3. Hodg e’s predec essor in intere st, J ohn and Reg ina Washburn, rec eived their trac t of l and first in time over Corne lison’s pr e de c e sso r i n in te re st. Th e Corne lis on de e d a nda ll d e e ds fo r h is p r e d e c e s s o r

i n i n t e r e s tr e f

e r e n c e t h e W a s h b u r n / H o d g e p r o p e r t y.
4. At the time B room conve y ed to J ohn Washburn, (Hodg e’s prede cessor

in interes t) , iron pins were located in the northeast corner, northwest corner, a nd southern tip of this tract of la nd.

5. Th e ir on pins w e re c a lle d f or in the de e d o f B ro om t o Washburn. The iron pin in the northeast corne r of this property is the
re f e r e n c e o r s ta

r ti n g p o in t f

o r th e d e e d s f

o r b o th tr a c ts o f land. F or the dee d to Cornelison’s first prede cessor in interest, and in ea ch dee d there afte r including Cornelison’s, the dee ds specific ally refer to a n “i ro n p i n ... said point being the northea st corner of J.E. W ashburn trac t.”-5- 6. John Was hb urn a nd his wi fe , Re g ina Was hb urn, he ld t itl e to this property

from May

8, 1972 until April 6, 199 5 wh en they transfe rre d the prope rty

to David Hodg e.
7. Du ring this ti me, J ohn Washburn did not move the iron pins which delineated the boundaries of their pr operty based upon the de e d r e c e ive d f

ro m th e B ro oms
.

******************************************************

9. David Hodg e did not move the iron pins which he notice d
a tt h e t i m e o f

h i s p u r c h a s e o f

t h i s p r o p e r t y. 10. The iron pins which D avid Hodg e saw appea red to be old, and we re c onsistent with one another.

11. A t th e ti me o f

H o d g e ’ s p u r c h a s e o f

th e p r o p e r ty , James Akin perf ormed what, he ca lled, a “mortga g e surve y .” 12. When Akin’s perf

ormed the “ mortg ag e surve y ” in 1995, he no tic e d th e ir on pi ns as de sc ri be d b y John Was hb urn a ndDa vid Hodg e.
13 . A t th a t ti me , A kin no tic e d th a t th e se ir on pin s w e re old
a ndc on sis te nt w ith on e a no the r, which led him t o b e lie ve , f ro m a survey or’s standpoint that the iron pins were set by the same pe rson in order to delineate a boundary . Additionally , based on a revie w of the dee ds, iron p i n s d elineate d property lines to other adjac ent p r o p e r t y d i v i d e d o u to f

t h e B r o o mp r o p e r t y.
14. When James Akin perf ormed the “mortg ag e surve y ” for David Hodg e, James Akin did not find any encumbr ance s nor did he
no te a ny inc on sis te nc ie s r e g ard ing the pr op e rt y lin e s.

***************************************************** 16. David Hodg e first became aware of any issue in refe renc e to the boundary

on the northern part of his prope rty when C o rn el i s o n ’s p re d ec es s o r i n i n t er es t , R

. W

. R o ger s , ca m e t o Ho d ge and alleg ed that the southern boundary to the Cornelison property was south of a tree and fenc e line which is g ener ally consistent wi t h t he iron pins describe d by

Hodg e, Washburn, and A kin.-6- 17 . A lth ou g h th e fe nc e lin e that run s bet wee n th e no rthe a st and northwe st pins of the Hodg e prope rty is somewhat south of a direc t line from betwe en those two pins, Hodg e had alway s treate d the fe nce line a nd old tree line a s the p ro p er t y l ine betwe en the two trac ts of land.

18. L ikewise, Hodg e’s pr ede cessor in interest, J ohn Washburn, had alway s treate d this old fence line and tree line as the property line despite the fa ct that it wa s s l ightly south of the above de sc ri be d p ins

. 19 . Wash bu rn c are d f

or a ndma int a ine d a ll p ro pe rt y no rth to the oldfe nc e lin e /tr e e lin e wh ic h i nc lud e d maint a ini ng a we ll, mowing, a nd wee ding. Washburn a lso put a dog pen in this area

. 20. On the date of the purcha se of the prope rt yfo rwa rd, Ho d ge a n d h i s wi fe ca re d fo r t h i s s am e ar ea wh i ch i n cl u d ed m o wi n g, poisoning, c onstruction of a sitting a rea , caring f

or tree s, removing brush, planting a flowe r g arde n, maintaining a well , caring f

or fr on ta g e , a ndte nd ing of

g ra pe vin e s.
21. Fr om the time of his r ece ipt of the property ... Roge rs ... car ed for land south of the old fe nce line/tre e line....

22. The a rea in conflict in this propertyline dispute is a pieshaped a re a with t he primary point of controver sy

being the
ap p r o p r i a t e l o c a t i o n o f t h e n o r th e a s t[ c o r n e r ] o f t h e H o d g e p r o p e r t y. J ames Akin and David Ha ll both testi fied t h at t he natur e of the conflict fr om a s urveying sta ndpoint would be considere d a “de ed
ov e rl ap. ” Th is i s a

situatio n [w he re ] the re is n ot e no ug h p ro pe rt y to satisfy the dee ds for the two a djace nt tracts of la nd.

23. D a v idH a ll a n d Ja me s A k in te s ti f ie d th a t th e ir o n pins located on the property

wer e of the same ty

pe, ag e, appe ara nce, de pth,
a ndwe re e nti re ly

c on sis te nt w ith one a no the r. Ac c or din g to D a vid Ha ll’ s te sti mon y , th e loc a tio ns of the ir on pin s w e re g e ne ra lly consistent with an old fenc e line/ t ree line on the Hodg e northe rn boundary and the Corne l ison southern boundary . Hall furthe r te sti fi e d th a t w he n c omp ari ng the fe nc e a nd tr e e lin e wi th the are a in dispute, the old fenc e/tree l i n e was more consistent with the deed calls than with the a

rea claimed by

Cornelison.

******************************************************-7- 25. Akin stated that circ umstances i n wh i ch there is a dee d
ov e rl ap a ndins uf

fi c ie nt pr op e rt y to s e t a sid e bo th d e e ds a c c or din g to the le g a l des c ri pti on , fr om a sur ve y ing sta nd po int , it is i mpo rt a nt t o take a l l ev i d ence possible to make a r easona ble judg ment as to the int e nt o f the or ig ina l c on ve y a nc e s in the de e ds . T his e vid e nc e wo uld inclu d e t re e line/fe nce line, f ence posts, iron pins, what the landowner s say , and the leng th of time the iron pins are in exi stence

. 26. Akin formed his opinions as to the prope rty line by using a fe nce post in the northwest corne r of the Corne lison property on the basis that a fe nce post is more r eliable a nd less likely to be moved than an iron pin. Da vid Hall disag ree d with t h i s from a survey or’s standpoint. He stated t h at an iron pin is j ust as reliable as a f ence po st.
B. Conclusi ons of

law 1. I t is a we ll established principle in the State of T ennesse e that th e int e nt of the pa

rt ie s who orig ina lly

c on ve y e d th e pr op e rt y

is
c o n tr o ll in g
. [( c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d ) ].

******************************************************

4. Whe re the re is a

c on fl ic t, an o lde r g rant [or] de e d w ou ld preva il over a y oung er g rant or de ed. Hitchcock v. Southern Iron and Tim ber , 38 S.W . 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1896).

5. I n determining a disputed bounda ry , a court must first look to n a tur a l ob

je c ts o r la nd mark s, ne xt artif ic ia l mo nu me nts or

mark s, then to boundary

lines of adjac ent landowne rs, and then the course s and distance s. Tho rnb urg v . Cha se , 606 S.W .2d 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

6. I n this c ase neither trac t of property is bounded by

a natur al monument or marke r.
7. F urthe r, Corne lis on ’s e xpe rt , A kin , te sti fi e d th a t th e re is a problem with either one or both of the two de eds but that he could not de te rm ine wh ic h d e e d c on ta ine d th e pr ob le m.
8. Both e x perts t es tified that althoug h no fenc e lines we re ca l l ed fo r i n ei t h erd ee d s fo r t h e t wo tra ct s o f p ro p er t y an d al t h o u gh
no fenc e lines wer e called for in any other adjac ent properties, fenc e-8- lines were ge n er ally

consistent with all transfe rs of prope rty on a d j a c e n ttr a c t s o f

l a n d t h a tc a m e o u to f

t h e B r o o mp r o p e r t y.
9. For the ar ea in dispute betwee n the two trac ts in question, the pre dece ssors of the pres en t parties ha ve ac quiesce d the fe nce line/tree line a s a boundary line.

10. There is clear

proof that iron pins as called f or in the dee d of Hodg e we re loc ated on the pr operty at the time of t h e t ra n s fer of his pr op e rt y

to H od g e ’s pr e de c e sso r [in] in te re st, Was hb urn. Th e se i ro n p i n s we re al s o n o t i ce d b y [ Ak i n ] , wh en h e p er fo rm ed a m o rt gage survey on the prope rty

in question in 1995. They wer e also seen by Cornelison’s prede cessor in interest, Rufert Roge rs and by Hodg e’s prede cessor

in interest, J ohn Washburn.

******************************************************

12. I n this case, the exis tence of t he iron pin [t hat] was called fo r in the B ro om to Was hb urn a nd Was hb urn to Ho dg e de e d is a sufficie nt marker

for whic h this court can r el y i n d elineating the bo un da ri e s. Th e fa c t tha t the se ir on pin s ar e g e ne ra lly c on sis te nt w ith an old fe nce and tree line is further e vid en ce that the orig inal intent of the pa rties was f

or the old fe nce or

tree line to be the boundar y of the prope rty

betwee n these two tra cts of land. F urther, over the
course of the y ear s, acquie scenc e of the predece ssors in interest to the exis tence of the old fe nce and tree line as the boundary line is further
e vid e nc e of

the int e nt of the pa

rt ie s. I n othe r t

rans fe rs fr om the sa me orig inal trac t to adjace nt properties to those at issue, iron pins were
c a lle d f or a ndwe re c on sis te nt w ith oldtr e e /f e nc e lin e s. Th is i s fu rthe r e vid e nc e that th e orig ina l in te nt o f the pa rt ie s c on ve y ing thi s pr op e rt y wa s f or the ir on pin s c on sis te nt w ith the tree/f e nc e lin e to
m ark t h e b o u n d ar y. 13. The pre dece ssor in int er es t o f the Hodg e prope rty was fi rs t in tim e a ndin rig hts o ver Co rn e lis on ’s pr e de c e sso r i n in te re st. The orig inal deed to Corne lison’s predeces s o rs in interest eve n ref ere nces the iron pin on J ohn Washburn’s trac t of land.

Wherefor e, t h e C ourt here by conclude s that the iron pins
or ig ina lly e xistin g a t th e no rthe a st c orne r o f the Ho dg e pr op ert y wh ic h was rem ov e d b y

R.W. Rog e rs , s ho uldbe re pla c e d in its po sit ion a c c or din g to the su rv e y of Da vidHall.-9- Further, the claim of the prope rty by Cornelison, results in an
encr oachme nt in the la nd occupie d for numerous y ear s by Hodg e and Ho dg e ’s pr e de c e sso rs in i nte re st a nd on wh ic h H od g e ’s we ll e xists

. Both de eds should be re formed t o reflect such bounda ries and proper ly rec orded.

I n a fina l judgment e nt er ed Ap ri l 8 , 2003, the trial court adopted by ref ere nce the abovequoted finding s of fact and conclusions of law, and decr eed the Hodg e’s “ the lawf ul owners of

the trac t of l an d in dispute.” The Corne lison’s filed a timely notice of a

ppeal of the court’s final judgme nt, and prese nt f

or revie w the consolidated issue of whether the trial court erre d in decr eeing the Hodg e’s the la wful owne rs of the disputed tra ct of land.

Since this case w as tried by the court sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview thecase de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption o f co rr ec t n es s of the finding s of fa ct by the trial court. Unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must a ffirm, a bsent err or of law

. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

I t is acknowle dg ed by

both parties that re solution of the dispute in thi s matter hing es upon identification of the northeast corner point of the H odg e prope rty . The trial court determined, inter ali a , th a t th e “ e xiste nc e of

the ir on pin [in the no rthe a st c orne r that] wa s c a lle d f or in the B ro om t o Was hb ur n a ndWash bu rn to Ho dg e de e d is a su ff ic ie nt m ark e r f

or wh ic h th is c ou rt

c a n r e ly in delineating the boundarie s....” The Corne lison’s arg ue that the pr oper pr operty marke r or starting point is l o ca t ed ap p rox imately 104 fee t south of the iron pin marking the northea st corner of the disputed are a.
I n Qua rle s v . Ar

thur , 2 31 S.W. 2d58 9 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 95 0) , th e Ea stern Se c tio n o f this Court stated:

I t is th e duty of the c ou rt to c on str ue a de e d, if po ssi ble , to g ive e ff e c t to its se ve ral parts a nda vo id r e je c tin g a ny

of its provisions, the presumption being that the parties intended eve ry part of the de ed to have some meaning

.... I t is clear f

rom an a nal y s i s of the c ases in this State dealing with the construction of deeds that the overriding purpose of all rules
o f c o n s tru c t i o n i s t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p ar t i e s
. In
arr iv in g a t th e in te n ti o n th e p r im e ru le is th a t th e me a n in g a nd intention will be gathere d, if possible, from the instrument consider ed
as a w hole without reg ard to formed divisions or parts.
Id . at 590-91.
The Middle Section of this Court rec ently noted:-10- The ru les g overning the interpre tation of dee ds are well-settled a nd
are d es i gn ed to enable the courts to asc erta in the intention of the parties to the de ed. Colli ns v. Sm iths on , 585 S.W .2d 598, 603 (Tenn. 19 79 ); Bar

be r v . W e stmore lan d , 6 01 S.W. 2d71 2, 71 4 ( Ten n. Ct. App. 1980). The courts s hould first seek the pa rties’ intention by exami n i n g the words in the de ed, Hutc hiso n v . Bo ar d , 194 Tenn. 22 3, 22 7- 28 , 2 50 S.W. 2d 82 , 84 (1 95 2) , a ndby c on sid e ri ng the se words in the conte x t of t he deed as a whole. Col

lins , 585 S.W .2d at 60 3; Barber , 60 1 S. W.2 d at 71 4; Qua rle s v . Ar thur , 33 Tenn. App. 291, 295, 231 S.W .2d 589, 590 (1950).
Mitchell v . Chan ce , No. M2002-01239-COA- R3-CV, 2004 WL 792067, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2004) (Slip Copy ).

Th e dee ds fr om B ro om t o A sp e ll, Ka rp a ndMo rris t o K e ssl e r, Was hb urn to the Ho dg e ’s , Kessler to Roge rs, and Roge rs to the Cornelison’s, all identify the beg inning point and the dividing bo un da ry lin e fo r the no rthe rn a nd so uth e rn tr a c ts as “ a n iro n pin in the we ste rn marg in o f the ri g htof-way of the Liberty

Clay brook Road, said point being the northea st co rner of the [Washburn or H o d g e ] t r a c t ; ru n s t h e n c e w e s t3 1 8 f e e tt o a n i r o n p i n
. . . . ” Jo h n W a s h b u r n a n d D a v i d H o d g e bo th testified t hat t hree iron pins wer e in place marking the northeast, northwest, and southern ti ps of the southern tra ct at the time of their re spective pur chase s. Appellee ’s expert, David Ha ll noted that the iron pins were in place at the time of his survey of the prope rty , and further testified tha t the location
o f t h e p i n s wa s co n s i s t en twi t h t h e s p ec i fi ca t i o n s o f t h e B ro o mt o W as h b u rn an d W as h b u rn t o Ho d ge deeds. David Ha ll acknowledg ed that his measure ments of the southern tr act va ried slig htly

from t h e d i s t an ce s ca l l ed fo r i n t h e d ee d s , s t at i n g:

Q. Whe n y ou didthe measu rem ent s [of Tr a c t 1] w e re the re so me discrepancie s as far

as the leng ths and measur ements as they wer e called f or in the dee d?

A. Ye s. Q. Was there any thing sig nificant, in y our mind, that y ou would find
ou t of the or din ary

in d e a lin g wi th an o ld d e e d li ke thi s?

A. Not t er ri b l y
. The dimensions wer e off some, but that’s not
un us ua l. Q. Fr om a g ener al standpoint, what y ou found out the re on the pins that w e re the re , f

ro m a g e ne ra l st a ndpo in t, wa s th a t c on sis te nt w ith t h e d e e d t o M r
. H o d g e ’ s a n d M r
. W a s h b u r n ’ s p r o p e r t y?-11- A

. P r e t t y m u c h , p r e t t y m u c h

. T h e d i m e n s i o n s w e r e o f f, l i k e I s a y, bu t no t te rribl y

ba d, 25 fe e t or

so on the roa d f

ro nta g e , th e be st I
reme mber.

****************************************************** Q. Fr om a g ener al stand p o i n t , was that fe nce/tre e line more consistent with t he line that y ou found that we nt from iron pipe – from old pipe to old iron pipe?
A. Yes, it wa s in line. Q. From a surve y or ’s ba c kg ro un d a ndfr om h a vin g do ne , I g ue ss, countless numbers of

survey s over the c ourse of the y ear s, is t hat
so m e t h i n g t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t t o y o u f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f tr y i ng to fi g ur e ou t th e int e nt o f the orig ina l de e ds ?
A. Yes, it’s e vidence

. Q. I f y ou compar ed the de ed ca lls with t he phy sical attributes that a re ou t th e re – a nd

wh e n I ’m

ta lki ng abo ut p hy sic a l a ttribu te s, of c ou rs e I ’m talking about fe nce lines a nd tree lines. I f y ou compar ed the de ed
c a lls wi th the ph y sic a l a ttribu te s th a t are e xistin g on that pr op e rt y , d id it match up?

A

. W i t h i n r e a s o n
. N o te x a c t l y, b u tr e a s o n ab l y.
J am es Ak i n fu rt h ert es t i fi ed t h at t h e t h re e i ro n p i n s we re i n p l a c e w h e n h e co n d u ct ed a m o rt gage survey of the southern trac t for the Hodg e’s in 1995.

The plain langua g e of the Washburn to Hodg e dee d ref ere nces thre e iron pins as the bounda ry po int s f or the so uth ern tr act , an d s pe c if ic a lly ide nti fi e s th e no rthe rn bo un da ry lin e of the pr op e rt y as an ea s t t o we s t line running from the iron pin in the northe ast corne r to the iron pin in the northwest corner. The test i m o n y i n t h e rec ord indicate s that these pins wer e in place when John Washburn p u r c h a s e d th e s o u th e r n tr a c t in 1 9 7 2 , a n d w e r e s ti ll in p la c e w h e n th e p r o p e r ty was transfe rre d to the Hodge’ s in 1995. We aff irm the t rial court’s finding that “the ex istence of the iron pin [ in the northea st corner of t he Hodge property that] was called f

or in the B room to Washburn and Washburn to Hodg e dee d is a sufficie nt marker for whic h this court can r ely in delineating the boundarie s.”-12-

We briefly

addre ss an alleg ation made by Rufert Roge rs during his testimonyat the January 27, 2003 hearing that J ohn Washburn admitted to moving the northeast corner pin to the location
rec og nized as proper

by the trial court. W as h b u rn d en i ed moving the pin, and the tria l court
c on c lud e d th a t “ John Was hb ur n d id n ot m ov e the ir on pin s w hic h d e lin e a te d the bo un da ri e s o f the ir property based upon the deed r ece ived from the B rooms.” W h en the resolution of the issues in a
case depends upon the truthfulness of witnesses, the t rial j udg e who ha s the opportunity to observe the witnesses in their manne r and de meanor while testify ing is in a far better position than this C ourt to de cide those issues. See McCaleb v. S aturn Corp. , 9 10 S.W. 2d41 2, 41 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) ; Whit aker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W .2d 834, 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). The weig ht, f aith, and cre dit to be g iven to any witness’s testimony

lies in the first instance w ith the trier of fac t, and the cre dibilit y acc orded
w il l b e g iv e n g r e a t w e ig h t b y th e ap p e ll a te c o u r t. Se e id .; In re Est ate of Wa lto n v . Young , 950 S

. W

. 2 d 9 5 6 , 9 5 9 ( T e n n
. 1 9 9 7 )

. It i s e v i d e n tt h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r tc r e d i t e d J o h n W a s h b u r n ’ s t e s t i m o n y, an d we fi n d n o ev i d en ce i n t h e r ec o rd t o p re p o n d er at e a gai n s ts u ch a f i n d i n g.
The trial c ourt’s conc lusion that the iron pin located in the northea st corner of the southern trac t is the proper starting point f or delineating the boundary lines is further supported by evidenc e that both the Cornelison’s and the Rog ers’ s acquie sced to John W ashburn’ s and the Hodg e’s use of the disputed wedg e of la nd. The e vidence in the rec ord indicate s that J ohn Washb u rn and the Hodg e’s maintaine d the ar ea south of the t ree line/fenc e li ne, and treate d the prope rty as their own. J ohn Washburn testified that he mowe d the g rass a nd maintained the land up to tre e line/fe nce line, and noted that he place d a wel l i n t h e dis puted ar ea. John W ashburn f urther te stified that Rufert Roge rs appr oache d him on one occa sion to ask his permission to work on the fe nce in the tr ee line. David Hodg e testified that he has mowed a nd maint ai n ed t h e l and to t he south of the tre e line/fenc e line since his purcha se of the southe rn trac t in 1995, and noted that he a nd his wife have
ere cted severa l improvements i n the di sputed are a, including a flower g arde n, birch tree, and a dec k underne ath a g roup of oa

k tree s.

Ruf e rt Rog e rs a c kn ow le dg e d that John Was hb urn a nd Da vid Ho dg e ma int a ine d th e la ndto the immediate south of the tre e line/fe nce line, and testified that he wa s awa re of a dispute re g arding the pr e c ise pla c e me nt o f the bo un da ry lin e div idi ng the no rthe rn a nd so uth e rn tr a c ts i n 1 97 7. De sp ite knowledg e of the exis ting dispute, Rufe rt Roge rs t estified that he ha d no rea son to take John Washburn or the Hodg e’s to court. We note, further, t hat C hristopher Cornelison testified that the Hodg e’s maintaine d or took c are of “eve rything that was up to and south of” the tr ee line/f ence line. F r o m o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , i t i s ap p ar e n t t h a t R u f e r t R o g e r s , d e s p i t e t e s t i m o n y t o t h e c o n tr ar y, treated the tree line/fenc e line as the southern boundary of his property . Moreove r, it is evident that the Cornelison’s made no attempt to maintain the property to the s outh of t he tree l ine/fenc e li ne and, in s pit e of the ir kn ow le dg e of

the dis a g re e me nts su rr ou nd ing the bo un da ry lin e , ma de no a tte mpt s to eject or prohibit the Hodg e’s f

rom use of the disputed are a.
We a re further unpersua ded by the Cornelison’s arg ument that the fenc e post loc ated at the northwest corner of

the northern trac t, and not the iron pin at the northea st corner of the southernT h e lo c a tio n o f t h e tre e li n e /fen c e li n e is no t ex p licitly i n d ic a te d o n o r b y D a v id H a ll’ s su rv e y. 2

-13- trac t, is the “most reliable e vidence for determining the boundaries....” The corner fenc e post is not
re fe re nc e d in the de e d f

ro m Ru fe rt

Rog e rs to the Corne lis on ’s , n or in any of the pr e c e din g de e ds to the northern trac t.
We addre ss, finally , the Cornelison’s assertion that the trial court err ed in finding that “the
or ig ina l int e nt of the pa

rt ie s wa s fo r the old fe nc e or tr e e lin e to be the bo un da ry of t he p rop erty betwee n t hese two tra cts of land.” Although none of the de eds included in the r ecor d on appea l ref ere nce the tree line/fenc e line as a n intended boundary line betwee n the southern a nd northern trac ts, there is testimony

in the rec ord to support the trial court’s conclus i o n t h at t h e iron pins ar e

“ g e nerall y con sis te nt” wi th the tr e e lin e /f e nc e lin e . In h is t e sti mon y a t th e he ari ng , D a vidHa ll acknow ledg ed that the de ed calls and the tree line/fenc e li ne did not exactly “match up,” but noted that th e tr e e lin e /f

e nc e lin e wa s “ re a so na

bly ” c on sis te nt w ith “ the lin e that [he ] fo un d th a t w e nt” from the iron pin a t the northea st corne r of the s outhern tract t o the iron pin at the northwe st corner of the southern trac t. Reg ardle ss, we note that the trial court’s final judgme nt states only that “[t] he orig inal pin used as the r efe renc e point for the northeast boundary of the Hodg e prope rty

shall be repla ced in the position desig nated in the surve y of Da vid Hall and the de eds to both tracts of la nd shall be re formed a s nece ssary to conform with the surve y of Da vid Hall.” We do not interpret the 2 trial court’ s order

to establish t h e t re e l i n e/ fenc e line as the acc epted bounda ry line betwee n the northern a nd southern tra cts; rather , we c onstrue the co u rt ’s final judg ment to provide the limited holding that the “orig inal” location of the iron pin in the northeast corner of the southern tra ct marks the appr opriate be g inning point for de lineating the boundary line betwee n the southern bounda ry of the no rthe rn tr a c t a ndthe no rthe rn bo un da ry of the so uth e rn tr a c t.
We aff i rm t h e trial c ourt’s final judg ment enter ed April 8, 2003. Cost s of this appea l are
a sse sse d a g a ins t the app e lla nts , She lly Re na e Corne lis on a nd Christ op he r Corne lis on , and t he ir
s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA W FOR D, P RE S I

DI NG J UD GE , W. S.