FILED

May 21, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

RUTH L. WILLIAMS, ) C/A NO. 03101-9807-CH-00239

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) LOUDON CHANCERY

)

v. ) HON. FRANK V. WILLIAMS, III

) CHANCELLOR

JAMES BOTTS and wife, BRENDA )

BOTTS, ) AFFIRMED

) AND

Defendants-Appellees. ) REMANDED

CHRIS RALLS, Maryville, for Plaintiff-Appe llant.

REX A. DALE, JOHNSON & DALE, Lenoir City, for Defendants-Appellees.

O P I N I O N

Franks, J.

In this action, the issue is the width of plaintiff’s right-of-way across a

portion of defendants’ property. The Trial Court determined the width to be 25 feet

and the plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff Ruth Williams and her husband Murray, now deceased, owned

a tract of land in Loudon County. In 1975, the Williams swapped a tract of land with

C.L. Williams, to gain access to Highway 321 (formerly Highway 95). The land

acquired by C.L. Williams is now owned by the Creeks. It is uncontested that Ruth

Williams possesses a sixty-foot wide easement running from the northwest corner of

the Creek property to Highway 321.
2

On November 11, 1975, pla intiff and her late husband sold pa rt of their

property to defendant James Botts. The deed provided a twenty-five-foot wide

easement beginning at the northwest corner of the prope rty and running east to

Highway 321. On April 6, 1978, the Williams sold a tract to Larry and Robin Young,

and by a deed dated June 30, 1978, the Williams granted the Youngs a twenty-fivefoot ea sement extending from the southwe st corne r of the property to Highway 321. 

On January 15, 1979, the Williams sold another tract to Carroll Price and granted a

twenty-five-foot easement extending from the southwest corner of the prope rty to

Highway 321. Murray Williams died in 1979, and James Botts eventually acquired

both Price and Youngs’ tracts. Botts purchased the tract which is the subject of this

dispute from Ruth Williams in August 1994. Both parties signed a correction deed on

December 15, 1994, to clarify a matter not here in dispute. Neither the original

warranty deed nor the correction deed mentions any easement. 

The parties stipulated that Loudon County requires a fifty-foot wide

strip to consider the land for dedication a s a county road. 

This action was filed in 1997, alleging that the plaintiff possessed a

sixty-foot easement, and sought reformation of the two deeds to reflect the sixty-foot

easement. She alleged that the omission was ba sed on mutual mistake or alternative ly,

a unilate ral mistake induced by the Botts’ fraudulent conduct. 

Upon trial, the Chancellor held that Ruth Williams possessed a sixtyfoot ea sement extending from Highway 321 to the northwest corner of the Cre ek tract, 

and a twenty-five-foot wide easement thereafter across the Botts’ tracts.

“[R]eview of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be

de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the

correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” 

T.R.A.P. 13(d). The same presumption does not apply to conclusions of law.
3

The plaintiff contends that the Trial Court erred in not recognizing and

invoking James Botts’ judicial admission that the plaintiff possessed a fifty-foot

easement extending from the southwest corner of the Young tract to Highway 321. 

All of the deeds for the Price and Young tracts refer to a twenty-five-foot easement. 

James Botts testified that he “assumed” this easement extended to the northe rn

boundary of his twenty-five-foot easement associated with one of the tracts he had

purcha sed from the Williams. He stated “ I think it’s side by side.”

The sworn testimony at trial of a party to a case is a conclusive

admission, binding upon him or her in the disposition of the case, unless there is

credible evidence of other facts which would negate the effect of the fact admitted by

a party. Osborne v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 476 S.W.2d 256 (Tenn.App.

1971). In this case, the Trial Court examined the deeds for the Price and Young tracts

and determined that the proper boundary line for a portion of the Price and Young

tracts extended into the middle of the purported sixty-foot easement. Accordingly,

the Chancellor found credible evidence to support his finding of a single twenty-fivefoot wide easement. Botts’ testimony was equivocal and is negated by the evidence to

the contrary. The evidence does not preponde rate against the Trial Court’s

determination on this issue. 

The plaintiff also argues that the Trial Court erred in ruling against her

on her claim of mutual mistake or unilateral mistake induced by fraud or concealment

of material facts. In order to reform a written instrument for mistake, there must have

been either a mutual mistake, or a mistake of one party influenced by the other’s

fraud. McMillin v. Great S. Corp., 480 S.W.2d 152 (Tenn.App. 1972). A “mistake”

is an act which would not have been done, or an omission which would not have

occurred, but from ignorance, forgetfulness, inadvertence, mental incompetence,

surprise , misplac ed confidenc e, or imposition, and it must be mutual or fraudulent. 
4

Town of McMinnville v. Rhea, 316 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn.App. 1958). 

Plaintiff argues that the parties’ lack of discussion concerning the

easement, and the fa ilure of the deeds to mention it is evidence that the parties were

operating under a mutual mistake. The Trial Court, in finding that plaintiff failed to

prove her claim, said: “There’s been no showing of a mutual mistake here. Mr. Botts

clearly intended the 25-foot easement when the last deeds were prepared . . . and I

think those deeds are valid and reflect the agreement of the parties exactly as they

exist there . . . “.

The evidence preponderates in favor of the Trial Court’s conc lusion. 

James Botts testified that he intended for the plaintiff to have only a twenty-five-foot

easement. He testified that the only easement the parties ever discussed was twentyfive feet wide. Additionally, the plaintiff did not mention the sixty-foot easement at

the closing. The surveys done for both the original warranty deed and the correction

deed depict the northern edge of the twenty-five-foot easement as the southern

bounda ry of the adjoining tract.

The Trial Court also found against the plaintiff on her claim of unilateral

mistake induced by fraud. He said: 

There’s been no misrepresentation made by the Botts to her of any

material fact, been no concealment on the part of the Botts of any

material fact that Ms. Williams was entitled to know about. There was

no reliance on her part of any misrepresentation of a material fact, no

resulting damage to her because of any representation made by the

defendants or any fraudulent concealment of a fact that the defendants

had a duty to disclose to her.

Again, the evidenc e does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s

findings. The Trial Court found that although Murray Williams may have once

intended a sixty-foot easement, the proof was insufficient to find that James Botts was

ever aware of the deceased’s intention. Additionally, the Trial Court noted that the

plaintiff was intelligent and articulate and did not appear to be under the control or
5

influence of Botts. He also found that plaintiff was not confused or coerced at the

closing. The testimony of the attorney who handled the closing and his secretary,

supported the conclusion reached by the Trial Court. 

Finally, plaintiff contends that the defendants defrauded her. She lists

five “badges of fraud” which she claims are the basis of this fraud. As previously

stated, the Trial Court found no fraud practiced by the defendants, and made extensive

findings on the issue of fraud and the plaintiff’s mental condition. The evidence does

not preponde rate aga inst the Trial Court’s findings. T.R.A.P. Rule 13(d). 

The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded

with the cost of the appeal assessed to the appe llant.

__________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

CONCUR:

___________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

___________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.