Court Opinion

ID: 1081332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-09 20:48:12.013823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:08.645611
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION
                                    AT JACKSON
               _______________________________________________________

                                    )
BRADLEY MARK BUTLER,                )     Chester County Chancery Court
                                    )     No. 8796
   Plaintiff/Appellee.              )
                                    )
VS.                                 )     C. A. NO. 02A01-9608-CH-00188
                                    )
PRINCE E. SPRADLIN and wife,
SYLVIA S. SPRADLIN,
                                    )
                                    )
                                                                   FILED
                                    )                  Feb. 4, 1997
   Defendants/Appellants.           )
                                    )                Cecil Crowson, Jr.
                                                      Appellate Court Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________________

                            OPINION AND ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________________

               The purpose of this litigation was to establish the boundary line between property

owned by the Plaintiff, Bradley Mark Butler, and the defendants, Prince E. Spradlin and Sylvia S.

Spradlin. Each party presented several witnesses and exhibits including the testimony of their

respective surveyors. Upon completion of the evidence, the chancellor made findings of fact

including a finding that the plaintiff had established his title by a clear preponderance of the

evidence. The court accepted the survey of Eddie Coleman, the surveyor who testified in behalf of

the plaintiff, and established the property line according to the Coleman survey.

               Our review of this matter is de novo on the record, with a presumption that the trial

court’s findings of fact are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Rule 13(d)

T.R.A.P. The trial court, having had the opportunity to see and observe the witnesses, is accorded

deference in determining their credibility.

               Having reviewed this record in its entirety, we do not find the evidence to

preponderate against the trial court’s finding and therefore affirm in accordance with Rule

10(a)(1)(3)1 of the Court of Appeals. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellants, for which

       1
        Rule 10 Court of Appeals - (a) Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the
concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by
order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and
one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:
       (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the
execution may issue if necessary.

                                                  _______________________________
                                                  FARMER, J.

______________________________
CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Concurs)

______________________________
LILLARD, J. (Concurs)

trial court.
        ....
        (3) no reversible error of law appears.