I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED April 4, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk BETTY MANI S, ) SEVI ER CHANCERY ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9512- CH- 0043 3 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER S. RAI NWATER ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) J ERRY K. GALYON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e )
J . LEW S KI NNARD, M di s onvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt . I a
DW GHT E. STOKES, Se vi e r vi l l e , f or Appe l l e e . I
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s a c t i on wa s i ns t i t ut e d a s a c ompl a i nt f o r a de c l a r a t o r y
j u d g me n t a nd f or a pa r t i t i on of r e a l e s t a t e . The a ppe l l a nt s ou g h t
a d e c l a r a t or y j udgme nt t ha t s he wa s t he owne r of a n undi vi d e d
i nt e r e s t i n a t r a c t of l a nd l oc a t e d i n Se vi e r Count y a s a t e na nt i n
c ommo n wi t h t he a ppe l l e e . She f ur t he r s ought t o ha ve t he c o u r t
p a r t i t i on t he pr ope r t y i n q ue s t i on. Bot h pa r t i e s f i l e d mot i ons f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt . The t r i a l c our t s us t a i ne d t he de f e nda nt ' s mot i o n
f or s u mma r y j udgme nt , de ni e d pl a i nt i f f ' s mot i on a nd f ound t ha t t he
a pp e l l a nt he l d no i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d .
W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t . e
No ma t e r i a l f a c t s a r e i n di s put e . Bot h pa r t i e s move d f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt on t he gr ounds t ha t t he r e we r e no i s s ue s of
ma t e r i a l f a c t , e a c h c l a i mi ng t o be e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r
o f l a w. Thus , we a r e pr e s e nt e d wi t h a pur e que s t i on of l a w a nd n o
p r e s u mp t i on o f c or r e c t ne s s a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l c our t ' s j udgme n t .
Go n z a l e s v . Al ma n Cons t r . Co . , 857 S. W 2d 42, 44 ( Te nn. App. 199 3 ) . .
W mu s t de c i de a ne w whe t he r t he undi s put e d f a c t s s how t ha t e i t h e r e
of t he p a r t i e s i s " e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w. "
Te n n . R. Ci v. P. 56. 03; Gonz a l e s a t 44- 45.
Aa r on Ki r by, f a t he r of t he a ppe l l a nt , wa s t he owne r of t h e
t r a c t o f l a nd i n whi c h a n i nt e r e s t i s now s ought by t he a ppe l l a n t .
Du r i n g h i s l i f e t i me , Aa r on Ki r by c onve ye d a wa y hi s i nt e r e s t s i n t h e
2 p r o p e r t y i n que s t i on i n s uc h a f a s hi on t ha t i t be c a me ne c e s s a r y t o 1 l i t i ga t e owne r s hi p of t he pr ope r t y. I n pr e vi ous l i t i ga t i on i n t he
Se vi e r Count y Cha nc e r y Cour t i n c a us e no. 83- 4- 140, s t yl e d M r y J o a
Ki r b y He nde r s on, et al v. Aa r o n Ki r by, et al , in whi c h al l
n e c e s s a r y pa r t i e s or pr i vi e s t o t hi s a c t i on we r e be f or e t he c ou r t ,
a n a g r e e d or de r wa s e nt e r e d r e s ol vi ng a l l i s s ue s , whi c h, a mo n g
o t h e r t hi ngs , ve s t e d t i t l e t o t he s ubj e c t pr ope r t y i n Aa r on Ki r b y 2 a n d wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by.
The a gr e e d or de r s pe c i f i c a l l y r e c i t e d " t ha t a l l r i ght s , t i t l e d
( s i c) , i nt e r e s t a nd e qui t y i s he r e by di ve s t e d f r om M r y Ge o r g e a
Ki r b y He nde r s on, J a me s Ki r by, Lonni e Ki r by, Fa ye Ki r by Sa nd s ,
Ba r b a r a J e a n Ki r by a nd Cl a r a Ne l l Ki r by M Cl ur e , c a nd ve s t e d i n t o
Aa r o n Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by. ( Empha s i s a dde d) .
I t i s undi s put e d t ha t pr i or t o t he l i t i ga t i on whi c h ga ve r i s e
t o t h e a gr e e d or de r , Ol l i e Ki r by owne d no i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y
i n q u e s t i on. The r e c or d doe s not di s c l os e t he i n t e r e s t , i f a n y ,
Aa r o n Ki r by ha d i n t he s ubj e c t pr ope r t y pr i or t o t ha t l i t i ga t i o n .
1 The record does not demonstrate how the property was conveyed by Aaron Kirby nor to whom. There is no copy of the conveyance in the record. Appellant's complaint simply states that "Aaron Kirby, father of the plaintiff herein, and others acquired certain property in Sevier County, Tennessee and conveyed their interests in various manners so that litigation resulted and the property rights resolved in Chancery [court] ... and the litigation was terminated by an agreed order."
2 In the previous litigation, the appellee was the attorney for Aaron Kirby and wife, Ollie Kirby. As their attorney, he received a one-third interest in the property as payment for his services. There is no dispute concerning this interest.
3 W c a n , howe ve r , r e a s ona bl y c onc l ude t ha t t he pr ope r t y de c r e e d t o e
Aa r o n Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by, wa s r e c e i ve d i n s e t t l e me nt of
t ha t l i t i ga t i on.
Aa r on Ki r by di e d a nd wa s s ur vi ve d by hi s wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r b y .
Su b s e q u e nt l y, Ol l i e Ki r by a nd t wo of he r da ught e r s c onve ye d t h e i r
i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y t o t he a ppe l l e e . The de e d s pe c i f i c a l l y
r e c i t e d:
I t i s t he i nt e nt of t he Gr a nt or s by t hi s i ns t r ume nt t o c onve y a l l t he i r r i ght s , t i t l e s , e qui t i e s a nd i nt e r - e s t s t o t he Gr a n t e e i n t he he r e i na bove de s c r i be d pr op- e r t y. Ol l i e M Ki r by i s t he owne r of a l l of s a i d pr ope r t y . o r a one - t hi r d i nt e r e s t ; J e a n K. Br a c ki ns i s t he owne r o f a one - ni nt h i nt e r e s t ; a nd Br e nd a K. Te a s t e r i s t he o wne r of a one - ni nt h i nt e r e s t , whi c h t he y a r e c onve yi ng t o t he Gr a nt e e he r e i n.
The t hr e s hol d que s t i on whi c h we mus t a ddr e s s i s whe t h e r
t he a gr e e d or de r e nt e r e d in t he pr e vi ous cas e, Mry a Jo Ki r b y
He n d e r s on, e t a l v. Aa r on Ki r by, e t a l , c r e a t e d a n e s t a t e by t h e
e n t i r e t i e s i n Aa r on Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e M Ki r by. .
I t i s s uc h we l l - s e t t l e d l a w t ha t a n i ns t r ume nt ve s t i ng t i t l e
t o r e a l p r ope r t y i n ma n a nd wi f e c r e a t e s a t e na nc y by t he e nt i r e -
t i e s t ha t no c i t a t i ons a r e r e qui r e d. Ye t t he r e i s s ome r oom f or a
c o n t r a r y r e s ul t i f i t i s c l e a r l y e xpr e s s e d wi t hi n t he i ns t r ume n t a n
i n t e nt t o c r e a t e a n e s t a t e a s t e na nt s i n c ommon or j oi nt t e na nt s .
4 Se e Bo s t , e t a l . v. J ohns on , 133 S. W 2d 491 ( Te nn. 1939) . . No s u c h
i nt e n t i on t o t he c o n t r a r y i s e xpr e s s e d i n t he a gr e e d or de r . Th e
o r d e r i s c l e a r a nd una mbi guous .
I n e xe r c i s i ng i t s powe r s of s upe r vi s i ng t he e nf or c e - me nt of i t s own j udgme nt s , a c our t ha s ne c e s s a r y a nd i n he r e nt powe r t o i nt e r pr e t or c ons t r ue a ny a mbi gu ous p h r a s e ol ogy of t he j udgme nt s o u g h t t o be e nf or c e d. Li ke wi s e , a c our t wh i c h i s c a l l e d upon t o e nf or c e t he j u dgme nt of a not he r c our t ha s s ome powe r t o i nt e r pr e t t he j u dgme nt t o be e nf or c e d.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED April 4, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk BETTY MANI S, ) SEVI ER CHANCERY ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9512- CH- 0043 3 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER S. RAI NWATER ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) J ERRY K. GALYON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e )
J . LEW S KI NNARD, M di s onvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt . I a
DW GHT E. STOKES, Se vi e r vi l l e , f or Appe l l e e . I
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s a c t i on wa s i ns t i t ut e d a s a c ompl a i nt f o r a de c l a r a t o r y
j u d g me n t a nd f or a pa r t i t i on of r e a l e s t a t e . The a ppe l l a nt s ou g h t
a d e c l a r a t or y j udgme nt t ha t s he wa s t he owne r of a n undi vi d e d
i nt e r e s t i n a t r a c t of l a nd l oc a t e d i n Se vi e r Count y a s a t e na nt i n
c ommo n wi t h t he a ppe l l e e . She f ur t he r s ought t o ha ve t he c o u r t
p a r t i t i on t he pr ope r t y i n q ue s t i on. Bot h pa r t i e s f i l e d mot i ons f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt . The t r i a l c our t s us t a i ne d t he de f e nda nt ' s mot i o n
f or s u mma r y j udgme nt , de ni e d pl a i nt i f f ' s mot i on a nd f ound t ha t t he
a pp e l l a nt he l d no i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y. Thi s a ppe a l r e s ul t e d .
W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t . e
No ma t e r i a l f a c t s a r e i n di s put e . Bot h pa r t i e s move d f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt on t he gr ounds t ha t t he r e we r e no i s s ue s of
ma t e r i a l f a c t , e a c h c l a i mi ng t o be e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r
o f l a w. Thus , we a r e pr e s e nt e d wi t h a pur e que s t i on of l a w a nd n o
p r e s u mp t i on o f c or r e c t ne s s a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l c our t ' s j udgme n t .
Go n z a l e s v . Al ma n Cons t r . Co . , 857 S. W 2d 42, 44 ( Te nn. App. 199 3 ) . .
W mu s t de c i de a ne w whe t he r t he undi s put e d f a c t s s how t ha t e i t h e r e
of t he p a r t i e s i s " e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w. "
Te n n . R. Ci v. P. 56. 03; Gonz a l e s a t 44- 45.
Aa r on Ki r by, f a t he r of t he a ppe l l a nt , wa s t he owne r of t h e
t r a c t o f l a nd i n whi c h a n i nt e r e s t i s now s ought by t he a ppe l l a n t .
Du r i n g h i s l i f e t i me , Aa r on Ki r by c onve ye d a wa y hi s i nt e r e s t s i n t h e
2 p r o p e r t y i n que s t i on i n s uc h a f a s hi on t ha t i t be c a me ne c e s s a r y t o 1 l i t i ga t e owne r s hi p of t he pr ope r t y. I n pr e vi ous l i t i ga t i on i n t he
Se vi e r Count y Cha nc e r y Cour t i n c a us e no. 83- 4- 140, s t yl e d M r y J o a
Ki r b y He nde r s on, et al v. Aa r o n Ki r by, et al , in whi c h al l
n e c e s s a r y pa r t i e s or pr i vi e s t o t hi s a c t i on we r e be f or e t he c ou r t ,
a n a g r e e d or de r wa s e nt e r e d r e s ol vi ng a l l i s s ue s , whi c h, a mo n g
o t h e r t hi ngs , ve s t e d t i t l e t o t he s ubj e c t pr ope r t y i n Aa r on Ki r b y 2 a n d wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by.
The a gr e e d or de r s pe c i f i c a l l y r e c i t e d " t ha t a l l r i ght s , t i t l e d
( s i c) , i nt e r e s t a nd e qui t y i s he r e by di ve s t e d f r om M r y Ge o r g e a
Ki r b y He nde r s on, J a me s Ki r by, Lonni e Ki r by, Fa ye Ki r by Sa nd s ,
Ba r b a r a J e a n Ki r by a nd Cl a r a Ne l l Ki r by M Cl ur e , c a nd ve s t e d i n t o
Aa r o n Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by. ( Empha s i s a dde d) .
I t i s undi s put e d t ha t pr i or t o t he l i t i ga t i on whi c h ga ve r i s e
t o t h e a gr e e d or de r , Ol l i e Ki r by owne d no i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y
i n q u e s t i on. The r e c or d doe s not di s c l os e t he i n t e r e s t , i f a n y ,
Aa r o n Ki r by ha d i n t he s ubj e c t pr ope r t y pr i or t o t ha t l i t i ga t i o n .
1 The record does not demonstrate how the property was conveyed by Aaron Kirby nor to whom. There is no copy of the conveyance in the record. Appellant's complaint simply states that "Aaron Kirby, father of the plaintiff herein, and others acquired certain property in Sevier County, Tennessee and conveyed their interests in various manners so that litigation resulted and the property rights resolved in Chancery [court] ... and the litigation was terminated by an agreed order."
2 In the previous litigation, the appellee was the attorney for Aaron Kirby and wife, Ollie Kirby. As their attorney, he received a one-third interest in the property as payment for his services. There is no dispute concerning this interest.
3 W c a n , howe ve r , r e a s ona bl y c onc l ude t ha t t he pr ope r t y de c r e e d t o e
Aa r o n Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r by, wa s r e c e i ve d i n s e t t l e me nt of
t ha t l i t i ga t i on.
Aa r on Ki r by di e d a nd wa s s ur vi ve d by hi s wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r b y .
Su b s e q u e nt l y, Ol l i e Ki r by a nd t wo of he r da ught e r s c onve ye d t h e i r
i nt e r e s t i n t he pr ope r t y t o t he a ppe l l e e . The de e d s pe c i f i c a l l y
r e c i t e d:
I t i s t he i nt e nt of t he Gr a nt or s by t hi s i ns t r ume nt t o c onve y a l l t he i r r i ght s , t i t l e s , e qui t i e s a nd i nt e r - e s t s t o t he Gr a n t e e i n t he he r e i na bove de s c r i be d pr op- e r t y. Ol l i e M Ki r by i s t he owne r of a l l of s a i d pr ope r t y . o r a one - t hi r d i nt e r e s t ; J e a n K. Br a c ki ns i s t he owne r o f a one - ni nt h i nt e r e s t ; a nd Br e nd a K. Te a s t e r i s t he o wne r of a one - ni nt h i nt e r e s t , whi c h t he y a r e c onve yi ng t o t he Gr a nt e e he r e i n.
The t hr e s hol d que s t i on whi c h we mus t a ddr e s s i s whe t h e r
t he a gr e e d or de r e nt e r e d in t he pr e vi ous cas e, Mry a Jo Ki r b y
He n d e r s on, e t a l v. Aa r on Ki r by, e t a l , c r e a t e d a n e s t a t e by t h e
e n t i r e t i e s i n Aa r on Ki r by a nd wi f e , Ol l i e M Ki r by. .
I t i s s uc h we l l - s e t t l e d l a w t ha t a n i ns t r ume nt ve s t i ng t i t l e
t o r e a l p r ope r t y i n ma n a nd wi f e c r e a t e s a t e na nc y by t he e nt i r e -
t i e s t ha t no c i t a t i ons a r e r e qui r e d. Ye t t he r e i s s ome r oom f or a
c o n t r a r y r e s ul t i f i t i s c l e a r l y e xpr e s s e d wi t hi n t he i ns t r ume n t a n
i n t e nt t o c r e a t e a n e s t a t e a s t e na nt s i n c ommon or j oi nt t e na nt s .
4 Se e Bo s t , e t a l . v. J ohns on , 133 S. W 2d 491 ( Te nn. 1939) . . No s u c h
i nt e n t i on t o t he c o n t r a r y i s e xpr e s s e d i n t he a gr e e d or de r . Th e
o r d e r i s c l e a r a nd una mbi guous .
I n e xe r c i s i ng i t s powe r s of s upe r vi s i ng t he e nf or c e - me nt of i t s own j udgme nt s , a c our t ha s ne c e s s a r y a nd i n he r e nt powe r t o i nt e r pr e t or c ons t r ue a ny a mbi gu ous p h r a s e ol ogy of t he j udgme nt s o u g h t t o be e nf or c e d. Li ke wi s e , a c our t wh i c h i s c a l l e d upon t o e nf or c e t he j u dgme nt of a not he r c our t ha s s ome powe r t o i nt e r pr e t t he j u dgme nt t o be e nf or c e d.
An una mbi guous j udgme nt s houl d be c ons t r ue d a s a wh ol e s o a s , i f pos s i bl e , t o gi ve e f f e c t t o a l l pa r t s t he r e o f a n d t o e f f e c t t he i nt e nt a nd pur pos e of t he Co ur t . 49 C. J . S. J udg me nt s § 436, p. 862.
Howe ve r , a j udgme nt pl a i n a nd a mbi guous by i t s t e r ms ma y not be modi f i e d, e nl a r ge d, r e s t r i c t e d or di mi ni s he d. I b i d, p. 868.
Te n p e n n y v. Te npe nny, ( Te nn. App. 1995) , Le xi s 105.
The a gr e e d or de r i n t h e pr e vi ous c a s e i s c l e a r a nd una mbi gu o u s
W, e t h e r e f or e , f i nd t ha t t he a gr e e d or de r ve s t e d t i t l e i n Aa r o n
Ki r b y a nd wi f e , Ol l i e Ki r b y a s , t e na nt s by t he e nt i r e t y.
W mus t ne xt e xa mi ne t he a s s e r t i on by t he a ppe l l a nt t ha t t h e e
a pp e l l e e ha d f i l e d a pr e vi ous s ui t c onc e r ni ng t he s a me s ubj e c t
ma t t e r i n whi c h t he a ppe l l a nt a s s ume d a pos i t i on c ont r a r y t o t h e
p o s i t i on a s s ume d i n t hi s case. The r e c or d r ef l ect s t ha t t he
a pp e l l e e h e r e f i l e d a n a c t i on i n t he Ci r c ui t Cour t of Se vi e r Cou n t y
a ga i n s t t he a p p e l l a nt s e e ki ng to ha ve t he s ubj e c t pr ope r t y
5 p a r t i t i one d. Subs e que nt l y, t he a ppe l l e e , i n t ha t a c t i on, f i l e d a n
a me nd me nt t o hi s c o mp l a i nt a l l e gi ng t ha t he wa s t he owne r of t h e
f ee a nd t ha t t he a ppe l l a nt ha d no i nt e r e s t in t he pr ope r t y .
Th e r e a f t e r , a non- s ui t wa s t a ke n.
Ap pe l l a nt woul d ha ve u s f i nd t ha t t he a ppe l l e e i s now e s t op p e d
f r om a s s e r t i ng t ha t he i s t he owne r of t he f e e s i mpl e t i t l e t o a l l
t he p r o p e r t y i n que s t i on. W wi l l f i r s t l ook t o t he doc t r i ne o f e
j ud i c i a l e s t oppe l . As s umi ng t ha t t he doc t r i ne of j udi c i a l e s t op p e l
i s s t i l l a v i a bl e d oc t r i ne of l a w i n t hi s j ur i s di c t i on, t h e r e a r e
l i mi t a t i ons o n t he g e ne r a l r ul e .
' W l e j udi c i a l e s t oppe l a ppl i e s whe r e t he r e i s no hi e x pl a na t i on of t he pr e vi ous c ont r a di c t or y s wor n s t a t e me nt ( Sa r t a i n v. Di xi e Coa l & I r on Co . , 150 Te nn. 633, 650, 6 5 1, 266 S. W 313) , i t doe s not a ppl y whe r e t he r e i s a n . e x pl a na t i on s howi ng s uc h s t a t e me nt wa s i na dve r t e nt , i n c ons i de r a t e , mi s t a k e n, or a nyt hi ng s hor t of a ' wi l f ul l y f a l s e ' s t a t e me nt of f a c t . Bl a c k Di a mond Col l i e r i e s v. De a l , 150 Te nn. 474, 4 77, 265 S. W 985; He l f e r v. [ M ua l . ut Be n. ] He a l t h & Ac c . As s ' n , 170 Te nn. 630, 637, 638, 96 S. W 2d 1103, 1105, 113 A. L. R. 921, 924, 925. .
Se e D. M Ros e & Co. V. Snyde r , 206 S. W 2d 897 ( Te nn. 1947) . . .
The r e a s ons f or t he pe r c e i ve d i nc ons i s t e nc y a r e c l e a r l y s e t
out in t he a ns we r s to t he i nt e r r oga t or i e s pr opounde d by t he
a pp e l l a nt t o t he a ppe l l e e . The a ppe l l e e e xpl a i ne d i n hi s a ns we r s
to i nt e r r oga t or i e s t ha t , af t er c ons ul t a t i on wi t h a numbe r of
a t t o r n e ys , he wa s a dvi s e d t ha t he owne d t he e nt i r e f ee a nd ,
6 t h e r e f or e , a me nde d hi s c omp l a i nt a c c or di ngl y. J udi c i a l e s t oppe l i s
n o t a va i l a bl e t o t he a ppe l l a nt unde r t he s e c i r c ums t a nc e s .
The d oc t r i ne of " j udi c i a l a dmi s s i ons " wa s s ubs t a nt i a l l y
c ha n g e d by Rul e 803( 1. 2) , Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Evi de nc e . W t h t he i
a d o p t i o n of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Evi de nc e , Rul e 803( 1. 2) t he
d i s t i nc t i on be t we e n e vi de n t i a r y a dmi s s i ons a nd j udi c i a l a dmi s s i o n s
wa s a b o l i s he d. Thus , j u di c i a l a dmi s s i ons a r e no l onge r c onc l us i v e .
Pr i o r t o t he a dopt i on of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Evi de nc e , t he
p r e v a i l i ng r ul e r e l a t i ng t o " j udi c i a l a dmi s s i ons " wa s s e t out i n
J o h n P. Sa a d a nd Sons v. Na s hvi l l e The r ma l , 642 S. W 2d 151 ( Te n n . .
Ap p . 1 9 82) . I nde e d, i n Sa a d i t i s s a i d: " Admi s s i ons i n pl e a di ng s
ar e j udi c i a l ( c onc l us i ve ) a dmi s s i ons , c onc l us i ve a ga i ns t t he
p l e a de r unt i l wi t hdr a wn or a me nde d . M Cor mi c k on Evi d e n c e , c 2nd
Ed i t i on , § 265, p. 633; 31 C. J . S. Evi de nc e § 301, p. 772, not e 2 3 . "
It is cl ear t ha t , s i nc e t he c i r c ui t c ou r t p l e a di ngs we r e
a me n d e d , ne i t he r t he ol d r ul e a s s t a t e d i n Sa a d nor Rul e 803( 1 . 2 )
wh i c h i s now i n e f f e c t c ons t i t ut e a c onc l us i ve a dmi s s i on.
Ap pe l l a nt al s o a r gue s t ha t t he a ppe l l e e is bound by t he
d o c t r i n e of e s t oppe l by de e d. Our Supr e me Cour t , i n De nny v. W l s o n i
Co u n t y , 198 Te nn. 677, 281 S. W 2d . 671 ( 1955) , ha s de s c r i b e d
e s t o p p e l by de e d a s : " a ba r whi c h pr e c l ude s o n e p a r t y t o a de e d
7 a n d h i s pr i vi e s f r om a s s e r t i ng a s a ga i ns t t he ot he r pa r t y a nd h i s
pr i vi e s a ny r i ght or title i n de r oga t i on of t he de e d or f r om
d e n y i n g t he t r ut h o f a ny ma t e r i a l f a c t s a s s e r t e d i n i t . " Smi t h v.
So v r a n Ba nk Ce nt . , 792 S. W 2d 928 ( Te nn. . App. 1990) . W do n o t e
u n d e r s t a nd t he r e c i t a t i ons i n t he de e d a s be i ng i n c onf l i c t wi t h
a pp e l l e e ' s a s s e r t i ons i n t hi s a c t i on. It s e e ms c l e a r t ha t t he
r e c i t a t i ons i n t he de e d we r e c l e a r l y i nt e nde d t o t r a ns f e r a l l o f
t he g r a nt or s ' r i ght s i n t he pr ope r t y t o t he gr a nt e e — not hi ng mo r e .
W f i nd no e s t oppe l o r ot he r s i mi l a r r ul e of l a w a va i l a bl e t o e
t he a p p e l l a nt i n t hi s c a s e whi c h woul d de f e a t t he a ppe l l e e ' s t i t l e
t o t h e p r ope r t y. Ac c or di n gl y, we a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l
c our t .
Co s t s of t hi s c a us e a r e t a xe d t o t he a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s c a s e
i s r e ma nde d t o t he t r i a l c our t f or t he c ol l e c t i on t he r e of .
___________________________ _ _ _ Don T. M M r a y, J . c ur
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .
8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________ Cl i f f o r d E. Sa nde r s , Spe c i a l J udge
9 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
BETTY MANI S, ) SEVI ER CHANCERY ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9512- CH- 0043 3 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CHESTER S. RAI NWATER ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) J ERRY K. GALYON, ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e )
ORDER
Thi s a ppe a l c a me on t o be he a r d upon t h e r e c o r d f r om t h e
Ch a nc e r y Cour t o f Se v i e r Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .
Up o n c o n s i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of opi ni on t ha t t he r e wa s
n o r e v e r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .
W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt e of t he t r i a l c our t . Cos t s of t hi s
c a us e a r e t a xe d t o t he a ppe l l a nt a nd t hi s c a s e i s r e ma nde d t o t h e
t r i a l c our t f or t he c ol l e c t i on t he r e of . PER CURI AM