Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided January 17, 1997·No. 02A01-9603-CH-00051·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACKSON FILED ________________________________ Jan. 17, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk

ELVI N L. BLANKENSHI P a nd wi f e , ) He nde r s on Count y Cha nc e r y M ARY BLANKENSHI P, a nd W AYNE ) Cour t No. 8635 BLANKENSHI P, ) ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Count e r - ) De f e nda nt s / Appe l l e e s , ) ) v. ) C/ A NO. 02A01- 9603- CH- 00051 ) ALVI S BLANKENSHI P a nd wi f e , ) DOROTHY BLANKENSHI P, a nd ) CHARLES GOODM a nd wi f e , AN ) KATHY GOODM AN, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Count e r - ) Pl a i nt i f f s / Appe l l a n t s . ) _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________________________________________ _ _

Fr o m t he Cha nc e r y Cour t of He nde r s on Count y a t Le xi ngt on, Ho no r a bl e Joe C. M r i s , Judge or

M c ha e l L. W i nm i e an TATUM & TATUM He nde r s on, Te nne s s e e , At t o r ne y f or Appe l l a nt s

Da ni e l J. Pe r ky Le x i n gt on, Te nne s s e e At t o r n e y f or Appe l l e e s

OPI NI ON FI LED:

VACATED AND REMANDED FRANKS, J.

CRAWFORD, P. J. ( W S. ) : ( Conc ur s ) . FARMER, J . : ( Conc ur s )

I n t hi s bounda r y l i ne di s put e t he Tr i a l Cour t

a p p o i nt e d a s ur ve yor who e s t a bl i s he d a bounda r y l i ne be t we e n

t h e p a r t i e s whi c h wa s a d opt e d by t he Tr i a l J udge i n t he De c r e e

i n t hi s c a s e . De f e nda nt s ha ve a ppe a l e d, a s s e r t i ng t he Tr i a l

Co u r t e r r e d i n l i mi t i ng t he i r pr oof a nd i n a dopt i ng t he

b o u n d a r y e s t a bl i s he d by t he s ur ve yor .

At t r i a l , t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ a nd de f e nda nt s ’ s ur ve yo r s

t e s t i f i e d, a nd t wo br ot he r s of t he pa r t i e s . At a poi nt not

r e f l e c t e d i n t he r e c or d, t he Cour t he l d a c onf e r e nc e wi t h t h e

a t t o r n e ys i n c ha mbe r s , a nd a nnounc e d t ha t a s pe c i a l ma s t e r

wo u l d be a ppoi nt e d t o c onduc t a s ur ve y a nd r e por t ba c k t o t h e

c our t .

The Cour t a ppoi nt e d s ur ve yor a s s pe c i a l ma s t e r

r e p o r t e d t o t he Cour t , whe r e upon t he Cour t a nd bot h pa r t i e s

e x a mi n e d t he s ur ve yor . Be f or e a ppe l l a nt ’ s a t t or ne y ha d

c o n c l u de d hi s e xa mi na t i o n, t he Cour t r ul e d t ha t t he ma s t e r ’ s

r e p o r t woul d be a dopt e d i n f ul l .

Tr i a l Cour t s a r e gi ve n wi de di s c r e t i on i n t he

c o n d u c t of t he t r i a l . Br adf or d v . Ci t y of Cl ar k s v i l l e , 885

S. W 2 d 78 ( Te nn. App. 19 94) . . Te s t i mony whi c h i s r e pe t i t i ve or

c u mu l a t i ve ma y be e xc l u de d. Cor de l l v . W d Sc hool Bus M g . , ar f

I nc . , 597 S. W 2d 323 ( Te nn. App. 1980) . . A Cour t ma y, i n t he

i n t e r e s t s of pr e ve nt i ng undue de l a y, pl a c e r e a s ona bl e l i mi t s

2 o n t h e a mount of t i me e a c h s i de ma y us e t o pr e s e nt i t s c a s e o r

t h e n u mbe r of wi t ne s s e s who ma y t e s t i f y. Conl e e v . Tay l or ,

2 8 5 S. W 35, 153 Te nn. 507 ( Te nn. 1926) . . But s e e M Kni ght v . c

Ge n e r a l M or s Cor p. , 908 F. 2d 104, 115 ( 7t h Ci r . 1990) , c e r t . ot

d e n i e d 499 U. S. 919, 111 S. Ct . 1306, 113 L. Ed. 2d 241 ( ?t o

i m o s e a r bi t r a r y l i mi t a t i ons , e nf or c e t he m i nf l e xi bl y, a nd by p

t h e s e me a ns t ur n a f e de r a l t r i a l i nt o a r e l a y r a c e i s t o

s a c r i f i c e t oo muc h of on e good - a c c ur a c y of f a c t ua l

d e t e r mi na t i on - t o obt a i n a not he r - mi ni mi z a t i on of t he t i me

a n d e xpe ns e of l i t i ga t i o n. ?)

W l e l i mi t a t i ons ma y be pr ope r l y ma de on t he hi

p r e s e n t a t i on of e vi de nc e , a pa r t y s houl d be a l l owe d ?f ul l

o p p o r t uni t y t o i nt r oduc e a l l e vi de nc e c ompe t e nt a nd r e l e va n t

t o s u p por t t he c a s e a l l e ge d by hi m. ? 8 8 C. J . S. Tr i a l

§ 5 5 ( b ) ( 1955) ; Hous t on v . Hous t on, 1985 W 4121 ( Te nn. App. L

1985) ; M Car t e r v . M Car t e r , 1996 W 625798 ( Te nn. App. 199 6 ) . c c L

Th e d u e pr oc e s s r i ght t o a f ul l he a r i ng be f or e a c our t

i n c l u d e s t he r i ght t o i n t r oduc e e vi de nc e a nd ha ve j udi c i a l

f i n d i ngs ba s e d upon s uc h e vi de nc e . Bal t i mor e & O. R. Co. v .

Un i t e d St at e s , 298 U. S. 349, 368, 56 S. Ct . 797, 807, 80 L. Ed .

1 2 0 9 ( 1936) ; al s o s e e Bur f or d v . St at e , 845 S. W 2d 204, 20 8 .

( Te n n . 1992) ( mi ni ma l due pr oc e s s r e qui r e s t ha t l i t i ga nt s be

p r o v i de d a n oppor t uni t y f or t he pr e s e nt a t i on of c l a i ms a t a

me a n i n gf ul t i me a nd i n a me a ni ngf ul ma nne r ) .

He r e , t he Cou r t s ua s pont e a ppoi nt e d a s pe c i a l

ma s t e r b e f or e t he pa r t i e s ha d r e s t e d t he i r c a s e s . W n he

a n n o u n c i ng t ha t a s pe c i a l ma s t e r woul d be a ppoi nt e d, t he Cou r t

s t a t e d t ha t whe n t he i nde pe nde nt s ur ve yor de t e r mi ne d a

b o u n d a r y, ?[ t ] ha t ’ s g oi ng t o be whe r e t he l i ne i s . . . [ a ] n d

3 t h a t ’ s - - t ha t ’ s t he wa y i t ’ s goi ng t o ha ve t o be , be c a us e I

c a n ’ t ma ke he a ds nor t a i l s out of t hi s . ?

Subs e que nt l y, t h e s pe c i a l ma s t e r t e s t i f i e d a nd t he

Pl a i n t i f f - Appe l l e e a c c e pt e d t he s ur ve y a nd a gr e e d wi t h t he

s p e c i a l ma s t e r ’ s d e t e r mi na t i on. The De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt

s t a t e d:

we f e e l t he s u r ve y done by M . Bi l l i ngs l e y i s r not wha t t he Cour t ha d a nt i c i pa t e d be i ng done , t ha t i t wa s n o t va l i d, a nd we ’ d a s k t ha t t he Cour t or de r s ome f ur t he r - - f ur t he r a c t i on on t hi s c a s e , a s i n a f ur t he r e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng.

W di d not - - we we r e not a l l owe d t o put on e a l l our e vi de n c e a t t he pr i or he a r i ng. The Cour t ha d he a r d I be l i e ve t wo s ur ve yor s a nd pa r t of one wi t ne s s whe n t he Cour t s a i d, ?W l l , e t hi s i s wha t I wa nt t o do. ? W s t i l l ha ve e ot he r - - W s t i l l ha d a t t ha t poi nt f our or e f i ve wi t ne s s e s t o t e s t i f y. W ha ve ot he r e wi t ne s s e s who - - Not a l l t he wi t ne s s e s c oul d be he r e t oda y be c a us e t hi s wa s not i nt e nde d t o be a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, i t wa s my unde r s t a ndi ng.

Dur i ng a ppe l l a nt ’ s que s t i oni ng of t he ma s t e r , t he

j u d g e i nt e r r upt e d:

Cour t : I ’ m not goi ng t o l e t you a r gue wi t h hi m . . . [ h] e ’ s a n i nde pe nde nt wi t ne s s . I f i t ha d be e n a ga i ns t t he s e Bl a nke ns hi ps , t he s ur ve y wa s good, i f t he s hoe wa s on t he ot he r f oot , M . W i nma n. r e Tha t ’ s why you ha ve t o ha ve a n i nde pe nde nt s ur ve yor . An d i f I i gnor e d M . Bi l l i ngs l e y, who I do not know, I ’ d r ha ve t o ge t a not he r one a nd we ’ d ha ve t o c r os s t hi s s a me s t r e a m e v e r y t i me unt i l i t s a t i s f i e d a l l pa r t i e s , a nd i t c a n’ t be done .

M . W i nma n: W l l Your Honor , j us t f or t he r e c or d , r e e I ’ d l i ke t o s a y t he r e ’ s ot he r e vi de nc e whi c h we f e e l woul d be pe r t i ne nt t o your ma ki ng - -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI