Anthony Ray Adkins v. Bluegrass Estates, Inc.
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 468
Tenn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Timberlake Estates, Phase One comprises 20 lots with a recorded Declaration restricting covenants and a boat ramp/parking area;
- Declaration states use of boat ramp/parking on a first-come, first-served basis and that it may be used by present owners and purchasers of lots from the developers;
- Auction in 2003 marketed 20 tracts with private parking and boat ramp for Timberlake Estates owners;
- Tribell drafted the Declaration; Tribell conveyed Phase One lots and later sold remaining acreage to Bluegrass Estates, Inc.;
- Plaintiffs (Phase One lot purchasers) sued Bluegrass/Tribell alleging the ramp/parking area was intended for Phase One only; the trial court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on that scope issue;
- Court affirmed, holding the Phase One lots have exclusive, perpetual use of the easement and parking area, and that adjoining acreage has no appurtenant right to use the facility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Declaration unambiguous in scope, limiting rights to Phase One? | Phase One rights are exclusive to the 20 lots depicted; | Declaration grants broader, non-exclusive easement to developers/purchasers outside Phase One; | Ambiguous; covenants construed with extrinsic evidence. |
| Did the trial court err by considering circumstances beyond the four corners of the Declaration? | Extrinsic evidence supports Phase One exclusivity. | Court should rely on the Declaration’s language alone. | No error; surrounding circumstances properly considered. |
| Were nonparties properly joined or had their rights been affected by the judgment? | Nonparties’ interests could be affected; | Joinder not properly raised; | Waived or not reversible error due to record. |
| Did the court err in not making explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law? | Memorandum lacked explicit separate findings. | Findings adequate to challenge judgment. | Findings sufficient; Rule 52.01 complied in substance. |
| Does Tribell retain rights to grant further easements to others outside Phase One? | No, rights are restricted to Phase One buyers. | Tribell could grant outside easements. | Trial court’s interpretation upheld; exclusivity to Phase One. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planters Gin Co. v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co., Inc., 78 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2002) (contract interpretation; look to entire instrument; ambiguity identified through context)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. 2006) (ambiguous contract language; rules of construction; parol evidence allowed)
- Rogers v. First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 738 S.W.2d 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (contract interpretation; four-corners rule; ambiguity inquiry)
- Jackson v. Miller, 776 S.W.2d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (ambiguous language construed against drafter)
- Griswold v. Income Properties, II, 880 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (joinder/pleading issues and party interests)
- Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Woods, 565 S.W.2d 861 (Tenn. 1978) (contract interpretation; whole-contract approach)