*1 (1972)). Tennessee, § for all of 87.60 same is true Compensation men’s Law result, nine employees throughout As a Court concluded: Holland’s moreover, states; acts, if con- even these present undisputed In the it that ease Tennessee, are not a connection sidered to the State of contacts which re- the statute the substantial connection Tennessee has com- with workmen’s quires. hold that Madden Accordingly, we question claim in are that the pensation compensation is not entitled workers’ resident of disabled workman is a of Tennessee provisions under benefits job state and he notified was 50-6-115(3). Code Annotated section local union. opportunity through his It that the has employer is true workman’s Conclusion coverage
compensation insurance
suffi-
satisfy
requirements
cient
reviewing
applica-
After
the record
of this state
as of other
law
as well
the em-
authority, we
ble
conclude
hold,
operates.....
states which it
We
Madden,
ployee, Lisa
failed to show
however, that these are
con-
in Ten-
her contract
hire
formed
insufficient
was
justify
appli-
tacts with the
state
or that
a substantial
nessee
there was
compensa-
cation
local workmen’s
her
between Tennessee and
connection
claim,
law to the
the contract
tion
since
relationship at
employee-employer
employment,
performance
are as-
injury.
appeal
time of
Costs
and the
occmred
injury
work
all
Madden,
surety, for
and her
sessed
another state.
necessary.
execution
if
may
which
issue
added);
Ray,
(emphasis
see also 99 C.J.S. Workers’ (1908) (“[T]he § an sole fact that em- ployer headquartered in the forum state application
is insufficient warrant compensation forum state workers’ law to debilitating who has suffered a worker Greig MASSEY, al., et ”). injury outside the state.... view, Ray Bryant In our demon- that a connection be- strate “substantial INC., GRAF, et al. R.W. the State and the em-
tween Tennessee, Appeals relationship” requires ployee-employer Section, at Knoxville. Eastern employee’s more than just much resi- reviewing dence Tennessee and June court must consider all relevant factors. Denied Appeal Permission Here, Holland although are Madden 15, 2008. Supreme Court Dec. of the other residents none Bryant Ray factors referred to in Kentucky
present: Madden traveled Holland; she job for the was Kentucky; and hired in she interviewed Kentucky; and she exclusively worked injured Kentucky. Although Mad- printed emphasizes pay- Holland den work-policies in checks and formulated *2 Knoxville,
George Morton, W. Tennes- see, for appellants. Morristown, Taylor Greene,
Erica Ten- nessee, Kelley, Knoxville, and Michael S. Tennessee, appellees. for Knoxville, Jerry Martin, M. Khaden for and Melanie Sakalla. Knoxville, John G. Lockridge, Tennes- see, Jeremy Burgin.
OPINION FRANKS,
HERSCHEL PICKENS P.J., Court, opinion delivered the J., LEE, joined, which SHARON G. JR., J., SUSANO, D. CHARLES Opinion. dissented and filed an FRANKS, HERSCHEL PICKENS P.J. brought declaratory Plaintiffs judg- action, asking ment the Court to declare building platted on par- of property cels from a common parcel purchased to a applied non-platted subsequent grantor. defendants from a Court, The Trial to a responding sum- mary motion, judgment made detailed facts, findings of and concluded that “subject to” deeds was ambiguous construed any inclusion of forth in Amended and Plaintiffs’ Second portion lay Judg- Supplemental Declaratory outside Bill for ap- Plaintiffs subdivisions. have ment. The set forth Grafs Motion facts *3 were, pealed, Judgment of the according and we affirm the for Reconsideration Graf, Trial undisputed. Court. in the Plaintiffs owners a sought
Plaintiffs in this action declara- and to en- Deanbrook Subdivisions seek tory judgment, asking the Court to declare force restrictive covenants and applied restrictions adjacent against proper- their subdivisions by property owned defendants and were owners, ty express Graf. including By its enforceable defendants. all terms the Declaration applies for Summary Defendant filed Motion lots within Deanbrook Subdivisions. Judgment based on his contentions After the Declaration was recorded as did not include recorded certain of portions Dean Estate property, expired his the restrictions had prop- Deanbrook and the Subdivisions community, by and were abandoned Subdivisions, erty outside the Deanbrook plaintiffs right and to enforce waived their including Property, the Graf what is now supported the restrictions. Graf the Mo- a War- University of Tennessee via Undisputed tion with a of Mate- Statement ranty Warranty provided: Deed. Deed rial of Restric- Facts Declarations There is de- by tions the J.H. Dean Estate on included within the above recorded boundary of August parcels acreage 1954 to the scribed all what 6th North as Deanbrook North land as Deanbrook Subdivi- know Sub-division known ...; sion, Subdivision, all of is known Deanbrook Deanbrook South Dean- what as ...; Subdivision; all of parcel brook Sub-division and what West West by land Graf listed as South Sub-divi- expressly owned is known Deanbrook ... or described Declaration Restric- sion 1954; tions and there recorded is, however, excepted There the follow- were numerous violations of the restric- lots hereto- ing subdivision which have tions in the Deanbrook Subdivisions. fore been sold: Deanbrook South Sub-division statement, response, a Rule 56
Plaintiffs’ 5, block, Lots and “A” All of Nos. 3 controversy set facts attempted to out 4, “B”; 5 Block and Block and and summary judgment. preclude that would “C”. Much the statement consisted of conclu- Plain- opinion
sions of counsel. of law Sub-division West disagreed tiffs with several of also 26, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, Lots All of Nos. undisputed, facts maintained Graf “A”; “C”; 7, Lots Block Lot No. Block particularly allegations as violations 2, 3, “D”; and Block Nos. Graf noted the Dean- 2, 3, 7, Block Lots Nos. “F”. brook Subdivisions. Deanbrook North Sub-division by 4, 7, the Trial 1, 2,
This Motion was denied All of Lots and 15 Nos. Judge, subsequently a second Motion explained in his motion: Graf Judgment filed. Summary for was words, physical the outer In other to the Motion, single conveyance Graf asked bounds the second included, as a University of Summary of Motion for reconsideration its subset, con- stipulated all the Judgment and facts set discrete made conveyance is further tained in the Dean Subdivisions. utility existing and other drainage, to all physical single
outer con- bounds rights, including but not limit- easement veyance utility to, drainage and easements ed all also acre included the undivided 30+ maps noted on the recorded shown or parcel Map land shown Control the Deanbrook Sub-divisions. 122K, B, Group in Deed described dispute foregoing did not Plaintiffs Book Of- p. facts. County, Tennessee, fice of Knox which purchased Graf subsequently that as the Declaration at argued
(the not property”), “Graf and to the Graf expressly apply which issue did not should not part property Dean- and the covenants be never has been of the apply points it. extended to to Graf out fact, brook In Graf Subdivisions. the that restrictive covenants are favored property immediately adjacent lies to against party construed the and will be boundary the eastern-most of Dean- the - tryim enforce them and that courts to brook South Subdivision. extending enlarging by avoid As lan- excerpted shown the above argued implication. Specifically, he guage Warranty Deed, from con- the the convey- the to” in the “subject language veyance University to the ance of the Graf and the Dean- excepted twenty-eight lots the within University brook of subdivisions Deanbrook Subdivisions that had previ- incorporate Tennessee was insufficient ously been sold to In parties. third convey- the Declaration to the Deanbrook words, other the of Tennes- property. Alternatively, of Graf ance the only purchasing see was lots from argued Graf War- original Deanbrook Subdivisions’ devel- ranty the Deanbrook referencing Deed opers that already had not been sold and, such, ambiguous Declaration was buyers. individual applicabili- should be construed though Even conveyance to the Uni- ty property. to the Graf versity of Tennessee did not include Plaintiffs countered that recorded twenty-eight of the Deanbrook Subdivi- restrictions, applicable expressly were lots, previously-sold sions’ original subdivisions, the tracts land within the developers clearly wanted the Dean- expressly applicable to the Graf brook Declaration of Restrictions Property on the based existing easements to to the Dean- the Dean deed from Estate Univer- Thus, brook conveyed. lots that were sity Alternatively, plaintiffs of Tennessee. the following language appears that, contended based on the actions of the Warranty Deed: Estate, are applica- however, Property ble to Graf based on the conveyance, sub- is made implied negative reciprocal doctrine of ject to applicable Restrictive Covenants upon the easements entire tract. to all of the lots located in the Dean- brook Sub-divisions record in book hearing Summary A on the Motion 564, deeds page Judgment was held on December Tennessee, Office County, of Knox granted before the Chancellor Sum- who specific which said instrument reference The mary Judgment to defendants. Chan- hereby conditions, limi- made for said Opinion set forth the cellor’s Memorandum restrictions, tations, findings reservations material following undisputed added) (emphasis facts: The tract versity Tennessee. portion is a Property
1. The Graf outside to Graf was original tract of land owned Dean tract. portion subdivided original estate of J.H. Dean. 104 acres approximately began tract was platted its tract and 4. Graf of this on half Approximately area. subdivi- develop it as a residential into three resi- tract subdivided that the Graf undisputed It is sion. designated as comply Subdivisions dential does not development North, South Deanbrook applicable the recorded plats and Deanbrook West. subdivisions. to the Deanbrook are recorded the Subdivisions Plaintiffs are owners pages Book 20 at County Map Knox the Deanbrook Subdivisions within 1954 the Dean August 157-159. the re- seek a declaration who Declaration of recorded a Estate declarations corded County in Knox deed Restrictions conveyed to the Uni- tract the entire expressly page book which including versity of sub- three Deanbrook applied parties have property. Several *5 of the The remainder divisions. Graf and lots from purchased un- unplatted tract original was necessary as named defendants 1965. Dur- until December divided litigation. parties to some years of eleven ing period that conclusions of law The Trial Court’s were sold tracts the subdivisions were: in the subdivision other tracts while unsold. to” “subject Regarding 1. Estate sold the 2. In 1965 the Dean from the Dean Estate the deed tract, acre exclusive entire 104 Tidal University of the Subdivisions those lots within ambiguous and found that it was Court sold, already to that had been apply the re- be construed could The con- University of Tennessee. subdivisions, as only to the strictions University of Tennes- veyance to the On the other originally intended. was subdi- platted both the see included hand, phrase to” could “subject that outside and the land visions (the grantor of the reflect the intent (including subdivisions Estate) apply the recorded parties is referred what entirety of the tract in- Property). The deed the Graf University of Tennes- conveyed to the following language: cludes the portion see, including the unsubdivided conveyance is made encompassed what the tract which applicable to all restrictive Trial Property. the Graf now of the lots located it established stated that well Court in- ... To which said Sub-divisions in the terms ambiguity “any that hereby reference is specific strument parties intent of the covenant [a][ ] limitations, conditions, for said made the restric- against be resolved will and restrictions. reservations Court, Thus, finding that tion.” create of this case undisputed facts University of Ten- 2003 the July “subject ambiguity an inherent by Quitclaim transferred nessee choice it had no held that language, to” thirty approximately Deed a tract strictly construe Graf, but to R.W. to the Defendant acres of the the inclusion original of the Inc., part which was lay any portion the Uni- on Dean tract transferred A. err in granting of the Deanbrook Did the Trial Court outside subdivisions.1 summary ap- judgment favor 2. The Trial then Court considered Plain- finding on a pellees based tiffs’ alternative claim the actions language in the deed to the Univer- original grantors caused cre- sity referencing the implied reciprocal ation of an negative ambiguous? restrictions was burdening easement the Graf Proper- granting B. the Trial Court err in Did ty. The Trial Court determined that summary judgment ap- favor of implied negative reciprocal ease- pellees finding on a that no based ment had not arisen and the re- implied reciprocal negative ease- did not strictions the Graf in favor of appel- ments had arisen Property. The relied Court on the lants? Supreme case Land Appellees also the issue of raised whether Maxwell, Developers Inc. v. appeal was frivolous. (Tenn.1976) S.W.2d and the (3d) Property Restatement the Law Summary judgment appropriate § Servitudes it 2.14(g) when con- the moving party when demonstrates that cluded there have to be would genuine there are no issues of material evidence that had the in- and that is entitled judg fact he or she general tent for a plan develop- ment as Tenn. a matter of law. R. Civ. original ment of the entire tract for a P.56.03; Hall, Byrd v. 847 S.W.2d negative reciprocal (Tenn.1993). easement to be at- Appellate courts review *6 tached to the Graf Property. The Tri- summary de a judgment motion novo as al Court held that such no intent on a question presumption of law without part the Estate Dean v. correctness. Finister Humboldt Gener evidence and held that the Inc., (Tenn. restrictions 435, Hosp., al 970 S.W.2d 437 apply did not Property by the Graf 1998); Omer, 423, Robinson v. 952 S.W.2d way negative of a reciprocal easement. (Tenn.1997). 426 The evidence and all reasonable are inferences viewed the Further, Court, the relying Trial on the light most to the nonmoving par favorable (3d) Restatement the Law Property cm ty. Byrd, at 210-211. 847 S.W.2d 2.14(1), § Servitudes that the implied held reciprocal perti- servitude doctrine is not that the Plaintiffs contend the grantors only nent because made the in the deed from Dean Estate to the the applicable restrictions to the Dean- University referencing the brook subdivisions and not to the tract expressly applies restrictive covenants the the outside subdivisions.2 restrictions to the part non-subdivided appealed
Plaintiffs this property conveyed by Court and the the deed. Since raised these issues: the language the Chancellor held in the Trial Court 1. The considered Plaintiff's con- A.L.R.2d 780. However die Trial Court did conveyance "subject holding that a not base the tention made to" its restrictions were applicable restrictions set forth in another deed or in- to the on this not, more, basis. strument referred to will without the prop- make erty conveyed if in fact the do not The Trial not cite a Court did Tennessee apply. otherwise reviewed the principle one case for the doctrine of hold, Byerly, implied negative Tennessee case to so v. reciprocal Winstead easement never 2946, App. applies Tenn as well if 1984 Lexus as 84 the restrictions recorded.
908 ambiguous, restriction, inquiry against
deed to be
our first
is
resolved
the
Richards
Ass’n,
ambiguous
is
v.
whether
and
Homeowners
809
Abbottsford
193,
proper
and,
a
(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)
involves the
construction of
re- S.W.2d
195
likewise, any
in the
ambiguity
strictive covenant.
terms of the
restrictive
covenant will be resolved
The construction of restrictive cove
against the restriction.
v. Richard
Parks
nants,
contracts,
like other
written
a
son,
(Tenn.Ct
465,
567 S.W.2d
467-468
question
Maples
of law.
Homeowners
.App.1977).
Similarly, when the terms
a
Ass’n,
P’ship,
Inc. v.T & R Nashville Ltd.
may
covenant
be construed more than one
36,
(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).
993
38-39
S.W.2d
way,
any ambigui
the courts must resolve
principal
Our
analysis starts
basic
party
ties
seeking
enforce
of property
law that a
owner’s
in a
restriction and
manner which ad
use,
own,
right
enjoy
private prop
and
property.
vances the unrestricted use of the
erty is
v.
fundamental. Nollan California
Powers,
273,
illis
v.
875 S.W.2d
275-
H
Comm’n,
825, 831,
Coastal
483 U.S.
107
Parks,
(Tenn.Ct.App.1993);
76
at 468.
(1987);
S.Ct.
(Tenn.1976);
prove
recitals in the deeds to
Ridley v.
164
252,
750,
239,
754
to the deeds from the com
Tenn.
47 S.W.2d
addition
(1932);
Wagner,
v.
146 Tenn.
Laughlin
Developers, Inc. v.
grantor,
mon
Land
(1922).
653,
475,
647,
244
Maxwell,
912-913,
S.W.
477
537 S.W.2d at
ambiguity
concerning
some
exists
While
Arthur v.
may
plats,
also use recorded
grantees’
name of the
in-
the technical
Inc.,
Village,
590 S.W.2d
Lake Tansi
restrictive
arising
terests
from these
923,
(Tenn.1979);
v. Bai
928
Stracener
covenants,
commonly
the interest is now
538-39,
parol
at
or
evi
ley, 737 S.W.2d
reciprocal neg-
in Tennessee as a
known
surrounding
dence of the circumstances
Inc.
Developers,
easement. Land
ative
Ridley v.
purchase
property.
Maxwell,
912; Ridley
v.
537
at
S.W.2d
Haiman,
250,
REST 3d PROP-SERV We the Trial was correct conclude theory be a Under this there must find- summary awarding judgment favor ing grantor general plan that the had a or defendants, Judgment affirm and development it can scheme before be remand, and the cost the Trial Court with concluded that the to a is appellants. the appeal assessed to the reciprocal negative implied easement or
reciprocal negative easement. Here the J., SUSANO, JR., D. CHARLES Trial Court found there no evidence was Opinion. and filed an dissented plan as to intended such a J., SUSANO, JR., CHARLES D. tract. Supreme unsubdivided Our dissenting. finding the indicia Court discussed for must, focuses, majority as it on the general plan or scheme in the context of reciprocal following in the Estate’s negative doctrine of ease- University of Village, warranty ments in v. Lake deed to the Ten- Arthur Tansi (Tenn.1979) Inc. 590 S.W.2d but nessee: nega-
cautioned that while the doctrine of however, conveyance, is made sub- reciprocal tive recog- easements is well ject to Restrictive Covenants nized, it applied great is to be care. with to all of the lots in the Dean- located Inc., Maxwell, Land Developers, brook record book of Sub-divisions (Tenn.1976). S.W.2d 904 at 913 page deeds in the case, County, Office of properties Knox known as specific Deanbrook which said reference Subdivision instrument platted were conditions, limi- expressly hereby restrictions that made said applied only to Subdivisions, tations, Deanbrook record- reservations and restrictions. ed. The tract of land encompassed “[tjhis lan- majority concludes that the Dean properties adjacent to the Dean- very guage susceptible two different brook Subdivisions was not is, meanings,” judg- one of which not expressly included in the recorded majority, ment of the “that the Dean Es- Further, gener- restrictions. there nowas warranty tate intended to [in deed] plan al in- development scheme have the restric- Subdivisions’] [Deanbrook clude the unsubdivided properties tive lots within apply Deanbrook Subdivisions and affirm the we the Deanbrook This leads [Subdivisions.” Trial his finding Court on that the doctrine majority ambiguity to “conclude that negative reciprocal does not easement disagree. give exists.” I I When apply recorded restrictions subject language their usual words expressly applied plaintiffs proper- ordinary meaning required I am —as in ty Subdivision did warranty do—I do not find the deed to under this doctrine. ambiguous. I the lan- be As understand Finally, hand, plaintiffs’ ap- guage Graf contends that at it cannot be construed as being lots in the peal was frivolous because had no limited to *10 reasonable chance for are not platted success. We subdivisions. at “[t]his issue addresses reasonable inter- STATE
conveyance.” only is that of these two pretation words conveyed lots platted refer Frank Peter PINCHAK. Deanbrook Subdivisions and subdivisions. acreage platted outside the Appeals of Criminal Court “eonvey[ed].” There can This is what at Knoxville. no about this. be doubt Feb. 2005 Session. both conveyance” hence, “This — April acreage outside the lots and the Subdivisions—is stated Appeal Application Permission subject “made to.” warranty deed be by Supreme Denied clearly that all me this means To 24, 2005. Oct. property conveyed real some- Tennessee was burdened with all transac- thing. experienced have We
tions, sales, what-have-you that are “subject to” terms condi-
stated to be instances, those In some “terms tions. expressed are not and conditions” but, case, itself, a we are document such they can be found. In usually told where event, in such a situa- any what we know and conditions tion is that there are terms subject and the transaction or sale us, before them. In case now clearly and unam- “subject to” material is restrictive cove- defined as the biguously that can be found Book Deeds nants Office page County. Knox Dean Estate said my opinion, it said. I it meant and meant what what subject lan- not understand how do interpreted reasonably be guage can portion convey- “[t]his mean I to the restrictions. ance” is contention plaintiffs’ hold that would correct; subject language is regarding the grant summary trial court’s vacate pro- for further and remand judgment; ceedings. I dissent.
Accordingly, respectfully