*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 517 S.W.2d at 197 Compensation

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. 97 L.Ed.2d 677 Co., the lan issue before us whether McArthur v. East Tenn. Natural Gas (Tenn.1991). guage Warranty from Deed In 1839 S.W.2d Estate of Tennes Supreme Court embraced regarding ambigu see restrictions is this principal Mayor Humes Knox (1 Hum.) (1839) ville, ous as to whether the referenced restric 20 Tenn. tions conveyance, the entire said: platted Deanbrook subdivisions well as land, [EJvery where not proprietor tract, or unsubdivided De- custom, restrained covenant has Court, in anbrook subdivisions. This Hil the entire dominion of the soil (Tenn. Powers, lis v. 875 S.W.2d space any above below to extent he Ct.App.1993) meaning considered it, may occupy choose “ambiguity” term context he may use his land occupation accord- *7 “The term covenant as follows: restrictive ing his judgment, being own without ‘ambiguity’ meanings. It primary has two consequences the answerable uncertainty general can in a mean doubt owner, occupa- unless adjoining such way; uncertainty or it can doubt or mean intentionally tion he either or for want arising possibility from the of the same diligence of reasonable care and inflicts language being fairly in more understood upon him an injury. ways at than one.” Hillis 276. That at Humes Court concluded that the second definition Because restrictive are covenants the fatal to one that can be a restrictive derogation right the fundamental covenant in a deed. free enjoyment property, use and real Warranty The language in the Deed not under are favored Tennessee law. University from the Estate Fox, v. 219 S.W.3d 324 Williams conveyance, is as follows: “This (Tenn.2007)(citing Arthur Lake Tansi however, is made to Restrictive (Tenn. Vill., Inc., 590 S.W.2d applicable to all the lots lo- Covenants 1979)). strictly are Restrictive cated in the Deanbrook Sub-divisions Arthur at 927. construed. 564, in record in book of page deeds concerning appli County, the the Knox Ten- Any doubt Office of nessee, specific will instrument cability of a restrictive covenant be which said hereby Third, language reference is made for said condi- at issue the Word tions, limitations, reservations and restric- and Rochelle demonstrates how eas- deeds language susceptible tions.” This to two ily could have extended very meanings. different It could mean restrictions to the outside the the referenced restrictive covenants University of Tennes- subdivisions applies property conveyed to all of the intention. see deed if that had been its including tract, in- unsubdivided These deeds offer no illumination as to the Property. cluded the Graf Or it could grantor regarding intent of the the Uni- mean Dean Estate intended to versity of Tennessee deed. have the referenced restrictive covenants Since the terms of the restrictions in the apply only to the lots the Dean- within University ambigu- of Tennessee deed are original brook subdivisions as was the in- ous, obliged ambi- we resolve such tent when the restrictions recorded guity against party seeking to enforce in 1954. Accordingly, we conclude that the restriction and in a manner which will ambiguity exists. prop- advance the unrestricted use of the However, plaintiffs argued that erty. The Trial did not err in Court find- Word and Rochelle deeds demonstrate ing the not apply restrictions did that the Dean Estate intended the record- Property.3 ed declarations to to the unsubdivid- ed tract as well as the subdivisions. Next, plaintiffs argue that if even those deeds the Dean Estate lots University of Tennes grantees unsubdivided tract to expressly incorporate see deed did not specifically provided “that the restrictive property, restrictions as to the Graf covenants now to Deanbrook apply under the doctrine of Subdivision, South which said covenants implied negative reciprocal easements. are of ... record Book of Deeds 954 at Larkin, in Leach v. No. Page ... shall be applicable to the (Tenn.Ct.App. Sept.24, WL 377629 conveyed.” herein Plaintiffs con- 1993) summarized regard Tennessee law tend that this is evidence of the ing negative reciprocal easement as fol grantor’s regarding conveyance intent lows: but arewe may A property parcels owner sell off persuaded. First, the language refer- persons may a tract to different encing the restrictions in the Word and include the deeds restrictive cove- Rochelle deeds is clear and unambiguous, *8 nants for the benefit of not the unlike the in the property per- owner but also the other deed, secondly, because the buy sons portions who of the tract. In Word and Rochelle deeds each circumstance, grantees acquire lot, just one which was located in the un- not an unqualified absolute and title to opposed subdivided tract as to multiple respective parcels, then- subdivisions, but rather a lots located unsubdivided tracts as in title limited the restrictions con- the deed to the University, there question Developers, was no as to tained the deed. Land Maxwell, 904, what lot the apply. restrictions were to Inc. v. 537 912 S.W.2d argued "subject phrase property 3. Graf further that the to the Graf because of the use of that phrase. argu- to” the deed and relied on an American The Trial Court discussed this 780, Reports support rely support Law 84 A.L.R.2d ment but did not on it to its holding. contention that the restrictions cannot 910 Haiman, their case.

(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, 164 Tenn. at 47 S.W.2d at Haiman, 252, 164 Tenn. at 47 S.W.2d v. Inc., 753; Developers, v. Land Maxwell 754; Bailey, v. 737 S.W.2d at Stracener 869, (Tenn.Ct.App.1972); 485 S.W.2d 873 536, (Tenn.Ct.App.1986). 537-38 Owenby Boring, Tenn.App. v. circum- Negative reciprocal easements (1954). S.W.2d and, property scribe the free use of *at 3. Leach therefore, though even are not favored part jurispru- of our they have been Property is Plaintiffs claim Develop- many years. dence for Land reciprocal implied negative to an Maxwell, 913; ers, Inc. v. 537 S.W.2d at is an extension of the doc- easement which Cox, 169, 171 Essary v. 844 S.W.2d negative reciprocal easement trine 1990). The courts enforce them with restrictive cove- include where ambiguities care and resolve all great expressly applied. not been nants have property. of the free use of favor ex- Property Third The Restatement of grant- grantor Both the and the fellow of the doctrine plains the extension titles contain similar restric- ees whose follows: recip- may enforce their tive covenants im- the doctrine underlying [of The idea rights in either negative rocal easement that reciprocal when plied servitudes] equitable proceeding. legal a or subject to restric- purchaser buys land Wagner, 146 Tenn. at 654- Laughlin carry general out a imposed tions seeking at 477. Grantees S.W. purchaser development, plan reciprocal of a equitable enforcement that all the land entitled to assume (1) prove: negative easement must is, be, similarly development will their titles from a parties derived general plan. carry restricted to out (2) that the common grantor; common de- selling land By prop- for the general plan had a plan general effect a (3) signed put into involved; the common erty impliedly developer development, cov- grantor intended for restrictive involved; purchasers represents enant to benefit the is, (4) plan grantees had actual or of the land included rest *9 be, That similarly the restriction restricted. knowledge of or will constructive enforced, parcels. See on the they purchased their is representation when Haiman, 164 Tenn. at an im- Ridley estoppel, by imposing v. grounds of the devel- at 755. plied reciprocal S.W.2d servitude in the remaining land included oper’s judicial enforcement seeking Grantees implied-reciprocal- plan. Because the reciprocal easement negative their undercuts the Statute servitude doctrine necessarily limited rights are not uncertainty appeal of Frauds and creates was base- persuaded plaintiffs’ titles, delay, as applied only just land it should be less or taken for reasons of 27-1-122, general plan § when of a required by the existence is TenmCode Ann. clear by appellees and establishment of the servitude and we find this issue raised necessary injustice. is to avoid be to without merit. 2.14(1) §

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