A boundary dispute arose between Open Lake Sporting Club and Lauderdale Haywood Angling Club regarding land ownership adjacent to Open Lake in Lauderdale County, Tennessee. After prolonged litigation, both parties agreed to a new survey to determine the boundary line, binding themselves to the surveyor's findings. However, after the surveyor submitted a report, Lauderdale Haywood Angling Club contested its validity, asserting that the surveyor merely replicated a previous survey instead of conducting an independent assessment. The trial judge declined to hear the challenge, citing the agreement to be bound by the surveyor’s determination. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need to address the validity of the survey. The case originated in 1988 when Open Lake Club sought to terminate Lauderdale Haywood Club's members' access to the lake, leading to counterclaims regarding usage rights and the boundary line's location.
After a trial, the chancellor issued a 27-page opinion incorporated into a final judgment on June 4, 1991. The court determined that Open Lake Club held a deed to a body of water, while Lauderdale Haywood Club owned approximately 40 acres of high land suitable for recreational use. Historical agreements allowed Open Lake Club to use the 40-acre tract in exchange for Lauderdale Haywood Club's access to the lake. The court noted that the minutes from Open Lake Club reflected mutual use of each other's properties, confirming that members of Open Lake Club had established cabins and fishing camps on Lauderdale Haywood Club's land. Both clubs were found to be using the other’s property with permission, leading to the application of the doctrine of estoppel, preventing either club from claiming more extensive rights. Consequently, Lauderdale Haywood Club's use of the lake was restricted to permissions granted by Open Lake Club, while Open Lake Club had no rights to the 40-acre tract beyond what Lauderdale Haywood Club allowed.
Regarding the boundary dispute, each club presented surveys to establish their respective boundaries, but the court could not determine the true boundary lines due to inadequacies in the deeds. The court stated that deeds without precise measurements only convey remaining property after surrounding boundaries are accurately defined. The court found insufficient evidence to favor either club’s survey, confirming both owned the property as described in their deeds but could not ascertain the exact acreage or boundary lines. There was no evidence of adverse possession to establish title. Acknowledging the time and resources expended in the case, the court expressed regret over its inability to delineate boundary lines and deferred a decision on the counterclaim until further evidence was provided.
Lauderdale Haywood Club appealed the trial court's order, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment. Subsequently, the parties entered a written agreement settling all disputes, which became part of a final decree on November 11, 1992. This agreement stipulated that a court-selected third-party surveyor's findings regarding the boundary dispute would be final, and the court ordered a new survey to determine the common boundary lines between the properties.
Boundary lines established by the surveyor are final and binding on all parties involved in the lawsuit. The appointed surveyor is to survey the disputed property based on the allegations in the complaints and must file a report with the court. The surveyor has access to relevant court records and may consult with the parties' surveyors. All parties waive their right to appeal the surveyor's findings, which will be incorporated into the final decree. In 2002, Open Lake Club filed a petition for a new surveyor due to the lack of response from the original court-appointed surveyor, leading to the appointment of Senior Judge Allen Wallace in 2004. The parties eventually agreed on surveyor Joey Wilson, whose report, filed on August 16, 2006, indicated that the boundary line was further north than initially claimed, granting Open Lake Club ownership of additional land. A memorandum opinion on May 25, 2007, acknowledged the acceptance of the surveyed boundary line by both parties and directed the preparation of an order to reflect this boundary. In response, Lauderdale Haywood Club filed a motion on May 29, 2008, to set aside the survey, arguing that the discrepancy between their trial positions and the survey findings was significant, resulting in approximately six acres being transferred to Open Lake Club. Lauderdale Haywood Club alleged that Mr. Wilson did not conduct an independent survey and relied on a previous surveyor's opinions. Wilson's report referenced relevant deeds but noted that the precise location of title lines was less critical to resolving the boundary dispute, leading him to follow the previous surveyor's work.
Mr. Wilson's survey plat indicated that all title boundaries and improvements were derived from K. Max Billingsley’s survey, with exceptions noted. Lauderdale Haywood Club submitted an affidavit from surveyor J. Brantley Morris, III, who reviewed both Wilson’s and Billingsley’s reports. Morris criticized Billingsley for failing to establish the disputed boundary line based on deeds, claiming he relied instead on possession and acquiescence, neglecting physical and documentary evidence. Morris noted that Wilson adopted Billingsley’s conclusions without independent verification and failed to clarify how the disputed boundary was determined. He emphasized the necessity of locating the northeast corner of the Conner and Mason grant to accurately establish the boundary, asserting that Wilson’s survey did not attempt to locate this critical point.
Morris described the role of a retracement surveyor as restoring the original boundary lines, stressing that Wilson merely retraced Billingsley’s work rather than the original surveyor’s. He found Wilson’s dismissal of the deeds' relevance perplexing, asserting that legal descriptions are crucial for reconstructing property lines. Ultimately, Morris expressed a lack of confidence in Wilson’s survey, stating it would not accurately reflect the true boundary line.
Subsequently, a trial judge convened a conference regarding Lauderdale Haywood Club's motion to set aside the survey. Open Lake Club filed for reconsideration, arguing that the parties had agreed to abide by the new surveyor's boundary determination and should thus be barred from contesting its validity. During a hearing on September 16, 2008, Open Lake Club's counsel likened the situation to establishing a boundary by arbitration, while Lauderdale Haywood Club’s counsel maintained that their intention was to have a surveyor review the titles, testimonies, and evidence, which Wilson allegedly failed to do.
On January 9, 2009, the trial court approved Mr. Wilson’s survey as the definitive boundary determination, barring any appeals. On February 9, 2009, the court denied Lauderdale Haywood Club’s motion to set aside the order while granting Open Lake Club’s motion to reconsider. Lauderdale Haywood Club subsequently filed a motion to amend, alleging that Mr. Wilson failed to perform his assigned task adequately, claiming his report contained errors and closely resembled another surveyor’s work, specifically that of Mr. Billingsley. A second affidavit from Mr. Morris indicated that Mr. Billingsley agreed that Mr. Wilson had likely copied his survey, asserting it was improbable for Mr. Wilson to have independently produced a survey with identical precision to Mr. Billingsley’s. Mr. Morris noted similarities in text and annotations between the two reports and emphasized that Mr. Billingsley could not reconstruct the disputed lines, which suggested that Mr. Wilson's survey would also fail in this regard. Lauderdale Haywood Club referenced eight surveys conducted since 1953, with six surveys closely aligning the boundary within 47 feet, contrasting with the 200 feet discrepancy found in Billingsley’s and Wilson’s surveys. Additionally, discrepancies were identified between the deed to the 8.82-acre tract received by Open Lake Club in 1953 and the grantor’s earlier deed, which purportedly instigated the boundary dispute. The president of Lauderdale Haywood Club stated that the intention behind the settlement with Open Lake Club was to have an independent surveyor determine the boundary based on trial testimony and existing documents. Lauderdale Haywood Club argued that the court's order effectively took away its property that had been uncontested for over a century and contended that Mr. Wilson's survey contradicted evidence presented at trial, including Chancellor Whitenton’s 1992 order, which acknowledged that Open Lake Club members had built on Lauderdale Haywood Club’s land. In contrast, Mr. Wilson’s survey allocated all houses correctly to their respective clubs. The trial court denied Lauderdale Haywood Club’s motion to alter or amend on October 1, 2009, prompting a timely appeal. On appeal, Lauderdale Haywood Club claims the trial court abused its discretion by accepting Mr. Wilson’s survey and denying its motion without a hearing or the opportunity to present evidence. Open Lake Club argues the survey is binding and that the appeal is frivolous, warranting attorney’s fees.
The decision of the chancery court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court's order, which approved the parties' agreement for a new survey to determine the common boundary lines, is central to this case. The order specifies that the surveyor must independently investigate the disputed property and submit a report to the court. If Mr. Wilson merely replicated Mr. Billingsley’s report without conducting an independent assessment, it would violate the court's directive and the parties' agreement, which did not permit selecting from existing surveys.
The trial court failed to hold a hearing to validate Mr. Wilson's survey despite Lauderdale Haywood Club's assertion that depositions were already scheduled. Lauderdale Haywood Club seeks the chance to present evidence and cross-examine relevant parties to clarify Mr. Wilson's actions in completing his survey. The court agrees this opportunity should be provided to both parties, allowing them to present their proofs regarding the compliance with the original order.
The court concludes by reversing the chancery court's decision and remanding the case for a hearing to ascertain if Mr. Wilson conducted a new survey and made an independent determination of the boundary line. No attorney's fees are awarded to Open Lake Club, and costs for the appeal are assigned to them, with execution permitted if necessary.
