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

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 , 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 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 - - Cour t : I know t he r e i s , a nd I ha ve no doubt a bout it. But I c a l l e d M . Bi l l i ngs l e y i n t o s e t t he r pr ope r t y l i ne s a nd now t ha t ’ s wha t he di d. And i f he ’ s wr ong, he ’ s j us t wr ong a nd you ha ve a r i ght t o a ppe a l i t . But I ’ m goi ng t o ma r k t hi s r e por t a s a n e xhi bi t a nd t ha t ’ s t ha t .

. . .

M . W i nma n: W l l , your Honor , I wa nt t o ma ke a r e e r e c or d. I obj e c t t o t hi s be i ng t he r e s ol ut i on of t he c a s e , j us t f or t he r e c or d.

A t r i a l c our t i s e nt i t l e d t o a dopt a s pe c i a l ma s t e r ’ s r e por t i n f ul l . T. R. C. P. 5 3. 04( 2) 1 . Howe ve r , i t wa s i n c u mb e nt upon t he Cour t t o a l s o he a r t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a n d ma ke i t s own a s s e s s me nt ba s e d upon t ha t e vi de nc e . Lak e s Pr o p e r t y Owne r s As s oc . I nc . v . Tol l i s on, 1994 W 534480, *2 - 3 L ( Te n n . App. 1994) ( ?The c our t c a nnot a bdi c a t e t o t he ma s t e r i t s r e s p o n s i bi l i t y t o ma ke a de c i s i on on t he i s s ue i n que s t i on.

I t mu s t do mor e t ha n ‘ r ubbe r s t a mp’ wha t t he ma s t e r ha s don e .

Sh o u l d i t de c i de t o c onf i r m t he ma s t e r ’ s r e por t , i t mus t be s a t i s f i e d, a f t e r e xe r c i s i ng i t s i nde pe nde nt j udgme nt , t h a t t he ma s t e r i s c or r e c t i n t he de c i s i on he ha s ma de . ?) .

The Cour t ma de no de t e r mi na t i on t ha t he a r i ng f ur t h e r e v i d e n c e woul d be dupl i c a t i ve or c umul a t i ve , a nd i t ha d not p r e - s e t a ny l i mi t s on t i me or t he numbe r of wi t ne s s e s t ha t c o u l d be pr e s e nt e d. The r e c or d s hows t he Cour t s i mpl y de c i d e d t o h a nd c ompl e t e r e s pons i bi l i t y f or f a c t f i ndi ng t o t he s p e c i a l ma s t e r . W n t he r ol e of t he ma s t e r i s t o de a l wi t h he c a s e s t ha t a r e unus ua l l y c ompl i c a t e d, t he Cour t i s not j u s t i f i e d i n r e f us i ng t o he a r a nd c ons i de r bot h pa r t i e s ’ r e l e v a nt , c ompe t e nt e vi de nc e on t he i s s ue . Conl e e a t 510- 5 1 1 .

Ge ne r a l l y, t he Appe l l a nt i s r e qui r e d t o ma ke a n o f f e r of pr oof whe n t he e xc l ude d e vi de nc e c ons i s t s of or a l t e s t i mony. St at e v . Goad , 707 S. W 2d 846, 853 ( Te nn. 1986) . .

Ho we v e r , t he pr oc e dur e e mpl oye d by t he Tr i a l Cour t wa s

Th e Ru l e p r o v i d e s t h a t i n n o n - j u r y a c t i o n s , ?[ t ] h e c o u r t a f t e r h e a r i n g ma y a d o p t t h e r e p o r t o r ma y mo d i f y i t o r ma y r e j e c t i t i n wh o l e o r i n p a r t o r ma y r e c e i v e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o r ma y r e c o mmi t i t wi t h i ns t r uc t i ons . ? T. R. C. P . 5 3 . 0 4 ( 2 ) . i r r e g ul a r , a nd a ppe l l a nt di d obj e c t t o not be i ng a l l owe d t o o f f e r e vi de nc e . The f a i l ur e t o of f e r pr oof doe s not n e c e s s a r i l y wa i ve t he i s s ue whe r e t he c our t ’ s r e f us a l t o a l l o w f u r t h e r e vi de nc e ma y a f f e c t t he f a i r ne s s of t he j udi c i a l p r o c e e di ng. Se e Fi r s t Nat i onal Bank & Tr us t Co. V. Ho l l i n gs wor t h, 931 F. 2d 1295, 1305 ( 8t h Ci r . 1991) ; al s o s e e Ba l d wi n v . Bal dwi n, 1996 W 87448 ( Te nn. App. 1996) .

L W r e c ogni z e t ha t bounda r y di s put e s c a n be ve xa t i o u s e a n d d i f f i c ul t of de t e r mi na t i on. Howe ve r , t he c our t s houl d c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e va nt e vi de nc e of f e r e d by t he pa r t i e s pr i or t o ma k i n g a de t e r mi na t i on t o e mpl oy a n e xpe r t a s a s pe c i a l ma s t e r . Af t e r a l l t he e vi de nc e i s pr e s e nt e d a nd t he c our t d e t e r mi ne s t ha t a s ur ve yor i s ne c e s s a r y t o e s t a bl i s h t he b o u n d a r y, i t i s me e t a nd pr ope r f or t he c our t t o s e l e c t a s u r v e y or wi t h i ns t r uc t i ons f r om t he c our t , a nd pr oc e e d i n a c c o r d a nc e wi t h T. R. C. P. 53. 04( 2) .

W c onc l ude t ha t unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s , i t i s e a p p r o p r i a t e t o va c a t e t h e Tr i a l Cour t ’ s j udgme nt a nd t he Co u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o pe r mi t t he pa r t i e s t o of f e r f ur t he r e vi de nc e o n t h e i s s ue of t he l oc a t i on of t he bounda r y, be f or e ma ki ng a f i na l de t e r mi na t i on.

The or de r of t he Tr i a l Cour t i s va c a t e d, a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d wi t h c os t of t he a ppe a l a s s e s s e d one - ha l f t o e a c h pa r t y.

________________________ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ ______________________ W l l i a m F. Cr a wf or d, P. J . ( W S. ) i .

_ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ ___ Da vi d R. Fa r me r , J .