Barrios v. Simpkins

• Decision Date: 10 November 2022
• Docket Number: M2021-01347-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: TONI BARRIOS ET AL. v. CHARLIE SIMPKINS ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

TONI BARRIOS ET AL. v. CHARLIE SIMPKINS ET AL.

No. M2021-01347-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

November 10, 2022

Session August 2, 2022.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Cheatham County No. 16245 Kelvin D. Jones, Judge.^[1]

In this boundary line dispute in which the plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment concerning the boundary between the parties' adjoining parcels of real property, the trial court, following a bench trial, entered declaratory judgment adopting the boundary line of a survey presented by the plaintiffs over other competing surveys. The court, however did not adopt a boundary line alternatively propounded by the plaintiffs claiming adverse possession of a disputed portion of land. The court dismissed all other claims with prejudice including, inter alia, competing trespass claims and the plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. The plaintiffs have appealed raising issues regarding the trial court's denial of their adverse possession and trespass claims and requests for damages and injunctive relief. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' adverse possession claim and the court's declaration of the parties' boundary line. However, determining that the trial court erred in applying an intent to trespass as a necessary element of civil trespass, we vacate the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' trespass claim. We remand for the trial court to (1) apply the proper intent standard for trespass to determine, with the boundary line as declared by the trial court, whether the defendants trespassed on the plaintiffs' property; (2) if trespass occurred, determine the type(s) of damages to be awarded; and (3) if trespass occurred, set the amount of damages to be awarded with discretionary costs as appropriate. Discerning that the trial court made no findings regarding the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, we also remand for consideration of that request based on relevant factors and entry of an order granting or denying injunctive relief with appropriate findings of fact. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects. We deem the plaintiffs' and the defendants' respective requests for attorney's fees on appeal to be waived.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part; Case Remanded

Irene R. Haude, Nashville, Tennessee, and Rhonda (Crabtree) Meyers, Ashland City, Tennessee, for the appellants, Toni Barrios and Louis Barrios.

B. Nathan Hunt and Macayla F. Heath, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Charlie Simpkins and Jackie Simpkins.

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., joined.

OPINION

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JUDGE.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This is the second appeal to this Court in the instant action from the Cheatham County Chancery Court ("trial court"). See Barrios v. Simpkins, No. M2018-00122-COA-R9-CV, 2019 WL 3406366 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2019) ("Barrios I"). In Barrios I, a decision entered upon interlocutory appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Charlie Simpkins and Jackie Simpkins (collectively, "Defendants"), which had been granted against the plaintiffs, Toni Barrios and Louis Barrios (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on the basis of res judicata. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs own real property located at 1038 Fox Hill Road in Ashland City, Tennessee, identified as Lots 14 and 15 within the Fox Hill Subdivision plat ("the Barrios Property"), and Defendants own adjoining real property known as Lots 12 and 13 on Fox Hill Road ("the Simpkins Property"). The Barrios Property is improved by a home built in approximately 1998, two years prior to Plaintiffs' purchase of the property. Shortly after purchasing their property in 2000, Plaintiffs erected a fence around a portion of the back of the property. The Simpkins Property remained undeveloped at the time of trial.

Plaintiffs previously had been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by Defendants' predecessor in title, Mary Louise Nicholson. Id. As pertinent to this action, the Barrios I Court described the factual and procedural background of the prior lawsuit as follows:

[Ms. Nicholson] alleged that a storage shed that Appellants [the Barrioses] were constructing protruded beyond their property line and onto her property. The prior case was filed on July 5, 2011, and, in paragraph six of her complaint, Ms. Nicholson referenced an attached property survey completed by Jeff Chandler of Chandler Surveying ("the Chandler survey"), which showed that a corner of the storage shed crossed the property line at issue. In the corresponding paragraph of their answer to Ms. Nicholson's complaint, Appellants denied the allegations regarding the Chandler survey.

During the pending litigation of the prior case, Appellants removed the structure that Ms. Nicholson alleged was encroaching onto her property.

Id. Following the removal of the structure, Ms. Nicholson and Plaintiffs entered into an agreed order, inter alia, enjoining Plaintiffs from placing any structure on Ms. Nicholson's property. Id.

The Barrios I Court further explained this action's history preceding the interlocutory appeal:

Following the dismissal of the prior case, the property that had belonged to Ms. Nicholson was purchased by Charlie Simpkins and Jackie Simpkins [Defendants]. During the time that [Defendants] were in possession of the property that formerly belonged to Ms. Nicholson, they had multiple surveys conducted. According to [Plaintiffs], after each of these surveys, [Defendants] moved the property line further onto land claimed by [Plaintiffs]. Additionally, [Plaintiffs] assert that a surveyor placed metal stakes on their property, signifying the changes shown in the new surveys. Further, [Defendants] cut down trees [Plaintiffs] claim to be their property. On July 31, 2014, [Plaintiffs] filed the present case against [Defendants] alleging trespass and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. They also request a declaration by the trial court establishing the actual property line between the parties.

Following discovery, [Defendants] moved for summary judgment in part on the theory that the agreed order entered into during the prior case bars [Plaintiffs'] claims in the current case because the boundary line has been established, as a matter of res judicata, by the dismissal of the prior case.

Id. Additionally, prior to filing their motion for summary judgment, Defendants had filed an "Answer and Cross Claim," asserting the defense of res judicata and also asserting a counterclaim against Plaintiffs of trespass and one against Ms. Barrios specifically for malicious prosecution regarding a criminal warrant for assault that she had previously sought against Mr. Simpkins.

The Barrios I Court further explained the summary judgment proceedings:

The trial court agreed with [Defendants'] argument and granted their motion for summary judgment, finding that the boundary line between the two properties was established as a matter of res judicata by the dismissal of the prior lawsuit. [Plaintiffs] moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted this motion in part (noting that "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata the boundary line between Plaintiffs' and Defendants' properties is that which was on a survey attached to the complaint filed in a case between the Barrios' and the Simpkins' predecessor in interest" and "as a matter of law, the boundary line is established for purposes of this litigation and does not need to be litigated in this case.") and denied it in part. Pursuant to Rule 9, [Plaintiffs] sought an interlocutory appeal on the res judicata portion of the trial court's order.

Id. In reversing the trial court's summary judgment order, this Court determined that Defendants had "failed to establish the defense of res judicata in their attempt to show that the property line was established in the prior case" because the agreed order "did not state that [Plaintiffs] had agreed to the property line as established in the Chandler survey." Id. at *3. This Court remanded the case "for such further proceedings as may be necessary to establish the proper boundary between the parties' properties." Id.

The trial court judge in Barrios I had been Judge Philip E. Smith, sitting by interchange upon an April 2015 order noting the sua sponte recusal of all 23rd Judicial District judges at that time. On remand, Judge Smith entered an order of recusal on September 30, 2019. The Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice then entered an order on October 18, 2019, designating Judge Kelvin D. Jones to hear the case by interchange in Davidson County.

Following a status conference, the trial court entered an order on May 19, 2021, denying a motion that Plaintiffs had filed to amend their complaint. The court stated in its May 2021 order that Plaintiffs would "be allowed to Amend the Complaint to conform to proof as submitted at trial at the end of evidence as allowed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure." Also in the May 2021 order, the trial court, inter alia, denied a motion filed by Plaintiffs to "maintain the disputed property solely" and directed that "neither party shall go upon the disputed property for any reason pending a final hearing in this matter."

We note that Plaintiffs' claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not included in their original complaint and that the trial court's references to these claims in its final order...