TONI BARRIOS, ET AL.
CHARLIE SIMPKINS, ET AL.
June 6, 2018
Interlocutory Appeal from the Chancery Court for Cheatham
County No. 16245 Philip E. Smith, Judge 
plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants for
trespass and sought a declaration of the boundary line
between the two properties, among other things. Following
discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the
grounds that a prior case involving the plaintiffs and the
prior owner of the defendants' property had established
the boundary line between the two properties. The trial court
granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs appeal. We
reverse the court's decision and remand for it to hear
evidence and to establish the boundary line between the two
R. App. P. 9 Interlocutory Appeal; Judgment of the Chancery
Court Reversed; Case Remanded
R. Haude, Nashville, Tennessee, and Rhonda R. Crabtree,
Ashland City, Tennessee, for the appellants, Toni Barrios and
Nathan Hunt and Hollie Lura Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee,
for the appellees, Charlie Simpkins and Jackie Simpkins.
W. McClarty, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and Andy D. Bennett, J.,
W. MCCLARTY, JUDGE.
case involves two separate lawsuits decided by the trial
court, to which Toni and Louis Barrios
("Appellants"), were parties. In the first case,
Nicholson v. Barrios ("the prior case"),
Appellants were named as defendants by their neighbor, Mary
Louise Nicholson ("Ms. Nicholson"), when she
alleged that a storage shed that Appellants 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.
the pending litigation of the prior case, Appellants removed
the structure that Ms. Nicholson alleged was encroaching onto
her property. It is the position of Appellants that, upon the
removal of the structure, the case became moot. Following
this removal, on November 16, 2012, Appellants and Ms.
Nicholson entered into the agreed order below:
1) In this cause it appears to the satisfaction of the Court,
as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective
parties hereto, that all matters and things in controversy
have been compromised and settled and this cause should be
dismissed with prejudice.
2) The Defendants, Louis S. Barrios and Toni Barrios, are
hereby enjoined from placing any structure on the property of
the Plaintiff, Mary Louise Nicholson.
3) It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by the
Court that this cause be, and is hereby ...