WPC # VU:a % 0(b w@4 ) 8 0J@ 0T 0^ 0h< 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d U* B) DC AMdv~]v B D3 0@ AO> 0DS D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH,rAZ"Arial RegularX($- - UDDDUUDӀD 3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G !  #d#     YYY FILEDXApril23,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  d%%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .          \RA'\\RA'\7GXXdd7    ћ ALLSTATELIFEINSURANCECO. )      ) Plaintiff,    )      ) VS.      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019611CH00504ELIZABETHBARBER,inher  )individualcapacityandas  ) SpecialAdministratrixofthe  ) DavidsonChancery̜R!" A1-j|m`  `@RߛEstateofRaymondJoeBarber,  ) No.952713I      )  Defendant/Appellee,  )       )TORIL.HOLLINGSWORTH,inher )individualcapacity,    )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )̛@ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEX ̜APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEIRVINH.KILCREASE,JR.,CHANCELLORBRYANHOWARDHOLTON,HOWARD&GOODMAN424ChurchStreetNashville,Tennessee37219PAULS.DAVIDSONCHARLESW.COOK,IIISTOKES&BARTHOLOMEW,P.A.424ChurchStreetNashville,Tennessee37219 AttorneysforDefendant/AppelleeROBERTJ.NOTESTINE,III104WoodmontBoulevardSuite115Nashville,Tennessee37205 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellant̜@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED̜       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:LEWIS,J.KOCH,J.̜  ̛@ OPINION X  Thiscaseinvolvestheinterpretationofaformdesignatingtheappellantasthebeneficiaryonalifeinsurancepolicy.Thetrialcourtheldthattheappellanttookthepolicyproceedsastheexecutorofthedecedentsestateandnotasthesolebeneficiary.Weaffirm.@ I.   RaymondJoeBarberdiedonMarch1,1995owninga$500,000lifeinsurancepolicy.Inthesixteenmonthspriortothisdeath,Mr.Barberchangedthebeneficiariesonthepolicyfourtimes.Thefinalchangesnamed ToriL.Hollingsworth,ExecutorofEstate,100%astheprimarybeneficiaryand Estatewasnamedasthecontingentbeneficiary.  Mr.BarberswillnamedToriL.Hollingsworthastheexecutorofhisestateanddividedhisestateasfollows:fiftypercenttoToriL.Hollingsworth,andtwentyfivepercenteachtohisdaughter,ElizabethBarber,andhissister,CeciliaPeterson.AfterMr.Barbersdeath,theinsurancecompanygotadverseclaimsfromToriHollingsworthandElizabethBarberandfiledabillofinterpleaderintheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCounty.Thechancellorheldthatthedesignationofbeneficiarywasunambiguousandrefusedtoconsideranyextrinsicevidence.HegrantedsummaryjudgmenttoMs.Barberonherclaimthattheinsuranceproceedsbelongedtoherfathersestate.̛̜@ II.   WeagreethattheproceedsoftheinsurancepolicybelongtoMr.Barbersestatewhetherweconsidertheextrinsicevidenceornot.Lookingatthefourcornersofthebeneficiarydesignation,thedecedentsintenttohavethepolicyproceedspaidtohisestateseemedtobeclearlyestablished.Designating ToriL.Hollingsworth,ExecutorofEstate,100%astheprimarybeneficiaryandhis estateasthecontingentbeneficiaryleaveslittleroomforspeculation.ThiscaseisthereverseofPeelerv.Doster,627S.W.2d936(Tenn.1982),wheretheSupremeCourtsaid:8 8 Whenabeneficiaryisnamedbynamebutwordsofrelationshiparethenaddedwhicharefalse,itisgenerallyheldthatthewordsofrelationshiparemerelymattersofdescriptionandthatthespecifiedrelationshipisnotaconditionthatmustbesatisfiedtoenablethebeneficiarytoreceivetheproceedsoftheinsurance.See5CouchonInsurance28:9(2ded.1960).Inthiscase,thedesignationwasaccurateanddescribedastatusandnotjustarelationship.  If,however,weconsidertheextrinsicevidenceweareledtothesameconclusion.AspartofhermotionforsummaryjudgmentMs.BarberfiledthedepositionofMarkWeakly,theAllstateagentwhowitnessedthebeneficiarychange.HetestifiedthatMr.Barberexpressedaclearintenttomaketheinsuranceproceedspayabletohisestate.Hewantedtomakesurethathisdaughterwastakencareofwhichhehadaccomplishedbyprovidinginhiswillthatshewouldtaketwentyfivepercentofhisestate.  Ontheotherhand,Ms.HollingsworthdidnotofferanyadmissibleevidencetocontradictMs.Weakleystestimony.ShereliedonanunsignedlistofinstructionspurportedlygiventoherbyanagentofMr.BarberscompanyafterhisdeathandanunauthenticatedfinancialstatementbearingMr.Barberssignature.Inthefinancialstatementundertheheadingof InsurancetheAllstatepolicyislistedwithToriHollingsworthshownasthebeneficiarywithoutanylimitingwordsordescribingherashisexecutor.  Thesedocuments,however,arenotadmissibleintheformtheywerepresentedtothecourt.Thereisnoevidenceoftheirauthenticity.SeeRuleϜ901,Tenn.R.Evid.ThereforetheycannotbeconsideredforRule56purposesandtheydonotraiseagenuineissueofmaterialfact.SeeRule56.05,Tenn.R.Civ.Proc.  ThejudgmentofthecourtbelowisaffirmedandthecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybecomenecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.̜ Ӝ      _________________________________      BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:̜_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE̜_______________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE̜  ќ