ÿWPC  …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0Jé 0T3 0^‡ 0hå 0rM 0|¿ 0†; 0Á 1uQ 0dÆ UB* %l U6r B)¨ DCÑ AM Ba U*~ ¨ MÁÔ$â D3v~9vÓ· 0@Š 0lÊ 0D6 AOzÆÉ 0D D/Ó B ©U!ÔøÔô3|xL($¡¡ 6D78D9D:D;<?D@DAÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒg$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔWalter€Everett€died€in€1993;€his€children€Marion€Everett€Barton€andÏà0 àGerald€Joseph€Everett€were€substituted€as€plaintiffs€in€place€of€theirÏfather.Ì ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒg$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔò òRULE€401.€€DEFINITION€OF€ð ðRELEVANT€EVIDENCE.ð ðó ó€€ð ðRelevantÏevidenceð ð€means€à0 àevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€anyÏfact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€theÏaction€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÏwithout€the€evidence.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒg$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔò òRule€803(6)€RECORDS€OF€REGULARLY€CONDUCTED€ACTIVITY.ÌÌó óà0 àà àA€memorandum,€report,€record,€or€data€compilation€in€any€form€ofÏacts,€events,€conditions,€opinions,€or€diagnoses€made€at€or€near€theÏtime€by€or€from€information€transmitted€by€a€person€with€knowledge€and€aÏbusiness€duty€to€record€or€transmit€if€kept€in€the€course€of€a€regularlyÏconducted€business€activity€and€if€it€was€the€regular€practice€of€thatÏbusiness€activity€to€make€the€memorandum,€report,€record,€or€dataÏcompilation,€all€as€shown€by€the€testimony€of€the€custodian€or€otherÏqualified€witness,€unless€the€source€of€information€of€the€method€orÏcircumstances€of€preparation€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.€€The€termÏð ðbusinessð ð€as€used€in€this€paragraph€includes€every€kind€of€business,Ïinstitution,€association,€profession,€occupation,€and€calling,€whetherÏor€not€conducted€for€profit.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¿£XXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€#&";+'h|` Å `€€Lß›€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌADA€BELL€BROWN€and€BEVERLYà à)€C/A€NO.Ï03A01„9605„00174ÌJ.€EVERETT,€MARION€EVERETTà à)ÌBARTON,€and€GERALD€JOSEPHà à)€BLEDSOE€LAWÌEVERETT,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€BUDDY€L.€PERRY,Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à à)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRALPH€EVERETT€(individually€à à)Ìand€as€Executor€of€the€Estateà à)Ìof€Joseph€Robert€Everett),à à)ÌHERBERT€D.€EVERETT,€JAMES€R.à à)ÌEVERETT,€DORIS€D.€HIGGINS,€à à)ÌKATIE€T.€TOMLINSON€and€LAURAà à)ÌSHAW,à àà àà àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AND›Ìà àDefendants„Appellants.à àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€R.€SWAFFORD,€SWAFFORD€&€SWAFFORD,€Pikeville,€forÏPlaintiffs„Appellees.ÌÌEDWIN€Z.€KELLY,€JR.,€KELLY,€KELLY€&€GOUGER,€P.C.,€Jasper,€forÏDefendants„Appellants,€Ralph€Everett,€James€R.€Everett,€Doris€D.ÏHiggins,€Katie€G.€Tomlinson,€and€Laura€Shaw.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌÌà àà àIn€this€contest€of€the€will€of€the€deceased,€JosephÏEverett,€a€jury€returned€special€verdicts€that€the€deceased€didÏnot€have€sufficient€mental€capacity€to€make€a€valid€will,€andÏJoseph€Robert€Everett,€Deceased,€was€unduly€influenced€by€RalphÏEverett€on€March€11€to€the€extent€that€such€influence€amountedÏto€coercion,€destroying€the€free€will€of€the€deceased€andÏsubstituting€his€will€for€the€deceased€and€compelling€theÏdeceased€to€make€a€œdisposition›€he€otherwise€would€not€have€made.Ìà àà àThe€defendants€have€appealed€and€raise€several€issues.Ìà àà àThe€deceased€had€eight€children.€€The€oldest€childrenÏwere€appellees€Ada€Bell€Brown€and€Walter€Everett× ƒ' ××  ×.€€They€filedÏsuit€challenging€decedentððs€March€1991€will,€which€left€them€tenÏdollars€each€and€divided€the€remainder€of€his€estate€equallyÏamong€œhis›€œsix€younger›€œchildren.›€€They€alleged€that€decedent€wasÏof€unsound€mind,€incompetent€to€make€a€will,€and€undulyÏinfluenced€by€defendant€Ralph€Everett.€€After€the€jury€verdictÏthe€probate€of€the€will€was€annulled€and€vacated.Ìà àà àWithin€one€month€of€the€execution€of€the€will,€theÏChancery€Court€of€Bledsoe€County,€Tennessee€œhad€found›€decedentÏto€be€competent€and€dismissed€a€conservatorship€proceeding.€ÍAppellants€argue€that€the€Trial€Court€should€have€granted€theirÏPre„Trial€Motion€in€Limine€that€would€have€precluded€theÏplaintiffs€from€any€proof€relative€to€the€competency€of€decedentÏprior€to€this€hearing.€€They€insist€that€such€evidenceÏconstituted€a€relitigation€of€decedentððs€mental€capacity€in€œ1991›Ïand€is€barred€by€collateral€estoppel.Ìà àà àCollateral€estoppel€operates€to€bar€a€second€suitÏbetween€œthe›€same€parties€and€their€privies€on€a€different€causeÏof€action€only€as€to€issues€which€were€actually€litigated€andÏdetermined€in€the€former€suit.€€òòGoeke€v.€Woods,óó€777€S.W.2d€347Ï(Tenn.€1989).Ìà àà àThe€parties€to€the€1991€trial€were€Ralph€Everett€asÏPetitioner,€decedent€Joseph€Everett€as€respondent,€plaintiffÏWalter€Everett€as€respondentððs€attorney€in€fact,€and€the€FirstÏNational€Bank.€€The€judge€dismissed€the€petition€seeking€theÏappointment€of€a€conservator€and€returned€all€assets€held€byÏWalter€Everett€to€decedent.Ìà àà àThe€parties€and€issues€were€not€identical.€€However,Ïboth€hearings€dealt€with€the€issue€of€decedentððs€competency€andÏit€could€be€argued€that€Ada€Bellððs€interests€were€represented€byÏher€brother.€€However,€even€if€there€arguably€was€any€collateralÏestoppel€from€this€hearing,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€heldÏthat:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àThe€estoppel€of€a€judgment€extends€only€to€the€factsÏin€issue€as€they€existed€at€the€time€the€judgment€wasÍrendered,€and€does€not€prevent€a€re„examination€of€theÏsame€question€between€the€same€parties€where€in€theÏinterval€the€facts€have€changed€or€new€facts€haveÏoccurred€which€may€alter€the€legal€rights€or€relationsÏof€the€litigants.ÌÌÓÓòòWhite€v.€Whiteóó,€876€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àà àHere,€the€decedentððs€death€from€Alzheimerððs€warrants€aÏre„evaluation€of€when€the€disease€may€have€begun€affecting€hisÏjudgment.€€The€Trial€Court€did€not€err€in€allowing€testimony€andÏproof€as€to€his€competency€at€the€time€he€executed€his€will.Ìà àà àA€second€conservatorship€proceeding€was€held€more€thanÏa€year€after€the€execution€of€the€will.€€At€that€time,€decedentÏwas€declared€unable€to€handle€his€affairs,€and€defendant€RalphÏEverett€was€appointed€as€conservator.€€Defendants€argue€that€theÏsecond€conservatorship€proceeding€is€too€remote€and€not€relevantÏto€the€decedentððs€state€of€mind€when€the€will€was€drawn.Ìà àà àThe€competency€to€make€a€will€is€measured€at€the€timeÏthe€person€executes€the€will€and€not€by€their€mental€conditionÏan€unreasonable€number€of€years€before€or€after.€€òòIn€re€EstateÏof€Mayesóó,€843€S.W.2d€418,€427€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Evidence€ofÏthe€testatorððs€mental€condition€after€making€the€will€isÏadmissible,€within€ð ðreasonable€limitsð ð,€òòId.óó,€quoting€PritchardÏon€Wills€and€Administration€of€Estates,€ðð98€at€141.€€Here,€itÏwas€reasonable€to€allow€evidence€of€the€conservatorship€hearingÏheld€within€14€months.€€òòMayesóó.€€This€issue€is€relevant€inÏdetermining€the€progress€with€which€Alzheimerððs€disease€may€haveÍbecome€more€debilitating.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€401× ƒ( ××  ×.Ìà àà àNext,€defendants€insist€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÏallowing€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Stuart€Bacon€and€œJoan€DeBord.›€€Dr.ÏBacon€first€saw€decedent€in€March€of€1992,€just€over€a€yearÏafter€the€execution€of€the€will.€€He€testified€that,€based€on€œa›Ïreasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€decedent€œdied›€ofÏAlzheimerððs€disease.€€He€testified€that€œdecedent›€had€beenÏsuffering€from€Alzheimerððs€for€a€minimum€of€two€years€before€hisÏOctober,€1992€death.€€Ìà àà àDefendants€argue€that€this€evidence€should€have€beenÏprecluded€on€the€ground€that€it€had€no€relevance€to€theÏcompetency€of€decedent€in€March€of€1991.€€They€also€objected€toÏthe€evidence€on€the€basis€that€Dr.€Baconððs€testimony€statingÏthat€decedent€would€have€been€easily€influenced€while€sufferingÏfrom€Alzheimerððs€was€œspeculation›€and€conjecture.€Ìà àà àThe€evidence€was€relevant€and€admissible.€€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence,€Rule€401.Ìà àà àJoan€DeBord€is€a€home€health€care€nurse€who€beganÏvisiting€decedent€more€than€one€month€after€the€execution€of€hisÏwill.€€She€kept€records€of€those€visits€and€testified€from€herÏnotes.€€These€notes€show€that€the€deceased€was€depressed€andÍlonely€and€concerned€over€his€children€trying€to€place€him€in€aÏnursing€home€and€have€him€declared€incompetent.Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Court€ruled€that€she€could€testify€from€herÏrecords€under€the€business€records€exception€to€the€hearsayÏrule.œ× ƒ) ××  ×›€€Ms.€œDeBordððs€testimony€met›€the€essential€elements€ofÏthis€hearsay€exception.€€Medicare€guidelines€required€that€sheÏkeep€records€of€her€visits€and€she€prepared€the€written€reportsÏshortly€after€her€visits.€€òòCohen,€Sheppeard,€Paine,óó€TennesseeÏLaw€of€Evidence,€ðð803(6)€(1995).€€The€Trial€Court€did€not€err€inÏallowing€this€evidence.Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Court€denied€defendantsðð€request€that€theÏjury€be€instructed€not€to€consider€any€declarations€made€by€theÏdeceased€subsequent€to€the€execution€of€the€will.€€This€issueÏagain€dealt€with€the€œtestimony›€of€Joan€DeBord.€€The€Trial€JudgeÏdid€not€err€in€allowing€the€jury€to€consider€this€evidence,Ïbecause€it€was€admissible€as€an€exception€to€the€hearsay€ruleÍallowing€in€records€of€regularly€conducted€activity.€€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence,€803(6).Ìà àà àNext,€defendants€argue€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÏœcharging€the›€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€œInstruction›€relative€toÏmental€competency„mental€delusions.Ìà àà àA€jury€charge€will€not€be€invalidated€as€long€as€itÏfairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€the€case€and€doesÏnot€mislead€the€jury.€€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mutual€Fire€InsuranceÏCo.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àà àDefendants€argue€that€plaintiffsðð€complaint€did€notÏallege€that€the€deceased€was€acting€under€a€delusion€at€the€timeÏof€the€execution€of€his€will.€€Defendants€also€argue€that€œthere›Ïwas€œno›€proof€that€deceased€was€under€a€delusion.€€Therefore,Ïthey€insist€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€utilizing€the€juryÏinstructions€relating€to€mental€competency„mental€delusions.Ìà àà àThis€argument€is€without€merit.€€To€the€contrary,Ïdecedentððs€ill€health,€confusion,€and€his€capacity€to€draw€up€aÏwill€were€directly€at€issue,€as€there€is€œno›€allegation€œ›€thereÏwas€a€misstatement€of€law€in€the€jury€charge.€€Ìà àà àThe€jury€instructions€regarding€undue€influenceÏinformed€the€jury€that€undue€influence€consisted€of€ð ðacts€orÏconduct€which€in€the€mind€of€the€testator€is€overcome€by€theÏwill€of€another€person€.€.€.€destroying€the€free€exercise€of€theÏtestator,€substituting€for€his€own€will€another€personððs€will.ð ðÌà àà àAgain,€defendants€take€issue€with€whether€the€chargeÏwas€supported€by€evidence,€not€with€any€allegations€that€the€lawÏwas€misstated.€€The€jury€charge€echoes€those€approved€in€òòMitchelÏv.€Smithóó,€779€S.W.2d€384€(Tenn.€App.€1989),€and€this€issue€isÏtherefore€without€merit.€Ìà àà àThe€remaining€issues€we€find€to€be€without€merit€asÏthere€is€substantial€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððsÏspecial€verdicts.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏTrial€Court€and€remand€at€appellantsðð€cost.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ