WPC5 # VUNa % 0 N 0 b w@ 4 , ; C 0D N  m 0j( 0J 0T 0^0 0h 0r 0|h 0 0j B 1u 0d D3 0@#U>cB)DC AM U*Z2DW)}A#-&)v~,v. AO374 0D4 D/A5 Bp5HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   (}(2n$ y!     X1X `   0  - - {{{ӀD LN3|xjacobsen v. flathe - opinion   ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   (#$  0   U(B3w$ y!     2 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   d!"# ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X$$$$'dxd("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd-1C << G<  9p`(Arial ( !  #d#//   33   YYY FILED3XSeptember17,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#//   $    /X       _Mr.NissenstestamentarytrustprovidedthatMs.NissenshouldreceivetheincomeearnedonthetrustscorpusduringherlifetimeandgaveMs.Nissenthepoweratherdeathtodisposeofthecorpusofthetrust tosuchpersonorpersonsor[herestate]insuchmannerandproportionas[she]shallappointbyaprovisioninherlastwillandtestamentreferringtothispowerandpurportingtoexercise[it]. : !#d#//   $    /X       _Alatentambiguityarisesfromanambiguousstateofexternalcircumstancestowhichthewordsofthewillrefer.Estateof_Burchfiel_Ԁv.FirstUnitedMethodistChurch__,933S.W.2d481,482(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Itgenerallyinvolvesaquestionofidentifyingapersonorsubjectmentionedinthewill._Coble_Ԁ_Sys_.,Inc.v._Gifford_ԀCo.,627S.W.2d359,362(Tenn.Ct.App.1981).Itstemsfromanuncertainreferenceinthedocumenttothingsoutsidethewillsusceptibleofexplanationonlybythedevelopmentoffactselucidatingwhatthetestatorwastalkingabout.See,e.g.,Greerv.Anderson,36Tenn.App.507,50916,259S.W.2d550,55153(1953).  !#d#//   $    /X       _Apatentambiguitystemsfromuncertaintyinthelanguageofthewillitself,InreWillof_Bybee_Ԁ(_Bybee_Ԁv._Westrick_),896S.W.2d792,793(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);_Coble_Ԁ_Sys_.,Inc.v._Gifford_ԀCo.,627S.W.2dat362,andisapparentonthefaceofthewill.See4WilliamJ._Bowe_Ԁ&DouglasH.Parker,PageontheLawofWills32.7(rev.3ded.1961)( Page).Itinvolvesanambiguousterm,seeUnionPlantersCorp.v._Harwell_,578S.W.2d87,92(Tenn.Ct.App.1978),thatcannotbeclarifiedbyconsideringextraneousfacts. s !#d#//   $    /X       _Forthisreason,wemustignoretheselfservingaffidavitsofMs._Flathe_ԀandthelawyerwhopreparedMs.NissenswillandcodicilconcerningtheirversionsofMs.Nissenstestamentaryintent.Wemustlikewiseignoretheaffidavitsofthe_Jacobsen_Ԁbrothers.Ms._Flathe_ԀcannotcreateagenuinefactualdisputetostaveoffasummaryjudgmentmotioninvolvingapatentambiguitybypresentingincompetentaffidavitsconcerningMs.Nissenstestamentaryintent.SeeSkinnerv.Moore,940S.W.2d755,758(Tex.Ct.App.1997).  !#d#//   $    /X       _Aclassgiftisagifttoagroupofpersonswhoarenotnamed,whosenumbermayvary,andwhohaveoneormorecharacteristicsincommon.Jenningsv.Jennings,165Tenn.295,301,54S.W.2d961,963(1932);Page,35.1,at488&35.4,at495.Abequestisnottoaclassif(1)itisgiventoacertainnumberofnamedpersons,(2)theshareeachofthesepersonswillreceiveiscertain,and(3)thesesharesdonotdependonthenumberofpersonsintheclassatsomefuturetime.Page,35.2,at493.Forexamplesofthecorrectuseof perstirpesand percapita,see4TennesseeLegalandBusinessForms28:252&28:253(1994). # !#d#//   $    /X       _Asusedinawill,theterm percapitaconnotesanequaldivisionofthepropertyamongthelegatees,eachreceivingthesameshareastheothers,withoutregardtotheprincipleofrepresentation.Page,36.6,at556;GeorgeW.Thompson,TheLawofWills317,at477(3ded.1947). y !#d#//   $    /X       _TherecordcontainsnopleadingsorproofthatMs._Jacobsen_ԀleftanyheirsotherthanJeffreyandChristopher_Jacobsen_Ԁorthatshehadanyotherchildrenwhoweredeceased.However,thetrialcourtsmemorandummakesanentirelyunexplainedreferenceto anydeceasedchildrenofMs._Jacobsen_.Asfarasthepresentrecordshows,theinterestsoftheheirsofMs._Jacobsen_sdeceasedchildrenwerenotbeforethetrialcourt.Accordingly,wehavenotaddressedtherightsofthesepersons,iftheyexist.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . //   _        \RA'\  \RA'\7d d7    ћ @ / INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜R241A1-j| `  `@Rߛ/ CHRISTOPHER_JACOBSEN_Ԁand )JEFFREY_JACOBSEN_,   )BeneficiariesoftheEstateof  )EdnaM.Nissen,    )      ) Plaintiffs/Appellees,  ) WilliamsonChancery      ) No.P941236VS.      )      ) AppealNo.RUTH_FLATHE_,inhercapacityas ) 01A019511CH00510ExecutrixoftheEstateof  )EdnaM.Nissenandinher  )IndividualCapacityasa   )BeneficiaryoftheEstateof  )EdnaM.Nissen,    )      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORWILLIAMSONCOUNTY@ ATFRANKLIN,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEHENRYDENMARKBELL,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:M.BradleyGilmore     G.Thomas_Nebel_ChristinaNorris      JohnB.CarlsonParker,Lawrence,_Cantrell_Ԁ&Dean   Williams&AssociatesNashville,Tennessee     Nashville,Tennessee@ / AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED /       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  /@ OPINION  / Thisappealinvolvesan_intrafamily_Ԁdisputeoverthemeaningofanelderlywidowswill.AfterthewillwasadmittedtoprobateintheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty,thesonsofoneofthelegateeswhohadpredeceasedthetestatorfiledapetitionforjudicialconstructionassertingthattheywereentitledtoreceivetheirmothersshareunderthe_antilapse_Ԁstatute.Thetrialcourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentinthesonsfavor.Onthisappeal,theestatespersonalrepresentative,whoisalsoalegatee,assertsthatthewillshouldbeconstruedtogiveherthepredeceasedlegateesshare.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydecidedthatthegifttothedeceasedlegateedidnotlapseand,therefore,affirmthesummaryjudgment.@ I.  EdnaM.NissenwasawidowedhomemakerwholivedinWilliamsonCountyafterherhusbandsdeathinthemid1970's.Attheageofninetyfive,sheretainedalawyertoprepareherwill.Theresultingwill,whichMs.NissenexecutedonNovember6,1989,wasaconventionaltwoandahalfpagedocumentdirectinginformlanguagethatherestatepayallherlawfuldebts,theexpensesofherlastillness,andherfuneralexpenses,aswellasanyestateorinheritancetaxes.Itlumpedallherremainingrealandpersonalpropertyintoherremainderestateanddividedthisestateasfollows:8 8 AlltherestandresidueofthepropertywhichImayownatthetimeofmydeath,includingbutnotlimitedtoallmytangiblepersonalpropertyincludingautomobiles,clothing,jewelry,andotherarticlesofpersonaluseorornament,andallotherproperty,realpersonalandmixed,ofwhateverkindandcharacterandwheresoeversituated,allofwhichconstitutemyresiduaryestate,Ideviseandbequeathasfollows:8 8 (a)0 Sixsixteenths(6/16)thereoftobedividedequallyamongPatricia_Laak_,John_Flathe_,David_Flathe_,Georgia_Flathe_ԀWilson,Chris_Jacobsen_ԀandJeff_Jacobsen_,percapita.8 8 (b)0 Tensixteenths(10/16)thereoftobedividedtwothirds(A)toRuth_Flathe_Ԁandonethird(@)toMary_Jacobsen_,percapita.ThewillalsonamedRuth_Flathe_,oneofMs.NissensnieceslivinginWilliamsonCounty,asthepersonalrepresentativeofherestate. Mary_Jacobsen_,thelegateewhoreceiveda16/48interestintheresiduaryestate,wasalsoMs.Nissensniece.SheapparentlylivedinWisconsin,asdidhertwosons,JeffreyandChristopher_Jacobsen_,eachofwhomreceivedaonesixteenthinterestoftheresiduaryestate.Ms._Jacobsen_predeceasedMs.NissenonJuly2,1990. Ms.Nissenrealizedlaterthatheroriginalwillhadnotprovidedforthedispositionofherinterestinatestamentarytrustcreatedbyherlatehusband. 5   ׀Ratherthanpreparinganewwill,Ms.NissenremediedthisomissionbyexecutingacodiciltoherwillonJuly27,1990.ThecodicildistributedthecorpusofMr.Nissenstestamentarytrustasfollows:8 8 IspecificallyamendtheSECONDparagraphoftheabovereferencedWilldatedthe6thdayofNovember,1989,toexercisethepowerofappointmentgrantedtomeundertheWillofmylatehusbandWilliamNissendatedOctober10,1975,infavorofthefollowing:8 8 (a)0 Sixsixteenths(6/16)thereoftoPatricia_Laak_,John_Flathe_,David_Flathe_,Georgia_Flathe_Wilson,Chris_Jacobsen_ԀandJeff_Jacobsen_,tobedividedequallyamongthempercapita.8 8 (b)0 Tensixteenths(10/16)thereoftobedistributedtoRuth_Flathe_.ThecodicilalsoratifiedandrepublishedMs.NissensNovember6,1989willandstatedthatthewillandcodicilconstitutedMs.Nissenslastwillandtestament.Ms._Jacobsen_Ԁwasnotmentionedinthecodicilbecauseshehaddiedthreeweeksearlier. Ms.Nissenoutlivedthecodicilbyapproximatelythreeandahalfyears.ShediedofastrokeinFebruary1994attheageofninetynine.InMarch1994,Ms._Flathe_ԀfiledMs._Jacobsen_swillforprobateintheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty.InFebruary1995,ChristopherandJeffrey_Jacobsen_,filedapetitionforconstructionofMs.Nissenswill,assertingthattheywereentitledtotheirmothers10/48shareoftheoriginalresiduaryestate.Ms._Flathe_ԀansweredthepetitionbycontendingthatMs.NissenhadcutMs._Jacobsen_Ԁoutofherwilland,therefore,thatMs._Jacobsen_ssonswereonlyentitledtotheirspecificbequests. The_Jacobsen_Ԁbrotherseventuallybroughtthedisputetoaheadbymovingforasummaryjudgment.OnJuly21,1995,thetrialcourtgrantedthesummaryjudgmentafterfindingthatMs.Nissenswillandcodicildidnotcontainalatentambiguityrequiringtheconsiderationofextrinsicevidence.ThetrialcourtheldasamatteroflawthatMs.Nissens1990codicildidnotalterthedispositionoftheresiduaryestatemadeinthe1989willandthattheoperationofTenn.CodeAnn.323105(Supp.1996)causedMs._Jacobsen_s16/48interestinMs.Nissensresiduaryestatetopasstohersons.Ms._Flathe_hasappealedthisdecision.@ II.  Thiswillconstructiondisputewasdecidedbysummaryjudgment.Summaryjudgmentsarepropervehiclesfordecidingcaseswhoseoutcomehingesonlegalissuesalonebecausetherearenodisputedfacts.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);_Bellamy_Ԁv.FederalExpressCorp.,749S.W.2d31,33(Tenn.1988);Foleyv.St.ThomasHosp.,906S.W.2d448,452(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Theyareaccordinglyuniquelysuitedtowillconstructioncasesbecausethesecasesgenerallyinvolveonlylegalissuessurroundingtheproperinterpretationofthelanguageofthewillitself.Presleyv.Hanks,782S.W.2d482,487(Tenn.Ct.App.1989);Estateof_Robison_Ԁv.Carter,701S.W.2d218,220(Tenn.Ct.App.1985). Inmostwillconstructioncases,thetestatorsintentisdeterminedbyreferringtothewillitself.Wrightv.Brandon,863S.W.2d400,402(Tenn.1993);_Cowden_Ԁv._Sovran_ԀBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991);Daughertyv. d  8 Daugherty,784S.W.2d650,653(Tenn.1990).Sometimescourtswillconsiderevidencebeyondthefourcornersofthewillwhenthewillcontainsalatent,_ 6   _Ԁasopposedtopatent,_ 7   _Ԁambiguity._Stickley_Ԁv.Carmichael,850S.W.2d127,132(Tenn.1992);Estateof_Burchfiel_Ԁv.FirstUnitedMethodistChurch__,933S.W.2dat483. Weneednotconcernourselvesherewiththepossiblefactualdisputesaboutcircumstancesbeyondthefourcornersofthewillitselfsincethepresentdisputeinvolvesapatentambiguity.Thus,likethetrialcourt,___we_Ԁwillignoreallextraneousevidence_ 8   _Ԁandfocusonlyonthelanguageofthewillitself.Thepivotalquestioninthiscaseiswhetherthe_Jacobsen_Ԁbrothershaveestablished,asamatteroflaw,thattheyareentitledtothebenefitofthe_antilapse_Ԁstatute.@ III.  Atcommonlaw,thepropertyidentifiedinawilltogotoalegateewhopredeceasedthetestatorwentinsteadtosomeotherpersonnamedinthewillorpassedasintestateproperty.SeeDixonv.Cooper,88Tenn.177,182,12_S.W._Ԁ445,446(1889).Thecourtsheldinthesecircumstancesthatthelegacylapsedbecausethedeceasedlegateenolongerhadthecapacityorwillingnesstoacceptthe    gift.Bricev.Horner,38_S.W._Ԁ440,442(Tenn.Ch.App.1896).Asaresultofthecommonlawrule,thetestamentarygiftwouldnotgototheheirsofthedeceasedlegateetherebyoftenfrustratingthetestatorschosendistributionoftheproperty. Tennessees_antilapse_Ԁstatutewasenactedin1858tocurethelapsedlegacyproblembylegallysubstitutingrelatedrecipientsfordeceasedrecipients.DavidR.Foster,Note,TestamentaryGiftsofFutureInterests:IsTherean ImmediateProblemwiththeTennessee_Antilapse_ԀStatute?,17Mem.St.U.L.Rev.263,26566(1987).NowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.323105,thestatuteprovides:8 8 Wheneverthedeviseeorlegateeoranymemberofaclasstowhichanimmediatedeviseorbequestismade,diesbeforethetestator,orisdeadatthemakingofthewill,leavingissuewhichsurvivesthetestator,theissueshalltaketheestateorinterestdevisedorbequeathedwhichthedeviseeorlegateeorthememberoftheclass,asthecasemaybe,wouldhavetaken,hadthatpersonsurvivedthetestator,unlessadifferentdispositionthereofismadeorrequiredbythewill.Whenalegateepredeceasesatestator,thestatutesavesatestamentarygiftbysubstitutingthelegateesheirsforthelegatee.See,e.g.,Weissv.Broadway_Natl_ԀBank,204Tenn.563,57374,322S.W.2d427,43132(1959)(holdingthatthesonofapredeceasedlegateetookhisfathersshare justasif[hisname]hadbeeninsertedinthewillbythetestatrixherself).Thecourtsgivethe_antilapse_Ԁstatutealiberalconstruction._Brundige_Ԁv.Alexander,547S.W.2d232,234(Tenn.1976). The_antilapse_Ԁstatute,byitsownterms,willnotgovernthedistributionofatestamentarygiftincaseswherethetestatorexpresslymakesadifferentdispositionofpropertybywill.Todefeattheoperationofthe_antilapse_statute,thewillmustcontainplainandclearlanguageindicatingthatthetestatorintendedadifferentdispositionofhisorherpropertyshouldanamedbeneficiarydiefirst.Estateof_Renner_,895S.W.2d180,182(Mo.Ct.App.1995);Roystonv.Watts,842S.W.2d876,879(Mo.Ct.App.1992).Whereawilldoesnotclearlyindicatethatthepersonwhomadeitintendedtodisinheritapredeceasedlegateeinfavorofasurvivinglegatee,the_antilapse_statuteworkstosavethedeceasedlegateesgiftforhisorherheirs.InreWillof_Bybee_Ԁ(_Bybee_Ԁv._Westrick_),896S.W.2dat794.@ IV.  Ms._Flathe_ԀadvancesthreeargumentstosupportherassertionthatMs.NissenswillcontainsplainandclearlanguagedemonstratingherintentthatherbequesttoMs._Jacobsen_ԀwouldlapseifMs._Jacobsen_Ԁpredeceasedher.Theseargumentshingeon(1)theuseoftheterm percapitainParagraph2(b)ofMs.Nissenswill,(2)thefactthatthe_Jacobsen_ԀbrotherswerealreadyprovidedforelsewhereinMs.Nissenswill,and(3)thefactthatthecodicilexcludedanymentionofMs._Jacobsen_. EachoftheseargumentsrequiresusconstruethetermsofMs.Nissenswill.Indoingso,wemustbeguidedbyourobligationtoseetoitthatMs.Nissensdesiresandintentionsaregiveneffect.Wrightv.Brandon,863S.W.2dat402;Martinv.Taylor,521S.W.2d581,584(Tenn.1975);Presleyv.Hanks,782S.W.2dat487.Sincewearedealingherewithapatentambiguity,wemustderiveMs.Nissensintentfromthefourcornersofhertestamentarywritings,_Fariss_Ԁv._Bly_ԄBlockCo.,208Tenn.482,487,346S.W.2d705,706(1961),whichincludebothherwillandthe1990codiciltoherwill.Martinv.Taylor,521S.W.2dat584;Fisherv.Malmo,650S.W.2d43,46(Tenn.Ct.App.1983). Becauseeverywordusedbyatestatorinawillispresumedtohavesomemeaning,Daughertyv.Daugherty,784S.W.2dat653;InreEstateofJackson,793S.W.2d259,261(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),wemust,ifpossible,giveeffecttoeveryprovision,clause,term,orwordusedinthewill.Bellv.Shannon,212Tenn.28,40,367S.W.2d761,766(1963);_Beuchert_Ԁv._Sigman_,652S.W.2d347,349(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).WemustalsogivethetechnicalwordsinthewilltheirtechnicalmeaningbecauseMs.Nissenswillwasdraftedbyalawyer.Wrightv.Brandon,863S.W.2dat402;Daughertyv.Daugherty,784S.W.2dat653.@ A. @  TheUseoftheTerm PerCapita  Ms._Flathe_Ԁfirstarguesthattheuseoftheterm percapitainconjunctionwiththebequesttoMs._Jacobsen_ԀclearlysignifiesthatMs.NissendidnotintendforMs._Jacobsen_sshareoftheestatetopasstoherheirsifMs._Jacobsen_ԀpredeceasedMs.Nissen.Wedisagree.Theterm percapitahasnoapplicationtospecificbequeststonamedlegatees.Inthecontextofthisparticularwill,itcanbegiveneffectonlyifitisconstruedtorelateto_substitutional_Ԁgiftstosubstitutelegateesintheeventofthedeathoftheprimarylegatee. Theterm percapitaappearstwiceinMs.Nissenswillandonceinher1990codicil.ItfirstappearsinParagraph(a)oftheresiduaryclauseinconjunctionwiththebequestofsixsixteenthsoftheresiduaryestatetosixnamedpersons.Thewilldirectsthatthissixsixteenthsbedivided equally...percapita.ThissameusageappearsinParagraph(a)ofthecodicil.ThetermalsoappearsinParagraph(b)pertainingtothegiftstoMs._Flathe_ԀandMs._Jacobsen_.Paragraph(b)states: Tensixteenths(10/16)thereoftobedividedtwothirds(A)toRuth_Flathe_Ԁandonethird(@)toMary_Jacobsen_,percapita.ThisusageisnotrepeatedinthecodicilbecausethecodicilwaspreparedafterMs._Jacobsen_sdeath. Theterms percapitaand per_stirpes_describethemodeofdistributinganestateratherthanthedesignationofthepersonswhowillshareintheestate.Wrightv.Brandon,863S.W.2dat403;seealsoInreEstateofWalter(_Bolin_Ԁv.Walters),519N.E.2d1270,1273(Ind.Ct.App.1988);InreEstateofWinslow,934P.2d1001,1006(_Kan_.Ct.App.1997);InreEstateof_Renner_Ԁ(_Kirchner_Ԁv._Buschling_),895S.W.2d180,182(Mo.Ct.App.1995).Theyrelatetoclassgifts, 9   ׀andordinarilyhavenoapplicationtonamedlegateeswhoareprimarytakersunderawill.InreEstateofWalters(_Bolin_v.Walters),519N.E.2dat1273;InreEstateofWinslow,934P.2dat1006;Evansv.Cass,256N.E.2d738,743(Prob.Ct._Cuyahoga_ԀCounty1970). Thus,itistechnicallyinappropriatetouseeithertheterm percapitaortheterm per_stirpes_oracombinationofthetwotermstodescribeaspecificbequesttoanamedlegatee.Incircumstanceswherethesetermshavebeenusedin_conjunction_Ԁwithagifttonamedlegateeswhoareprimarybeneficiaries,thecourtshaveconsistentlyconstruedthetermstoapplytothe_substitutional_Ԁgifttothesubstitutelegateesintheeventofthedeathoftheprimarylegatee.InreEstateofLuke,184N.W.2d42,45(Iowa1971);Johnsonv._Swann_,126A.2d603,606(Md.1956);InreWillofGriffin(_Lowry_Ԁv._Doss_),411So.2d766,769(Miss.1982);St.LouisUnionTrustCo.v._Greenough_,282S.W.2d474,478(Mo.1955);seealso3RestatementofProperty300,cmt.f(1940). Basedontheseprecedents,therearethreereasonswhytheterm percapitacannot,asamatteroflaw,applytoMs.NissensbequestoftensixteenthsofherresiduaryestatetoMs._Flathe_ԀandMs._Jacobsen_.First,thisgiftisnottoaclass.Second,thegiftistopersonswhoarespecificallynamedinthewillasprimarylegatees.Third,thewilldoesnotdividethetensixteenthsinterestequallybetweenMs._Flathe_ԀandMs.Nissenasthetechnicallycorrectuseoftheterm percapitawouldrequire. :    Thetrialcourtappearstohaveconcluded,aswehave,thattheterm percapitacannotapplytoMs.NissensbequesttoMs._Flathe_ԀandMs._Jacobsen_.However,thetrialcourtthendisregardedthetermas meaninglesssurplusage.Wefindthatthiswaserrorbecausethecourtsmustendeavortogiveeffecttoallthetermsinawill.Thisgoalcanbeaccomplishedbyholdingthattheterm percapitaasitappearsinParagraph2(b)ofMs.Nissenswillappliestothe_substitutional_ԀgifttothesubstitutelegateesshouldeitherMs._Flathe_ԀorMs._Jacobsen_ԀpredeceaseMs.Nissen.Thus,especiallyintheabsenceofanyotherprovisioninthewilldealingwithlapsedgiftsorpredeceasedlegatees,theterm percapitarelatestothemannerinwhichthe_Jacobsen_Ԁbrothersshoulddividetheirmothers16/48shareofMs.Nissensresiduaryestate._ ;   _@ B. @  TheOtherBequeststothe_Jacobsen_ԀBrothers  Ms._Flathe_ԀalsoinsiststhatMs.Nissenmustnothaveintendedforthe_Jacobsen_ԀbrotherstosucceedtotheirmothersinterestbecauseMs.Nissenmadeotherprovisionsfortheminherwill.Wefindthisargumentunpersuasive.Thefactthatatestatorhasmadeaspecificbequestofaportionofherresiduaryestatetoanindividualdoesnotpreventthatindividualfromsucceedingtohisorherparentsshareoftheestatebyoperationoflaw.Inthesecircumstances,theadditionalsharesimplybecomesanadditionalgifttothenamedindividual.@ C. @  TheEffectoftheCodicil  Ms._Flathe_sfinalassertionisthattheomissionofanymentionofMs._Jacobsen_Ԁinthe1990codicilisevidenceofMs.NissensdesiretoexcludetheJacobsenbrothersfromsucceedingtotheirmothersinterestintheresiduaryestate.Thisargumentisequallyunpersuasivebecauseitoverlookstwoimportantmattersofsubstance.First,thepropertydealtwithinthecodicilwasdifferentfromthepropertyincludedinthewill.Second,thecodicildidnotchangeanyportionofthewilland,infact,expresslyreaffirmedthebequestsinthewill. Wewillnotconstrueacodiciltoalterthetermsofawillanymorethanisnecessarytogiveeffecttothecodicil.Rogersv.Rodgers,53Tenn.(6_Heisk_.)489,499(1871);American_Natl_ԀBank&TrustCo.v._Mander_,36Tenn.App.220,226,253S.W.2d994,997(1952).ItisevidentfromthefaceofthewillandthecodicilthatMs.Nissenpreparedthecodiciltomakeatestamentarydispositionofpropertyshehadoverlookedwhenshepreparedherwill,nottoeliminateorreplaceanyothertestamentarybequestshehadalreadymade. Ms._Flathe_ԀoffersnotextualbasisforconstruingMs.NissenswilltoprovidethatthesurvivorofMs._Flathe_ԀandMs._Jacobsen_Ԁshouldreceivetheothersportionoftheresiduaryestate.Itisnotourroletoguessatatestatorsintentionsbasedonwhatthepartiessupposethetestatormighthaveintendedbutneverputinwriting.InreWalker,849S.W.2d766,768(Tenn.1993);Martinv.Hale,167Tenn.438,442,71S.W.2d211,212(1934).Thus,wedeclinetoinferthatbecauseMs.Nissendealtwiththepropertycoveredbythecodicilinoneway,shemeanttodealwithallherotherpropertyinthesameway.Theactualtermsofthewillandcodicilmerelyevinceadecisiontodealwithdifferentpropertydifferently.@ V.  Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverotherproceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoRuth_Flathe_,aspersonalrepresentativeofMs.Nissensestate,andhersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:________________________________̜HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S.________________________________̜SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE