ÿWPCÖ! …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv UBÚ % B" U6? U>u B)³ DCÜ AMU*l–À­v~m D3ëvÓ 0@ñ AO1 Æ€ 0DF! D/Š! B¹!Úƒç"ÔøÔô3|xF($¡¡ 2E34E56D78E9:D;Ó€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJuly€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ôÔAs€part€of€its€argument€that€Appellees€elected€their€remedy€and€were€barred€from€seeking€another,Ïà0 àAppellant€argued€that€Appellees€might€have€been€allowed€to€pursue€alternative€remedies€if€Appellant€hadÏbeen€joined€to€the€probate€court€litigation€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€19,€which€reads€in€part:ÌÌà0 àà0 àA€person€who€is€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€shall€be€joined€as€a€party€if€(1)€in€theÏpersonððs€absence€complete€relief€cannot€be€accorded€among€those€already€parties,€or€(2)€the€personÏclaims€an€interest€relating€to€the€subject€of€the€action€and€is€so€situated€that€the€disposition€of€theÏaction€in€the€personððs€absence€may€(I)€as€a€practical€matter€impair€or€impede€the€personððs€ability€toÏprotect€that€interest,€or€(ii)€leave€any€of€the€persons€already€subject€to€substantial€risk€of€incurringÏdouble,€multiple,€or€otherwise€inconsistent€obligations€by€reasons€of€the€claimed€interest.€€If€theÏperson€has€not€been€so€joined,€the€court€shall€order€that€the€person€be€made€a€party.ÌÌà0 àT.R.C.P.€19.01.ÌÌà0 àà àAppellees€responded€that€Appellant€was€not€joined€at€that€time€because€the€probate€court€wasÏwithout€jurisdiction€to€award€a€judgment€against€the€defendant€personally.€€The€partiesðð€brief€includedÏsubstantial€discussion€of€this€jurisdiction€question.ÌÌà0 àà àThe€failure€to€joint€Appellant€pursuant€to€Rule€19€and€limits€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€BlountÏCounty€Probate€Court€were€not€raised€as€affirmative€defenses€in€Appellantððs€answer.€€They€are€sub„issues€toÏthe€election€of€remedies€discussion.€€Because€we€find€that€Appelleeððs€pursuit€of€the€claim€against€the€estateÏand€then€against€Appellant€does€not€present€a€case€of€where€the€election€of€one€remedy€prevents€another,€weÏdo€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€joining€Appellant€to€the€claim€against€the€estate€would€have€made€aÏdifference.€€The€issue€of€whether€Blount€County€probate€court€had€jurisdiction€to€join€her€is€therefore€alsoÏnot€reached.ÌÔ€!ÔÔ€!XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h 'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€jXXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€"ÔÔ€"ŠÔÙ€€ÙßR€%'$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌGINGER€REED€and€DAVID€REED,à à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CV„00075Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à àà à)€BLOUNT€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€W.€DALE€YOUNG,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€JUDGEÌROSIE€L.€CLARK€REED,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€AFFIRMED€AND›Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà àœ)€REMANDED›ÌÌÌœÌR0BERT›€N.€GODDARD,€GODDARD€&€GAMBLE,€Maryville,€for€Plaintiffs„Appellees.ÌÌDUNCAN€V.€CRAWFORD€and€STEPHEN€S.€OGLE,€CRAWFORD,€CRAWFORD€&ÏNEWTON,€Maryville,€for€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.̛̜à àà àIn€this€action,€the€Trial€Court€on€stipulations€of€fact€entered€judgmentÏagainst€defendant,€œfor›€proceeds€paid€œto›€the€defendant€on€a€life€insurance€policy.€ÏDefendant€has€œappealed.›Ìà àà àThe€genesis€of€this€dispute€is€a€property€settlement€agreement€œenteredÏby›€the€deceased€Lowell€Kenneth€Reed€and€his€wife,€Carolyn€Margaret€WehuntÏReed,€as€a€part€of€their€1978€divorce€decree.Ìà àà àThat€agreement€reads€in€part:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àIt€is€agreed€to€by€the€Party€of€the€Second€Part€[Kenneth€Reed]€that€anyÏand€all€life€insurance€policies€obtained€by€the€Party€of€the€Second€PartÏthrough€any€source,€as€of€the€date€of€filing€the€Complaint€for€AbsoluteÏDivorce,€September€8,€1978,€shall€be€maintained€in€full€force€and€effect,Ïwithout€any€encumbrances€thereon,€and€the€premium€shall€beÏmaintained€by€the€Party€of€the€Second€Part.€€It€is€further€agreed€that€theÏdesignated€beneficiaries€as€of€said€date,€September€8,€1978,€shall€remainÏas€of€said€date,€unless€and€òòuntil€the€Party€of€the€First€Part€[CarolynÏReed]€remarries,€then,€in€such€event,€the€Party€of€the€First€Part€shall€beÏremoved€as€designated€beneficiary€on€such€insurance€policies€andÏsubstituted€thereon€shall€be€the€children€of€the€parties,€each€to€shareÏœequally;óó€€€(Emphasis›€œadded.)›ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€Reeds€had€three€children:€Bobby€Lon€Reed,€Ginger€Gayle€Reed,Ïand€David€Lee€Reed.€€The€life€insurance€policy€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€divorceÏwas€for€$162,000.00.€€Mrs.€Reed€was€the€first€beneficiary€and€second€beneficiariesÏwere€the€children.€€Mrs.€Reed€remarried€in€1984€and€Kenneth€Reed€remarried€inÏ1991.€€In€1992,€he€changed€the€beneficiaries€on€his€life€insurance€to€give€his€secondÏwife,€defendant€Rosie€Clark€Reed,€a€75%€share€of€the€insurance€proceeds€and€his€sonÏBobby€a€25%€share.€€The€proceeds€were€distributed€in€this€manner€upon€his€death€inÏ1993.Ìà àà àPlaintiffs€are€the€two€children€who€were€not€made€beneficiaries.€€InÏprevious€litigation,€they€filed€suit€against€their€fatherððs€estate€and€won€a€judgment€inÏprobate€court€for€two€thirds€of€the€insurance€benefits,€i.e.,€$107,840.00.€€òòEstate€ofÏLowell€Kenneth€Reed€v.€Reedóó,€1995€WL€614180€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Prior€to€theÏfiling€of€this€claim,€defendant€was€not€aware€of€the€provisions€of€the€divorce€decreeÏand€did€not€know€that€it€required€her€husband€to€name€his€children€as€beneficiariesÏof€his€life€insurance.Ìà àà àDue€to€the€insolvency€of€the€estate,€œplaintiffs›€filed€this€claim€in€CircuitÍCourt,€seeking€to€collect€the€money€from€œdefendant.›€Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Court€ordered€judgment€against€œdefendant,›€and€imposed€aÏconstructive€trust€on€the€proceeds€of€the€life€insurance€policy.€€The€judgmentÏprovided€for€the€sum€of€$107,840.00€plus€pre„judgment€interest.€€To€prevent€aÏdouble€recovery,€defendant€is€entitled€to€credit€on€the€judgment€for€any€moneyÏcollected€by€plaintiffs€from€the€estate€of€their€father.Ìà àà àThe€prior€litigation€resulted€in€a€judgment€against€the€estate€for€theÏproceeds€owed€to€plaintiffs€as€the€proper€beneficiaries€of€the€policy.€€The€issue€in€thisÏaction€is€whether€the€proceeds€of€the€life€policy€can€be€collected€from€defendant.€ÏThis€is€a€question€of€law€and€the€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumptionÏof€correctness€for€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13.€€Ìà àà àDefendant€argues€that€plaintiffsðð€suit€against€their€fatherððs€estate€wasÏan€election€of€remedies€which€should€prevent€this€action.€€This€case€is€analogous€toÏòòAllied€Sound,€Inc.,€v.€Neelyóó,€where€plaintiffs€obtained€a€judgment€for€damages€arisingÏout€of€a€contractual€dispute€with€a€resort.€€Unable€to€recover€from€the€resort,€theÏplaintiffs€sued€the€officers€and€directors€of€the€resort€in€their€individual€capacity€forÏmisrepresentation.€€909€S.W.2d€815€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Defendants€argued€that€theÏplaintiff€was€collaterally€estopped€from€using€the€same€set€of€facts,€without€allegingÏany€additional€damages,€to€seek€another€judgment.€€The€Court€determined€that€whileÏdouble€recovery€of€damages€would€be€barred,€successive€judgments€seeking€a€singleÏrecovery€was€appropriate.€€€òòId.óó€at€821;€citing€47€Am.Jur.2d€òòJudgmentsóó€ðð1008€(1995).€ÏThe€doctrine€of€election€of€remedy€did€not€bar€recovery€either,€since€its€purpose€wasÍsimilarly€ð ðto€prevent€double€redress€for€a€single€wrong.ðð€€òòId.óóat€822.Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Courtððs€inclusion€of€the€provision€giving€defendant€credit€forÏany€money€collected€from€the€estate,€serves€to€prevent€any€œdouble€recovery× ƒ( ××  ×›€hereÏand€the€suit€against€the€defendant€is€not€precluded€by€œthe€unsatisfied€›€judgmentÏagainst€the€estate.Ìà àà àNext,€defendant€argues€that€plaintiffs€may€not€reach€the€life€insuranceÏproceeds€because€the€damages€awarded€in€the€previous€litigation€have€become€aÏð ðdebt€of€the€decedentðð€from€which€the€insurance€proceeds€are€shielded€by€œtheÏstatute:›ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àAny€life€insurance€effected€by€a€husband€or€wife€on€such€personððs€ownÍlife€shall,€in€the€case€of€that€personððs€death,€inure€to€the€benefit€of€theÏsurviving€spouse€and€children,€and€the€money€thence€arising€shall€beÏdivided€between€them,€according€to€the€statutes€of€distribution,Ïwithout€being€in€any€manner€subject€to€the€debts€of€the€decedent.€.€.€.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð56„7„201.Ìà àà àÌÓÓà àà àThe€plaintiffs€are€not€judgment€creditors,€within€the€meaning€of€theÏabove€statute,€they€are€vested€beneficiaries€of€the€policy.€€òòHerrington€v.€Boatright,óóÏ633€S.W.2d€781€(Tenn.€App.€1982);€òòLeMay€v.€Dudenbostelóó,€1992€WL€74584€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1992).€€This€statute€does€not€prevent€the€plaintiffs€from€reaching€the€proceedsÏof€the€policy.Ìà àà àFinally,€defendant€questions€the€Courtððs€imposition€of€an€equitableÏtrust€without€a€pleading€in€the€complaint€requesting€such€relief.€€Plaintiffsðð€complaintÏrequested€money€damages,€and€ð ðother,€further€and€general€relief€to€which€they€mayÏbe€entitled€at€the€hearing.ðð€€Under€a€prayer€for€general€relief,€a€court€may€grant€ð ðanyÏother€and€different€relief€from€that€which€is€justified€by€the€pleadings€and€the€proof,ððÏincluding€equitable€relief.€€òòAaron€v.€Aaronóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€412€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà0 àà0 àA€constructive€trust€is€created€by€equity€against€one€œwho,ÓÓ€by›€fraud,Ïactual€or€constructive,€by€commission€of€wrong,€or€by€any€form€ofÏunconscionable€conduct,€artifice,€concealment,€or€questionable€means,Ïor€who€in€any€way€against€equity€and€good€conscience,€either€hasÏobtained€or€holds€the€legal€title€to€property€which€he€ought€not,€inÏequity€and€good€conscience€hold€and€enjoy.ÌÌòòÓÓLivesay€v.€Keatonóó,€611€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€œÌà àà àDefendant›€argues€that€she,€as€an€innocent€party,€does€not€meet€theÏabove€criteria.€€Although€there€is€no€allegation€or€evidence€that€defendant€committedÏfraud,€she€was€in€privity€with€the€deceased€and€profited€from€his€breach€of€contract.€ÍòòSee€LeMayóó.€€Defendantððs€rights€are€derivatives€of€the€deceased,€and€she€can€ð ðstandÏon€no€higher€ground€than€he€doesðð€despite€her€lack€of€knowledge€as€to€herÏhusbandððs€failure€to€honor€the€obligation€to€this€children.€€òòGoodrich€v.€Mass.€MutualÏLife€Insur.€Co.óó,€240€S.W.2d€263,€270€(Tenn.€App..€1951);€òòsee€generally€Bell€v.€Bellóó,Ï896€S.W.2d€559,€561€(Tenn.€App.€œ1994).€€In€this€case€the€plaintiffs€had€acquired€aÏvested€interest€in€the€policy€which€was€property€divided€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,Ïand€had€a€right€to€the€policy€proceeds.€€Under€these€facts,€defendant€holds€legal€titleÏto€the€proceeds€which€she€ð ðought€not,€in€equity€and€good€conscience,€hold€andÏenjoy.ðð€€The›€Trial€Court€properly€invoked€the€use€of€a€constructive€trust€on€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case.Ìà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€at€appellantððsÏcost.ÌÓÓœ›ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ìœ›ÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌœ›ÌÌ___________________________ÌœDon€T.€McMurray,€J.›Ìœ›ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌœWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.›