ÿWPC­ …# VU:a %› 0¸¡bY 4a u 0ü„ 0D€ Ä w@Ì  D3 0JE 0T 0^ã 0hA 0r© 0| 0†— 0 1u­U," 0dNU,²U*ÞB)DC1 AMt™Á BZv~wvÓõ 0@È AOÆW 0D D/a B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-©U!3|xp (¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó \ D] D^ D_ ` Da b Dc Êd Êe Ó€HR****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ26,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ p ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ŸÉXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌIN€RE:€€ESTATE€OF€LOWELL€KENNETH€REED,ÏdeceasedÌÌROSIE€LEE€CLARK€REED,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBLOUNTÏPROBATEÌà àSurviving€spouse/Appellantà à)€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9602„PB„00045Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGINGER€REED€and€DAVID€REEDà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMEDÌà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌDuncan€V.€Crawford,€Maryville,€For€the€Appellant€ÌÌRobert€N.€œGoddard,›€Maryville,€For€the€Appellee€ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓÓÓ  Óó óà àThe€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€or€not€theÏsurviving€spouse€and€sole€beneficiary€of€her€deceasedÏhusbandððs€will€was€entitled€to€an€extension€of€timeÍwithin€which€to€elect€to€take€an€elective€share€of€her€husbandððs€estate€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€31„4„101(a)(2).€€The€trial€judge€denied€the€motion,€the€propriety€of€which€isÏpresented€for€review.Ìà àLowell€Kenneth€Reed€died€testate€in€Blount€County€in€June€1993.€€HeÏnamed€the€appellant,€his€wife€Rosie€Lee€œClark€Reed,›€as€the€sole€beneficiary€andÏexecutrix€of€his€will.€€He€was€survived€by€three€adult€children€by€a€former€marriage:€ÏBobby€Reed,€Ginger€Reed€and€David€Reed.€€His€former€wife,€Carolyn€Margaret€W.ÏReed,€was€the€mother€of€the€three€surviving€children,€and€she€and€Mr.€Reed€wereÏdivorced€in€1978.€€The€judgment€incorporated€a€property€settlement€agreementÏbetween€the€parties€which€provided€the€husband€would€keep€in€force€all€insuranceÏpolicies€on€his€Ñ  Ñlife€with€his€wife€and€children€as€beneficiaries€but,€if€his€wife€shouldÏremarry,€her€name€would€be€removed€from€the€policies,€and€the€children€would€beÏdesignated€as€the€beneficiaries,€to€share€equally.€€The€former€wife€remarried,€andÏshe€was€removed€as€a€beneficiary€of€the€policy.€€Mr.€Reed€also€remarried€andÏunilaterally€changed€the€beneficiaries€of€the€insurance€policy€to€his€new€wife,Ïappellant€Rosie€Lee€Clark€Reed,€and€his€oldest€son,€Bobby€Reed.Ìà àAfter€Mr.€Reedððs€death,€the€proceeds€of€the€policy,€$160,000,€were€paid€toÏRosie€œLee€Clark›€Reed,€the€widow,€and€Bobby€Reed,€the€oldest€son.Ìà àThe€will€of€Mr.€Reed€was€admitted€to€probate€in€August€1993€and€theÏappellant,€Rosie€Lee€œClark€Reed,›€entered€upon€her€duties€as€executrix€of€theÏestate.€€As€previously€noted,€she€was€also€the€sole€beneficiary.Ìà àIn€January€1994,€two€children€of€Mr.€Reed,€Ginger€Reed€and€David€Reed,Ïwho€initially€were€beneficiaries€of€the€insurance€policy€but€were€removed€whenÏtheir€father€changed€beneficiaries€to€his€new€wife,€Rosie€Lee,€and€oldest€son,ÏBobby,€filed€a€claim€against€the€estate€for€the€proceeds€of€the€insurance€policy€or,Ïalternatively,€for€a€judgment€against€the€estate.Ìà àThe€executrix€excepted€to€the€claim,€which€was€in€course€sustained,€and€aÏjudgment€was€entered€on€February€3,€1995€against€the€executrix€for€œ$107,840,00›Ïrepresenting€two„thirds€of€the€proceeds€of€the€life€insurance€policy.Ìà àThe€appellant€filed€a€motion€on€March€22,€1995,€for€an€extension€of€timeÏwithin€which€to€make€an€election€to€take€an€elective€share€or€to€take€under€the€will.Ìà àT.C.A.€ðð€31„4„102(a)(1)€and€(2)€provide:ÌÓÓÌà0 àò ò31„4„102.€€Proceeding€for€elective€share€„„€Time€limit.€„„ó ó€(a)(1)€TheÏsurviving€spouse€may€elect€to€take€such€spouseððs€elective€share€inÏdecedentððs€property€by€filing€in€the€court€and€mailing€or€delivering€to€theÏpersonal€representative,€if€any,€a€petition€for€the€elective€share€within€nineÏ(9)€months€after€the€date€of€death,€or€within€six€(6)€months€after€theÏappointment€of€the€personal€representative,€whichever€limitation€lastÏexpires.Ìœà0 à›à àœ(2)›€€When€the€title€of€the€surviving€spouse€to€property€devised€orÏbequeathed€by€the€will€is€involved€in€litigation€pending€so€that€an€election€toÏdissent€cannot€be€advisedly€made,€the€survivor€shall€have€an€additional€yearÏfrom€the€date€of€the€probate€of€the€will€within€which€to€elect,€provided,€thatÏthe€court€may€upon€a€proper€showing€further€extend€the€time€to€meet€theÏexigency€of€litigation,€not€concluded,€and,€that€application€for€allowance€ofÏadditional€time,€in€either€case,€be€made€to€the€court,€for€record€of€its€actionÏthereon.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€chronology€of€events€governing€the€disposition€of€this€motion€are:€€theÏdate€of€death€of€the€decedent,€June€27,€1993;€the€date€of€appointment€of€a€personalÏrepresentative,€August€24,€1993;€the€date€of€the€filing€of€the€motion,€March€22,Ï1995.Ìà àUnder€the€plain€language€of€the€first€paragraph€of€T.C.A.€ðð€31„4„102,€theÏelection€to€take€an€elective€share€must€be€made€within€nine€(9)€months€after€theÏdate€of€death€or€within€six€(6)€months€after€the€appointment€of€a€personalÏrepresentative,€ð ðwhichever€limitation€last€expires.ðð€€If€œthis›€statute€controls,€the€timeÏwithin€which€to€make€the€election€expired€March€27,€1994.Ìà àAs€we€have€shown,€the€succeeding€statute€allows€the€surviving€spouse€anÏð ðadditional€year€from€the€date€of€the€probate€of€the€willðð€within€which€to€make€theÏelection€œif›€the€ð ðtitle€of€the€surviving€spouse€to€property€devised€or€bequeathed€byÏthe€will€is€involved€in€litigation€pending€so€that€an€election€to€dissent€cannot€beÏadvisedly€made.ððÌà àClaims€were€filed€against€the€estate,€but€it€does€not€appear€that€the€title€toÏthe€property€devised€to€the€appellant€was€in€litigation.€€The€parties€apparentlyÏassumed€that€the€mere€filing€of€claims€constituted€litigation€of€the€œtitle,›€thusÏimplicating€the€second€paragraph€of€T.C.A.€ðð€31„4„102€but,€as€to€this,€we€make€noÏdecision€since€the€issue€is€not€before€us.Ìà àThe€appellee€argues€that€the€motion€comes€too€late,€because€it€was€not€filedÏwithin€a€year€from€the€date€of€the€probate€of€the€will.€€The€appellant€argues€that€theÍsecond€paragraph€ð ðcontains€no€requirement€that€the€application€for€additional€timeÏmust€be€made€within€the€first€additional€year.ðð€€She€essentially€argues€that€until€allÏclaims€have€been€finally€adjudicated€no€intelligent€decision€can€be€made€as€toÏwhether€to€dissent€or€take€under€the€will,€and€a€motion€to€extend€may€therefore€beÏmade€at€any€time€before€the€claims€are€finally€adjudicated€pursuant€to€theÏð ðexigency€of€litigationðð€provision.Ìà àWhatever€the€equitable€appeal€of€this€argument,€its€clear€effect€wouldÏabrogate€the€delimiting€periods€of€the€statute,€and€we€think€any€furtherÏœð ðliberalization€of€the€Ô% € Ôstatute›€is€properly€a€legislative€prerogative.ðð€€òòSee€Doe€v.ÏCoffee€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€852€S.W.2d€899,€905€(Tenn.€App.€1992).Ìà àThe€record€reveals€no€compelling€equities€favorable€to€the€appellant.€€TheÏclaim€by€the€decedentððs€children€for€two„thirds€of€the€insurance€proceeds€was€filedÏFebruary€7,€1994,€which€was€well€within€the€time€permitted€to€make€the€election.€ÏAllowance€of€the€claim€would€trigger€insolvency,€and€we€cannot€conceive€œof€a›Ïgreater€motivating€force€to€make€the€election;€moreover,€the€high€probability€of€theÏallowance€of€the€claim€was€patent.Ìà àWe€think€the€request€for€an€enlargement€of€time€came€too€late€since€it€wasÏnot€filed€ð ðbefore€the€expiration€of€the€period€originally€prescribed€.€.€.€.ððòò€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏPóó.€6.02.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.Ì€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌœConcur:›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌœ›