ÿWPC! …# VU:a %› 0(¡4ÉÝb ìøwø 0J 0TX 0^¬ 0h 0rr 0|ä 0†` 0æ 1uv U,ë 0d U,{ U*§ B)Ñ DCú AM=Šv~› BvÓ6 D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡nnG (3|xÉ- ù -¾¿Ó€É2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌFebruary€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€wžXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑIN€RE:à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌESTATE€OF€ERA€MAE€CRAWFORD,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌWAGGONER€RICHARDSON,à àà à)à àÌCHARLES€RICHARDSON€ANDà àà à)à àÌJUANITA€MIZE,à àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9506„CH„00265Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLincoln€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|è` ç `€€LßVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€10,010Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPAT€M.€FRALEY,€SUCCESSORà àà à)ÌEXECUTRIX,€ESSIE€BILES€andà àà à)ÌANDY€BILES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€LINCOLN€COUNTYÌAT€FAYETTEVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€TYRUS€H.€COBB,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌJOE€W.€HENRY,€JR.ÌHENRY,€HENRY,€STACK,Ì€€€GARNER€&€SPEER,€P.C.Ì119€South€First€StreetÌPulaski,€Tennessee€€38478Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppellantsÌÌFRED€I.€WOMACKÌ311€East€Market€StreetÌFayetteville,€Tennessee€€37334ÌÌDON€WYATTÌ202€E.€Washington€StreetÌFayetteville,€Tennessee€€37334Ìà àAttorneys€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌÌÌà@ àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€decision€by€the€trial€court€holding€that€theÏpersons€who€joined€in€the€petition€to€probate€a€will€in€common€form€could€notÏsubsequently€contest€the€will.€€We€reverse€the€trial€court€on€the€issue€actuallyÏdecided€and€remand€the€cause€for€further€proceedings€on€the€issue€of€estoppel.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óà àÌÌà àà àEra€Mae€Crawford€died€on€September€18,€1993,€at€the€age€of€93.€ÏPrior€to€her€death€Ms.€Crawford€executed€a€will€nominating€John€V.€Matthews€asÏthe€executor.€€However,€Mr.€Matthews€died€before€Ms.€Crawford€on€March€25,Ï1993.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€September€29,€1993,€the€beneficiaries€under€Ms.€Crawford's€willÏpetitioned€the€Chancery€Court€of€Lincoln€County€for€probate€of€the€will€in€commonÏform€and€asked€that€Pat€M.€Fraley,€John€Matthews'€daughter,€be€named€executrix.€ÏThe€petitioners,€Essie€and€Andy€Biles€(former€neighbors€of€Ms.€Crawford),ÏWaggoner€Richardson,€Charles€Richardson,€and€Juanita€Mize€(nephews€andÏniece€of€Ms.€Crawford),€alleged€that€"said€will€is€conformable€in€all€respects€to€theÏstatutes€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€regarding€the€execution€of€same€.€.€.€."€€TheÏcourt€admitted€the€will€to€probate.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOn€April€12,€1994,€Waggoner€Richardson,€Charles€Richardson,€andÏJuanita€Mize€filed€a€will€contest€naming€Pat€M.€Fraley,€Essie€Biles,€and€Andy€BilesÏas€defendants.€€The€plaintiffs€alleged€that€the€will€previously€admitted€inÏSeptember€of€1993€was€not€the€will€of€Ms.€Crawford€because€she€was€of€unsoundÏmind€at€the€time€Ìthe€writing€was€executed.€€Additionally,€the€complaint€alleged€that€Ms.€CrawfordÏwas€incompetent€to€make€a€will€and€was€unduly€influenced€by€Essie€Biles€andÏAndy€Biles.€€Ìà àà àOn€May€10,€1994,€Pat€M.€Fraley€moved€to€dismiss€the€complaintÏagainst€her,€stating€that€all€of€the€plaintiffs€were€petitioners€for€probate€of€the€will€ofÏMs.€Crawford€and€all€of€them€signed€the€petition,€swore€to€it,€and€substantiated€theÍallegations€necessary€to€probate€the€will.€€Therefore,€she€concluded,€the€plaintiffsÏwere€estopped€from€contesting€the€will.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€May€13,€1994,€Essie€Biles€and€Andy€Biles€filed€a€Motion€toÏDismiss€the€plaintiffs'€complaint€for€the€same€reasons.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€response€to€Pat€M.€Fraley's€Motion€to€Dismiss,€WaggonerÏRichardson€filed€an€affidavit€stating€that€when€the€plaintiffs€executed€the€petition€toÏprobate,€Pat€Fraley€told€him€that€he€could€contest€the€will€at€any€time€irrespectiveÏof€his€signature€on€the€petition.€€The€other€plaintiffs€did€not€respond€on€the€recordÏto€the€defendants'€Motion€to€Dismiss.ÌÌà àà àIn€a€memorandum€opinion€dated€January€25,€1995,€the€trial€courtÏheld€that€notice€of€probate€to€interested€parties€in€a€case€of€probate€in€commonÏform€requires€them€to€object€to€the€will€at€the€time€of€probate€or€be€forever€barredÏfrom€doing€so.€€The€court€found€that€the€plaintiffs€not€only€had€notice€of€theÏprobate,€but€joined€in€the€petition€to€probate€the€will.€€Thus,€as€to€the€petitioners,Ïthe€probate€was€in€solemn€form.ò òÌÌÌÌÌà@ àII.ó óÌÌà àà àWe€think€the€chancellor€erred€in€holding€that€the€probate€of€a€will€inÏcommon€form€is€equivalent€to€probate€in€solemn€form€as€to€those€who€haveÏnotice.€€The€case€of€òòMcClure€v.€Wadeóó,€34€Tenn.€App.€154,€235€S.W.2d€835Ï(1950),€is€directly€in€point.€€In€that€case€the€opponents€of€the€contest€argued€thatÏthe€contestant,€the€sole€heir€at€law,€who€was€present€when€the€will€was€probated,Ïcould€not€contest€the€will€because,€as€to€her,€the€probate€was€in€solemn€form.€€TheÏcourt€said,€"The€fact€that€Mrs.€McClure€was€present€did€not€convert€this€into€aÏprobate€in€solemn€form€.€.€.€."€€235€S.W.2d€at€843.€€Although€not€directly€in€point,Ïthe€decision€in€òòMiller€v.€Milleróó,€52€Tenn.€723€(1871),€can€be€taken€as€authority€forÏthe€proposition€that€a€party€with€notice€of€the€probate€in€common€form€could€laterÏfile€a€will€contest.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àEstoppel,€however,€is€a€more€serious€matter€for€the€appellants.€€SeeÏ80€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòWills€óóðð€896.€€In€Tennessee€estoppel€has€frequently€been€upheld€„„Ïor€rejected€„„€depending€on€the€circumstances€of€each€case.€€We€have€not€found€aÏcase€directly€on€point,€but€the€opposing€views€may€be€found€in€òòHodges€v.€Haleóó,Ï20€Tenn.€App.€233,€97€S.W.2d€454€(1936)€and€òòMcClure€v.€Wadeóó,€34€Tenn.€App.Ï154,€235€S.W.2d€835€(1950).€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòHodges€v.€Haleóó€the€court€held€that€parties€who€had€litigated€a€suitÏto€construe€a€will€were€estopped€to€contest€it€because€their€action€was€anÏadmission€that€the€will€was€valid.€€The€court€distinguished€the€earlier€cases€ofÏòòTate€v.€Tateóó,€126€Tenn.€169,€148€S.W.€1042€(1912)€and€òòMiller€v.€Milleróó,€52€Tenn.Ï723€(1871),€and€relied€instead€on€òòGrier€v.€Canadaóó,€119€Tenn.€17,€107€S.W.€970Ï(1907),€where,€in€a€former€proceeding,€the€contestant€had€alleged€under€oath€thatÏhe€was€the€owner€of€property€that€had€been€devised€to€him€under€a€will€that€wasÏ"duly€probated€in€the€County€Court€of€Gibson€County."€€The€òòGrieróó€Court€held€thatÏthe€allegation€in€the€former€case€was€a€"solemn€admission"€of€the€validity€of€theÏwill€and€that€it€had€been€legally€probated.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMcClure€v.€Wadeóó,€the€only€child€of€the€decedent€was€namedÏexecutrix€of€the€will.€€The€will€was€found€among€the€valuable€papers€of€theÏdecedent,€and€the€daughter€contacted€a€local€attorney€who€probated€the€will.€€AsÏwe€have€seen,€the€daughter€was€present€at€the€probate,€although€she€did€not€signÏthe€petition.€€When€she€later€contested€the€will,€she€was€met€with€a€plea€ofÏestoppel€because€she€had€caused€the€will€to€be€probated€and€had€qualified€asÏexecutrix€under€it.€€The€court€rejected€the€plea€of€estoppel,€holding€that€it€was€theÏnamed€executrix's€duty€to€present€the€will€for€probate€and€that€she€acted€withoutÏknowledge€of€any€defect€in€its€execution.ÌÌà àà àIn€an€extensive€examination€of€the€authorities€in€Tennessee,€theÏcourt€stressed€two€important€facts€bearing€on€the€decision.€€The€first€was€theÏexecutrix's€lack€of€knowledge€of€any€defect€in€the€will€at€the€time€of€probate.€€TheÏcourt€quoted€from€òòTate€v.€Tateóó,€126€Tenn.€169,€148€S.W.€1042€(1912)€where€theÏCourt€said,€"Estoppel,€even€judicial€estoppel,€does€not€apply€to€one€acting€orÏspeaking€upon€a€mistaken€view€of€the€law€upon€undisputed€facts."ÌÌà àà àThe€second€important€fact€was€the€lack€of€prejudice€to€the€otherÏparties€involved.€€The€court€cited€òòNeal€v.€Crook,óó€2€Tenn.€App.€364€(1926)€andÏòòRogers€v.€Colvilleóó,€145€Tenn.€650,€238€S.W.€80€(1921),€in€which€the€court€said,Ï"The€basic€reason€for€an€estoppel€is€the€inability€of€the€parties€invoking€it€toÏrecover€their€losses€or€be€restored€to€their€former€condition."€€2€Tenn.€App.€at€368.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€present€state€of€the€record€in€this€case€we€think€it€wouldÏbe€unjust€to€hold€that€the€appellants€are€estopped€to€contest€the€will.€€While€theirÏunexplained€action€in€joining€the€petition€for€probate€may€be€a€heavy€burden€toÏovercome,€there€is€no€proof€of€any€prejudice€to€the€proponents€of€the€will€resultingÏfrom€the€appellants'€action.€€The€decision€below€was€based€entirely€on€theÏassumption€that€the€appellants€could€not€contest€the€will€because€they€had€noticeÏof€the€probate€in€common€form.€€We€think€the€cause€should€be€remanded€for€theÏcourt€to€consider€the€estoppel€issue€after€the€parties€have€been€given€theÏopportunity€to€develop€a€record€containing€the€pertinent€facts.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€reversed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Lincoln€County€for€further€proceedings€inÏaccordance€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellees.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  ÑÑ ° Ñà@ à