ÿWPC² …4Vj 0(y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ ã 0Té 0^= 0h› 0r 0|u 0†ñ 0w UB %I 1uO 0dÄ B( U6E U >{ B)¹ DCâ AM%U*r D3œÏ!è 0@ eI®v~¼vÓ: AO Æ\ 0D" D/f B•Úƒç"hH ÔøÔô3|xd($¡¡ [D\]À^D_`Da[bÓ€cUdî((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó('Ã$òòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH2" 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<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òAugust€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%&ÔIt€can€also€be€said€that€the€attestations€clause€corroborated€Lucasðð€in€court€testimony.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%&ÔThe€request€to€witness€a€will€may€be€made€by€a€third€person€as€the€testatorððs€agent€or€Ìà0 àrepresentative.€€òòIn€re:€Estate€of€Bradleyóó,€page€323.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òAugust€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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€-‚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€ºMXXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€%ŠÔÙ€€ÙßR€(+'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌÌIN€RE:à àà àà àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CH„00099Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌThe€Estate€of€ECKLE€S.€ROSS,à àà à)€KNOX€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDeceased.à àà àà à)€HON.€H.€DAVID€CATE,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)€REVERSED€AND€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌÌPAUL€T.€COLEMAN€and€JASON€I.€EPSTEIN,€BAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&ÏCALDWELL,€Knoxville,€for€Appellant/Proponent€First€Tennessee€Bank€NationalÏAssociation.ÌÌA.€BENJAMIN€STRAND,€JR.,€STRAND€&€GODDARD,€Dandridge,€forÏAppellee//Contestant€Sonia€Amos,Ìand€ÌCARLYLE€URELLO,€PAINE,€SWINEY,€AND€TARWATER,€Knoxville,€for€GlendaÏRoss,€Stephanie€Ross€and€Jennifer€Ross.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€action€the€Trial€Court€determined€that€the€execution€ofÍdecedentððs€will€did€not€meet€the€statutory€requirements€for€admitting€the€will€toÏprobate,€and€the€proponent€of€the€will€has€appealed.Ìà àà àT.C.A.€ðð32„1„104€sets€forth€the€requirements€for€executing€a€valid€LastÏWill€and€Testament:€€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àò òWill€other€than€holographic€or€nuncupative.„ó ó€The€execution€of€aÏwill,€other€than€a€holographic€or€nuncupative€will,€must€be€by€theÏsignature€of€the€testator€and€of€at€least€two€(2)€witnesses€as€follows:€€€Ìà0 àà0 àà à(1)€The€testator€shall€signify€to€the€attesting€witnesses€that€theÏinstrument€is€his€will€and€either:€(A)€Himself€sign;€(B)€Acknowledge€hisÏsignature€already€made;€or€œ(C)›€At€his€direction€and€in€his€presence€haveÏsomeone€else€sign€his€name€for€him;€and€(D)€In€any€of€the€above€casesÏthe€act€must€be€done€in€the€presence€of€two€(2)€or€more€attestingÏwitnesses.€€Ìà0 àà0 àà à(2)€The€attesting€witnesses€must€sign:€(A)€In€the€presence€of€theÏtestator;€and€(B)€In€the€presence€of€each€other.ÌÌÓÓà àà àDecedentððs€will€was€witnessed€in€the€Powell€branch€of€First€TennesseeÏBank.€€Three€employees€present€in€the€bank€were€asked€to€assist€in€the€execution€ofÏthe€will.€€The€bank€is€the€œdesignated›€executor€of€the€will.Ìà àà àThe€execution€of€the€will€took€place€within€the€lobby€of€the€bank.€TheÏChancellor€in€his€findings€said:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àOn€April€22,€1986,€Eckel€S.€Ross,€the€decedent,€went€with€James€RobertÏPearson,€an€attorney€and€the€preparer€of€the€will€at€issue,€to€the€PowellÏbranch€of€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€for€the€purpose€of€executing€theÏwill.ÌÌà0 àà0 àà àThere€is€some€conflict€in€testimony€of€James€Robert€Pearson,€theÏattorney,€and€Shirley€Smith€and€Norma€Lucas,€the€attesting€witnesses,Ïand€Brenda€Stegall,€the€notary€public,€who€notarized€an€affidavit€of€theÏattesting€witnesses.€€With€the€exception€of€Pearson,€the€three€ladiesÏwere€employees€of€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€and€worked€at€the€PowellÏbranch.ÌÌà0 àà0 àà àThe€execution€of€the€will€took€place€within€the€confines€of€oneÏroom€at€the€Powell€branch.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€first€witness€to€the€will,€Norma€Lucas,€testified€that€she€was€at€theÏdesk€with€decedent€when€he€signed€his€will.€In€court,€she€testified€that€she€wasÏaware€that€it€was€decedentððs€will,€but€according€to€a€discovery€deposition€takenÏyears€earlier,€she€did€not€understand€that€she€was€witnessing€a€will.Ìà àà àThe€second€witness€to€the€will,€Shirley€Smith,€testified€that€she€was€œin€a›Ïtellerððs€window,€approximately€17€feet€from€the€desk€where€the€decedent€was€sitting.€ÏShe€testified€that€she€was€unaware€of€what€œhe›€was€œsigning›€until€a€third€bankÏemployee,€Brenda€Stegall,€asked€her€to€witness€the€decedentððs€signature.€€TheÏdecedent€and€Lucas€had€already€signed€the€will€before€she€was€asked€to€participate.€ÏShe€remained€at€her€window€while€signing€the€document€and€Stegall€took€it€back€toÏdecedent.€€Ms.€Stegall,€a€notary€public,€testified€that€she€saw€everyone€sign€the€will,Ïand€that€the€deceased€signed€in€the€presence€of€herself€and€œthe€witnesses.›Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Judge€determined€that€the€will€failed€to€meet€the€statutoryÏrequirements€of€execution€of€a€valid€will.€€€Specifically,€he€found€that€Shirley€SmithÏbeing€positioned€across€the€room,€and€unaware€of€the€proceedings,€meant€that€LucasÏcould€not€have€signed€ð ðin€the€presenceðð€of€the€other€attesting€witnesses.€€He€foundÏthat€Norma€Lucas€did€not€understand€that€the€document€she€was€signing€was€a€will.€Ïœà à›à àà àWe€reviewed€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€in€this€case€òòde€novoóóÏupon€the€record,€which€is€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€ÏProof€of€genuine€signatures€of€the€œtestator›€and€attesting€witnesses,€along€with€anÏattestation€clause€reciting€that€the€will€was€properly€executed,€creates€a€rebuttableÍpresumption€of€due€execution.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Bradleyóó,€817€S.W.2d€320,€323Ï(Tenn.App.1991).€€Proponents€of€a€will€are€not€obliged€to€prove€each€fact€essential€toÏa€will€by€direct€evidence;€€in€the€absence€of€any€satisfactory€evidence€to€the€contrary,Ïthe€presumption€is€that€the€formalities€required€have€been€met.òò€€Cooper€v.€Austinóó,Ï837€S.W.2d€606,€612€(Tenn.€App.€1992),€òòciting€Leathers€v.€Binkleyóó,€196€Tenn.€80,Ï264€S.W.2d€561,€563€(1954).Ìà àà àOne€of€the€Trial€Judgeððs€bases€for€invalidating€the€will€was€a€findingÏthat€the€first€witness,€Ms.€Lucas,€had€not€understood€that€the€document€that€she€wasÏsigning€was€a€will.€€œÌà àà àIt›€is€well€established€that€the€act€of€witnessing€a€will€is€different€fromÏwitnessing€an€ordinary€signature€and€that€the€attesting€witness€must€be€aware€thatÏœthe€document›€is€a€will.€òòRagsdale€v.€Hillóó,€269€S.W.2d€911€(Tenn.App.€1954).€€The€TrialÏCourtððs€finding€was€based€on€Lucasðð€contradictory€testimony;€€in€court€sheÏprofessed€to€knowing€that€it€was€a€will,€while€in€her€earlier€deposition€she€had€statedÏthat€she€did€not€know.€€Contradictory€statements€by€a€witness€in€connection€withÏthe€same€fact€may€cancel€each€other.òò€€Price€v.€Beckeróó,€812€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.App.Ï1991);€òò€Cooper€v.€œAustin.ó󛀀The€rule€of€cancellation€applies€when€the€inconsistency€inÏtestimony€is€unexplained€and€when€neither€version€of€the€testimony€is€corroboratedÏby€other€evidence.òò€€State€v.€Matthewsóó,€888€S.W.2d€446,€450€(Tenn.Cr.€App.€1993),Ïòòciting€Taylor€v.€Nashville€Banner€Pub.€Co.óó,€573€S.W.2d€476,€483€(Tenn.App.€1978).Ìà à€à àThe€record€reveals€that€Lucas€had€no€explanation€for€why€her€answersÏto€the€question€of€ð ðdid€you€know€the€document€was€a€will?ðð€were€inconsistent.€ÍœAccordingly,€there›€is€no€positive€testimony€contradicting€the€attestation€clause,€theÏpresumption€of€proper€execution€remains€and€her€testimony€does€not€invalidate€theÏexecution€of€the€will.òò€€Cooper.óóœ× ƒ, ××  ×€€The›€evidence€preponderates€against€the€TrialÏCourtððs€findings,€and€supports€the€finding€created€by€the€presumption€that€LucasÏwas€aware€that€the€document€was€a€will.€òò€See€Interstate€Fire€Insurance€Co.€v.ÏKimbroughóó,€852€S.W.2d€887€(Tenn.App.€1992).Ìà àà àThe€circumstances€surrounding€the€attestation€of€the€second€witness,ÏMs.€Smith,€presents€a€more€difficult€issue.€€This€jurisdiction€has€no€case€directlyÏaddressing€the€œelements€necessary€for€the€testator€and€witnesses€to€be€in€each€othersÏð ðpresence.ð𛀀This€term€is€generally€construed€according€to€the€circumstances€of€eachÏcase.€€79€AmJur2d,€Wills,€ðð321€(1975).€€Emphasis€is€placed€on€the€ability€of€theÏtestator€to€actually€see€or€be€able€to€see€the€witnesses€if€he/she€wished.€€òòId;€Stanley€v.ÏKelley,óó102€So.2d€16,€18€(Ala.€1958)€(ð ð[it]€is€not€necessary€to€prove€that€testatorÏactually€saw€the€witnesses€sign€their€names€to€the€will.€€It€is€sufficient€if,€from€theirÏrelative€positions,€he€could€see€them.ðð);€€òòMoore€v.€Gloveróó,€163€P.2d€1003,€1006Ï(Okla.€1945)€(witness€and€testator€sufficiently€in€each€othersðð€presence€whereÏtestator€waited€outside€in€the€car€while€witness€signed€at€desk€inside€building;Ïtestator€could€see€witness€through€large€glass€œwindow).€€An€attestation€in€the€sameÏroom€or€close€vicinity€with€the€testator€is€generally€considered€to€be€in€his/herÏpresence,€unless€there€is€a€physical€obstacle€blocking€the€view.òò€€Id.€óóat€ðð322;€òòIn€reÏEstate€of€Holdenóó,€113€N.W.2d€87,€92€(Minn.€1962);€€òòEstate€of€Politowiczóó,€304€A.2dÍ569€(N.J.Super.€1973).€€These›€authorities€reveal€that€relatively€short€distances,€suchÏas€across€the€bank€lobby,€may€not€necessarily€prevent€the€testator€and€witnessesÏfrom€being€in€each€othersðð€œpresence.€€Smith›€œhad€known€decedent,›€and€saw€œhim›€enterÏthe€bank€and€conduct€business€at€Ms.€œStegallððs›€desk,€she€testified€that€she€did€notÏknow€œhe›€was€œsigning€the€will,€but€she€was€sure€it€was€his€will€when€she€signed€as€aÏwitness.€€She€recognized€his€signature€and€she€was€expressly€told€it€was€decedentððsÏwill.× ƒ. ××  ×Ìà àà àBrenda€Stegall,€the€notary,€testified€that€she€was€present€during€theÏentire€transaction,€was€made€aware€that€it€was€decedentððs€will,€saw€the€testator€andÏthe€other€witnesses€sign€the€will,€that€no€substitution€occurred,€and€that€the€testatorððsÏmanner€and€behavior€were€no€different€than€on€any€other€time€in€which€he€visitedÏthe€bank.€€In€view€of€our€findings,€we€do€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€Stegall€couldÏbe€found€to€be€an€attesting€witnesss€to€satisfy€the€requirements€of€the€statute.Ìà àà àAs€public€policy€in€Tennessee€favors€upholding€a€will€where€it€isÏpossible€to€do€so,òò€€Leathers€v.€Binkleyóó,€òòsupraóó,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€satisfies€theÏrequirements€of€the€statute€as€to€the€two€attesting€witnesses.€€We€reverse€theÏChancellorððs€finding€that€the€will€should€not€be€admitted€to€probate€and€remand€withÏthe€direction€that€the€will€be€admitted€to€probate€for€further€proceedings€in€thisÏEstate.Ìà àà àThe€cost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€to€the€appellees.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharlesÔ€%XÔ€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ô€%ŠÔÌÌÌÌòòSeparate€Concurring€Opinionóó____ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ H ÑÑ H ÑÓÓò òÓ  ÓßJ€(/;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJßIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓó óIN€RE:à àà àà àà àà à)à àC/A€NO.€03A01„9703„CH„00099Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌThe€Estate€of€ECKLE€S.€ROSS,à àà à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDeceased.à àà àà à)à àHON.€H.€DAVID€CATE,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHANCELLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌPAUL€T.€COLEMAN€and€JASON€I.€EPSTEIN,€BAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&ÏCALDWELL,€Knoxville,€for€Appellant/Proponent€First€Tennessee€Bank€NationalÏAssociation.ÌÌA.€BENJAMIN€STRAND,€JR.,€STRAND€&€GODDARD,€Dandridge,€forÏAppellee/Contestant€Sonia€Amos,ÌandÌCARLYLE€URELLO,€PAINE,€SWINEY,€AND€TARWATER,€KNOXVILLE,€forÏGlenda€Ross,€Stephanie€Ross€and€Jennifer€Ross.ÌÌÌò òòòà@ àC€O€N€C€U€R€R€I€N€G€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÓÓà àó óóóBy€way€of€analogy,€the€rule€is€historic€in€this€jurisdiction€that€jurors€will€not€beÏallowed€to€stultify€their€verdict.€€If€the€rule€were€otherwise,€many€verdicts€wouldÏassuredly€be€nullified€depending€upon€the€quality€and€quantity€of€theÏimportunations€employed.Ìà àIt€seems€to€me€that€this€rule€should€apply€with€equal€force€to€the€attestingÏwitnesses€to€the€will,€who€at€the€time€they€affixed€their€signatures€therto,€made€oathÍthat€they€did€so€in€accordance€with€statutory€requirements.Ìà àTo€allow€a€sworn,€attesting€witness,€(as€contrasted€to€a€third€party)€to€impeachÏher€action€by€testifying,€at€probate,€contrarily€to€her€signatory€oath,€therebyÏapprobating€her€stultification,€is,€in€effect,€to€vest€in€such€witness€the€power€to€nullifyÏa€will€whether€by€whim,€importunation,€or€from€corrupt€motives.Ìà àI€agree€with€the€opinion€of€Judge€Franks,€but€would€go€further€and€hold€thatÏan€attesting€witness€who€does€so€under€oath€will€not€thereafter€be€allowed€to€stultifyÏher€self€and€swear€the€contrary.ÌÔ% € ÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€Judge̜Ԁ%ÔÌ