ÿWPC$% …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<ÝUD w@] 4 ± À 0lÈ 0D4 0Jx 0T 0^ 0ht 0rÜ 0|N 0†Ê 0P 1uà U,U 0dU,åU>B)ODCx AM» B D3%U*X-‚ 0@¯€ïSoß¡v~.vÓ¬ AO#ÆÎ# 0D”$ D/Ø$ B%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regular 34E56U7U8U9U:î;Ó€Gà~| Bu 3|xG((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òApril€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔMr.€Seeber€was€an€attorney,€but€he€apparently€was€not€practicingÏlaw€at€the€time€he€drafted€the€MDA€as€he€had€not€renewed€his€law€licenseÏfor€a€number€of€years€prior€to€drafting€the€MDA.Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThis€holding€effectively€disposes€of€appellantððs€issue€number€three.€ÏSince€the€personal€representatives€were€not€necessary€parties€to€theÏaction,€it€was€within€the€trial€judgeððs€discretion€whether€to€allow€theÏrepresentatives€to€intervene.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€24.02.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion€by€the€judgeððs€refusal€to€allow€the€representatives€toÏintervene.€€Ô€%ÔÌ ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€will€of€Mrs.€Seeber€is€not€in€the€record.€Ì ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThis€conclusion€is€supported€by€a€letter€written€from€Mr.€Seeber€toÏMrs.€Seeber€after€he€transferred€title€to€the€condominiums€into€Mrs.ÏSeeberððs€name.€€In€the€letter,€dated€February€6,€1994,€Mr.€Seeber€refers€toÏone€of€the€condominiums€as€ð ðyour€[Mrs.€Seeberððs]€condominium.ðð€€TheÏletter€reads€in€pertinent€part:€ÌÌÔ€Ôà8 àÔ€ÔDear€Julie:ÌÌà8 àà8 àYou€may€be€so€angry€with€me€that€you€would€ratherÏthat€I€not€write€you.€€If€you€are,€just€let€me€knowÏand€I€will€only€contact€you€when€it€is€necessary.ÌÌà8 àà8 àNow€is€one€of€those€necessary€times.€€I€am€sureÏthat€you€would€like€to€have€my€ð ðstuffðð€removedÏfrom€your€condominium€at€Sapphire€Village.€€ThereÏare€2€ways€to€do€this:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€If€you€donððt€mind,€please€hire€someone€to€packÏit€up€and€mail€it€to€me€(or€Federal€Express€it)€atÏ5044€›Harbortown€Lane,€Ft.€Myers,€FL.€33919.€€I€willÏbe€glad€to€reimburse€you€for€the€expense.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€If€you€donððt€want€to€do€it€that€way€I€will€flyÏdown€when€you€are€not€there€and€pick€it€up.€€I€wouldÏnot€stay€in€your€condominium.€€Please€let€me€knowÏwhen€you€plan€to€be€there€if€this€is€the€alternativeÏyou€choose.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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  ÝÑ7€åXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLE€Ìà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òROBERT€LYNN€SEEBER,€ó óÔ€ÔÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlount€Circuit€No.€E„16377ÌÙ€€ÙßL€(,';+'h|qh` Å `€€LßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï03A01„9508„CV„00290ÌÌò òJULIA€ANN€SEEBER,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.ÌÔ€Ô___________________________________________________________________________ÌÔ€ÔÌÔ€Ôà@ àFROM€THE€BLOUNT€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€W.€DALE€YOUNG,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àArthur€B.€Goddard,€Goddard€&€Gamble€of€MaryvilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àG.€Kevin€Hardin,€Butler,€Vines€&€Babb€of€KnoxvilleÌà@ àThomas€D.€Dossett,€Todd€&€Dossett€of€KingsportÌà@ àThomas€C.€Jessee,€Jessee€&€Jessee€of€Johnson€CityÌà@ àFor€Appellants,€Estate€of€Julia€Ann€Seeber€byÌà@ àits€co„personal€representatives,€John€A.€Thomas,€RobertÌà@ àM.€Johnston,€Ruth€Billingsley€and€Betty€GlascockÌà àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDó óÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌÓÓ›à àœThis›€appeal€involves€the€disposition€of€real€property€as€affectedÏby€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€between€Robert€Lynn€Seeber€andÏJulia€Ann€Seeber.€€The€facts€are€as€follows.€Ìà àRobert€Lynn€Seeber€(Husband)€and€€Julia€Ann€Seeber€(Wife)€wereÏdivorced€by€Final€Decree€entered€December€10,€1993,€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Blount€County,€Tennessee,€Equity€Division.€€Prior€to€obtainingÏa€divorce,€the€parties€executed€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€(MDA)Íon€October€6,€1993.€€The€MDA,€which€was€drafted€by€Husband,× ƒ. ××  ×€providedÏfor€the€distribution€of€the€parties'€property€and€specifically€listed€theÏreal€and€personal€property€which€Wife€was€to€receive.€€The€MDAÏprovided€that€Husband€was€to€receive€ð ðas€his€separate€property€.€.€.€allÏother€real€estate€.€.€.€œand›€œany›€and€all€other€assets,€real€or€personal,Ïeither€in€the€joint€name€of€the€parties€or€in€the€individual€name€of€.€.€.Ï[Husband]€not€hereinabove€set€out€to€be€the€separate€property€of€.€.€.Ï[Wife].ðð€€œPart›€œof›€the€real€property€which€was€not€specificallyÏdesignated€as€Wifeððs€separate€property€included€two€condominiumsÏlocated€in€the€Virgin€Islands€which€were€titled€in€the€joint€names€ofÏRobert€Lynn€Seeber€and€Julia€Ann€Seeber.€€Ìà àThe€MDA€also€provided€that€the€entry€of€a€decree€of€divorce€was€aÏcondition€precedent€to€the€agreement€taking€effect.€€The€Final€DecreeÏentered€December€10,€1993,€œstates:›Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ[T]he€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€entered€intoÏbetween€the€parties€hereto€is€a€fair€andÏequitable€agreement,€and€the€same€is€ratifiedÏand€confirmed€and€incorporated€in€this€decree€byÍreference,€and€each€of€the€parties€is€ordered€toÏcarry€out€the€provisions€of€said€agreement€andÏto€execute€all€necessary€documents€toÏconsummate€the€same.Ì€€€ÌÓÓà àOn€November€22,€1993,€between€the€time€the€MDA€was€executedÏand€the€Final€Decree€was€entered,€Husband€conveyed€by€deeds€to€WifeÏhis€undivided€one„half€interest€in€the€"Sapphire€Hill€VillageÏCondominium"€and€his€undivided€one„half€interest€in€the€"marina€slipÏcondominium."€€Both€deeds€were€prepared€by€Husband,€and€both€conveyedÏHusbandððs€undivided€one„half€interest€in€the€respective€condominiumsÏ"in€fee€simple€absolute€forever."€€Both€deeds€were€recorded€in€the€taxÏassessor's€office€in€St.€Thomas,€Virgin€Islands€and€were€properlyÏcertified.€Ìà àOn€€February€14,€1994,€Wife€died€from€injuries€she€sustained€inÏan€€automobile€accident.€€€Appellants,€John€A.€Thomas€and€Robert€M.ÏJohnston,€the€co„personal€representatives€of€Wife,€were€issued€LettersÏTestamentary€pursuant€to€the€Amended€Order€Admitting€Will€of€JuliaÏAnn€Seeber€to€Probate€entered€in€the€County€Court€for€Blount€County,ÏTennessee,€Probate€Division.€€On€June€14,€1994,€Husband€filed€a€claimÏin€Blount€County€Probate€Court€œagainst›€Wifeððs€œestate›€requesting€thatÍthe€personal€representatives€convey€the€condominiums€to€him€basedÏupon€the€MDA,€or€in€the€alternative,€provide€him€with€the€proceeds€fromÏthe€sale€of€the€condominiums.€€Thereafter,€on€December€13,€1994,ÏHusband€filed€his€Petition€to€Enforce€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€inÏthe€Circuit€Court€for€Blount€County,€Equity€Division.€€Counsel€forÏHusband€served€a€copy€of€the€petition€on€the€beneficiaries€of€WifeððsÏwill,€and€counsel€appended€a€ð ðnoticeðð€to€the€petition€informing€theÏbeneficiaries€of€the€time,€place,€and€date€of€the€hearing€on€the€petition.€€€€Ìà àThe€appellant€personal€representatives€filed€a€response€to€theÏpetition€to€enforce€the€MDA€asserting€that€the€circuit€court€lackedÏpersonal€and€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€entertain€HusbandððsÏpetition.€€Husband€filed€a€motion€to€strike€the€personal€representatives'Ïresponse€on€the€ground€that€the€estate€of€€Wife€was€not€made€a€party€toÏthe€petition.€€œThe›€trial€court€granted€Husband's€motion€to€strike€theÏresponse€tendered€by€the€personal€representatives€on€the€ground€thatÏthe€personal€representatives€were€not€proper€parties€to€the€œaction.›Ìà àThe€only€witness€to€testify€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€wasÏHusband.€€Husband€testified€that€he€authored€and€conveyed€the€deeds€toÏthe€condominiums€in€order€to€remove€his€name€from€the€chain€of€titleÍand€thereby€protect€himself€from€any€legal€liability€as€a€result€ofÏWifeððs€actions€while€she€was€using€the€condominiums.€€Husband€alsoÏtestified€that€he€did€not€reveal€the€existence€of€the€deeds€to€the€circuitÏcourt€at€the€time€the€final€divorce€decree€was€entered,€because€theÏproperty€was€to€revert€back€to€him€pursuant€to€an€oral€agreement€withÏWife.Ìà àDuring€the€course€of€the€hearing,€counsel€for€the€appellantÏpersonal€representatives€made€an€oral€motion€to€intervene€in€theÏhearing€pursuant€to€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€24.€€The€court€denied€the€motion,Ïholding€that€the€personal€representatives€were€not€parties€to€theÏpetition€to€enforce€the€MDA.€€The€attorney€for€beneficiary€appellantsÏRuth€Billingsley€and€Betty€Glascock€also€made€an€oral€motion€to€adoptÏthe€pleadings€submitted€by€the€attorney€for€the€appellant€personalÏrepresentatives€so€that€the€attorney€for€Billingsley€and€Glascock€couldÏcross„examine€Husband.€€The€court€denied€the€motion€and€refused€toÏallow€counsel€for€the€beneficiaries€to€cross„examine€Husband.Ìà àAt€the€close€of€the€hearing,€the€court,€without€elaborating,€statedÏthat€Husband€was€entitled€to€the€relief€sought,€and€on€March€17,€1995,Ïthe€court€entered€the€following€order:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€This€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€on€the€7th€dayÏof€March,€1995,€before€the€Honorable€W.€DaleÏYoung,€Judge€of€the€Circuit€Court€for€BlountÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€after€hearing€openingÏstatements€and€argument€of€counsel,€the€CourtÏwas€of€the€opinion€that€the€Court€hadÏjurisdiction€to€enforce€its€Decrees,€and€wasÏfurther€of€the€opinion€that€the€Motion€of€theÏPlaintiff€to€strike€the€Response€of€the€PersonalÏRepresentatives€of€the€Estate€of€Julia€AnnÏSeeber€was€well€taken.€€The€Court€then€heardÏproof€of€the€Plaintiff€and€the€various€exhibitsÏintroduced,€and€announced€that€he€found€that€theÏPlaintiff€was€entitled€to€the€relief€sought€in€hisÏMotion€and€it€is€accordingly€ordered,€adjudgedÏand€decreed€by€the€Court€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€1.€€That€the€Motion€of€the€Plaintiff€to€strikeÏthe€Response€of€the€Personal€RepresentativesÏwas€well€taken€and€accordingly€sustained.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€2.€€That€the€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€theÏrelief€sought€in€his€Motion€and€it€is€ordered€thatÏthe€Clerk€&€Master€shall€execute€a€deedÏconveying€to€the€Plaintiff,€Robert€Lynn€Seeber,Ïall€of€the€right,€title,€interest,€claim€andÏdemand€of€all€of€the€beneficiaries€of€the€LastÏWill€and€Testament€of€Julia€Ann€Seeber€in€and€toÏthe€condominium€and€boat€slip€in€The€VirginÏIslands,€all€as€more€particularly€described€inÏExhibits€filed€with€the€Motion€and€the€exhibitsÏfiled€by€the€Plaintiff€in€the€introduction€of€hisÏproof.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€3.€€The€costs€of€the€cause€are€taxed€to€theÏplaintiff,€Robert€Lynn€Seeber,€SS#412„48„3111,Íwhose€address€is€in€care€of€Arthur€B.€Goddard,ÏAttorney,€101€W.€Broadway,€Suite€208,ÏMaryville,€TN€37801,€and€who€is€retired,€forÏwhich€execution€will€issue€if€need€be.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellants€present€seven€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€Whether€the€Circuit€Court€for€Blount€County,ÏTennessee€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€toÏenforce€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€filedÏby€the€plaintiff,€Robert€Lynn€Seeber,€onÏDecember€13,€1994?ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€Circuit€Court€had€subject„matterÏand€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€persons€whoÏare€the€beneficiaries€of€the€Estate€of€Julia€AnnÏSeeber€where€the€plaintiff€failed€to€substituteÏsuch€beneficiaries€as€parties€defendants€inÏaccordance€with€T.R.Civ.P.€25.01€(1)€by€failing€toÏeffectuate€service€of€process€in€the€mannerÏprovided€by€T.R.Civ.P.€4?ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€the€trial€judge€erred€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€in€refusing€to€permit€the€appellants,€John€A.ÏThomas,€and€Robert€M.€Johnston,€the€co„personalÏrepresentatives€of€the€Estate€of€Julia€AnnÏSeeber,€to€enter€a€suggestion€of€death€andÏmotion€for€substitution€in€accordance€withÏT.R.Civ.P.€25.01(1)€and€to€intervene€inÏaccordance€with€T.R.Civ.P.€24?Ìà àÌà8 àà8 à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€in€refusing€to€permit€the€counsel€for€theÏappellants,€Ruth€Billingsley€and€Betty€Glascock,Ïto€adopt€the€pleadings€and€arguments€submittedÏon€behalf€of€the€appellants,€John€A.€Thomas,€andÍRobert€M.€Johnston,€the€co„personalÏrepresentatives€of€the€Estate,€so€as€to€appearÏand€cross„examine€the€only€witness€in€theseÏproceedings?ÌÌà8 àà8 à5.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€in€permitting€the€plaintiff,€Robert€LynnÏSeeber,€to€testify€as€to€transactions€with€andÏinvolving€the€decedent,€Julia€Ann€Seeber?ÌÌà8 àà8 à6.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€in€determining€that€the€plaintiff,€RobertÏLynn€Seeber,€had€established€an€oral€trust€inÏcertain€real€property€that€was€the€subject€ofÏwarranty€deeds€by€and€between€the€plaintiff€andÏthe€decedent€whereby€the€plaintiff€had€conveyedÏhis€entire€interest€in€the€same?ÌÌà8 àà8 à7.€Whether€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€court's€determination€that€theÏplaintiff,€Robert€Lynn€Seeber,€had€established€anÏoral€trust€in€certain€real€property€that€was€theÏsubject€of€warranty€deeds€by€and€between€theÏplaintiff€and€decedent€whereby€the€plaintiff€hadÏconveyed€his€entire€interest€in€the€same?ÌÌÓÓà àWe€will€first€address€the€arguments€relating€to€the€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€of€the€Blount€County€Circuit€Court€to€entertain€theÏPetition€to€Enforce€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement.€€The€appellantsÏassert€that€by€filing€the€Petition€to€Enforce€the€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement€ten€months€after€the€death€of€Wife,€Husband€instituted€anÍaction€against€a€deceased€person;€therefore,€pursuant€to€Tenn.R.Civ.P.Ï25.01(1)€and€T.C.A€ðð€30„2„320€(1995),€Husband€was€required€to€obtainÏan€order€of€revivor€as€a€jurisdictional€prerequisite€to€maintaining€theÏenforcement€action.€€The€appellants€argue€that€the€action€to€enforce€theÏMDA€is€one€ð ðwhich€by€law€may€survive€against€the€personalÏrepresentative,ðð€and€therefore,€in€order€to€maintain€the€action,€HusbandÏwas€required€to€ð ðrevive€the€actionðð€by€substituting€Wifeððs€personalÏrepresentatives€as€parties€to€the€action.€€The€appellants€argue€thatÏHusband€should€have€obtained€an€order€of€substitution€of€partiesÏpursuant€to€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€25.01(1),€and€then€should€have€filed€a€copy€ofÏthat€order€with€the€clerk€of€the€court€in€which€the€estate€of€Wife€wasÏbeing€administered.€€The€appellants€contend€that€since€the€personalÏrepresentatives€were€never€substituted€as€parties,€Husbandððs€cause€ofÏaction€in€this€case€abated.Ì€à àSubject€matter€jurisdiction€may€never€be€waived€and€may€beÏchallenged€at€any€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€òòò òWunderlich€v.€Fortasó óóó,Ï776€S.W.2d€953,€957€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€This€court€is€required€toÏdetermine€the€existence€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€òòsua€sponteóó,€thatÏis,€even€when€subject€matter€jurisdiction€is€not€raised€as€an€issue€byÍthe€parties.€€T.R.A.P.€13(b).€€Ìà àThe€requirements€of€T.C.A€€ðð€30„2„320€are€mandatory€andÏjurisdictional.€€òòò òMid„South€Pavers,€Inc.€v.€Arnco€Constr.€Co.ó óóó,€771ÏS.W.2d€420€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€T.C.A€€ðð€30„2„320€provides:€€ÌÓÓò òà8 àà8 à30„2„320.€€Pending€actions€consideredÏlegally€filed€demands€„€Manner€of€revival.ó óÏ„€All€actions€pending€against€any€person€at€theÏtime€of€his€death,€which€by€law€may€surviveÏagainst€the€personal€representative,€shall€beÏconsidered€demands€legally€filed€against€suchÏestate€at€the€time€of€the€filing€with€the€clerk€ofÏthe€court€in€which€the€estate€is€beingÏadministered€of€a€copy€in€duplicate€of€the€orderÏof€revivor,€one€(1)€of€which€copies€shall€beÏcertified€or€attested,€a€notation€of€which€shallÏbe€entered€by€the€clerk€in€the€record€of€claims,Ïas€in€the€case€of€other€claims€filed.€€PendingÏactions€not€so€revived€against€the€personalÏrepresentative€within€the€period€prescribed€in€ððÏ30„2„307(a)€shall€abate.ÌÌTenn.R.Civ.P.€25.01(1)€provides:à8 àà8 àò òÌÌà àRule€25.01€DeathÌà8 àà8 àà àó ó(1)€If€a€party€dies€and€the€claim€is€notÏthereby€extinguished,€the€court€may€orderÏsubstitution€of€the€proper€parties.€€The€motionÏfor€substitution€may€be€made€by€any€party€or€byÏthe€successors€or€representatives€of€theÏdeceased€party€and,€together€with€the€notice€ofÏhearing,€shall€be€served€on€the€parties€asÏprovided€in€Rule€5€and€upon€persons€not€partiesÍin€the€manner€provided€in€Rule€4€for€the€serviceÏof€process.€€Unless€the€motion€for€substitutionÏis€made€not€later€than€90€days€after€the€death€isÏsuggested€upon€the€record€by€service€of€aÏstatement€of€the€fact€of€the€death€as€providedÏherein€for€the€service€of€the€motion,€the€actionÏshall€be€dismissed€as€to€the€deceased€œparty.›€€€ÌÓÓà àÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€failure€to€substitute€the€co„personalÏrepresentatives€as€parties€did€not€cause€Husbandððs€claims€to€abate,Ïbecause€T.C.A.€œðð›€30„2„320€is€not€applicable€to€a€suit€for€specificÏperformance€of€a€contract€for€the€conveyance€of€real€property.€€òòò òWrightÏv.€Universal€Tire,€Inc.ó óóó,€577€S.W.2d€194€(Tenn.€App.€1979).€€A€maritalÏdissolution€agreement€is€essentially€a€contract€between€a€husband€andÏwife€in€contemplation€of€divorce€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òTowner€v.€Towneró óóó,Ï858€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€proceeding,€Husband€seeksÏspecific€performance€of€the€MDA€agreement.€Specifically,€he€seeksÏdeeds€to€the€two€condominiums€based€upon€the€provision€of€theÏagreement€requiring€each€party€ð ðto€sign€any€and€all€documentsÏnecessary€to€carry€into€effect€this€marital€dissolution€agreement.ðð€ÏThe€general€rule€is€that€absent€a€showing€that€an€estate€is€insolvent,Ïreal€estate€is€not€subject€to€administration€by€an€estateððsÍrepresentatives,€because€title€passes€by€operation€of€law€to€theÏdevisees€or€heirs€upon€the€death€of€the€owner.€€€òòò òFirst€Southern€TrustÏCo.€v.€Sowelló óóó,€683€S.W.2d€680€(Tenn.App.€1984).€€Therefore,€in€a€suitÏfor€specific€performance€of€an€agreement€to€convey€realty,€a€personalÏrepresentative€is€not€a€necessary€party€to€the€action,€because€theÏpersonal€representative€has€no€interest€in€the€subject€real€property.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÏIn€òòò òWrightó óóó,€òòsupraóó,€this€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à[S]uits€for€specific€performance€may€beÏmaintained€against€the€heirs€or€those€whoÏacquire€the€subject€property€by€will.€€While€theÏpersonal€representative€is€a€proper€party€in€aÏsuit€of€this€kind,€he€is€not€a€necessary€party;€theÏheirs€or€one€acquiring€the€property€by€will€areÏnecessary€parties.€€Ìà àÌòòò òWrightó óóó,€577€S.W.2d€at€196.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€instant€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€Mrs.€Seeber€is€deceased.€ÏAccording€to€Husbandððs€theory,€as€expressed€in€his€petition,€Mrs.ÍSeeber,€had€she€lived,€would€have€been€obligated€under€the€terms€of€theÏMDA€to€execute€deeds€conveying€to€him€the€subject€property.€€SinceÏHusbandððs€claim€was€not€extinguished€by€Wifeððs€death,€the€parties€mustÏcomply€with€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€25.01.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€that€aÏð ðstatement€of€the€fact€of€deathðð€has€been€served,€and,€therefore,Ïtechnically€the€case€was€not€in€a€proper€posture€to€be€heard€and€decidedÏin€the€trial€court.€€The€personal€representatives€are€proper€partyÏdefendants€to€Husbandððs€petition,€and€the€heirs€or€devisees,€as€the€caseÏmay€be,× ƒ0 ××  ×€are€necessary€party€defendants€to€the€petition.€€The€properÏprocedural€steps€should€have€been€taken€to€substitute€the€necessaryÏparties€and€thereby€comply€with€Rule€25.01(1).€€Because€œthere›€was€noÏð ðservice€of€a€statement€of€the€fact€of€the€deathðð€as€required€by€RuleÏ25.01(1),€€the€90€day€limitation€period€for€making€a€motion€forÏsubstitution€of€parties€never€commenced.€€Therefore,€Husbandððs€actionÏdid€not€abate€under€Rule€25.01(1).€€However,€the€hearing€on€HusbandððsÏpetition€should€have€been€postponed€until€an€order€of€substitution€ofÏparties€was€entered€and€the€case€was€in€a€proper€posture€for€hearing.€€€œ›€€Ïœ›à àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€controversy€in€this€case€concerns€realÍproperty€in€the€Virgin€Islands€that€was€conveyed€in€fee€simple€to€WifeÏby€valid€warranty€deeds.€€Husbandððs€petition€seeks,€in€effect,€to€setÏaside€the€deeds€based€upon€his€interpretation€of€the€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement€and€undisputed€facts€surrounding€the€entry€of€the€finalÏdecree€incorporating€the€agreement.€€Although€technically€the€case€wasÏnot€in€a€posture€to€be€heard,€the€material€facts€are€undisputed€and€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court€turned€on€an€interpretation€of€the€MaritalÏDissolution€Agreement€which€is€a€question€of€law.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€feel€that€in€the€interest€of€judicial€economy,€weÏshould€attempt€to€dispose€of€this€case€on€its€merits.Ìà àAs€previously€noted,€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€isÏessentially€a€contract€between€a€husband€and€wife€in€contemplation€ofÏdivorce€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òTowner€v.€Towneró óóó,€858€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€ð ðA€property€settlement€agreement€between€a€husband€and€wifeÏis€ððwithin€the€category€of€contracts€and€is€to€be€looked€upon€andÏenforced€as€an€agreement,€and€is€to€be€construed€as€other€contracts€asÏrespects€its€interpretation,€its€meaning€and€effect.ðððð€€òòò òBruce€v.€Bruceó óóó,Ï801€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.App.€1990)€(quoting€òòò òMathews€v.€Mathewsó óóó,€24ÏTenn.App.€580,€593,€148€S.W.2d€3,€11„12€(1940)).Ìà àThe€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€was€executed€prior€to€the€dateÏof€entry€of€the€divorce€decree€and€specifically€provided€that€it€wouldÏnot€take€effect€until€the€entry€of€the€final€decree€incorporating€theÏagreement.€€Wife€was€given€certain€described€property€in€theÏagreement,€and€the€provision€for€Husband€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€party€of€the€first€part€[Husband]€will€receiveÏas€his€separate€property€all€of€his€retirementÏbenefits,€all€other€real€estate,€all€householdÏgoods,€furnishings,€equipment,€automobiles,Ïvehicles,€bank€accounts,€cash,€notes,€stocks,€andÏbonds,€and€any€and€all€other€assets,€real€orÏpersonal,€either€in€the€joint€name€of€the€partiesÏor€in€the€individual€name€of€the€party€of€theÏfirst€part€[Husband]€not€hereinabove€set€out€toÏbe€the€separate€property€of€the€party€of€theÏsecond€part€[Wife].ÌÌÓÓà àSubsequent€to€the€execution€of€the€Marital€Dissolution€AgreementÏand€prior€to€the€entry€of€the€final€decree,€Husband€conveyed€his€interestÏin€the€condominium€properties€to€Wife.Ìà àUnder€the€clear€language€of€the€property€settlement€agreement,Ïwhen€the€agreement€became€effective€upon€the€entry€of€a€Final€DecreeÏof€Divorce,€Husband€was€to€receive€all€property€which€was€held€in€theÏjoint€name€of€the€parties€or€held€in€Husbandððs€individual€name€whichÏwas€not€set€out€to€be€the€ð ðseparate€propertyðð€of€Wife.€€Wife€was€toÍreceive€all€real€property€which€was€set€out€in€the€MDA€as€her€ð ðseparateÏproperty.ðð€€At€the€time€of€the€entry€of€the€decree,€Wife€held€title€to€theÏtwo€condominiums€in€her€individual€name.€€Thus,€at€the€time€theÏagreement€became€effective,€the€condominiums€were€neither€realÏproperty€held€in€ð ðthe€joint€name€of€the€partiesðð€or€ð ðin€the€individualÏname€of€.€.€.€[Husband],ðð€nor€were€the€condominiums€listed€in€the€MDA€asÏð ðseparate€propertyðð€of€Wife.€€Thus,€by€the€clear€and€unambiguousÏlanguage€of€the€MDA,€its€provisions€did€not€dispose€of€the€twoÏcondominiums.€€Ìà àBy€conveying€title€to€the€two€condominiums€to€Wife€ð ðin€feeÏsimple€absolute€forever,ðð€Husband€effectively€amended€the€MDA€withÏrespect€to€the€disposition€of€the€condominiums.€€Husband€drafted€theÏMDA€and€was€or€should€have€been€well€apprised€of€its€provisionsÏregarding€disposition€of€his€and€Wifeððs€property.€€Husband€knew€orÏshould€have€known€that€the€provisions€of€the€MDA€would€provide€himÏwith€the€condominiums€following€divorce,€because€the€condominiumsÏwere€held€in€the€joint€names€of€Robert€Lynn€and€Julia€Ann€Seeber.€ÏDespite€this€knowledge,€Husband€conveyed€his€one„half€interest€in€theÏcondominiums€to€Wife€who€thereby€held€title€to€the€two€condominiumsÍin€fee€simple€absolute€in€her€individual€name.€€By€transferring€the€titleÏto€the€condominiums€to€Wife,€Husband€effectively€removed€theÏcondominiums€from€the€disposition€provisions€of€the€MDA.€€We€thinkÏthese€actions€evidence€an€unequivocal€intent€on€the€part€of€Husband€toÏamend€the€MDA.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Ìà àThere€is€no€evidence€that€the€deeds€were€invalid,€thus,€when€theÏMDA€became€effective€upon€the€entry€of€the€Final€Decree,€it€becameÏeffective€as€amended.€€Therefore,€the€condominiums€were€the€propertyÏof€Julia€Ann€Seeber€subject€to€descent,€œdevise,›€or€conveyance.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€andÏappelleeððs€petition€is€dismissed.€€The€remaining€issues€areÏpretermitted.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellee.ÌÓÓœà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó›œÔ€ÔÔ€Ô