ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4ÝñU: : w@: z {`‚ {`â 0JB 0TŒ 0^à 0h> 0r¦ 0| 0†” 0 1uª U, 0dKU,¯ BÛU>øU *6B)`DC‰ D3Ì AMÿýL 0@Iv~‰vÓ AOÚÆ) 0Dï D/3 Bb˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡;p‚ 3|x³@"Arial Regular Ÿ î a¡g¢£¤D¥D¦§Ó€³(8U\$¡¡Ò‰°ÒÒ‰°Òщ9Ñщ9Ñ(8v"$¡¡Ò§°ÒÒ§°ÒѧXÑѧXÑ2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€½¨XXdædÈ7ÑÑ X ÑÑ X Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌJOANNA€MARTINDALE,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant/à àò ò)€Shelby€Chancery€No.€102924„1ÏR.D.à àà àó óAppellee,à àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Appeal€No.€02A01„9502„CH„00030ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€+,);+'h|ãÿr` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌUNION€PLANTERS€NATIONAL€BANK,à à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff/à àò ò)Ìà àó óAppellee,à àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌUNION€PLANTERS€NATIONAL€BANK,à à)Ìó óà àThird€Party€Plaintiff,à àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPATRICIA€COX€BAKER€andà àà à)ÌJEREL€ALLEN€COX,à àà àà à)Ìà àó óThird€Party€Defendants/à àà àò ò)Ìà àó óCross€Defendants/Appellants,à àœò ò)Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìœand›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœDAN›€COX,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óThird€Party€Defendant/à àò òà à)Ìà àó óCross€Plaintiff/Appellee.à àà àò ò)ó ớ̜à@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLOR̛̜Ìò òFLOYD€S.€FLIPPINÌADAMS,€RYAL€&€FLIPPIN,€ATTORNEYS„P.C.Ìó óHumboldt,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantsÌÌò òWARREN€MILLERÌWILLIAM€A.€LINGÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Appellee,€Joanna€MartindaleÌÌò òROBERT€œF.›€MILLERÌWOLFF€ARDIS,€P.C.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Union€Planters€National€BankÌÌò òS.€JASPER€TAYLOR,€IVÌó óBells,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Dan€CoxÌœÌÌ›Ìò òœAFFIRMEDÌÌ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€J.ÌÓÓó óœà àThis€is€a€will€construction€case€involving€the€interpretation€of€a€testamentaryÏtrust€Ñ7€½¨XXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ ° ÑÑ ° Ñprovision.€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó ó€€Ìà@ àò òFactsó óÌà àà àThe€testator,€Carl€Velah€Kenner,€executed€his€Last€Will€and€Testament€onÏJuly€30,€1968.€€The€pertinent€provisions€of€the€will€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àMy€Trustee€shall€pay€the€net€income€derived€from€theÏmanagement€of€said€trust€at€such€time€and€in€such€amountsÏas€it,€in€its€sole€discretion,€may€determine€to€my€wife,€MaryÏElizabeth€Barber€Kenner,€but€not€less€frequently€than€twiceÏannually,€so€long€as€she€may€live€and,€upon€her€death,€allÏthe€remaining€principal€and€accumulated€income€of€thisÏtrust€estate€shall€be€distributed€in€equal€portions,€share€andÏshare€alike,€to€my€sister,€Mrs.€Wilma€B.€Cox,€and€myÏnephew,€Carl€Van€Kenner,€or€ò òin€the€event€my€saidÏsister€or€nephew€shall€predecease€the€date€ofÏsuch€distribution€leaving€children€surviving,€thatÏshare€which€would€have€gone€to€my€sister€orÏnephew€had€she€or€he€survived,€shall€go€to€theÏchildren€of€said€deceased€sister€or€nephew€inÏequal€portionsó ó,ò ò€share€and€share€alike,€or,€in€theÏevent€of€no€surviving€children,€then€all€shall€go€toÏthe€survivor.ó ó€(emphasis€added)ÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€the€event€my€said€wife€shall€predecease€me€or€we€shallÏdie€simultaneously€as€a€result€of€a€common€catastrophe,Ïthen€and€in€either€of€such€events,€after€payment€of€all€of€myÏjust€debts,€taxes,€funeral€expenses,€expenses€ofÏadministration€and€the€like,€I€direct€that€my€ExecutorÏhereinafter€named€divide€the€net€estate€into€two€equalÏshares,€one€of€such€shares€I€give,€devise€and€bequeath€inÏequal€portions€to€my€sister,€Mrs.€Wilma€B.€Cox€and€myÏnephew,€Carl€Van€Kenner,€absolutely€and€in€fee€simple,€perÏstirpes€and€not€per€capita,€or€in€the€event€either€shallÏpredecease€me€leaving€no€children,€the€survivor€shall€takeÏthe€entire€share...ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€testator's€wife€was€Mary€Elizabeth€Kenner.€The€testator€had€one€brotherÏand€one€sister.€€The€testator's€brother€was€Paul€Kenner,€whose€son€is€Carl€VanÏKenner.€€Carl€received€his€1/2€share€of€the€trust€upon€Mary€Elizabeth€Kenner's€deathÏon€March€1,€1993,€in€accordance€with€the€will.€The€remaining€one„half€of€the€trust,Ïvalued€at€approximately€$500,000.00,€is€the€subject€of€this€suit.€Ìà àÌà àThe€testator's€sister€was€Wilma€B.€Cox,€who€had€three€children,€Patricia€CoxÏBaker,€Jerel€Allen€Cox,€and€Duane€Cox.€Duane€Cox€predeceased€the€testator€in€1978,€Ïleaving€€two€children€surviving€him,€Joanna€Martindale€and€Dan€Cox,€who€are€theÏappellees€in€this€case.€€Wilma€died€in€1991,€survived€by€Patricia€and€Jerel,€who€are€theÏappellants.€ÌÌà àFollowing€the€death€of€the€testator's€wife,€the€appellees,€Joanna€and€Dan,Ïbrought€suit€to€compel€Union€Planters€National€Bank,€the€trustee€named€in€the€will,€toÏdistribute€to€them€their€alleged€portions€of€the€trust€corpus.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€trust€proceeds€should€be€distributed€as€follows:€€1/3Ïto€Patricia€Cox€Baker,€1/3€to€Jerel€Allen€Cox,€1/6€to€Joanna€Martindale,€and€1/6€to€DanÏCox.€Patricia€and€Jerel€have€appealed€from€this€judgment.€€They€contest€severalÏevidentiary€rulings€of€the€chancellor€and€urge€this€court€to€find€that€the€TennesseeÏclass€gift€doctrine€does€not€apply€in€the€present€case€because€the€testator€intendedÏthat€only€surviving€issue€of€his€sister€share€in€his€estate.ÌÌà@ àò òII.Ìà@ àEvidentiary€Rulingsó óÌà àFollowing€the€death€of€Duane€Cox€in€1978,€the€testator€allegedly€had€twoÏconversations€in€which€he€stated€that€he€did€not€want€Joanna€or€Dan€to€take€anÏinterest€in€his€estate.€€The€first€alleged€conversation€was€with€his€sister,€Wilma,€whichÏwas€purportedly€overheard€by€Patricia.€€Pursuant€to€an€offer€of€proof,€Patricia€testifiedÏthat€the€testator€urged€Wilma€to€make€a€will.€€The€testator€told€Wilma€that€if€she€did€notÏmake€a€will,€he€was€going€to€change€his€will€in€order€to€prevent€Joanna€or€Dan€fromÏsharing€in€his€estate.€€The€other€alleged€conversation€occurred€between€the€testatorÏand€Patricia's€husband,€Dwight€Baker.€€Dwight€Baker,€also€under€an€offer€of€proof,Ïtestified€that€he€had€a€conversation€with€the€testator€in€which€the€testator€told€him€thatÏ"he€was€glad€he€had€his€affairs€fixed€so€that€Dan€and€Joanna€could€not€get€any€of€hisÏmoney."€ÌÌà à€€The€testator€subsequently€wrote,€and€Wilma€signed,€a€properly€witnessedÍholographic€will.€€An€attorney€later€typed€the€holographic€will€that€was€executed€onÏOctober€18,€1978.€This€will€was€probated€upon€Wilma's€death€in€1991,€in€the€CrockettÏCounty€Probate€Court.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€excluded€both€the€alleged€conversations€and€Wilma's€wills€onÏgrounds€of€hearsay.€ÌÌà àAppellants€argue€that€the€alleged€conversations€and€the€wills€should€have€beenÏadmitted€into€evidence.€€According€to€appellants,€€the€testator's€statements€fall€withinÏthe€state€of€mind€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€and€are€relevant€to€prove€that€theÏtestator€did€not€intend€for€Joanna€or€Dan€to€share€in€his€estate.€€Conversely,€JoannaÏand€Dan€argue€that€the€wills,€as€well€as€the€content€of€the€alleged€conversations,€areÏinadmissible,€both€as€hearsay€and€as€parol€evidence.€€ÌÌà àAdmissibility€of€evidence€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€andÏwill€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€ÏòòPatton€v.€Roseóó,€892€S.W.2d€410,€415€(Tenn.€App.€1994);€òòWitter€v.€Nesbitóó,€878€S.W.2dÏ116,€122€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3)€provides€that€the€following€constitutes€an€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òThen€Existing€Mental,€Emotional,€or€PhysicalÏConditionó ó.€€A€statement€of€the€declarant's€then€existingÏstate€of€mind,€emotion,€sensation,€or€physical€conditionÍ(such€as€intent,€plan,€motive,€design,€mental€feeling,€pain,Ïand€bodily€health),€but€not€including€a€statement€of€memoryÏor€belief€to€prove€the€fact€remembered€or€believed€unless€itÏrelates€to€the€execution,€revocation,€identification,€or€termsÏof€declarant's€will.ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àThis€exception€has€long€been€recognized€as€a€means€through€which€to€admitÏinto€evidence€a€declarant's€state€of€mind€in€order€to€prove€subsequent€conduct€that€isÏconsistent€with€that€mental€state.€€TÔ€'ôÔENN.Ô€'XÔ€R.€EÔ€'ôÔVIDÔ€'XÔ.€803€advisory€committee's€note.€ÏHowever,€the€subsequent€conduct€must€be€that€of€the€declarant,€not€of€a€third€party.€€òòId.óó€ÏIn€the€present€case,€appellants€are€seeking€to€admit€the€conversations€and€the€wills€inÏorder€to€prove€that€òòWilma'sóó€conduct€in€drafting€a€new€will€was€consistent€with€theÏòòdeclarant'sóó€statements€that€he€wished€to€exclude€Joanna€and€Dan€from€taking€in€theÏestate.€€These€are€not€the€types€of€statements€that€are€excepted€from€the€hearsay€ruleÏunder€the€state€of€mind€exception.€€TÔ€'ôÔENN.Ô€'XÔ€R.€EÔ€'ôÔVIDÔ€'XÔ.€803€advisory€committee's€note.ÌÌà àEven€if€we€were€to€hold€that€the€proffered€evidence€was€admissible€as€aÏhearsay€exception,€we€would€nevertheless€hold€such€evidence€properly€excludable€asÏparol€evidence.Ìà àÌà àIt€is€a€well„established€proposition€that€extrinsic€evidence€may€not€be€admittedÏinto€evidence€to€supplement,€vary,€or€contradict€the€terms€of€a€will€when€there€exists€noÏambiguity€within€the€four€corners€of€the€will.€€€òòStickley€v.€Carmichaelóó,€850€S.W.2d€127Ï(Tenn.€1992);€òòFariss€v.€Bry„Block€Co.óó,€346€S.W.2d€705,€707€(Tenn.€1961).€€AlthoughÏwe€acknowledge€that€proof€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€execution€of€a€willÍmay€be€admissible€to€clarify€ambiguities€in€the€will's€language,€€òòLocke€v.€Davisóó,€526ÏS.W.2d€455,€457€(Tenn.1975);€òòMongle€v.€Summersóó,€592€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.ÏApp.1979),€we€perceive€no€such€ambiguity€in€the€present€case.€ÌÌà àFrom€our€examination€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€offered€evidence.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÓ  Óò òDistribution€of€Trust€ProceedsÌÓ  Óó óà àThe€chief€object€in€the€construction€of€wills€is€to€discover€and€effectuate€theÏintention€of€the€testator,€unless€to€do€so€would€contravene€some€rule€of€law€or€publicÏpolicy.€€€€òòStickley€v.€Carmichaelóó€850€S.W.2d€at€132.€€€In€applying€this€rule€andÏascertaining€the€testator's€intent,€it€is€necessary€to€look€to€the€manifest€language€of€theÏentire€will.€€The€testator's€intent€must€be€determined€from€the€language€of€what€he€hasÏwritten,€not€from€mere€surmise€or€supposition.€€òòMartin€v.€Tayloróó,€521€S.W.2d€581,€584Ï(Tenn.1975).€€€Where€the€language€of€a€will€is€clear€and€unambiguous,€the€languageÏmust€control.€€òòMoore€v.€Neelyóó,€370€S.W.2d€537,€540€(€Tenn.1963).€ÌÌà àThis€case€falls€within€the€terms€of€T.C.A.€ðð€32„3„104,€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhere€a€bequest,€devise,€conveyance,€transfer€or€gift€isÏmade€to€a€class€of€persons€subject€to€fluctuation€byÏincrease€or€diminution€of€its€number€in€consequence€ofÏfuture€births€or€deaths,€and€the€time€of€payment,€distribution,Ïvestiture€or€enjoyment€is€fixed€at€a€subsequent€period€or€onÏthe€happening€of€a€future€event,€and€any€member€of€suchÏclass€shall€die€before€the€arrival€of€such€period€or€theÍhappening€of€such€event,€and€shall€have€issue€survivingÏwhen€such€period€arrives€or€such€event€happens,€suchÏissue€shall€take€the€share€of€the€property€which€the€memberÏso€dying€would€take€if€living,€unless€a€clear€intention€to€theÏcontrary€is€manifested€by€the€will,€deed€or€other€instrument.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€32„3„104€(1984).ÓÓÌÌà àThis€statute€modified€the€Tennessee€class€doctrine€by€providing€that€where€aÏbequest€is€made€to€a€class€of€persons€that€is€subject€to€fluctuation€by€either€increase€orÏdecrease€of€its€number,€and€a€class€member€dies€before€the€time€established€forÏdistribution,€the€issue€of€the€deceased€class€member€will€take€that€members's€shareÏunless€a€clear€intention€to€the€contrary€is€evinced€by€the€language€of€the€will.€ÏòòNicholson€v.€Nicholsonóó,€496€S.W.2d€477,€479€(Tenn.€1973);€òòJennings€v.€Jenningsóó,€164ÏTenn.€295,€54€S.W.2d€961,€963€(1932).€€€Ìà àÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€will€provides€that€if€Wilma€predeceases€the€date€ofÏdistribution€(the€death€of€testator's€wife),€then€"that€share€which€would€have€gone€to€myÏsister...shall€go€to€the€children€of€said€deceased€sister...in€equal€portions,€share€andÏshare€alike."€The€bequest€to€the€"children"€of€Wilma€clearly€establishes€a€class€subjectÏto€fluctuation.€€Consequently,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€32„3„104,€the€children€of€DuaneÏCox,€Dan€and€Joanna,€are€entitled€to€receive€Duane's€share€of€the€bequest,€unless€aÏclear€intention€to€the€contrary€is€manifested€by€the€will.ÌÌà àAppellants€contend€that€the€following€clause€indicates€a€clear€intent€on€the€partÏof€the€testator€to€have€the€interest€in€the€trust€vest€only€in€those€individuals€that€surviveÍWilma:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]n€the€event€my€said€sister€or€nephew€shall€predecease€theÏdate€of€distribution€ò òleaving€children€survivingó ó,€thatÏshare€which€would€have€gone€to€my€sister€or€nephew€hadÏshe€or€he€survived,€shall€go€to€the€children€of€saidÏdeceased€sister€or€nephew€in€equal€portions,€share€andÏshare€alike,€or,€in€the€event€of€no€surviving€children,€then€allÏshall€go€to€the€survivor.€(emphasis€added)ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àAppellants€argue€that€the€testator's€intent€was€that€if€Wilma€predeceased€theÏdate€of€distribution,€the€class€was€to€be€limited€to€only€those€children€that€survivedÏWilma.€€Conversely,€appellees€argue€that€the€phrase,€"that€share€which€would€haveÏgone€to€my€sister€or€nephew€had€he€or€she€survived,€shall€go€to€the€children€of€saidÏdeceased€children€or€nephew..."€€falls€squarely€within€the€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€32„3„104€and,€therefore,€the€children€of€Duane€Cox,€Joanna€and€Dan,€take€a€vestedÏtransmissible€interest.Ìà àÌà àAppellants€have€advanced€a€cogent€and€persuasive€argument€in€support€ofÏtheir€position.€€However,€after€careful€and€thoughtful€review,€we€are€unable€to€gleanÏany€clear€intention€on€the€part€of€the€testator€to€limit€the€class€of€beneficiaries€to€thoseÏwho€were€living€at€the€time€of€Wilma's€death.€€€ÌÌà àIt€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€testator€was€a€shrewd€and€intelligentÏbusinessman€whose€will€was€prepared€by€a€competent€attorney.€€Consequently,€weÏcan€presume€that€the€testator's€will€was€drafted€with€knowledge€of€T.C.A.€ðð€32„3„104,Ïand€that€if€the€testator€had€wanted€to€avoid€the€effect€of€the€statute,€he€would€haveÍclearly€and€unequivocally€expressed€that€intent€in€the€language€of€the€will.€€òòSeeóó,ÏòòNicholsonóó,€496€S.W.2d€at€479.€€Moreover,€because€Duane€Cox€predeceased€theÏtestator,€the€testator€had€ample€opportunity€either€to€modify€the€will€or€attach€a€codicilÏthereto€indicating€his€desire€to€exclude€Joanna€and€Dan€from€sharing€in€the€estate.€ÏThe€testator€did€not,€however,€expressly€provide€that€only€those€children€who€survivedÏWilma€should€be€entitled€to€the€remainder.ÌÌà àIn€our€judgment,€the€language€before€us€does€not€unequivocally€disclose€aÏdefinite€testamentary€intent€to€attach€a€condition€of€survivorship€to€the€class€gift.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€its€entirety.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€appellants,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌà àÌà à