WPC@M # VU:a % 0@w@4! 5 D 0L 0D 0~ 0x 0k 0ku 0 0~z 0 0 0 0S 0 J 0T 01r 0C 0V 0< 0  0 0S 0 0 B 0 0 0& D3 0z 0v 0@O 1 0 x 0= 0F 0P ! 1\! 0! 0[" 0}# 0x~# 0# 0j$ 0e$ 0WR% 0W% 0& 0j& 0& 0' 0s( 0) 0) 0* 0+ 0-, 0@&. 0f/ 0!0 00 0=1 01 02 053 03 04 15n5^x666UBb:E: 0J: 0T: 0^D; 0h; 0r < 0||< 0< 0~= 1u> 0d>U6>B)?DCF? AM?U*?/@f/A AfB/Cv~JDvE AOKK 0DL D/L B#MHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX($    PDDӀUӀU!fV3|x(4(3DX$ !         0  (%$  1  V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   ..  dl:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. &&&&'dxdR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS .'#$%!"()  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S("$    '#$%!"() CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style0S 4    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S123($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper V(32$ !     p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.  CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS z 6(  W&XXXXX6&X'*d66&X'*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ]^_`abcd ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dnnnn7Border 1dd-oC << G<  9p`(Arial % !  #d#m     qq   YYY FILEDqX October2,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.qAppellateCourtClerk  \\RA'\  !#d#m      $       Noissueismadeconcerningthevalidityofthisprovision.We,therefore,declinetocommentthereon. \\RA'\ % !  #d#m     qq   YYY FILEDqX October2,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.qAppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . m            \RA'\7wXXdd7Lpro;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSWILLIAMA.WINNINGHAM,Executor) CUMBERLANDPROBATEoftheEstateofAlston) C.A.NO.03A019604PB00152̜Winningham,)̀)̀PlaintiffAppellee)̀)̀)̀)̀)̀)vs.) HON.GARYW.DODSOǸ) JUDGE,BYINTERCHANGÈ)̀)̀)̀)̀)TAMMYK.WINNINGHAM,) REVERSEDANDREMANDED̀)̀DefendantAppellant)JOHNR.OFFICER,Livingston,forAppellant.HARRYD.SABINE,Sabine&Douglas,P.C.,Crossville,forAppellee.@ OPINION McMurray,J. Wearecalleduponinthisappealtodeterminewhetherrelyingontheadviceofanattorneyinfilinganunfoundedwillcontestconstitutesprobablecausesufficienttoavoidtheenforcementofaforfeitureclauseinthewill.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,wefindthatsuchreliancedoesconstituteprobablecause,andreversethejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Theappellant,TammyWinningham,wasthedaughterofAlstonandRebaWinningham.AlstonandRebaWinninghamexecutedidenticalwillsonFebruary13,1981.RebaWinninghamdiedonFebruary26,1986,andherwillwasprobated.In1992,AlstonWinningham,whoatthetimewassufferingfromcancer,executedanewwill.Thatwillcontainedaforfeitureclauseapplyingtoanybeneficiarywhoinitiatedacontestofthewill.AlstonWinninghamdiedlaterthatyear.Apparently,TammyWinninghamhadconcernaboutthecompetencyofherfatherduetohismedicalconditionatthetimeheexecutedthe1992will.ShecontactedLivingstonattorneyJohnHeath,whomistakenlytoldherthatmutualwills(suchasthewillsexecutedbyAlstonandRebaWinninghamin1981)couldnotberevokedafterthedeathoftheotherparty.Mr.HeathwasapparentlyunawareoftheTrautmannAct,codifiedatT.C.A.323107,whichabolishedthepresumptionofcontractualintentintheexecutionofjointandmutualwills,andprovidesthatacontracttomakeawillcanbeestablishedonlybyastatementofthecontracttermsinthewill,anexpressreferenceinthewilltotheexistenceofacontract(thetermsofwhichareprovenbyextrinsicevidence),oraseparatewritingsignedbythedecedentevidencingthecontract.InrelianceonMr.Heathsadvice,TammyWinninghamfiledsuitagainsttheexecutorofAlstonWinninghamsestate,WilliamWinningham,appelleeinthiscase.Threeweeksafterthefilingofthatsuit,Mr.Heathrealizedhiserror,andthewillcontestactionwasimmediatelyandvoluntarilydismissed. WilliamWinninghamthenfiledsuittoinvoketheforfeitureprovisionastoanybequestordevisetoTammyWinningham.TheHonorableGaryDodson,sittingbyinterchangeintheProbateandFamilyCourtofCumberlandCounty,foundthatthefilingoftheswillcontestviolatedtheforfeitureclauseandthat,consequently,theprovisionshouldbeenforced.Thisappealfollowed. AlstonWillingham'swillprovidedinpartasfollows:8  Ifanybeneficiaryshallcontesttheprobateorvalidityofthiswilloranyprovisionthereof,orshallinstituteorjoininanyproceedingtocontestthevalidityofthiswillortopreventanyprovisionthereoffrombeingcarriedoutinaccordancewithitsterm(regardlessofwhethersuchproceedingsareinstitutedingoodfaithandwithprobablecause t   ),thenallbenefitsprovidedforsuchbeneficiaryarerevokedandsuchbenefitsshallpasstotheresiduarybeneficiariesofthiswill....ӛ InTennessee,aforfeitureclauseisgenerallyvalid.SeeTatev.Camp,147Tenn.137,245S.W.839(1922).InWoolardv.Ferrell,169S.W.2d134thecourtcitingTate,supra,noted:8  ThelawinTennesseegoverningtheeffectofawillcontestontheoperationofaforfeitureclauseinawillisfullydiscussedandissettledinanopinionbyMcKinney,Judge,...whereitisheldthataforfeitureprovisiioninawillisnotvoidasagainstpublicpolicy,andthatlegateewillnotlosehisinterestunderaforfeitureprovisionofawillifthecontestwasprosecutedingoodfaithanduponprobablecause.....Wollard,page136. Itisclear,therefore,thatagiftwillnotbeforfeitedifthecontestismadeingoodfaithandonprobablecause.TheTrialCourtfoundthatsinceAttorneyHeathadvisedhisclientbasedonamistakeoflaw,therewasnobadfaithonthepartofTammyWinningham.However,theCourtfoundthatsincethe1981willscouldnotbelegallyconstruedtobemutualwills,thewillcontestwaswithoutprobablecause,eventhoughsheactedonthemistakenadviceofcounsel.Werespectfullydisagree. TheDefendantarguesthatprobablecauseisestablishedwhereprosecutionofanactionisinstitutedonadviceofcounsel.DefendantcitesthecaseofSullivanv.Young,678S.W.2d906(Tenn.App.1984)asstandingforthepropositionthatprobablecauseisestablishedwhereinstigationofanactionisdonewiththeadviceofcounsel.AlthoughSullivaninvolvesanactionformaliciousprosecution,wethinktheanalogyisappropriate.InWoolardv.Ferrell,supra,thiscourtappliedthedefinitionofprobablecausefromamaliciousprosecutioncasetoacaseinterpretingaforfeitureprovision.TheCourtsaid:    Ӝ [T]helawastoreasonableorprobablecauseisdefinedtobesuchastateoffactsinthemindoftheprosecutoraswouldleadapersonofordinarycautionandprudencetobelieve,orentertainanhonestorstrongsuspicion,thatthepersonisguilty.Itdoesnotdependontheactualstateofthecaseinpointoffact,butuponthehonestandreasonablebeliefofthepartycommencingtheprosecution.Inordertomaintainanactionformaliciousprosecution,itisveryclearthattheplaintiffmustaverandprovethatthesuitcomplainedofwascommencedandprosecutedwithoutreasonableorprobablecause,andthatitwasmalicious.Thewarrantlessnessofthesuitmay,inmanyinstances,besoobviousasthatmalicemaybeinferredfromit.Thequestionofprobablecauseappliestothenatureofthesuit,andthepointofinquiryiswhetherthedefendanthadprobablecausetomaintaintheparticularsuitupontheexistingfactsknowntohim.    Woolard󛀜page137(citationsomitted). ̛̜ Wefinditappropriatetousethesamedefinitionforprobablecauseinthecontextofawillforfeitureprovisionandanactionformaliciousprosecutionsincebothdealwiththepreventionofinitiatinglegalproceedingsagainstanother.SinceitistheruleinTennesseethatadviceofcounselmayestablishprobablecausefortheinitiatingofproceedingsinamaliciousprosecutioncase,weholdthatitalsomayestablishprobablecauseforinitiatingawillcontest.Adviceofcounselcanonlybeadefense,however,iftherewasafullandfairdisclosureofallmaterialfactstotheattorney,withoutomissionormisrepresentation.See,e.g.,Kleinv.Elliot,59Tenn.App.1,436S.W.2d867(1968). PlaintiffscounseladmitsinhisbriefthattheonlybasisforthewillcontestwastheadviceofDefendant'sattorney.GiventhisadmissionbyPlaintiff,weareoftheopinionthatthiscasemustberemandedforadeterminationofthesufficiencyofdisclosuretoMr.Heath,appellant'sattorney,tosupportthedefenseofadviceofcounsel. Forthereasonssetforthabove,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisreversed.Costsaretaxedtotheappelleeandthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchotherandfurtherproceedingsasmayberequiredinconformitywiththisopinion. ______________________________̀DonT.McMurray,J.CONCUR:___________________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge___________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge̜u  7wXXdXXd7ћ7WwWXXdXXd7 `  , 5  n u` @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION̜Jpv;+'b|`  `@JߛWILLIAMA.WINNINGHAM,@ ) ExecutoroftheEstateof@ ) AlstonWinningham @ )@ ) PlaintiffAppellee@ ) @ ) ̀@ )  v. @ ) CUMBERLANDCOUNTY@ ) 03A019604PB00152@ ) TAMMYK.WINNINGHAM  @ ) @ ) DefendantAppellant@ )    DISSENTINGOPINION           Irespectfullydissentfromtheconclusionreachedinthemajorityopinion.IwouldfindthatthecaseatbarisdistinguishablefromWoolardv.Ferrell,inthatthewilldidnotcontainwhatIbelieveisthecriticalclause,"(regardlessofwhethersuchproceedingsareinstitutedingoodfaithandwithprobablecause)."  Inlightoftheabovequotedunambiguouslanguage,Iwouldgiveeffecttotheintentofthetestatorwhichiscrystalclear,andaffirmtheTrialCourt.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.