WPC[ VM'R<< Z9VJAV?w^a*} Su\LHq];3֍%Hك|2zMͅH!=1ZH2OO/!C&F֑`e4񩂜vFϠ$OG@`[+AKa\?:}C*UVGzULY28̻KY,fNYc ,J?#@ìgnlW,d,>CGV>|FdUNx % 0:#! '  0 ^ B wN 4R f u mw b  N ( U: 0V D5X B AQ  0V 0D(I Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion.wpt(i(2EC$ !USUS.,  XX   0  .y#(L tpO'p}.bk13|xU- -   b"USUS.,  _l   Ad FILEDX\tXl  December30,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,OAZ"Arial Regular(.3$ !USUS.,  \\\\)!dxdx dabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  !USUS.,  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T     8dd8  ___@  L! INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  x`[B2.jzo2`  `@Eci` 8ttxP7 2 x@(ATNASHVILLE #! L#Ԉ 7< ANALYNROJOCANTRELL,  )     0      8   ) Petitioner/Appellant, 8   )     0      8   )0  AppealNo. T$T$   0      8   )0  M199800536COAR3CV T$T$ VS.0 00 T$ T$00 T$0 T$0T$T$08T$T$08T$8T$) T$T$   0      8   )0  WilliamsonChancery', T$T$   0      8   )0  No.IIP9820159> T$T$ INTHEMATTEROF:   8   ) KP ESTATEOF     8   ) ]b JERRYA.CANTRELL,Deceased,  ) ot   0      8   ) Respondent/Appellee. 8   )  @(APPEALFROM@  THECHANCERYCOURTOFWILLIAMSONCOUNTY@#ATFRANKLIN,TENNESSEE@0 0 THEHONORABLERUSSHELDMAN,CHANCELLORPHILLIPNEWMAN401ChurchStreetFranklin,Tennessee37064 AttorneyforPetitioner/AppellantJUDYOXFORD136FourthAvenueSouthFranklin,Tennessee37064 AttorneyforRespondent/Appellee@$AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  0      8     BENH.CANTRELL,  0      8     PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.CONCUR:CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.COTTRELL,J.  :52 @' L! OPINION #! L #Ԁ    0 Thisappealsconcernstheenforceabilityofaprenuptialagreement.   OnappealtheappellantchallengesthetrialcourtsapplicationoftheDead   MansStatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.241203,toexcludepartsofhertestimony,   andthecourtsfindingthatsheenteredintotheagreementfreely,knowingly,and   afterafullandfairdisclosureoftheextentandvalueofherhusbandsassets. #(  Weaffirmthetrialcourt. GL @- I.     0 JerryA.CantrellofFranklin,TennesseediedonNovember11,  1997,survivedbyhiswidow,AnalynRojoCantrell,theirtenmontholdson,and  fiveadultchildrenbyaformermarriage.Mr.Cantrellhadawill,buthehadnot #!( reviseditafterhismarriageorthebirthofhisson;soforthepurposesofthis G#L proceeding,heisconsideredtohavediedintestate. k%p    0 OnJanuary7,1998,anadultdaughterpetitionedtheChancery )$" CourtofWilliamsonCountytobeappointedadministratrixoftheestate.She +&$ allegedthatthewidowhadwaivedanyrightintheestate,includingtherightto -)& administertheestate,bytheexecutionofaprenuptialagreement.Thecourt 0$+( issuedlettersofadministrationtothedaughter. C2H-*   0 OnMay18,1998,thewidowpetitionedtheChanceryCourtfora 61. yearssupport,theawardofexemptpropertytoher,andanelectiveshareofthe 830 estate.Theadministratrixansweredthepetitionsandraisedasadefensethe :52 provisionsoftheprenuptialagreement.ThepetitionswereheardonSeptember  1,1998,andtakenunderadvisementbythechancellor.OnSeptember23,1998, $ thewidowaskedthecourttoappointaguardianadlitemfortheminorchild. C H ThecourtannounceditsdecisiononNovember10,1998,findingthatthewidow g l enteredintotheprenuptialagreementafterafullandfairdisclosureofthe   decedentsassets,andwithoutbeingunderanyimproperexternalpressureor   influence.Therefore,undertheprovisionsoftheagreement,thewidowwasnot   entitledtoanelectiveshare,exemptproperty,orayearssupport.Thecourtdid  appointaguardianadlitemfortheminorchild.   @qq- II.  ch @# IsitaFinalJudgment?     0 Theappelleeassertsthatthechancellorsorderisnotfinalbecause   itdoesnotdisposeofalltheclaimsofalltheparties.SeeRule3(a),Tenn.R. " App.Proc.Thisallegationisbasedonthefactthatthechancellorappointeda %$  guardianadlitemanddirectedhimtofileappropriatepleadingsforthechild. C'H"    0 Itistruethattheappointmentofaguardianadlitemsuggeststhat +&$ therearepotentialclaimsconcerningthechildandtheestate.But,sincethisis -(& anestateinprobate,theremaybenumerousoutstandingclaimsinvolvingmany /*( otherparties.Ifthisweresimplyaclaimagainsttheestate,thedenialofthat 1,* claimwouldbeappealableimmediatelywithoutwaitingfortheentireestateto 4 /, besettled.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.302315(b).However,thepetitionsfora ?6D1. yearssupport,exemptproperty,andanelectiveshare,aredealtwithinseparate c8h30 sectionsoftheCode.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.302101(exemptproperty);Tenn. :52 CodeAnn.302102(yearssupport);andTenn.CodeAnn.314101,etseq.  (electiveshare).Inonlyonecasedidthelegislatureanticipateanappeal.That $ wasinthecaseofayearssupport,andthecodeprovidesthatiftheamountset C H bythecourtisnotsatisfactorytotheinterestedparties,anappealmaybemade g l to theappropriatecourtinaccordancewith302609.See302102(f).   Neithersectionmentionsatimelimitormakestheorderimmediatelyappealable.     0 Weareconvinced,however,thatRule3(a)doesnotpreventthe  immediateappealofthechancellorsorderinthiscase.Thewidowsdemands   arelikeanyotherclaimsagainsttheestate.Theythereforefallwithinthe ?D provisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.302315(b).Bythissection,ordinary ch claimantsmayappealimmediatelywheretheirclaimsaredenied,without  awaitingthedispositionofalltheotherclaims.Awidowseekingayears  supportshouldnotbeinaworsepositionthananordinaryclaimant.Therefore,   wethinkthechancellorsorderwasafinaljudgmentforthepurposeofthis " appeal. %  @CC, III. _)d$" @"ThePrenuptialAgreement  +&$   0 ThepartiesmarriedinBowlingGreen,KentuckyonMarch3,1997. /*( TheyexecutedtheprenuptialagreementonFebruary28,1997inLouisville, 1,* KentuckywhereMr.Cantrellownedsomeproperty.Eachpartywaivedany 4 /, rightshe/shewouldacquireintheestateoftheotherbymarriage.Theagreement ?6D1. specificallydisclaimedarighttoadistributiveshare,therighttoadministerthe c8h30 othersestate,awidowsorwidowersallowance,andexemptproperty.The :52 agreementalsoprovidedthatitshouldbeconstruedandenforcedinaccordance  withthelawsoftheCommonwealthofKentucky. $   0 Ms.CantrellisanativeofthePhilippines,holdingadegreein g l elementaryeducation.SheworkedasamaidandtutorinSingaporeand   Vancouver,BritishColumbia.In1994,herpictureappearedinamailorder   bridecatalog,andshereceivedaletterfromMr.Cantrell.Theybeganto   correspondandtotalkonthetelephonedaily.InOctoberof1994,Mr.Cantrell  wenttoVancouver,wherethepartieslivedtogetherforaboutayearbefore   movingtoMr.CantrellshomeinFranklin. ?D   0 TheirchildwasbornonJanuary15,1997,andthepartiesdecided  togetmarried.Mr.CantrellaskedMs.Rojotosignaprenuptialagreement.  SinceMr.CantrellownedsomepropertyinLouisvilleandhadanattorneythere,   heemployedtheattorneytopreparetheagreement.Healsoarrangedforanother " attorneytoadviseMs.Rojo.TheywenttoherattorneysofficeonFebruary27, %  whereMs.Rojospentaboutthirtyminutesalonewithheradviser.Theattorney ;'@"  toldherthatheneededtodosomeresearchontheeffectofTennesseelaw,sothe _)d$" partiesleftandreturnedthenextday.Shespentanotherthirtyminutesalone +&$ withtheattorneywhileMr.Cantrellpreparedalistofhisassetstobeattached -(& totheagreement.Ms.Cantrelltestifiedthatsheconsideredthelistforabout /*( threesecondsbeforesigningtheagreement. 1,*   0 Kentuckylawwithrespecttoprenuptialagreementsisnot 76<1. appreciablydifferentfromTennesseelaw.Suchagreementsarevalidiftheyare [8`30 executedvoluntarilyafterfulldisclosureofthepartiesrespectiveassetsand :52 maritalpropertyrights.Gentryv.Gentry,798S.W.2d928(Ky.1990);compare  Tenn.CodeAnn.363501andRandolphv.Randolph,937S.W.2d815(Tenn. $ 1996).TheKentuckycourtsalsoexaminewhetherthefactsandcircumstances C H havechangedsincetheagreementwasexecuted,soastomakeitsenforcement g l unfairandunreasonable.Gentryat936.SeealsoEdwardsonv.Edwardson,798   S.W.2d941(Ky.1990).   @' a.Disclosure     0 Theappellantarguesthatthetrialjudgesfindingthatshedidhave CH afullandfairdisclosureofthedecedentspropertybeforesigningtheagreement gl isagainstthepreponderanceoftheevidence.SeeRule13(d),Tenn.R.App.  Proc.Shetestified,however,thatshereceivedthelistpriortosigningthe  agreement.Thelistsubstantiallyconformstotheinventoryofhisestatefiled   afterMr.Cantrellsdeath.AlthoughMs.Cantrelldidnotbothertocarefullyread " thelist(accordingtohertestimony)itcannotbesaidthattheextentofMr. %  Cantrellsassetswasnotdisclosedtoher.Herlackofinterestinthedetailsof ?'D"  thedisclosureshouldnotbeusedasareasontoinvalidatetheagreement.See c)h$" Wilsonv.Moore,929S.W.2d367(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Inaddition,theparties +&$ hadlivedtogetherforovertwoyearspriortothemarriage,duringwhichtimeshe -(& musthaveacquiredsomeknowledgeofMr.Cantrellsaffairs.SeeKahnv. /*( Kahn,756S.W.2d685(Tenn.1988);Randolphv.Randolph,937S.W.2d815 1,* (Tenn.1996). 4/,   0 Wecannotsaythattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthe _8d30 chancellorsfinding. :52 Ї@) b.Duress     0 Theappellantalsodisputesthechancellorsfindingthatsheentered G L intotheagreementvoluntarily.SheattemptedtotestifythatMr.Cantrell k p threatenedtosendherbacktothePhillippineswithoutherbabyifshedidnot   signtheagreement.Thechancellorexcludedthatevidenceonthebasisofthe   DeadMansStatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.241203:   8 80 ! !  Inactionsorproceedingsbyoragainst  executors,administrators,orguardians,inwhich   judgmentsmayberenderedfororagainstthem, $ neitherpartyshallbeallowedtotestifyagainstthe 16 otherastoanytransactionwithorstatementbythe CH testator,intestate,orward,unlesscalledtotestify UZ theretobytheoppositeparty.Provided,ifa gl corporationbeaparty,thisdisqualificationshall y~ extendtoitsofficersofeverygradeanditsdirectors.0 0    0 OneoftheleadingcasesinterpretingthisstatuteisBakerv.Baker,   142S.W.2d737(Tenn.Ct.App.1940)whichalsoinvolvedaprenuptial " agreement.TheBakercourtdiscussedthepurposeofthestatute,andconcluded %  thatitdidnotapplytocaseswherethetransactionaboutwhichthetestimonywas ?'D"  offereddidnotincreaseordiminishthedecedentsestatebutconcernedonlythe c)h$" mannerinwhichtheassetswillbedistributed.142S.W.2dat744.Seealso +&$ Pettyv.EstateofNichols,569S.W.2d840(Tenn.Ct.App.1977);NewarkIns. -(& Co.v.Seyfert,392S.W.2d336(Tenn.1964).InthiscaseMs.Cantrellasserts /*( thatsheisamongtheclassofpersonsthatwouldtakeashareoftheestateifthe 1,* decedentdiedintestate;therefore,herclaimswouldnotdecreasetheestatebut 4/, onlyaffectthewaytheestatewillbedistributed. ;6@1.   _8d30   0 ____Wethink,however,thatthedemandforayearssupportandforthe   exemptpropertydefinitelyhavetheeffectofdecreasingtheestatetobe $ distributed.Anargumentcouldbemadetothecontraryabouttheelectiveshare, C H butthatdistinctionwasneverpresentedtothechancellor.Wethereforeholdthat g l thechancellorproperlysustainedtheobjectiontotheappellantstestimonybased   ontheDeadMansStatute.     0 Thereisnootherproofaboutthecircumstancessurroundingthe  executionoftheagreement.Therefore,theevidencedoesnotpreponderate   againstthechancellorsfindingthatMs.Cantrellsignedtheagreement ?D voluntarily. ch   0 Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecauseis  remandedtotheChanceryCourtofWilliamsonCountyforanyfurther   proceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant,_Analyn_Ԁ_Rojo_ " Cantrell. %    0      8   _______________________________ _)d$"   0      8   BENH.CANTRELL, q*v%#   0      8   PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S. +&$ CONCUR: -(& ____________________________ 1,* W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 3.+ PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. 4/, ____________________________ [8`30 PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE m9r41 X