ÿWPCV ê[HšÏÄ2«Òªë¤|‘Ü:ö6T]MÓÐAÊßTA‚F¹7Éú2¿ã¦ªœ2â7æ ‰g>4¿¥§ÃVðP¼Ü~7Ð@&à|Ž•€×P~ž–gl{“P#–_²È­–A„¯ F“´(5ýýzT'’/Ùµ`HÙPVsG¥cû[GÚ7º&þøýþ^ûZÑ(Ä;ÿε–X1ϕć}«>2Qãî÷'OwÓèÃýÅ)ø¢c+Y'Ê—ˆÑúC¦ú_Ø ÜV¿¨?哺*Þ嘞rS’º|¸¡ƒqt,»…ï·Ü„7p®›Ÿ-›6 íP¨°8k ïiž+¡®]Æqq›I%T‚·wÜ”à¥yú3Ž–ÃŠžQùUœI{Rñú´Ð³rpDG¢ªâT˜{éOnišdÅØá0€Î F2KqÈÿÇrÉ¡õ×·z-ü˶bƒ»¢ 8+>òà>ÌÃaX/7Õƒ?OšËÈŸbL¬¬# € Y8®v.J'> 0¤[ D3ÿ D-2 0K__ ASªÆý 0¤Ã 0Dg A««˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¤sM1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó STANFIELDShilesWinninghamTiplerFariss BryBurchfieldCoble SysGiffordBybeeTristinGuiderLockerbyWhitfielddecendants a]nd- ù-(|G2á5$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XMáX»»Ô d(|3G‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Ý»»»ÔÑ8€MáXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ººìàSeptember€20,€2004€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ý»XXMá¤#ÔÓ  ÓFIRST€TENNESSEE€BANK,€N.A.,€EXECUTOR,€ESTATE€OF€GLENN€P.Ð Ò" ÐWEBB,€SR.,€and€TRUSTEE€OF€THE€RESIDUARY€TRUST€UNDER€THEÐ æ 6 ÐWILL€OF€GLENN€P.€WEBB,€SR.,€F/B/O€DEBORAH€ANN€WEBB,€v.Ð ú J ÐBARBARA€WEBB€STANFIELD,€PAUL€W.€STANFIELD,€JR.,€ALICIA€M.Ð  ^ ÐSTANFIELD,€et€al.Ð " r ÐòòóóÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝÔó óÌÓêÓÌà@¡ ¡ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ ^  Ðà@Î Î ìàNo.€02„0797€€€€€€Hon.€W.€Frank€Brown,€III.,€ChancellorˆÐ úJ  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` A߈Ð ¾ ÐÌà@­ ­ ìàNo.€E2003„02756„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€€„€FILED€OCTOBER€13,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ԈР¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á Ðó óÌThe€Chancellor€construed€a€will€and€granted€plaintiff€summary€judgment.€€Defendants€insist€the€willÐ ŒÜ Ðis€ambiguous.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm.Ð xÈ ÐÌÔ#†¼Ý»XXMáT#ÔÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ <Œ ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€Ô_ÔP.Jóó.Ô_Ô,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Charles€D.€Susano,Ð P ÐJr.,€J.óó,€andòò€Sharon€G.€lee,€Jóó.,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌÔ#†¼Ý»XXMá#ÔÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝÔÌSteven€F.€Dobson,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellants,€Barbara€Webb€Stanfield,€Paul€W.Ð °!  ÐStanfield,€Jr.,€and€Alicia€M.€Stanfield.Ð œ"ì! ÐÌDavid€E.€Fowler€and€C.€Eugene€Shiles,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,€Patricia€Webb.Ð t$Ä# ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ý»XXMá#ÔÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝԈР$(t#' ÐÌòòÌóóÔ#†¼Ý»XXMá‘ #ÔÔ‡XMáX»¼ÝÔà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€this€construction€of€a€Will€action,€the€Trial€Court€found€no€ambiguity€and€entered€Ðè*8&*` (#` (# Ðjudgment€for€petitioner.€€Barbara€Webb€Stanfield,€Paul€W.€Stanfield,€Jr.,€and€Alicia€M.€StanfieldÐ Ô+$'+ Ðhave€appealed€the€Chancellorððs€ruling,€insisting€that€decedentððs€Will€is€ambiguous€and€the€TrialÐ À,(, ÐCourt€erred€in€refusing€to€consider€extrinsic€evidence€to€determine€the€testatorððs€intent.Ð ¬-ü(-ý  ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àà ` àThe€Chancellor€filed€an€excellent€Memorandum€Opinion,€and€we€adopt€from€theÐ ° ÐMemorandum€Opinion€as€pertinent€to€our€analysis€on€appeal:Ð œì ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àPatricia€Webb,€who€is€one€of€the€decedentððs€four€children,€filed€a€Motion€forÐ tÄ ÐSummary€Judgment.€€Patricia€Webb€contended€that€the€Last€Will€and€Testament,Ð `° Ðproperly€read,€provided€that€she€alone€should€receive€the€property€at€issue.€€OtherÐ L œ Ðheirs€disagreed€and€filed€their€positions.€Ð8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à.€.€.€Ð `` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àð ðThe€construction€of€a€will€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court€and€willÐ è 8  Ðconstruction€cases€are€uniquely€suited€to€the€summary€judgment€procedure€becauseÐ Ô$  Ðthese€cases€generally€involve€legal€issues€only.ðð€òòPresley€v.€Hanksóó,€782€S.W.2d€482,Ð À  Ð487€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€The€cardinal€rule€for€interpreting€and€construing€a€willÐ ¬ü  Ðis€the€ascertainment€of€the€intent€of€the€òòóótestator.€€òòWinningham€v.€Winninghamóó,€966Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€most€will€construction€cases,€the€testatorððs€intent€isÐ „Ô  Ðdetermined€by€referring€to€the€written€language€of€[sic]€will€itself,€òòWright€v.€Brandonóó,Ð pÀ Ð863€S.W.2d€400,€402€(Tenn.€1993);€òòIn€re€Tipleròòóó,€óó10€S.W.3d€244,€249€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð \¬ Ð1998),€and€not€from€what€it€is€supposed€the€testator€intended.€€òòBriggs€v.€Estate€ofÐ H˜ ÐBriggsóó,€950€S.W.2d€710,€712€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð4„` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àOrdinarily,€extrinsic€evidence€is€not€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€showingÐ  \ Ðintention€of€the€testator,€and€such€intention€must€be€gathered€only€from€the€fourÐ øH Ðcorners€of€the€will.€€òòFariss€v.€Bry„Block€Coóóòò.,€óó346€S.W.2d€705,€705€(Tenn.€1961).€Ð ä4 ÐExtrinsic€evidence€may€be€considered€when€the€will€contains€a€latent,€rather€than€aÐ Ð  Ðpatent,€ambiguity.€€òòHolmes€v.€Roddyóó,€144€S.W.2d€788,€789€(Tenn.€1940);€òòEstate€ofÐ ¼  ÐBurchfield€v.€First€United€Methodist€Church€of€Seviervilleóó,€933€S.W.2d€481,€482Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€A€latent€ambiguity€arises€from€an€ambiguous€state€of€externalÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€to€which€the€words€of€the€will€refer.€€òòEstate€of€Burchfieldóó,€933€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ðat€482.€It€generally€involves€a€question€of€identifying€a€person€or€suòòòòóóóóbject€mentionedÐ l¼ Ðin€the€will.€€òòCoble€Sys.,€Inc.€v.€Gifford€Co.óó,€627€S.W.2d€359,€361€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð X ¨ Ð1981).€.€.€.€A€patent€ambiguity,€on€the€other€hand,€stems€from€uncertainty€in€theÐ D!” Ðlanguage€itself,€òòIn€re€Will€of€Bybeeóó,€896€S.W.2d€792,€793€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€andÐ 0"€  Ðis€apparent€on€the€face€of€the€will.€€It€involves€an€ambiguous€term€that€cannot€beÐ #l! Ðclarified€by€considering€extraneous€facts.€€òòEstate€of€Burchfieldóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€482.Ð$X"` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à.€.€.€Ðà%0!$` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€basic€facts€of€this€case€are€not€in€dispute.€€Rebecca€Webb,€the€decedentððsÐ ¸'#& Ðwife,€predeceased€him.€€The€decedent€had€four€children,€all€of€whom€are€adults:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐDeborah€Webb,€Patricia€Webb,€Barbara€Webb€Stanfield€and€Glenn€P.€Webb,€Jr.,Ð )à$( Ð(ð ðGlennðð).€€All€four€children€survived€the€decedent.€€Because€his€wife€predeceasedÐ |*Ì%) Ðhim,€the€entire€residuary€estate€was€placed€in€two€trusts.€€The€first€trust€consisted€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðtwo€thirds€(2/3)€of€the€residuary€estate€and€was€held€for€the€use€and€benefit€ofÐ ° ÐDeborah€Ann€Webb€by€First€Tennessee€Bank,€N.A.,€as€trustee.€€The€other€one„thirdÐ œì Ð(1/3)€of€the€residuary€estate€was€to€be€held€in€trust€by€First€Tennessee€Bank,€N.A.,Ð ˆØ Ðtrustee€for€the€use€and€benefit€of€Patricia€Marie€Webb.€.€.€.€Both€trusts€were€to€be€heldÐ tÄ Ðpursuant€to€Item€V€of€the€decedentððs€1986€Will.Ð`°` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€trust€for€Deborah€was€to€last€for€her€lifetime.€€The€decedentððs€codicilÐ 8 ˆ Ðprovided€that€Patricia€was€to€receive€$1,000.00€per€month€from€the€trustee€until€sheÐ $ t Ðreached€40€years€of€age€or€the€money€was€exhausted,€whichever€first€occurred.€Ð  ` ÐPatricia€attained€age€40€on€November€11,€2001,€and€her€trust€has€now€ended.Ðü L ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àDeborah€died€on€May€6,€2002.€€She€was€single€and€had€no€children.€€She€alsoÐ Ô$  Ðdied€without€a€will.€€The€question€developed€as€to€the€proper€person(s)€to€take€theÐ À  Ðbalance€left€in€Deborahððs€trust.€€€Due€to€conflicting€positions€among€the€heirs,€FirstÐ ¬ü  ÐTennessee€Bank,€N.A.€filed€the€Complaint€to€construe€the€decedentððs€will.€€All€agreeÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€dispositive€part€of€the€decedentððs€will€is€Item€V(c),€which€reads€as€follows:Ð„Ô ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà  à(c)€Upon€the€death€of€either€daughter€of€mine€during€the€term€of€herÐ \¬ Ðtrust,€the€trust€for€such€deceased€daughter€shall€devolve€upon€and€pass€to€herÐ H˜ Ðliving€descendants,€per€stirpes,€but€if€none,€then€in€equal€shares€to€my€otherÐ 4„ Ðchildren€then€living€and€the€living€descendants,€per€stirpes,€of€any€deceasedÐ  p Ðchild€of€mine;€provided,€however,€no€share€shall€pass€under€this€provision€toÐ  \ Ðeither€my€son,€Glenn€P.€Webb,€Jr.,€or€my€daughter,€Barbara€Webb€Stanfield,Ð øH Ðand€provided€further,€that€any€share€passing€to€a€minor€grandchild€of€mineÐ ä4 Ð(including€the€children€of€either€my€aforesaid€son,€Glenn,€or€daughter,Ð Ð  ÐBarbara,€who€may€then€be€deceased)€shall€be€subject€to€the€contingent€trustÐ ¼  Ðprovisions€set€forth€in€Paragraph€(d)€immediately€below.Шø¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€the€three€other€children€of€the€decedent€are€still€alive.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€surviving€children€are€Patricia,€Glenn,€and€Barbara.€€Further,€Barbara€has€theÐ l¼ Ðfollowing€children:€Paul€W.€Stanfield,€Jr.,€and€Alicia€M.€Stanfield.€€Glenn€has€theÐ X ¨ Ðfollowing€children:€Thomas€Blake€Webb,€Tristin€Tanner€Webb,€Rebecca€LynnÐ D!” ÐWebb,€Wendy€Leigh€Webb,€Elizabeth€Ann€Webb,€Glenn€Patterson€Webb,€III,€andÐ 0"€  ÐTeddy€Guider€Lockerby.€€Thomas€Blake€Webb€and€Tristin€Tanner€Webb€are€minorÐ #l! Ðchildren€of€Glenn€P.€Webb,€Jr.,€and€are€represented€herein€by€Charles€Hill€AndersonÐ $X" Ðas€their€guardian€ad€litem.€€Patricia€has€no€children€or€descendants.Ðô$D #` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€this€point,€the€Chancellor€opined€that€the€issue€thus€becomes€whether€the€aboveÐ Ì&"% Ðquoted€item€is€ambiguous.€The€Chancellorððs€Opinion€then€analyzed€Item€V(c)€as€follows:€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àA€court€must€find€the€intention€of€the€testator€by€giving€the€language€used€inÐ )à$( Ðthe€will€the€most€easy,€reasonable,€and€natural€meaning,€not€a€strained€meaning€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðuse€of€subtle€or€artificial€rules€of€construction.€€òòNational€Bank€of€Commerce€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐGreenbergóó,€258€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1953);€òòWhitfield€v.€Butleróó,€204€S.W.2d€537,Ð ° Ð538€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1947).€€Using€this€principle,€the€court€now€analyzes€Item€V(c).Ð œì ÐThe€phrase,€ð ðeither€daughter€of€mine€during€the€term€of€her€trust,ðð€in€the€firstÐ ˆØ Ðsentence€of€Item€V(c)€clearly€refers€to€Deborah€and€Patricia€as€they€are€the€only€twoÐ tÄ Ðdaughters€who€have€a€trust.€The€second€clause€of€the€first€sentence€says€that€theÐ `° Ðdeceased€daughòòòòóóóóterððs€trust€shall€ð ðpass€to€her€living€decendants,€per€stirpes.€.€.€.ðð€Ð L œ ÐHowever,€Deborah€had€no€living€descendants.€€So,€we€have€to€go€further.Ð8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àThe€next€clause€(still€in€the€first€sentence)€provides€that€the€trust€balance€willÐ  ` Ðpass€in€equal€shares€to€my€other€children€then€living€and€the€living€descendants,€perÐ ü L  Ðstirpes,€of€any€deceased€child€of€mine.ðð€€That€clause,€standing€alone,€indicates€thatÐ è 8  ÐDeborahððs€two„thirds€share€would€be€divided€among€the€decedentððs€three€livingÐ Ô$  Ðchildren€„€Patricia,€Glenn€and€Barbara.€€However,€the€decedent€then€added€a€provisoÐ À  Ðstating€that€ð ðno€share€shall€pass€under€this€provision€to€either€my€son€Glenn€P.€Webb,Ð ¬ü  ÐJr.,€or€my€daughter,€Barbara€Webb€Stanfield.€.€.€.ðð€€This€proviso€has€the€effect€ofÐ ˜è  Ðexcluding€Glenn€and€Barbara€as€beneficiaries.€€Their€elimination€leaves€only€PatriciaÐ „Ô  Ðas€a€taker€of€Deborahððs€two€thirds.€The€final€proviso€of€the€paragraph€says:ÐpÀ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#à[a]nd€provided,€further,€that€any€share€passing€to€a€minor€grandchild€of€mineÐ H˜ Ð(ò òincluding€the€children€of€either€my€aforesaid€son,€Glenn,€or€daughter,Ð 4„ ÐBarbara,€who€may€then€be€deceasedó ó)€shall€be€subject€to€the€contingent€trustÐ $t Ðprovisions€set€forth€in€Paragraph€(d)€immediately€below.Ðd¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àHerein€lies€the€rub.€€Counsel€for€Patricia€interprets€the€two€provisos€to€meanÐ ì< Ðthat€the€grandchildren€of€Glenn€and€Barbara€can€only€take€part€of€Deborahððs€trustÐ Ø( Ðestate€if€their€respective€parents€(Glenn€and/or€Barbara)€predecease€Deborah.€Ð Ä ÐBecause€both€Glenn€and€Barbara€are€still€alive,€therefore,€their€children€take€no€partÐ ° Ðof€Deborahððs€trust€estate€and€Patricia€gets€it€all.€€On€the€other€hand,€counsel€for€theÐ œì Ðother€Defendants€interpret€the€provision€differently.€€The€Defendants€content€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðphrase€ð ðmy€other€childrenðð€in€the€second€clause€refers€to€Glenn€and€Barbara€alone.€Ð tÄ ÐTherefore,€the€phrase€ð ðmy€other€children,ðð€combined€with€the€final€proviso,€is€soÐ ` ° Ðambiguous€that€extrinsic€evidence€should€be€admissible€to€show€the€testatorððs€intentÐ L!œ Ðregarding€whether€the€children€of€Glenn€and€Barbara€can€take€a€share€of€DeborahððsÐ 8"ˆ  Ðtrust€estate€if€Glenn€and€Barbara€are€still€living.Ð$#t!` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àFirst,€the€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€Item€V(c)€is€not€ambiguous.€€Because€theÐ ü$L # Ðwill€provision€is€not€ambiguous,€extrinsic€evidence€is€not€admissible€to€determine€theÐ è%8!$ Ðintention€of€the€testator.€(Citations€omitted).€€Based€upon€a€plain€and€natural€readingÐ Ô&$"% Ðof€Item€V(c),€the€court€construes€the€provision€to€mean€that€Glenn€and/or€Barbara€hadÐ À'#& Ðto€predecease€Deborah€in€order€for€Glenn€and/or€Barbaraððs€children€to€inherit€anyÐ ¬(ü#' Ðpart€of€Deborahððs€trust€estate.€This€interpretation€is€further€bolstered€by€the€phrase,Ð ˜)è$( Ðð ðto€my€other€children€ò òthen€livingó ó€and€the€living€descendants,€per€stirpes,€of€anyÐ „*Ô%) Ðò òdeceasedó ó€child€of€mine,ðð€also€found€in€Item€V(c).€€Therefore,€because€Glenn€andÐ t+Ä&* ÐBarbara€are€still€alive,€their€children€take€no€part€of€Deborahððs€trust€estate€under€bothÐ ° Ðof€the€clauses€quoted€above.€€Patricia€Webb€takes€the€entire€trust€estate€because€sheÐ œì Ðis€the€only€surviving€child€of€the€decedent€who€was€not€disinherited.ЈØ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€construction€of€a€Will€is€a€question€of€law,€and€the€Court€in€construing€the€WillÐ `° Ðdetermines€the€intent€of€the€testator€and€will€give€it€effect,€unless€it€contravenes€some€law€or€publicÐ L œ Ðpolicy.€€òòSee,€Third€National€Bank€of€Nashville,€v.€First€American€National€Bank€of€Nashvilleóó,€596Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€824,€828€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€Chancellor€correctly€pointed€out€the€obvious€limitations€whichÐ $ t Ðis€that€before€a€grandchild€can€inherit,€his€or€her€parents€must€predecease€the€original€trustÐ  ` Ðbeneficiary.€€But€appellants€argue€that€the€phrase€ð ðother€childrenðð€is€ambiguous€and€claim€that€thereÐ ü L  Ðare€at€least€two€other€ð ðplausibleðð€interpretations€of€Item€V(c).€€However,€the€Chancellorððs€analysisÐ è 8  Ðrebuts€these€arguments,€and€we€likewise€find€this€position€to€be€without€merit.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€appellants€argue€that€the€Chancellor€should€have€allowed€them€to€introduceÐ ¬ü  Ðextrinsic€evidence.€€But€the€Chancellor€found€the€provision€was€not€ambiguous€and€the€courts€willÐ ˜è  Ðnot€allow€extrinsic€evidence€to€be€used€to€create€an€ambiguity.€€òòSee,€Ferris€v.€Bry„Block€Co.óó,€346Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1961).€€Moreover,€appellants€filed€no€affidavits€on€this€issue€pursuant€toÐ pÀ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€Judgment€of€the€Chancellor€and€remand,Ð 4„ Ðwith€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€jointly€to€appellants€Barbara€òòóóWebb€Stanfield,€Paul€W.€Stanfield,Ð  p ÐJr.,€and€Alicia€M.€Stanfield.Ð  \ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€P.J.Ð X ¨ Ðóó