WPC y %*w$r0E}D\)v49oBػ?\:H-)]K^ MRһ{m\ġ˭d <]?! C7An֋L*Óʅ+~ms\Wkk_\~Bu@yuj>y?E2dr.XbjQxWiE&3%p{߀hzgD ef] Duoi:|aٴYpFS{v:IJe%}p-kOb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  N 0DCE->==================b{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ 0 Bnn 0 D3/ D-b 0K AS- 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Seri0ƞ + (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularuV)B  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R$      1    _Thetrialcourtsorderdenyingprobateprovides,inpart,asfollows:    8 ` Thiscausecameontobeheardonthis13thdayofJune,2000,beforetheHonorable 8 _Telford_ԀE._Fogerty_,Jr.Chancellor,uponthePetitionofW.Jess_Waltman_Ԁtoadmit L anewwilltoprobate,theAnswerofGeorgeC.Franklin,NettieA.Mooreand  Beatrice_Hensley_,thestatementsandstipulationsofcounsel,theappearanceofthe  partiesinCourt,andtheentirerecordinthecausefromallofwhichtheCourtfinds H  anddecreesasfollows: \` x` x @%***      8 ` Thequestionofwhetherornotthedocumentprofferedforprobatewasinthe  l  handwritingofthedecedentandfoundamongherpapersmettheformal  0  requirementsforaholographicwillorawitnessedwill,wasnotanissueinthis   hearing,andthecasewasheardonthelegalissueofwhetherornotthedocument h  wasaconditionaldocumentandnotsubjecttoprobate.,| ` x` x The stipulationsreferencedintheorderarenotdetailedintherecord,butthereisnoreasontobelievetheywere   extensiveinnatureortouchedupontherelevantsubjectsreferredtolaterinthisopinion.(#$  0   9 R$      3    _Thewillusesthewordsandsymbol to&from;thetrialcourtinitsorderadoptedtheobviousmeaningof  theinstrument,i.e., toorfrom. # R$      2    _Thereareanumberofaffidavitsintherecord.Theyappeartohavebeenfiledinconnectionwiththeprobate  ofanearlierwillofthedecedentdatedMay12,1975.Inanyevent,thereisnothingintherecordindicatingthatthose t affidavitswereconsideredbythetrialcourtontheissueofwhethertheJuly7,1993,willwasorwasnotaconditional 8 will. 4 R$      4    _Someofthecasesrefertoa conditionwhileothersrefertoa contingency.Thelabelplacedonthesubject  isnotimportantintheinstantcase.- -(|G2$ !.8Sdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Sdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Sdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Sdd8     _  S8XXdd8  @ ]SINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#S]0#Ԉ &   July9,2001Session L XXS #SXX#INRE:ESTATEOFGLORIAELEANORFRANKLINXXS  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Cocke_ԀCounty  J @@No.P3490_Telford_ԀE._Forgety_,Jr.,Chancellor  6  FILEDAUGUST9,_2001_@@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002687_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisisapparentlyacaseoffirstimpression.Theappellant,W.JessWaltman,filedapetitioninthe d trialcourtseekingtoprobateadocumentpurportingtobethelastwillandtestamentofGloria P EleanorFranklin( thedecedent).Thewill,dated July793,directsthattheappellantandhis < wife,Terry_Waltman_,aretoreceivethedecedentsestate incaseIdieonmywayto&fromJersey.#SXX#XXS (x Thetrialcourtheldthatthewillwasnoteligibleforprobatebecauseitwasaconditionalwilland d thespecifiedconditionorcontingency,i.e.,Ms.Franklinsdemise onthewayto&fromJersey, P hadnotoccurred.Wevacatethetrialcourtsjudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedings < consistentwiththisopinion. ( n Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Vacated;CaseRemanded   Ѐ  #SX#XX.SCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand t D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. ` MarkA.Cowan,Morristown,Tennessee,fortheappellant,W.JessWaltman. 8!  RoyT.Campbell,Jr.,Newport,Tennessee,fortheappellee,EstateofGloriaEleanorFranklin, #`" EdwardManning,Administrator. #L# ,  OPINION #SXX[ #XXS %$!% #SXXx #XXS    I. '"'    ThewillsoughttobeprobatedisahandwrittendocumentdatedJuly7,1993.Initsentirety, )$) itstates,withspellingandgrammaticalerrors,asfollows: p*%*   H,', 8  8`   OnthisdayJuly7` x` x 8  8`   IGloriaFranklinleaveseverythingtoTerry&JessWaltmanin` x` x 8  8`   IGloriaFranklinleaveseverythingIownincloudingfarm,_vehickles_ ` everythingtoJess&TerryWaltmanincaseIdieonmywayto& L  fromJersey.8 ` x` x 8  8`       h     /s/GloriaFranklin `` x` x 8  8`       h     /s/JessieM.Hall L ` x` x 8  8`       h July7,93  /s/GertrudeE.Hall 8 ` x` x ItwasstipulatedatthehearingbelowthatthedecedenthadtraveledsafelytoandfromNewJersey   afterthedateofthewillandhaddiedofnaturalcausessixyearslater.     Atthehearing,thetrialcourtappearstohaveheardonlylegalargumentontheissueof   whetherthe1993willwasconditionalandthusnotsubjecttoprobate._ #  1      _ԀThereisnothinginthe p recordbeforeusindicatingthatthetrialcourtreceivedanyoraltestimonyatthehearingbelow. #  2      ׀The \ trialcourtfoundthatthedocumentwas aconditionaldocumentwhichbyitstermswastotake H  effectonlyuponthehappeningofacertaincontingency,thatisIncaseIdieonmywaytoorfrom 4 Jersey. #  3      ׀Becausethecontingencyhadnotoccurred,thetrialcourtdeniedtheappellantspetition   toadmitthewilltoprobate.Theeffectofthisrulingwastoleaveinplacetheprobateofanearlier  willofthedecedentdatedMay12,1975.Thisappealfollowed.      II. ` u      Thetrialcourtapparentlydetermined,asamatteroflaw,thatthedocumentinquestion,on 8  itsface,reflectsthatitisaconditionalwilland,sincetheconditionwasnotsatisfied,thatthe $ t instrumentdoesnotqualifyasthelastwillandtestamentofthedecedent.Ourreviewinthismatter  ` isdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachingtothetrialcourtslegalconclusions.  L   Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp., 919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996).  8    III.   D  Thegoalinthiscaseistoascertainandgiveeffecttotheintentofthetestator;thatintent   controlsunlesstohonoritwouldbetoviolatesomeruleoflaworpublicpolicy.See InreWalker,    849S.W.2d766,768(Tenn.1993).Ourinquiryissubjecttothefollowingprinciplesrecognized p bytheSupremeCourt: \ 8  8`   [T]hetestatorsintentionmustbeascertainedfromthatwhichhehas 4 writteninthewill,andnotfromwhathemaybesupposedtohave  p intendedtodo,andextrinsicevidenceofthecondition,situationand  \ surroundingsofthetestatorhimselfmaybeconsideredonlyasaids H intheinterpretationofthelanguageusedbythetestator,andthe 4 testatorsintentionmustultimatelybedeterminedfromthelanguage   oftheinstrumentweighedinthelightofthetestatorssurroundings,   andnoproof,howeverconclusiveinitsnature,canbeadmittedwith  aviewofsettingupanintentionnotjustifiedbythelanguageofthe  writingitself.` x` x  Id. (quoting Nicholsv.Todd, 20Tenn.App.564,57071,101S.W.2d486,490(1936))(internal X  quotationmarksomitted). D!   Theissueofwhatconstitutesaconditionalwillor,putanotherway,acontingentwill, #  4       #l! appearstobeoneoffirstimpressioninTennessee.ThepartieshavecitednoTennesseecases,nor $X" arewe___aware_Ԁofany,onthisparticularsubject.Ourresearchhasrevealed,however,thatconditional $D # willshavebeenaddressedbyappellatecourtsinotherjurisdictions. %0!$  &"%   Aconditionalorcontingentwillisonethattakeseffectonlyuponthesatisfactionofacertain  conditionorthehappeningofaspecifiedcontingency.See _Bagnall_Ԁv._Bagnall_, 225S.W.2d401,  402(Tex.1949).Iftheconditionisnotsatisfied,orthecontingencyfails,thewillisrendered  inoperativeandvoid.See id. Indeterminingwhetherawillisconditionalorcontingent,acourt t mustfirstdetermine whetherthehappeningofthepossibilityreferredtoisaconditionprecedent ` totheoperationofthewill,orwhetherthepossibilityofthehappeningwasonlyastatementofthe L  motiveorinducementwhichledtothepreparationandexecutionoftheinstrument. Id. The 8  testatorsintenttomakeaconditionalorcontingentwillmustbeclear. Blackv.Taylor(Inre $ t TaylorsEstate), 259P.2d1014,1018(Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1953).Languagethatappearstolimit  ` theoperationofawillbaseduponaconditionorcontingencyshouldbestrictlyconstrued. Courts  L  willnotregardawillasconditionalwhenitreasonablycanbeheldthatthetestatorwasmerely  8  expressinghisinducementtomakeit,howeverinaccuratehisuseoflanguagemightbeifstrictly $  construed. Id. ;seealso McMerrimanv.Shiel, 140_N.E._Ԁ600,602(Ohio1923)( Thecourtsshould   treatthestatementasaninducementformakingthewill,ifpossible,andnotasaconditiontoits   operation,unlessthewordsorthesurroundingcircumstancesclearlyshowthatitwasintendedto   becontingent.); InreWillofCohen, 491A.2d1292,1294(N.J.Sup.Ct.App.Div.1985)( Courts   willgenerallyregardawillasabsoluteratherthanconditionalunlessthelanguageemployedbythe p testatorunequivocallyshowshisintentiontomaketheentirewillconditional.)(internalquotation \ marksomitted)  .Ifitisnotclearthatthetestatorintendedtomakeaconditionalorcontingentwill, H courtsgenerallyhavefoundthewilltobeabsoluteinnature,soastopreventintestacy.See  Porter 4 v.Coleman(InreEstateofColeman), 359P.2d502,504(Mont.1961)( Ifthewillisopentotwo  p constructions,thatinterpretationwillbegivenitwhichwillpreventintestacy.); Masonv.Mason,   \ 268S.E.2d67,68(W.Va.1980)( Theruleofwillsconstructionthatfavorstestacyoverintestacy H makescourtspreferholdingawillabsolute,ifitispossibletoconstruequestionablyconditional 4 languageasthetestatorsmotivationtowriteawill.);seealso Watkinsv.WatkinsAdmr, 106   S.W.2d975,977(Ky.1937)( For,afterall,conditionalwillsareofsopeculiaradescription,and   operateusuallysodisastrously,nottosaysenselessly,thatanydoubtshouldberesolvedinfavorof  absolutecharacterandaprobate.).    Inadditiontothetestamentarylanguageitself,courtshavelookedtootherfactorsinorder l todeterminethetestatorsintent.In Masonv.Mason, 268S.E.2d67(W.Va.1980),thetestatrix X  wroteaholographicwillthatbegan, Nov4th1973!Iaminthehospitalforsurgery,andincase D! Idonotsurvive.EverythingIhavebelongstoMervin.268S.E.2dat68.Thetestatrixsurvived 0"  thesurgerybutdiedthreeyearslaterofanunrelatedillness. Id. TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourt #l! foundthatthewillwasnotconditional,notingthatthedecedenthadretainedthedocumentforyears $X" followingthe1973surgery: $D # 8  8`   Thefactthatthetestatorpreservesthedocumentforalongtimeafter &"% thepassingofthetimefortheoccurrenceofapossibleevent '#& mentionedinthewillisadmissibleinevidenceastendingtoshow (#' thatthepossibilityoftheoccurrencewasamereinducementforthe )$( makingofthewill,andnotaconditionprecedenttotheoperationof |*%) thewill.h+&*` x` x Ї Id. at69(quoting79Am._Jur_.2dWills746).    In Longshorev.Desmond(InreEstateofDesmond), 35Cal.Rptr.737(Cal.Dist.Ct.App.  1963),thetestatrixsholographicwillstatedasfollows: Theenclosedshouldconveymywishesof t dispositiontobemadeofanyandallofmypersonalandtangiblepossessionsincaseIshouldhave ` amishapandnotreturnduetosomeunforeseenaccident.Italsoincludedareferenceto [_m]y_Ԁlast L  willandtestamentbeforeleavingonashorttrip.35Cal.Rptr.at739.Beforeleavingforhertrip, 8  thetestatrixgavethedocumenttoherdaughter. Id. Uponherreturn,shetookbackthedocument $ t andplaceditinasafeinherbedroom inastriking,arrestingpositionimmediatelyobservableto  ` anyoneopeningthesafe. Id. Indeterminingwhetherthewillwasconditionalorabsolute,the  L  Courtlookednotonlytothelanguageofthewillitself,butalsoseveralotherfactors,including  8  8  8`   thecircumstancessurroundingtheexecutionofthedocumentandits   delivery;thetestatorsstateofhealth;hisplansforthefuture;the   preservationofthedocument,particularlyafterthecontingencyhas   failed;instructionsupondelivery;subsequentdeclarationsofthe   testator;lackofanothersubsequentwill;lackofalternative p dispositionofthepropertyandtheamountoftheestatedisposedof \ bytheinstrument.  H` x` x  Id. TheCourtfoundparticularlysignificantthefactthatthewillwaskeptinthetestatrixssafeafter  p thecontingencyhadfailedandhadbeenstoredwhereiteasilycouldbefound;thatthetestatrixmade  \ statementstotheeffectthatshehadmadeherwillandarrangedheraffairs;andthatnoother H testamentarydocumentwasfound. Id. at740.Baseduponthesecircumstances,theCourtconcluded 4 thatthewillwasabsoluteinnature. Id.      In McMerrimanv.Schiel, 140N.E.600(Ohio1923),thetestatorswillconcludedwiththe  followingstatement: ThisincasethatImeetwithaccidentonthisjourney....140_N.E._Ԁat601.  TheOhioSupremeCourtconcludedthatthewillwasabsolutebaseduponseveralfactors:(1)  Althoughthetestatorhadseveralchildren,henamedhisdaughterLouise,whowasalsohis l housekeeper,hischiefbeneficiary.TheCourtnotedthatLouisesdesignationaschiefbeneficiary X  appeared tobeanactofjustice,andifthewillshouldbeavoided,therebyresultinginadistribution D! ofthepropertyamongallthechildrenequally,aninjusticewillresulttothedaughterLouise. Id.  0"  at601.(2)Afterthetestatorhadmadehisjourneywithoutincident,hehadkeptthewillinasafe #l! placeandhadnotchangeditsterms. Id. (3)Thetestatorhadwrittenthewillhimself,andhe was $X" manifestlycomparativelyilliterateandwhollyunlearnedinthelaw,and...probablygavenothought $D # totheeffectofthelastparagraphofhiswill,andthereforeentertainednointentinregardthereto. %0!$  Id. (4)TheCourtfoundnothing toindicatethatanaccidentduringthecourseofhisjourneyto &"% Montana,orwithinareasonabletimethereafter,wouldhavehadanyreasonableorlogicalrelation '#& tohispropertyortotheobjectsofhisbounty. Id.  (#'   Asillustratedbytheabovecitedcases,themereuseofthephrase incasedoesnot |*%) automaticallyrenderawillcontingentinnatureandtherebyjustifyacourtindenyingprobate.A h+&* courtmustexaminethesituationfurtherandascertain whetherthehappeningofthepossibility  referredtoisaconditionprecedenttotheoperationofthewill,orwhetherthepossibilityofthe  happeningwasonlyastatementofthemotiveorinducementwhichledtothepreparationand  executionoftheinstrument. _Bagnall_ ,225S.W.2dat402.Oursurveyofthedecisionsofother t jurisdictionsleadsustoconcludethatwhetherthedecedentintheinstantcaseintendedherwillto ` beoperativeonlyifshediedonherwaytoorfromNewJerseyshouldnotbeascertainedbased L  solelyupontheuseofwhatisarguablycontingentlanguageinthewill.Inourjudgment,other 8  relevantfactorsshouldalsobeconsidered:(1)thecircumstancessurroundingtheexecutionofthe $ t document;(2)anystatementsmadebythedecedentfollowingtheexecutionofthedocument;(3)  ` themannerinwhichthedocumentwaskeptafterthetimeforthepurportedcontingencyhadlapsed;  L  (4)thedecedentseducationandknowledgeofthelaw;(5)whetheranysubsequenttestamentary  8  documentsweremade;(6)whetherthecontingencybearsareasonablerelationtothedispositionof $  thedecedentsproperty;(7)whetherafindingofaconditionalwillmeansthatthedeceaseddied   intestate;(8)whethereffectuatingthetermsofthewillwouldbeequitableunderthecircumstances;   and(9)suchotherrelevantfactorsasbearontheissueathand.     Intheinstantcase,itappearsfromthemeagerrecordbeforeusthatthetrialcourtrelied p solelyuponthelanguage incaseIdieonmywayto&fromJerseyinholdingthatthehandwritten \ documentpurportingtobethedecedentslastwillandtestamentwas,inthewordsofthetrialcourt, H  aconditionaldocument.Wedonotmeantocriticizethetrialcourtforproceedingasitdid.There 4 wasnoTennesseecaseauthoritytoguidethecourtonthisparticularsubject.Furthermore,itappears  p thateachofthepartiesreliedsolelyuponthewritinginpursuingtheircompetingtheories,thereby  \ leavingthetrialcourtwithoutanyotherevidencetoconsider.Regardlessofthereasonforthetrial H courtsapproachinthiscase,wefearthatcompletejusticecannotbeachievedontherecordbefore 4 us.Accordingly,weremandthiscaseforanevidentiaryhearingbasedupontheprinciplessetforth   inthisopinion.Wedosopursuanttotheprovisionsof_T.C.A._Ԁ273128(2000),whichprovides   asfollows:  8  8`   Thecourtshallalso,inallcases,where,initsopinion,complete  justicecannotbehadbyreasonofsomedefectintherecord,wantof l properparties,oroversightwithoutculpablenegligence,remandthe X  causetothecourtbelowforfurtherproceedings,withproper D! directionstoeffectuatetheobjectsoftheorder,anduponsuchterms 0"  asmaybedeemedright.#l!` x` x y    Ourdecisiontoremandshouldnotbeconstruedasfavoringordisfavoringafindingofa $D # conditionalwillinthiscase.Weexpressnoopiniononthis,theultimateissuetobedecidedon %0!$ remand. &"% U  '#& $W  IV.  YW    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings,  consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee,theEstateofGloriaEleanor t Franklin,EdwardManning,Administrator. ` W   `     h      p      x     `     h     _______________________________ $ t    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE