WPCJ xrFz"w}\q" w`hKOd8)&D_uiRQy>ƃa.]4@al64V٫t9V m$^e-ֺᬵ #3Hgf1J[Դd4ґϾm1)a¸EL{oMYgƐ*y R9O[maV/m,y TI;~eFUTJIAS4,˹M灨HFB ¢J)}? TZ,DayBf-jfo W]t(n%ƻ;kFSZoLF0/n"} L^]lG ^j1-8\}/ɽӺMtb(ԏ>;o=-M6q _J:q<͚_}㸎y?6瘤o8taKH*[%!?*ȃ1MJ# % ^ 0 UN' w u 4 z   m 0U\" 0DtN& 0E 0 0 0 0t 0Q 0+ 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0c 0. 0 0 0@{ 0 0! 0`" 0.# 0# 0$b% 0% 0P& 00 ' 0<=' 0y' 0>7( 0vu( 0`( 0`K) 0`) 0` * 0`k* 08* 0+ 02+ 0, 0:- 0Y=- 0_- 0 - 0j. 0i0 B*1 D/2 0F2 D/3 03 064 04 0:6 0^?6 0<6 1m6 0NF7U67 07U>8U*8 729 BO9l9 0b: D3; D-9; 0Kf;; AS<= 0= 0Dp> A> _? q? R?? 1u@ 72#A#A#AUA;kAkAkACCCCCCfCCCCC$E$E$E$E$E$E$E$ENEEEAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGhAI\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0 / (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Hurst Bitz*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%0w35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New(|G22$ !.8dXXd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialO dhttp://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?SerialNum=1992099221&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW2.87&VR=2.0&SV=Full&MT=Tennessee&FN=_top(|3IX$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  http://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=713&SerialNum=1992099221&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=898&AP=^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IX$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKSDU_14StarPageciteas((Cite as: 869 S.W.2d 328, *330) R)$      1  A   _ ` Mr.HurstwastheownerofaBMWautomobile.  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)fi)    1 R)$      2  A   _XWAX A ` #A XXWA~#Thesignaturelineonthesecondwilldenotedthesignoras Testatrixratherthan Testator,andalso  providedthathisrealandpersonalpropertywas tobedividedequallyexceptasstatedherein,when,asalreadynoted, t Ms.Smithwasthesolebeneficiaryunderthiswill. 8   \ R)$      4  A   _ ` Mr.Hurstsrepresentationincludedthreefelonycases,resultinginMs.Smithsconviction.She,  however,wasnotrequiredtoserveanytimeinthepenitentiary. t  R)$      6  A   _ ` Anemptyshreddingmachinewasalsofoundintheresidence. D R)$      5  A   _ ` Ms.Smithusedtheauthoritygrantedunderthepowerofattorneyonlyononeoccasion,andthatwas  topaymedicalbillsincurredbyMr.Frazier. t   R)$      3  A   _ ` ThefirstwillpreparedbyMr._Asbury_Ԁwasalso_inartfully_Ԁdrawn,inthat,althoughprovidingspecific  bequestsofinvestments,itdidnothavearesiduaryclausewhichcouldposeaproblemshouldMr.Frazierhavechanged t hisinvestments 8  ^ R)$      7  A   _ ` Thedefinitionof kitingwarrantsisnotentirelyclear,butasweunderstandtherecord,itmeansthe  TrialJudgeremoveswarrantsfromthedocketpriortotrial. t  !.8dXXd8     _  8@XXdd8  ng@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#9#Ԉ &   May8,2003Session L X@X #XX@#INRE:THEESTATEOFLOWELLFRAZIER  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforCampbellCounty @ p @@No.P1847BillyJoeWhite,Chancellor T  FILEDAUGUST27,_2003_ |  @@*AV) ` dE< ` A   @@TTNo.E200201203COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      X@XThisappealconcernstwoseparatesuitsfiledintheChanceryCourtforCampbellCountyin , connectionwiththeadministrationoftheEstateofLowellFrazier.Thefirstsuitwasbroughtby  SamLough,individually,andalso,alongwithhiswife,DebbieLough,asparentsandguardiansof  MatthewLough,andDarryl_Herron_ԀandElizabethHerron,asparentsandguardiansofChelsea  _Herron_.ItsoughttoestablishalostorspoilatedwillofMr.Frazier,whichwasdatedJanuary30,  1998( thefirstwill).ThesecondsuitwasbroughtbyMatthewLoughandChelseaHerronbyand  throughtheirguardianadlitem,appointedinthefirstcase,contestingalaterwilldatedMay24,  2000( thesecondwill).Thecaseswereconsolidatedbelowandthesuitseekingtoestablishthe p firstwillwastriedfirst.Underanagreementoftheparties,thefirstcasemustbedecidedinfavor \ oftheminorsbeforetheywouldhavestandingtocontestthesecondwill.Afteraplenarytrialajury Hx foundastothefirstcasethatthePlaintiffsprovedbyclearandconvincingevidencethatLowell 4d Frazierdidnotdestroythefirstwill.Thereupon,thesecondtrialwashadbeforethesamejury,which  P foundagainstthesecondwillonthegroundthatdueexecutionwasnotprovedandthatGlendaFaye  < Smith,whowasthesolebeneficiaryofthesecondwill,andatthetimeitwasexecutedwasattorney ( infactforMr.Frazier,didnotovercomethepresumptionofundueinfluenceoverMr.Frazierby  clearandconvincingevidence.Ms.Smithraisesanumberofissues,manyofwhichmeritacritical  examination,butourreviewoftherecordpersuadesusthattheissuewhichcontendsthatshewas    entitledtoadirectedverdictinthefirstcaseisthedispositiveissueinthisappeal.Wefindthatthe !! Courtwasinerrorinnotdirectingaverdictinherfavorinthelostwillcaseandreversethejudgment "" renderedtherein.ThisresultsinthePlaintiffsnothavingstandingtopursuethesecondcase,which # # isreversedanddismissed. l$!$  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentsoftheChanceryCourtReversed,Suit D&t#& @jjDismissed,andCauseRemanded  0'`$'   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano, )8&) Jr.,andD.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. )$'* DudleyW.Taylor,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,GlendaFayeSmith. +(, JohnnyV.Dunaway,LaFollette,Tennessee,GuardianAdLitem,fortheAppellees,Matthew -*. LoughandChelseaHerron. .+/   |/,0 ng n n  jOa0   `     h OPINION (#(#     Ourstandardofreviewofajuryverdictiswellsettled.ItwasaddressedbytheSupreme t Courtina1994opinionasfollows: `  O !"#$%(w03f S_@  SXXXXWARule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure#XWAXXSX#SXXXXWAԀprovidesthat 8  "[_f]indings_Ԁoffactbyajuryincivilactionsshallbesetasideonlyifthereisno $ t materialevidencetosupporttheverdict."AsthisCourtstatedintherecentcase  ` of4W mPO  5  #XWAXXSX$#@  @i  @  6ZPOn  7 mSXXXXWAHodgesv.S.C._Toof_Ԁ&Co.,"Itiswellestablishedthatwhenreviewinga  L  judgmentbasedonajuryverdict,appellatecourtsarelimitedtodetermining  8  whetherthereismaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict."4\ [PO  5  #XWAXXSX#@  6PO  7 [ISXXXXWA833S.W.2d[896,]898 $  [(Tenn.1992].   ppItisthetimehonoredruleinthisStatethatinreviewingajudgmentbased >  uponajuryverdicttheappellatecourtsarenotatlibertytoweighthe *z evidenceortodecidewherethepreponderancelies,butarelimitedto f determiningwhetherthereismaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict;and R indeterminingwhetherthereismaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict,the > appellatecourtisrequiredtotakethestrongestlegitimateviewofallthe * evidenceinfavoroftheverdict,toassumethetruthofallthattendsto  supportit,allowingallreasonableinferencestosustaintheverdict,andto  % b #XWAXXSX#%bSXXXXWAdiscardalltothecontrary.Havingthusexaminedtherecord,iftherebeany  materialevidencetosupporttheverdict,itmustbeaffirmed;ifitwere  otherwise,the% c #XWAXXSX#%c% d SXXXXWAԀ%d#XWAXXSX#SXXXXWApartieswouldbedeprivedoftheirconstitutionalrighttotrial v byjury. b pp_Crabtree_ԀMasonryCo.v.C.&R.Constr.,Inc.,575S.W.2d4,5(Tenn.1978). 0 Forresterv._Stockstill_,869S.W.2d328,32930(Tenn.1994). ^! #XWAXXSXe#  Althoughnotalleged,itwasthetheoryofthePlaintiffsastothefirstcasethatMs.Smithand #, J.StanleyHurst,theattorneywhoinitiallyrepresentedherinthecasesonappeal,aswellasother $  civilandcriminalmatters,conspiredtodestroythefirstwill. %!!   TheGuardianAdLitemfortheminorchildren,intheopeningargument,statedthe 2(## following: )n$$  _ ]*%%  _MR_._DUNAWAY_:Theresoneotherthing,ladiesandgentlemen.Shes   committingtherobbery.Mr.Hurstisdrivingthegetawaycar,andtheevidence  willshowthataswegetintotheproof.  _@    DuringthecourseofthetrialhereferredtoMs.SmithandMr.HurstasBonnieandClyde  V and,finally,inhisclosingargumentsaidtothejury:  B  Now,Illtakeyoubacktowherewewereattheverybeginningofthis p  casewhereyoucanwritetheresult.IsubmittoyoudonotletGlendaSmithrob \  thisestate.Dontputgasinthegetawaycar;dismantletheBMW.e #  1       H    Inourreviewoftheevidencewedeempertinentwewillendeavortofollowthestandardof   reviewhereinbeforesetout.     Therecordintheconsolidatedcasesisvoluminous.Thetranscriptastothefirstcase 0 consistedof1183pages,andthesecondcase208pages.Wewill,however,onlydetailthefacts l adducedinthefirstcase,whicharegermanetoourresolutionofthisappeal. X   LowellFrazierwasmarriedtoChristineFrazier,whodiedinApril1996.Theyhadno  children.Thereafter,onJanuary30,1998,Mr.Frazierexecutedthefirstwillnamingasbeneficiaries r hiswifesnephew,Mr.Lough,Mr.Loughsyoungson,andChelsea_Herron_.TheLoughfamilyhad ^ acloserelationshipwithMr.Frazieruntilariftoccurredinthefallof1999becauseofMrs._Herron_s J useofavehicleownedbyMr.FrazierandthefamilyhadlittleornocontactwithMr.Frazier 6 thereafter. "r   Chelsea_Herron_sparentslivenearMr.Frazier,andhehadknownhersinceherbirthand,  asshownbytheproof,hadanaffectionforherduringhislifetime.Thereisnothingintherecord   tosuggestwhythesecondwilldidnotincludeher. x! Ѐ  Ms.SmithmetMr.Frazierafterthedeathofhiswife,andthereisnotevenahintinthe #F recordthattheirrelationshiphadanysexualconnotation.Indeed,itwasmoreasiftheywerefather $2  anddaughterandMs.Smithreferredtohimas Dad.ItshouldalsobenotedthatMs.Smith %! ministeredtohimduringtwoillnesses,thefirstresultingfromaherniaoperation,andthesecond & "  whenhewashospitalizedjustpriortohisdeath. '"!  (5$"   OnMay24,2000,Mr.Frazierexecutedthesecondwillwhich,although_inartfully_Ԁdrawn,  lefthisentireestatetoMs.Smith.k #  2          Robert_Asbury_,aLaFolletteattorneywhopreparedthefirstwill,gavethefirstwill #  3      ׀toMr. j Frazier,butkeptacopyforhisfiles.ThefirstwillwasplacedonthekitchentableatMr.Fraziers  V residenceand,later,inthefamilyBible.ItwasnotfoundinasearchmadebyMr.LoughandMrs.  B _Herron_ԀshortlyafterMr.Fraziersdeath.  .   Mr.FrazierdiedonFebruary18,2001,andwhenthesecondwillwasattemptedtobe \  probatedtheClerkoftheProbateCourtadvisedthatasuithadbeenfiledseekingtosetupthefirst H  willasalostwillanddeclinedtoissuelettersofadministrationtoMs.Smith,theExecutrix. 4    InthepastMr.HursthadrepresentedMs.Smithinseveralmattersspanningaperiodofsome   15years.tx #  4      ׀Hepreparedapowerofattorney,  #  5      ׀appointingMs.SmithMr.Fraziersattorneyinfact,   whichwassignedonMay4,2000.AccordingtoMr.Hurst,thisinstrumentwassignedinthe  absenceofMs.Smith.Ms.Smithstestimonyinregardtothepowerofattorneyiscontradictory. v Inherdiscoverydepositionshestatedshewaspresentwhenthepowerofattorneywassigned;inher b testimonyattrialshestatedshewasnotpresent;andfinallystatedshedidnotknowwhethershewas N presentornot.Thereafter,thesecondwill,whichisunderattackinthissuit,waspreparedforMr. : FrazierbyMr.Hurst.Ms.Smithwasnotpresentonthisoccasion. &v   ThereisproofthatbothMr.HurstandMs.Smith,togetherandseparately,visitedthe  residenceofMr.Frazieronanumberofoccasionsandononeoccasionwereobservedcarryingblack  trashbagsoutofthehouse,loadingthemintoatruckandcarryingthemaway.Acardboardboxwas | alsoremovedbyaformerfemalefriendofMs.Smith. h Ї  Mrs._Herron_ԀalsotestifiedthatshesawMs.SmithcarryinganobjectoutofMr.Fraziers  house.Shecouldnotidentifywhattheobjectwas,butstateditappearedtobea pewtergray  statuette.Ms.SmithtestifiedthatatonetimeshecarriedaCocaColabottlewhichwasgreen  coloredandinthefashionofoldtimeCocaColabottles. t   Whicheverversionmightbetrue,itisclearthattheobjectwasnotthefirstwillofMr.  B Frazier.Thereisalsoproofthatnocurrentrecords,exceptforperhapstwomonths,werefoundof  . Mr.Fraziersfinancialdealings.y #  6      ׀Astothispoint,theproofshowsthatthehousewasbrokeninto   sometimepriortotheafternoonofMarch5,2001.     TheundisputedproofalsoshowsthatwhenMr.FrazierwasexecutinghissecondwillMr. 4  Hurstadvisedhimthatheshoulddestroyanypriorwills,towhichMr.Frazierresponded, Ive  p  alreadytakencareofthat.  \    AlthoughMr.Hurstwascastasacoconspirator,everywitnessthattestifiedonthe  subject!withthepossibleexceptionofRob_Asbury_,whopreparedthefirstwillandinitially v representedthePlaintiffsintheconsolidatedcases!didnotdisparageMr.Hurstsreputationasan b attorney,norcastdoubtuponhisveracity.Mr._Asbury_,however,testifiedhehadheardsomerumors N regardingMr.Hurst kitingwarrants,T #  7      ׀presumablywhilehewasacityjudge,buthedidnothave : anyproblem withMr.Hurstscandor.HedidhavereservationsregardingMr.Hurstsreputation &v andconcededitwasmostlikelybecauseofthependingsuittoestablishthelostwillwhichhe b initiated. N   Inaddition,therewasintroducedintotherecordexcerptsfrom_Martindale_Ԁand_Hubbell_,a | publicationthatrateslawyersbaseduponinterviewswithotherattorneys,andsometimesjudges,that h Mr.Hurstsgeneralethicalstandardwas veryhigh. T   Althoughwearerequired,ashereinbeforesetout,toacceptastruealltestimonyfavorable  " tothePlaintiffspositionandindulgeallfavorableinferencesrisingtherefrom,thereisanotherrule ! oflawthatcomesintoplayindisposingofthefirstsuit. "   ThisrulewasarticulatedinthecaseofInreEstateofWest,729S.W.2d676(Tenn.Ct.App. (%x  1987),whereinwestatedthefollowing(atpage678): &d!  jOa j j   Inordertoestablishalostwilltheproponentofthatwillmustshow(1)the ? factthatthewillwasexecutedinaccordancewiththeformsoflaw,(2)the + substanceorcontentsofthewill,and(3)thatthewillhasnotbeenrevoked,and  thatitislostordestroyedorcannotbefoundafteradueandpropersearch.  Morrisv._Swaney_,54Tenn.591(1872);Sandersv._McClanahan_,59Tenn.App.   590,442S.W.2d664(1969).However,thefactthatawillcannotbefoundafter   adueandpropersearchraisesapresumptionthatthetestatorhimselfdestroyed w  thewill.Havenv.Wrinkle,29Tenn.App.195,195S.W.2d787(1945);_Shrum_Ԁv. c  Powell,604S.W.2d869(Tenn.App.1980).Therefore,toovercomethe O   presumptiontheoneseekingtoestablishalostwillmustprovethatthetestator ;  didnothavecustodyandcontrolofthewillafterexecution,orthathehadlosthis 'w  testamentarycapacityforaperiodbeforehisdeathandthatthewillwasin c  existenceatthetimethelossofcompetencyoccurred.Havenv.Wrinkle,29 O  _Tenn.App_.at212,195S.W.2d787. ;    In_Shrum_Ԁv.Powell,604S.W.2d869(Tenn.Ct.App.1980),thisCourtquoteswithapproval i fromthecaseofWolfev.Williams,tothefollowingeffect(atpage871): U  Toestablishalostwillitisincumbentupontheproponentstoshow(1) # thatthetestatormadeandexecutedavalidwillinaccordancewiththeformsof  lawandthedeathofthetestator;(2)thatthewillhadnotbeenrevokedandislost  ordestroyedorcannotbefoundafterdueandpropersearch;and(3)thesubstance  andcontentsofthewill.Vol1,Phillips_Pritchard_ԀLawofWills,Sec.50;Morris  v._Swaney_,54Tenn.591[(1872)];Mooreetal.v.Williams,etal.,30Tenn.App o 479,207S.W.2d590[(1947)];Havenv.Wrinkle,29Tenn.App.195,195S.W.2d [ 787[(1945)].Notonebutalloftheabovepointsmustbeprovenby theclearest G andmoststringentevidence(Buchananv._Matlock_,27Tenn.389[(1847)])or 3  clear,cogentandconvincingproof(Wolfev.Williams,1Tenn.App.441  o [(1925)]).(Emphasisadded.)  ![   Moreover,thetreatise_Pritchard_ԀonWills,5thEd.,Sec.51,etseq.,addressesthesubject # _thusly_: u$   51.Proofnecessarytosetuplostwill;decree.  &C""  Fortheestablishmentofalostwill,itisnecessaryfortheplaintifftoshow q)$$ tothesatisfactionofthecourt:first,thatthetestatormadeandexecutedavalid ]*%%  willinaccordancewiththeformsoflaw,andthedeathofthetestator;second,that I+&& thewillhadnotbeenrevoked,andislostordestroyed,orcannotbefoundafter  dueandpropersearch;andthird,thesubstanceandcontentsofthewill.    1.Itseemsthattheexecutionofthewillmustbeprovedbyallthe j subscribingwitnessesifaliveandwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt,withthe  V sameformalityasifthewillitselfwereproducedincourtforprobate.Theheir  B or_distributee_Ԁisentitledtohaveallthewitnessesexamined,andafailureto  . introducethemmustbeexcusedbyproofofasufficientreasonfortheir   _nonintroduction_.Withrespecttoawillexecutedbeforeenactmentofthe   ExecutionofWillsActof1941,itsdueandformalexecutioninoneofthetwo    modesmadeessentialbystatutetothevalidityofthisclassofwillshadtobe   shown;butineverycase,theproofoffactofexecutionhadtobeequaltothe z  clearestandmostsatisfactorytestimonyoftwounexceptionablewitnesses. f   Inthecaseofawillofeitherrealestateorpersonaltyexecutedafter 4 February15,1941,itsdueandformalexecutioninconformitywiththeExecution   ofWillsActmustbeshown.    2.Whenawillcannotbefoundafterthedeathofatestator,thereisa : strongpresumptionthatitwasdestroyedorrevokedbythetestatorhimself,and &v thispresumptionstandsintheplaceofpositiveproof.Onewhoseekstoestablish b alostordestroyedwillassumestheburdenofovercomingthispresumptionby N adequateproof.Itisnotsufficienttoshowthatpersonsinterestedtoestablish : intestacyhadanopportunitytodestroythewill.Onemustgofurtherandshow & byfactsandcircumstancesthatthewillactuallywaslostordestroyedfraudulently  oraccidentallyagainst,andnotinaccordancewith,thewishesandintentionofthe  testator.(Emphasisadded.)   Thepresumptionthatthewillwasdestroyedbythetestator,_animo_ !h _revocandi_,mayberebutted,anditslossordestructionbyothermeansmaybe "T shown,bycircumstantialaswellaspositiveevidence,as:byshowingthatthe "@ testatordidnothavethecustodyandcontroloftheinstrumentafteritsexecution; #, thathehadlosthistestamentarycapacityforaperiodbeforehisdeath;thatthe $  willwasinexistenceatthetimethementalalienationoccurred;andthelike._The %!! declarationsofthetestator,beforeoraftermakingthewill,areadmissiblein &!" evidencetosupportordestroythepresumptionofrevocation. '"#  3.Beforesecondaryproofofthecontentsofthewillcanbeadmitted,it  *Z%% mustbeshownthattheinstrumentitselfhasbeendestroyedabsolutely;orthe *F&& partymustshowthat,withreasonablediligence,hehasresortedtoandexhausted +2'' allthesourcesofinformationandmeansofdiscoverythatwereaccessibletohim  andthatthenatureofthecasewouldsuggest.Whenthenecessaryproofofloss  ordestructionhasbeenmade,thecontentsofthewillmaybeestablishedbythe  samecharacterofevidenceasotherlostordestroyedinstruments:firstbyacopy, t andsecondbyproofofitscontentsfrommemoryandrecollection.Thecontents ` maybeprovedbyacopykeptbytheattorneywhodrewit. L    InreachingourconclusionthatthePlaintiffshavenotsatisfactorilyrebuttedthepresumption   thatMr.Frazierdestroyedthefirstwill,wehavenotoverlookedthetestimonyofMs._Herron_Ԁthat   Mr.Frazierreassuredherinthefalloftheyear2000,severalmonthsafterthesecondwillwas    executed,thatherdaughterChelseawouldnothavetoworryabouthercollegeeducation.Inthis   regardwealsonoteastatementfrom_Pritchard_,foundin51,that Declarationsofatestator, z  standingalone,areinsufficienttoovercomethepresumptionofrevocationofalostwill. f    TheGuardianAdLitemarguesinsupportofhiswardspositionthattheproofshowsMs. 4 Smithhadthemotive,inclinationandopportunitytodestroythefirstwill.Withallduerespectto   counsel,thisdoesnotmeettherequirementsofthecaselawandtreatiseabovesetout,particularly   inlightoftherepresentationmadebyMr.FraziertoMr.Hurstwhenhewastoldthatheshould  destroyanypriorwills.    Finally,weobservethatthetranscriptofthelostwillcaseisrepletewithextraneous, b irrelevantandincompetenttestimonyandshouldhavebeenpresentedmoreconciselybytargeting N thesoleissuewithregardthereto!whetherthePlaintiffsproofhadovercomethestrongpresumption : thatMr.Frazierdestroyedhisfirstwill. &   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtinthelostwillcaseisreversedand T thecasedismissed.Havingdoneso,itfollows,inaccordancewiththeagreementoftheparties,the @ Plaintiffshavenostandingtopursueacontestastothesecondwill.Thecaseisremandedfor , | furtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandcollectionofcostsbelowwhichare,asarecosts !h ofappeal,adjudgedagainstSamLough,DebbieLough,DarrylHerronandElizabeth_Herron_. "T    `     h   _________________________________________ 'P"!    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE ?(#"