ÿWPC  ßs2óç{õñÉzõñh¸!õqMp¤m€¢Œê#½Ê“|ÂÊóçø|_='`DaâU"ü¾ËÌ4©$§E9þ&¡¦Ÿõ··&×ö ¯Ç†uËŒ)(·Ó¶w÷| ¦‘¾É 5- 'ršgÓìpšzûWDÜl©+ã|§E×À!U›´P} ÏéÏ¿¨8 RA7b;[Æ.鉃×ïFæˆ æðƒÿ;K …Ÿ2¨ÚÊíœïQyóßg@o|«öðÊmt·À:1ãý©üìBóÉеÛhB:R³‹ØÑ”bünÆ Vov¸¹ô¹Î¶¯£|4‰´tòÚ¤Œƒ/EÊ7Z®4ܪÝËûsæ}q)«œ.–µéuq¡ËŠ6ݰìó“?â… x–•Á›Ÿkö˜Dæ&0dÝÝÜtž¬ª…5ÔÁž³ÚÞE£Æ?Ð:þ_¼²lãóv÷Y¶¤©xäÈ6ÛµÄVŒ|HÃaf¸—§½®¼  íŒTFÝÚ!Â:ÇÂÜÛlŸW¬œÑ¿ƒç‹Ã_hÈßÑæO’ÒL‡[¹µýó”d±6Ö©M£ Å¶Z ÊÿçñZ×xe>˜8ðÓ˜—(+B®hTB=ÙÏ``tÅ ›ŒÐ–¢µ²QŒëéQÚmÔÇÌçç#O6Þœb %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ ™ Æ¡ Æg Æ-ÆóU@¹NùùùEûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûbýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý 0ë Bðð 0¤  D5± D-æ 0K AS^Ʊ 0¤w 0D A«_»dž1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2IA$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëUò»»Ô d(|3?…$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?…$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€N½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼N½»»»ÔÑ8€±XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡î]<N½ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡î¿iîîî]<ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÓÓà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼³h»îî¿iú#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓDecember€9,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡Xý4X»¼³hÔÌò òÔ#†¼³h»XXý4#ÔESTATE€OF€CLYDE€M.€FULLER€v.€SAMUEL€EVANS,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡Xý4X»¼³hÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„C„2355€€€€€€Jacqueline€E.€Schulten,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2004„00801„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€DECEMBER€Ô_Ô29,Ô_Ô€2004Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼³h»XXý4š#ÔÔ‡Xý4X»¼³hÔThe€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€Counter„Plaintiff€may€testify€at€trial€regarding€transactions€andÐ xÈ  Ðconversations€with€the€deceased€Counter„Defendant€when€the€deceased€Counter„Defendantððs€pre„Ð d´ Ðtrial€discovery€deposition€had€been€taken,€but€was€incomplete.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court,€pursuantÐ P  Ðto€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute,€properly€prohibited€the€Counter„Plaintiff€from€testifying€aboutÐ <Œ Ðtransactions€and€conversations€with€the€deceased€Counter„Defendant.€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€rulingÐ (x Ðof€the€trial€court€and€remand.€€€Ð d ÐÓåÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€CauseÐ ì< ÐRemandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓSharon€G.€Lee,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€P.J.,óó€andÐ ° ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMichael€E.€Richardson,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Samuel€and€Patty€Evans.Ð tÄ ÐÌWilliam€T.€Alt,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Estate€of€Clyde€M.€Fuller.Ð L œ ÐÓ_ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àThis€case€arises€out€of€business€transactions€between€Clyde€M.€Fuller,€whose€Estate€is€theÐ ü#L# ÐAppellee€in€this€appeal,€and€the€Appellant,€Patty€Evans,€with€respect€to€investments€Mrs.€EvansÐ è$8 $ Ðmade€in€a€limited€partnership€designated€Sonic€Petroleum,€Inc.€which€was€set€up€by€Mr.€Fuller€forÐ Ô%$!% Ðthe€purpose€of€drilling€exploratory€and€developmental€oil€and€gas€wells€in€Tennessee.€€Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àOn€June€18,€1998,€Mr.€Fuller€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ˜(è#( Ðagainst€the€Appellants,€Samuel€and€Patty€Evans,€alleging€that€the€Evans€had€defamed€him€inÐ „)Ô$) Ðconnection€with€the€drilling€venture€and€requesting€an€injunction€against€them€and€an€award€ofÐ p*À%* Ðcompensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€Among€other€things,€the€complaint€specifically€alleges€thatÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€Evans€authored,€approved€and€caused€to€be€published€in€several€places€in€and€outside€Tennessee,Ð H,˜', Ðand€specifically€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee,€two€writings€which€defamed€the€plaintiff€byÐ 4-„(-ý Ðaccusing€him€of€engaging€in€a€fraudulent€scheme€to€ð ðbilk€millions€of€dollars€from€a€small€group€ofÐ ° Ðinnocent€and€unsophisticated€individuals.€€The€purpose€of€such€libelous€publications€was€to€threaten,Ð œì Ðintimidate€and€embarrass€plaintiff€to€coerce€him€into€paying€money€to€defendants.ðð€€Further,€theÐ ˆØ Ðcomplaint€alleges€that€the€defendants€claimed€in€their€libelous€publications€that€the€plaintiff,€actingÐ tÄ Ðas€general€partner€of€an€entity€known€as€Sonic€Petroleum€Co.,€Inc.,€made€false€statements€toÐ `° Ðinvestors€in€order€to€cause€them€to€invest€money€in€a€limited€partnership€oil€well€drilling€program.€Ð L œ ÐFurther€that€defendant€Patty€Evans,€along€with€others,€invested€money€in€the€well€drilling€programÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhich€created€tax€incentives€for€investors€as€well€as€the€possibility€of€the€drilling€program€givingÐ $ t Ðrise€to€producing€wells.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€case€was€subsequently€transferred€to€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court€and€on€JanuaryÐ è 8  Ð27,€1999,€the€Evans€responded€to€Mr.€Fullerððs€complaint€by€answer€and€counter„complaint€forÐ Ô$  Ðcompensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€The€response€denies€Mr.€Fullerððs€accusations€of€defamationÐ À  Ðand€Patty€Evans€avers,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Mr.€Fuller€ð ðmade€fraudulent€and/or€negligentÐ ¬ü  Ðmisrepresentations€of€fact€which€induced€her€to€enter€into€the€investmentðð€and€ð ðmade€fraudulentÐ ˜è  Ðand/or€negligent€€misrepresentations€€of€fact€and€false€and€misleading€promises€and€assurances€toÐ „Ô  Ðkeep€her€from€earlier€discovering€that€her€investment€in€Sonic€Petroleum€was€worth€little,€ifÐ pÀ Ðanything.ðð€€The€Evansðð€counter„complaint€also€accuses€Mr.€Fuller€of€outrageous€conduct€assertingÐ \¬ Ðthat€ð ðFullerððs€complaint€was€motivated€by€an€improper€attempt€to€keep€them€from€exercising€theirÐ H˜ Ðconstitutional€rights€to€freedom€of€expression.ðð€The€counter„complaint€further€charges€Mr.€FullerÐ 4„ Ðwith€abuse€of€process€in€bringing€the€defamation€action€and€with€conspiracy€to€extort€money€fromÐ  p ÐPatty€Evans€by€threatening€to€confiscate€her€investment€interest€in€the€partnership€if€she€refused€toÐ  \ Ðpay€additional€money.Ð øH ÐÌà  àDiscovery€commenced€in€the€case€and€on€May€24,€2000,€the€discovery€deposition€of€Mr.Ð Ð  ÐFuller€began.€We€note€that€this€was€a€discovery€deposition€and€not€a€deposition€for€proof.€Ð ¼  ÐQuestioning€of€Mr.€Fuller€was€only€conducted€by€counsel€for€the€Evans€and€no€questions€were€askedÐ ¨ø Ðby€Mr.€Fullerððs€counsel.€Moreover,€the€deposition€was€adjourned€prior€to€its€completion.€TheÐ ”ä Ðdeposition€transcript€concludes€with€the€following€exchange€between€counsel€for€the€Evans€and€Mr.Ð €Ð ÐFuller:Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àQ€€Just€to€kind€of€move€this€along€because€itððs€about€time€„€„Ð D!” ÐÌà Ø àA€Have€you€got€something€to€do?Ð #l! ÐÌà Ø àQ€Yeah.€€How€about€you?Ð ô$D # ÐÌà Ø àA€€I€ainððt€got€nothing€to€do.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà Ø àQ€I€got€to€be€somewhere€at€3€oððclock.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà Ø àA€Youððre€going€to€have€to€hurry.€€I€thought€we€had€another€depositionÐ |*Ì%) Ðtoday.Ð h+¸&* Їà Ø àQ€We€do.€€Mr.€Evans.Ð ° ÐÌà Ø àA€When?Ð ˆØ ÐÌà Ø àMR.€RICHARDSON:€Well,€weððre€going€to€have€„€„Ð `° ÐÌà Ø à(Whereupon,€an€off„the„record€discussion€was€had,€and€the€deposition€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðadjourned.)€€Ð $ t ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€case€was€scheduled€for€trial€on€November€13,€2002;€however,€Mr.€Fuller€was€requiredÐ ü L  Ðto€undergo€lung€surgery€and€trial€was€reset€to€April€23,€2003,€to€allow€for€his€recuperation.€€A€fewÐ è 8  Ðweeks€later€Mr.€Fuller€died,€his€estate€was€substituted€as€a€party€in€the€case,€and€trial€was€again€reset€Ð Ô$  Ðfor€January€15,€2004.Ð À  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€last€scheduled€date€of€trial,€Mr.€Fullerððs€estate€filed€several€motions.€€One€of€theseÐ ˜è  Ðwas€a€motion€in€limine€which€requested€that,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„203,€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðbar€the€Evans€ð ðfrom€€testifying€as€to€transactions€with€or€statements€made€by€Mr.€Fuller.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€Estateððs€motion€to€bar€the€Evansðð€testimony€by€memorandumÐ H˜ Ðopinion€entered€January€12,€2004.€€The€memorandum€opinion€indicates€that€the€motion€is€dispositiveÐ 4„ Ðof€the€issues€in€the€Evansðð€counter„complaint€and€further€states:Ð  p ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àTo€support€the€allegations€against€the€Plaintiff€by€Defendants€requiresÐ øH Ðproof€of€statements€and€transactions€between€the€parties.€€Further,€no€completedÐ ä4 Ðrecorded€testimony€of€the€decedent€exists.€€The€Court€cannot€contemplate€how€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendants€would€be€able€to€prove€any€of€the€allegations€in€their€Counter„PetitionÐ ¼  Ðwith€competent,€relevant€proof.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àA€subsequent€motion€filed€by€the€Evans€to€alter€or€amend€the€above€ruling€or,€in€theÐ €Ð Ðalternative,€grant€an€interlocutory€appeal€was€denied€by€order€of€the€trial€court€entered€March€9,Ð l¼ Ð2004.€This€order€dismisses€the€Evansðð€counter„claim€and€further€decrees:Ð X ¨ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø à[Ô_ÔT]hatÔ_Ô€the€Defendantððs€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€MemorandumÐ 0"€  ÐOpinion€of€January€12,€2004,€is€in€all€respects€denied.€€It€was€made€to€appear€thatÐ #l! Ðthough€defendants€had€begun€taking€Mr.€Clyde€Fullerððs€deposition,€it€was€notÐ $X" Ðcompleted€during€the€next€two€year€period,€which€ended€with€the€death€of€Mr.Ð ô$D # ÐFuller€following€an€extended€illness,€of€which€the€defendants€were€fully€aware€andÐ à%0!$ Ðdespite€the€scheduled€trial€of€this€case,€which€was€required€to€be€postponed€dueÐ Ì&"% Ðto€Mr.€Fullerððs€illness.€€Since€the€record€of€Mr.€Fullerððs€testimony€was€notÐ ¸'#& Ðcompleted€as€to€the€relevant€subjects,€it€is€the€Courtððs€opinion€it€would€be€unfairÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€allow€either€side€to€use€part€of€such€a€record;Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà Ø àThe€Court€finds€that€its€present€rulings€as€to€plaintiffððs€motions€in€limine,Ð ° Ðâ âtogether€with€its€holding€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion,€effectively€bars€theÐ œì Ðdefendants€from€offering€any€evidence€on€all€the€remaining€claims€contained€inÐ ˆØ Ðtheir€counterclaim,€namely€fraud,€negligent€misrepresentation,€promissory€fraud,Ð tÄ Ðor,€outrageous€conduct.€€Since€there€is€no€evidence€by€any€third€party€who€wouldÐ `° Ðsupport€the€allegations€of€the€defendant,€Patty€Evans,€but€all€the€evidence€on€thoseÐ L œ Ðissues€would€come€solely€from€her€and€she€is€rendered€incompetent€to€testify€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€discussions€with€the€deceased€plaintiff€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€24„1„203,Ð $ t Ðcommonly€referred€to€as€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute.€€While,€as€noted€above,€aÐ  ` Ðdeposition€of€a€party,€if€completed,€may€be€used€at€trial€for€any€purpose,€for€theÐ ü L  Ðreasons€stated€above,€the€incomplete€deposition€will€not€be€permitted€to€be€usedÐ è 8  Ðin€this€case.€€Defendantsðð€counsel€acknowledges€the€rulings€prevent€the€defendantsÐ Ô$  Ðfrom€offering€any€proof€as€to€such€causes€of€action.Ð À  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àThe€Evans€appeal€the€memorandum€opinion€entered€January€12,€2004,€and€the€order€enteredÐ ˜è  ÐMarch€9,€2004.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€sole€issue€addressed€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€prohibiting€PattyÐ \¬ ÐEvans€from€testifying€as€to€transactions€or€conversations€between€herself€and€Clyde€Fuller.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€have€heretofore€stated€the€standard€governing€our€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€toÐ  p Ðexclude€evidence€as€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒS°Òà « àThe€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€is€within€the€trial€courtððsÐ ä4 Ðdiscretion.€€The€discretionary€nature€of€the€decision€does€not€shield€it€completelyÐ Ð  Ðfrom€appellate€review€but€does€result€in€subjecting€it€to€less€rigorous€appellateÐ ¼  Ðscrutiny.€€Because,€by€their€very€nature,€discretionary€decisions€involve€a€choiceÐ ¨ø Ðamong€acceptable€alternatives,€reviewing€courts€will€not€second„guess€a€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourtððs€exercise€of€its€discretion€simply€because€the€trial€court€chose€an€alternativeÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€appellate€courts€would€not€have€chosen.Ð l¼ ÐÌà « àDiscretionary€decisions€require€conscientious€judgment.€€They€must€takeÐ D!” Ðthe€applicable€law€into€account€and€must€also€be€consistent€with€the€facts€beforeÐ 0"€  Ðthe€court.€Appellate€courts€will€set€aside€a€discretionary€decision€only€when€theÐ #l! Ðtrial€court€has€misconstrued€or€misapplied€the€controlling€legal€principles€or€hasÐ $X" Ðacted€inconsistently€with€the€substantial€weight€of€the€evidence.€€Thus,€a€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourtððs€discretionary€decision€should€be€reviewed€to€determine:€(1)€whether€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfactual€basis€for€the€decision€is€supported€by€the€evidence,€(2)€whether€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€identified€and€applied€the€applicable€legal€principles,€and€(3)€whether€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€courtððs€decision€is€within€the€range€of€acceptable€alternatives.€€AppellateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourts€should€permit€a€discretionary€decision€to€stand€if€reasonable€judicial€mindsÐ )à$( Ðcan€differ€concerning€its€soundness.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÒž€ÒÐ h+¸&* ÐÒ°SÒÒ°žÒòòWhite€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€21€S.W.3d€215,€222„223€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(citations€omitted.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àWe€begin€with€a€review€of€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„203,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒž°Òà ` àIn€actions€or€proceedings€by€or€against€executors,€administrators,€orÐ L œ Ðguardians,€in€which€judgments€may€be€rendered€for€or€against€them,€neither€partyÐ 8 ˆ Ðshall€be€allowed€to€testify€against€the€other€as€to€any€transaction€with€or€statementÐ $ t Ðby€the€testator,€intestate,€or€ward,€unless€called€to€testify€thereto€by€the€oppositeÐ  ` Ðparty.Ð ü L  ÐÒSÒÌÒ°SÒÒ°žÒà  àThe€Evans€concede€that€ð ðon€its€face€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute€would€seemingly€prohibit€PattyÐ Ô$  ÐEvans€from€testifying€against€Clyde€Fuller€about€their€prior€business€transactions,€since€Mr.€FullerÐ À  Ðis€now€dead.ðð€€However,€the€Evans€argue,€ð ðthe€reason€for€the€rule€(€Dead€Manððs€Statute)€simply€doesÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€apply€to€a€case€when€the€decedent€has€been€deposed€and€the€deposition€is€available€to€offer€toÐ ˜è  Ðthe€judge€or€the€jury€the€decedentððs€version€of€the€disputed€facts.ðð€€The€Evans€set€forth€three€reasonsÐ „Ô  Ðfor€their€assertion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€Mrs.€Evansðð€testimony€under€the€statute:€Ð pÀ ÐÌÒž°ÒÒS°Òà « àFirst€of€all,€the€Appellant€submits€that€the€discovery€deposition€of€FullerÐ H˜ Ðtaken€by€Evansðð€counsel,€was€completed€as€to€the€relevant€subjects€upon€whichÐ 4„ ÐMrs.€Evans€will€testify€to€at€trial.€€Secondly,€Fuller€and€his€counsel€were€moreÐ  p Ðaware€than€Evans€and€Evansðð€counsel€of€the€severity€of€any€illness€from€which€Mr.Ð  \ ÐFuller€was€suffering€and€Fuller,€through€counsel,€had€every€opportunity€to€take€anÐ øH Ðadditional€or€second€deposition€of€Fuller€in€order€to€preserve€Fullerððs€testimonyÐ ä4 Ðfor€trial€or€later€use.€€Finally,€the€court€seems€to€be€engaging€in€a€balancing€actÐ Ð  Ðwhen€she€determines€it€would€be€unfair€to€allow€use€of€Fullerððs€testimony€and€theÐ ¼  ÐAppellant€would€suggest€that€such€a€balancing€act€is€not€contemplated€by€the€DeadÐ ¨ø ÐManððs€Statute€or€by€the€case€law€which€has€interpreted€and€applied€the€DeadÐ ”ä ÐManððs€Statue.Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°žÒÒ°SÒà  àWe€do€not€agree€with€the€assertion€that€ð ðthe€deposition€was€completed€as€to€the€relevantÐ X ¨ Ðsubjects€upon€which€Mrs.€Evans€will€testify€to€at€trial.ðð€€It€cannot€be€known€what€additionalÐ D!” Ðinformation€regarding€contested€matters€might€have€been€elicited€from€Mr.€Fuller€under€crossÐ 0"€  Ðexamination€by€his€own€attorney.€€Pending€completion€of€the€deposition,€the€possibility€remainedÐ #l! Ðthat€Mr.€Fuller€might€clarify,€modify€or€even€recant€his€previous€testimony.€€The€trial€courtÐ $X" Ðdetermined€that€the€deposition€was€not€complete.€After€reviewing€€Mr.€Fullerððs€deposition€and€theÐ ô$D # Ðentire€record,€we€will€not€second„guess€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€incompletenessÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€deposition.€€Ð Ì&"% ЀÌà  àThe€statement€that€Mr.€Fuller€and€his€counsel€were€more€aware€than€were€the€Evans€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseverity€of€€Mr.€Fullerððs€condition€is€a€conclusory€statement€which€is€not€supported€by€reference€toÐ )à$( Ðthe€record.€€The€assertion€that€Mr.€Fuller€had€the€opportunity€to€give€an€additional€deposition€doesÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€belie€the€fact€that€the€deposition€as€taken€was€incomplete€and€it€is€the€Evans,€not€Mr.€FullerððsÐ h+¸&* Ðestate,€who€seek€to€have€Mrs.€Evansðð€testimony€allowed€at€trial€based€upon€Mr.€Fullerððs€deposition.Ð ° ÐAs€we€have€noted,€the€deposition€was€evidently€adjourned€at€the€behest€of€counsel€for€the€Evans€andÐ œì Ðhad€this€not€happened€it€is€possible€that€the€deposition€would€have€continued€to€completion.€€WeÐ ˆØ Ðbelieve€that€any€objection€based€upon€the€failure€to€take€advantage€of€an€opportunity€to€conclude€theÐ tÄ Ðdeposition€is€appropriately€raised€by€the€Fuller€Estate,€not€the€Evans.Ð `° ÐÌà  àLikewise€we€€find€no€basis€for€the€Evansðð€argument€that€the€€trial€court€erred€by€engaging€inÐ 8 ˆ Ða€ð ðbalancing€actðð€not€contemplated€by€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute€or€by€case€law€interpreting€thatÐ $ t Ðstatute.€€It€is€inevitable€that€a€trial€court€will€engage€in€a€ð ðbalancing€actðð€when€it€makes€aÐ  ` Ðdiscretionary€decision€such€as€the€one€the€trial€court€was€required€to€make€in€this€case.€€Furthermore,Ð ü L  Ðthe€Evans€fail€to€cite€any€authority€for€their€statement€that€case€law€interpreting€the€Dead€ManððsÐ è 8  ÐStatute€indicates€that€a€balancing€analysis€is€inappropriate€in€the€context€of€this€statute.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Evans€rely€upon€three€cases€in€which€it€was€held€that€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute€does€notÐ ¬ü  Ðpreclude€the€admission€of€testimony€when€the€deposition€of€the€decedent€is€in€evidence€„€òòBinghamÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Lavenderóó,€70€Tenn.€48€(Tenn.€1878);€òòMcDonald€v.€Allenóó,€67€Tenn.€446€(Tenn.€1874);€and€òòBernardÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Reavesóó,€178€S.W.2d€224€(Tenn.€App.€1943).€We€do€not€disagree€with€the€holding€in€these€cases,Ð pÀ Ðhowever,€in€none€of€these€cases€is€it€indicated€that€the€decedentððs€deposition€was€incomplete€as€inÐ \¬ Ðthe€case€now€before€us.€€The€incompleteness€of€€Mr.€Fullerððs€deposition€distinguishes€this€case€fromÐ H˜ Ðthe€cases€cited€by€the€Evans.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€òòBingham,€supra€Ô_ÔóóatÔ_Ô€pages€48„49,òò€óóthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€made€the€followingÐ  \ Ðobservation€with€respect€to€the€purpose€of€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute,€then€embodied€at€Acts€1869„70,Ð øH Ðchap.€78,€ðð2:Ð ä4 ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒThis€act€was€intended€to€give€to€parties€litigant€equal€rights,€that€all€in€interestÐ ¼  Ðshould€be€allowed€to€testify;€and€to€give€this€exact€equality€of€right,€it€providedÐ ¨ø Ðagainst€the€competency€of€the€living€against€the€dead€„€„€going€upon€the€theory€thatÐ ”ä Ðdeath€having€silenced€the€one,€the€law€should€silence€the€other;€that€both€orÐ €Ð Ðneither€must€be€able€and€competent€to€testify€in€contemplation€of€law;€that€if€oneÐ l¼ Ðtestified,€the€other€might€and€could.€€€€€€€€à  à€€€€à è à€€€€à @ àÐ X ¨ Ðà Ø àÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àWe€recognize€that€Tennessee€case€law€holds€that€the€Dead€Manððs€Statute€is€to€be€strictlyÐ 0"€  Ðconstrued€against€exclusion€of€testimony.€€òòHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Bldrs.,€Inc.óó,€546€S.W.2d€228Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976).€€However,€it€is€our€determination€that€Mr.€Fullerððs€incomplete€depositionÐ $X" Ðdoes€not€provide€his€estate€with€rights€equal€to€those€conferred€upon€the€Evans€should€Mrs.€EvansððÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€regarding€conversation€and€transactions€with€Mr.€Fuller€be€allowed.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€exclusion€of€Mrs.€Evansðð€testimony€regarding€transactions€and€conversations€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðproperly€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€We€find€that€there€was€a€factual€basis€for€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdecision€that€was€supported€by€the€evidence;€that€the€trial€court€identified€and€applied€the€applicableÐ )à$( Ðlegal€principles;€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€was€within€the€range€of€acceptable€alternatives.Ð |*Ì%) ÐTherefore,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€Mrs.€Evansðð€testimony.€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àÌà  àWe€further€note€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€March€9,€2004,€states€that€counsel€for€the€EvansÐ œì Ðacknowledges€that€this€ruling,€along€with€other€rulings€in€the€case,€prevents€the€Evans€from€offeringÐ ˆØ Ðany€proof€as€to€any€causes€of€action€asserted€in€their€counter„complaint€against€Mr.€Fuller€andÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€for€the€Evans€conceded€in€oral€argument€before€this€Court€that€our€affirmation€of€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourtððs€ruling€excluding€Mrs.€Evansðð€testimony€would€effectively€dispose€of€the€causes€of€actionÐ L œ Ðasserted€by€the€Evans€in€their€counter„complaint.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðdismissal€of€such€counter„complaint.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€remandedÐ ü L  Ðfor€action€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Samuel€and€Patty€EvansÐ è 8  Ðand€their€surety.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àSHARON€G.€LEE,€€JUDGEÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àÔ#†X±XXXý4%#ÔÔ#†¼N½»XX±#ÔÔ‡X±X»¼N½Ô