WPC .# U: % 0(b w@4Sgv 0J~ 0T 0^ 0hz 0r 0|T 0 0V 1u 0d[U *B) AQ c 0D) 0@m 0D DC D/4 Bc B D3 AM  v~0 vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - [[PӀ_#3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  7Border 1dd((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd!#%C << G  !  #d#  ""     YYY FILEDXApril15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(EG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .       X \RA'\7XXdd7      ӛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE X!ٜR*+%A1-j|/"`  `@Rߛ̜TOMMYNEALHOLT,Deceased  )      ) Plaintiff,    )      ) ̜VS.      )       )MARILYNKAYHOLLINGSWORTH ) ̜HOLT,     )       )       Defendant/ThirdPartyPlaintiff/ ) andCounterDefendant/  ) Appellee,    )      ) AppealNo.ELLIOTTNATHANHOLT,   ) 01A019707PB00314      ) ThirdPartyPlaintiffandCounter ) DavidsonProbate Defendant/Appellee,  ) No.89D1593      )̜VS.      )      )̜VICKIELEWIS,AdministratorAd  )LitemfortheEstateofSophiaHolt, )      ) ThirdPartyDefendantand ) CrossDefendant/Appellant )      )InRe:ProceedsofOldLineLife  )InsuranceCompanyofAmerica  )PolicyNumber1878593L   )̛̜@ APPEALEDFROMTHEPROBATECOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEFRANKG.CLEMENT,JUDGE̜FORAPPELLEES:     FORAPPELLANT:̜JOHNG.DOAK,SR.    JOHNL.WHITFIELD,JR.2525LebanonRoad    95WhiteBridgeRoadNashville,Tennessee37214   Nashville,Tennessee37205̛̜@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED̛̜̜       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.KOCH,J. @ OPINION X  Inamaritaldissolutionagreement,TommyNealHoltagreedtoprocurea$100,000lifeinsurancepolicyandnamehisexwifeasbeneficiary,toholdtheproceedsintrustfortheirminorchild.whenhesubsequentlyobtainedalifepolicy,henamedhismotherasbeneficiaryinstead.TheProbateCourtofDavidsonCountyorderedtheproceedspaidtotheexwifeastrustee.Weaffirm.@ I.   TommyNealHoltandMarilynKayHolthadonechild,ElliottNathanHolt,bornonJune27,1978.Theparentsdivorcedin1990andthedivorcecourtincorporatedtheirmaritaldissolutionagreementinthefinaldecree.Inadditiontogivingthewifeprimaryphysicalcustodyofthechildandsettingchildsupporttobepaidbythehusband,theagreementdividedthepropertyandapportionedthemaritaldebt.InsectionXIIoftheagreementthepartiesagreedasfollows:8 8  TheHusbandandWifeagreethattheHusbandshallmaintainandkeepinfullforceandeffectalifeinsurancepolicyintheamountofonehundredthousanddollars($100,000.00)tosecurehisobligationsforthepaymentofchildsupportandotherdebtsassetoutinthisAgreement.TheHusbandandWifeagreethatthepartieschild,ElliottNathanHolt,shallbenamedasthesoleandirrevocablebeneficiaryoftheHusbandsonehundredthousanddollars($100,000.00)lifeinsurancepolicyassetoutinthisAgreement.TheHusbandandWifeagreethattheWifewillbenamedasTrusteeforthebenefitofthepartiesminorchild.InhercapacityasTrustee,theWifeshallbe,andisherebyauthorizedanddirectedtousetheproceedstoprovidegenerallyforthechildshealth,educationandsupport.TheHusbandandWifefurtheragreethatanymoniesintheWifespossessionasTrusteeforthebenefitofthepartiesminorchildwillbegiventothepartiesminorchildatagetwentyfivewithallproceedsthatareremainingintrustforthebenefitofthechildtobepaidovertothechildatthechildstwentyfifthbirthday.  AtthetimeofthedivorceMr.Holtdidnothaveanylifeinsurance.In1992,whenheandhissonwerelivingwithhismother,heobtaineda$50,000policybutnamedhismotherasthebeneficiary.In1995,asoneofthebenefitsfurnishedbyanewemployer,Mr.Holtobtaineda$40,000policyandnamedhissonasthebeneficiary.WhenMr.HoltdiedonJanuary12,1996,theproceedsofthe$40,000policywerepaidtohisson,andtheyarenotpartofthiscontroversy.  MarilynKayHoltfiledacomplaintinthedivorcecourttoenforcethefinaldecree,andhavetheproceedsofthe$50,000policypaidtotheclerkofthecourtpendingafinalhearing.ThecomplaintnamedSophiaHolt,Mr.HoltsϜmother,andtheinsurancecompanyasdefendants.Theinsurancecompanyinterpleadthefundsandwasdismissedfromanyfurtherliability.  SophiaHoltdiedbeforeprocesscouldbeservedonher.SheleftawillinwhichshebequeathedallofherpropertytoVickieLewis.Ms.LewiswasnamedadministratoradlitemofSophiaHoltsestate,andmadeherappearanceinthiscase.Bothsidesfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment,andthetrialjudgeheldthatSophiaHolthadbeennamedbeneficiaryofthepolicytoholdtheproceedsfortheuseandbenefitofhergrandson,ElliottNathanHolt;thatTommyNealHoltintendedtosubstitutehismotherastrusteeinplaceofhisexwife.ThecourtthereforeorderedtheproceedspaidtoMarilynKayHolt,toholdthemandapplytheminaccordancewiththemaritaldissolutionagreement.@ II.   Itiswellsettledinthisstatethatanagreementwithinamaritaldissolutionagreement,tokeepanexistinginsurancepolicyinforcewiththeotherspouseasthebeneficiary,deprivesthepolicyowneroftherighttochangethebeneficiary.SeeGoodrichv.MassachusettsMutualLifeIns.Co.,240S.W.2d263(Tenn.App.1951).Thisresultisbasedonestoppelbyjudgmentoronatheorythatthebeneficiaryspouseacquiredavestedinterestintheproceedsofthepolicy.Id.at270.SeealsoBellv.Bell,896S.W.2d559(Tenn.App.1994);FirstNationalBankv.MutualBenefitLifeIns.Co.,732S.W.2d278(Tenn.App.1987);Herringtonv.Boatright,633S.W.2d781(Tenn.App.1982).  TheappellantreliesonanunreportedcasebytheEasternSectionofthiscourtwhichheldthatwherethepolicywasnotinexistenceatthetimeofthedivorce,theotherspousedidnotacquireavestedinterestinanyparticularpolicy.Brooksv.Brooks,No.03A019309CH00323,Knoxville,March3,1994(perm.toappealdeniedJuly11,1994).InBrooks,thecourtaffirmedthelowercourtsdeterminationthatthefirstwifedidnothaveaninterestinapolicythedeceasedobtainedafterthedivorce,inwhichhedesignatedhissecondwifeasthebeneficiary.WedistinguishedBrooksinthesubsequentcaseofMoorev.Moore,No.01A019603CH00139,Nashville,Sept.13,1996(perm.toappealgrantedJan.27,1997,dismissedFeb.10,1997),andheldthattheexwifedidobtainavestedinterestinapolicysubsequentlyacquiredwithherasthebeneficiary,butwhichhadbeenchangedatthetimeoftheinsuredsdeath.Wesaid, WeareoftheopinionthatplaintiffobtainedavestedinterestintheinsuranceproceedsonceMr.Moorecompliedwiththecourtsorder.Id.at*3.  Ofcourse,thiscaseisnotlikeeitherBrooksorMoore.ButtodismisstheappelleesclaimsolelyonthevestedrightstheorywouldignorethetheoryofestoppelonwhichtheGoodrichcourtalsorelied.Ifthedeceasedhadlivedhecouldhavebeencompelledtodesignatehisexwifeasthebeneficiaryunderthepolicy.Adoneebeneficiaryunderthesubsequentlyacquiredpolicystandsonnohighergroundthanhedid.Goodrich,240S.W.2dat270.Thisassumesthatthedesignatedbeneficiarydidnotacquireavestedinterestbaseduponavaluableconsideration.SeeFirstNationalBankv.MutualBenefitLifeIns.Co.,732S.W.2d278(Tenn.App.1987).  Theresultwereachinthiscaseisinlinewithseveralmaximsofequity,notablythat Equityconsidersdonethatwhichshouldhavebeendone.Applyingthatmaxim, Agreementsbasedonavaluableconsiderationare,inequity,considered,intheinterestsofthepersonentitledtotheirperformance,asperformed,andperformedatthetimewhen,andinthemannerinwhich,theyoughttohavebeenperformed.GibsonsSuitsinChancery,6thed.21.Whennootherrightsintervenetocutofftheequitableinterest,thecourtswillenforcetheequity.Wallacev.PPool,4Tenn.App.30(1926).  Wearesatisfiedthatthelowercourtsjudgmentshouldbeaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheProbateCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant.       ____________________________       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE   @