ÿWPCu 1# ¾U DÉ %  0( 0”;4Ïãòw@ú 0D: 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ 0@¿ D3ÿ B)2 DC[ AMž Bë U* 2 AQ9 ÆŠ 0DP 0D” D/Ø Bv~$vÓ¢˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóB\J#3|x i/j/k—elmnoÓ€{|(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌœ______________________________________________________________________________›ÌÌIN€RE:à àà àà àà àà àà àHenderson€Chancery€No.€8960€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€œ02A01„9611„CH„00270›ÌJEWELL€MANESS,ÌÌà àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€Joe€C.€Morris,€Chancellor̜ـ*ÙßR€%($A1-j|ºú` Å `€€@ÿRß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌESTATE€OF€ACIE€LEE€MANESS,ÌDeceased;€JAMES€LEE€MANESS,ÌWILLIE€MANESS€&€EDWARD€MANESS,ÌÌà àDefendants.ÌÌTHOMAS€ANDERSON,€Lexington,€Attorney€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌSTEPHEN€MILAM,€Lexington,€Attorney€for€Defendants.ÌÌò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àMrs.€Jewell€Maness€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€as€administratrix€of€the€estate€ofÏAcie€Lee€Maness,€her€deceased€husband,€filed€a€petition€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Henderson€County€seeking€to€set€aside€or€void€a€fraudulentÏconveyance.€€Named€defendants€were€the€estate,€along€with€James€LeeÍManess,€Willie€Maness€and€Edward€Maness,€the€three€sons€of€plaintiffððsÏdeceased€husband,€who€were€the€grantees€under€a€warranty€deed€executedÏby€Acie€Lee€Maness€during€his€life„€time.€€Plaintiffððs€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€was€overruled,€whereupon€the€case€went€to€trial.€€Following€aÏhearing,€the€chancellor€dismissed€plaintiffððs€petition.€€On€appeal€the€soleÏissue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€or€not€the€chancellor€erred€inÏdismissing€plaintiffððs€petition.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€err.€€Accordingly€we€reverse€and€remand.Ìà àMost€if€not€all€of€the€material€facts€are€undisputed.€€Plaintiff€andÏAcie€Lee€Maness€were€married€in€February€1975.€€They€remained€marriedÏuntil€his€death€in€August€1993.€€At€the€time€of€the€marriage€her€deceasedÏhusband€was€the€owner€of€a€farm,€containing€approximately€330€acres,Ïlocated€in€Henderson€County,€on€which€he€and€his€three€sons€by€a€previousÏmarriage€kept€their€individual€herds€of€cattle.€€This€farm€is€the€realÏestate€that€is€the€subject€of€this€litigation.Ô€Ô€During€the€time€that€theyÏwere€married€both€parties€worked€outside€the€home.€€Plaintiff€wasÏemployed€at€Brown€Shoe€and€Magnetek€and€her€late€husband€was€employedÏby€the€City€of€Lexington.€€The€partiesðð€enjoyed€generally€a€goodÏrelationship€during€their€marriage.€€The€only€differences€of€any€substanceÏarose€from€how€their€respective€incomes€were€to€be€spent.€€As€a€generalÏruleÔ€Ô€plaintiff€spent€her€money€on€the€household€bills,€utilities,€groceriesÍand€the€like€and€as€a€general€rule€Acie€Lee€Maness€spent€his€money€on€theÏfarm€for€such€items€as€buying€farm€equipment,€cattle,€sowing€pastures,Ïfeeding€the€cattle€and€making€improvements€on€the€farm€such€as€fencing,Ïdozer€work€and€the€building€of€a€catfish€lake.Ìà àThe€farm€was€mortgaged€for€almost€the€entire€period€of€time€theÏparties€were€married.€€During€the€period€of€their€marriage,€Acie€LeeÏÑ7€#XXdðXXdð7ÑManess€made€regular€payments€of€principal€and€interest€on€the€noteÏsecured€by€the€mortgage.€€In€point€of€fact,€plaintiff€testified€that€herÏhusband€refused€to€pay€any€of€the€household€expenses€because€heÏcontended€that€all€of€his€income€was€needed€to€pay€the€farm€expenses.€ÏAcie€Lee€Maness€paid€off€the€mortgage€in€the€fall€of€1992.Ô€ÔÌà àAcie€Lee€Maness€acquired€this€farm€in€separate€parcels€prior€to€theirÏmarriage.€€A€portion€of€the€farm€had€been€inherited€by€him€from€membersÏof€his€family.€€Other€parts€of€the€farm€were€purchased€by€him€fromÔ€Ô€eitherÏrelatives€or€a€neighbor.€€The€record€reflects€that€Acie€Lee€Maness€spentÏmuch€of€his€free€time€on€the€farm.€€Most€of€the€time€he€maintained€a€herdÏof€cattle€on€the€farm,€amounting€to€50€or€more€head.€€In€addition,€each€ofÏhis€sons€kept€a€small€number€of€cattle€on€the€farm€as€well.€€From€time€toÏtime€each€of€the€sons€would€assist€their€father€in€doing€some€of€the€farmÏmaintenance.€€Ìà àIt€was€acknowledged€that€Acie€Lee€Maness€was€in€charge€of€theÏoperation€of€the€farm€and€was€responsible€for€paying€the€property€taxes€onÏit.€€James€and€Edward€Maness€on€a€few€occasions€gave€their€father€$100€toÏbe€applied€to€the€property€taxes.€€At€different€times€during€his€ownershipÏof€the€farm€Acie€Lee€Maness€deeded€each€of€his€sons€an€approximate€eightÏ(8)€acre€parcel€of€land€at€the€edge€of€the€farm.€€Two€of€the€sons€testifiedÏthat€their€father€had€promised€them€since€they€were€young€children€thatÏthey€would€have€the€farm€some€day.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€testified€that€approximately€two€weeks€prior€to€herÏhusbandððs€death€Acie€Lee€Maness€told€her€that€she€was€to€receive€a€childððsÏpart€of€the€farm€and€requested€that€she€arrange€for€an€attorney€to€come€toÏtheir€home€to€ð ðfix€the€farm€up.ðð€€She€stated€that€he€never€regained€enoughÏphysical€strength€however€to€bring€this€about.€€She€further€testified€thatÏAcie€Lee€Maness€told€her€that€if€his€sons€got€the€farm€that€they€wouldÏhave€to€pay€for€it.€€Ìà àThe€record€is€uncontradicted€that€at€no€time€during€the€marriage€ofÏthe€parties€and€prior€to€the€death€of€Acie€Lee€Maness€did€plaintiff€have€anyÏknowledge€of€the€existence€of€a€warranty€deed€by€which€Acie€Lee€ManessÏhad€transferred€title€to€the€farm€in€question.€€Acie€Lee€Maness€died€on€orÏabout€August€19,€1993.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€on€Sunday€afterÔ€Ônoon€orÍMonday€following€the€burial€of€her€husband€on€Saturday€Edward€ManessÏtold€her€about€the€deed.€€She€was€directed€to€the€Registerððs€Office€ofÏHenderson€County,€where€she€discovered€that€a€warranty€deed€signed€byÏher€late€husband€and€datedÔ€Ô€June€14,€1984€had€been€recorded€on€August€24,Ï1993.€€€The€deed€conveyed€title€to€his€three€sons,€subject€to€a€life€estateÏbeing€retained€by€Acie€Lee€Maness.€€This€was€the€first€knowledge€plaintiffÏhad€that€the€farm€in€question€was€not€a€part€of€Acie€Lee€Manessðð€estate.€Ìà àThe€origin€of€the€warranty€deed€in€question€was€supplied€by€theÏtestimony€of€Steve€Beal,€a€local€attorney€who€prepared€the€deed,Ïsubmitted€by€affidavit,€as€well€as€the€affidavit€and€live€testimony€ofÏBelinda€Maness,€the€wife€of€Willie€Maness€and€a€certified€court€reporter€inÏthis€area€for€many€years.€€She€testified€that€Acie€Lee€Maness€contactedÏher€and€requested€that€she€recommend€a€good€attorney€to€draw€up€theÏdeed,€whereupon€she€advised€him€that€any€attorney€in€town€couldÏaccomplish€this.€€Some€time€thereafter,€Steve€Beal€contacted€her€andÏrequested€that€she€get€two€persons€to€witness€the€execution€of€a€deed€byÏAcie€Lee€Maness.€€Thereafter,€she,€Acie€Lee€Maness€and€his€attorney€met€atÏthe€home€of€friends€of€hers,€Mike€and€Sandra€Jones,€where€Mr.€ManessÏexecuted€the€deed€conveying€the€farm€to€his€three€sons.€€TheÏacknowledgment€of€the€execution€of€the€deed€was€taken€by€attorney€Beal.€ÍThere€were€no€signatures€of€either€Mr.€or€Mrs.€Jones€identifying€them€asÏwitnesses€to€this€transaction.€Ìà àLater€that€afternoon,€according€to€Belinda€Maness,€Acie€Lee€ManessÏcame€to€her€home.€€After€Willie€Maness,€her€husband,€arrived,€Acie€LeeÏManess€presented€the€deed€to€Willie€Maness€with€specific€instructionsÏthat€he,€Acie€Lee€Maness,€did€not€want€anyone€to€know€about€it.€€ThereuponÏWillie€Maness€gave€the€deed€to€Belinda€Maness€and€instructed€her€to€ð ðtakeÏthis€and€put€it€in€the€lock€boxðð,€which€she€did,€and€there€the€deed€remainedÏuntil€after€the€death€of€Acie€Lee€Maness.€€Ìà àBoth€Ed€Maness€and€James€Maness€testified€that€the€first€knowledgeÏthat€each€of€them€had€about€the€deed€to€their€fatherððs€farm€was€afterÏtheir€fatherððs€death.€€Belinda€Maness€testified€that€the€deed€was€neverÏdiscussed€in€the€presence€of€the€plaintiff€and€that€she€was€the€one€whoÏretrieved€the€deed€from€the€lock€box€following€the€death€of€Acie€LeeÏManess.€Ìà àPlaintiffððs€petition€to€set€aside€the€conveyance€as€being€fraudulentÏwas€filed€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðþÿð€31„1„105€which€reads€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àAny€conveyances€made€fraudulently€to€children€or€others,€withÏan€intent€to€defeat€the€surviving€spouse€of€his€distributive€orÍelective€share,€is€voidable€at€the€election€of€the€survivingÏspouse.ÌÌÌÓÓCases€which€have€previouslyÔ€Ô€dealt€with€this€issue€make€it€clear€that€theÏgravamen€of€this€action€is€whether€or€not€the€husband€intended€to€practiceÏfraud€on€his€wife.€€In€òòFinley€v.€Finleyóó,€726€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€App.€1986)€theÏeastern€section€of€this€court€set€forth€the€following€factors€which€wereÏto€be€considered€in€determining€if€a€conveyance€had€been€made€withÏfraudulent€intent.€€These€factors€are:€(1)€the€consideration€given€for€theÏtransfer,€(2)€the€size€of€the€transfer€in€relation€to€the€deceasedððs€totalÏestate,€(3)€the€time€between€the€transfer€and€the€transferorððs€death,€(4)Ïthe€relations€which€existed€between€the€spouses€at€the€time€of€theÏtransfer,€(5)€the€source€from€which€the€property€came,€(6)€whether€theÏtransfer€was€illusory,€and€(7)€whether€the€surviving€spouse€wasÏadequately€provided€for€in€the€will.€€òòFinleyóó,€726€S.W.2d€at€924.Ìà àIn€òòWarren€v.€Comptonóó,€626€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€App.€1981),€an€earlierÏcase€from€the€eastern€section€of€this€court€that€dealt€with€the€sameÏissue,€the€court€stated:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àHowever,€we€do€not€limit€our€considerations€to€those€factorsÏalone.€€Circumstances€which€establish€fraudulent€intent€are€asÏvaried€as€the€ingenuity€of€the€human€mind€may€devise.€€AllÏfacts€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€transfer€must€beÍconsidered.€€òòWarrenóó,€626€S.W.2d€at€17.ÌÌÌÓÓà àFurthermore,€as€stated€by€this€court€in€òòSherrill€v.€Mallicoteóó,€417ÏS.W.2d€798,€57€Tenn.€App.€241€(Tenn.€App.€1967):€ð ðIn€cases€of€this€typeÏthere€can€be€no€fixed€rule€of€determining€when€a€transfer€or€gift€isÏfraudulent€to€a€wife;€each€case€must€be€determined€on€its€own€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€802.Ìà àFollowing€the€trial€below,€the€chancellor€wrote€a€letter€to€counselÏfor€the€parties€in€which€he€set€forth€his€reasons€for€ruling€that€theÏconveyance€by€the€decedent€was€not€a€fraudulent€transfer.€€He€noted€thatÏthe€following€ð ðfactsðð€served€to€negate€a€fraudulent€intent:€(a)€TheÏtransfer€of€the€property€took€place€ten€years€before€the€death€of€Mr.ÏManess;€(b)€the€relationship€between€Mr.€Maness€and€Mrs.€Maness€over€theÏyears€had€been€a€ð ðgood€oneðð;€œ(c)€the›€farm€was€ancestral€property€and€hadÏbeen€owned€by€Mr.€Maness€before€the€marriage;€and€(d)€the€fact€that€Mr.ÏManess€and€his€three€sons€had€worked€the€farm€openly€and€continuously€forÏyears,€with€each€one€of€them€contributing€time,€labor€and€income€for€theÏupkeep€of€the€property.€€As€to€this€factor€the€court€concluded€that€thisÏwas€valuable€consideration.Ìà àIn€our€review€of€the€record,€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÍthree€of€the€four€findings€of€fact€by€the€chancellor,€the€exception€beingÏthat€the€relationship€between€husband€and€wife.€€This€factor€is€inÏequipoise,€in€our€opinion.€Ìà àAs€to€the€chancellorððs€first€finding,€just€because€the€transfer€tookÏplace€ten€(10)€years€before€Mr.€Manessðð€death€does€not€mean€it€wasnððt€aÏfraudulent€transfer.€€As€to€the€farm€being€ancestral€property,€the€proof€isÏto€the€effect€that€only€a€small€portion€of€the€farm€was€actually€inheritedÏancestral€property.€€Lastly,€the€sons€testified€that€the€only€considerationÏgiven€for€the€transfer€was€$10€paid€to€their€father€by€Willie€Maness,€andÏthat€they€considered€the€labor€by€them€and€expenditures€made€by€them€inÏrelation€to€the€farm€as€rent€to€their€father€for€permitting€them€to€raiseÏtheir€cattle€on€their€fatherððs€farm.€€Ìà àIn€our€opinion€not€only€does€the€evidence€preponderate€against€theÏconclusion€reached€by€the€chancellor,€but€preponderates€in€favor€of€ourÏconclusion€that€the€transfer€was€a€fraudulent€one.€€First€of€all,€theÏtransfer€of€the€farm€to€the€sons€under€the€circumstances€was€withoutÏconsideration€and€without€the€consent€of€his€wife.€€Secondly,€the€size€ofÏthe€transfer€was€substantial€in€relation€to€the€total€assets€of€Mr.€Maness.€ÏExcluding€the€farm,€the€uncontradicted€testimony€is€that€as€to€the€balanceÏof€their€combined€estate,€the€personal€property€had€a€value€of€$67,000€andÍthe€non„farm€real€estate€$25,000.€€Plaintiff€valued€the€farm€propertyÏtransferred€at€$800€an€acre€or€$266,400.€€Willie€Maness€testified€that€theÏfarm€land€was€worth€$300€to€$400€per€acre,€and€no€more€than€$133,200.€ÏWith€either€valuation,€the€farm€is€a€substantial€portion€of€the€estate.Ô€Ô€Ìà àBy€far€and€away€the€most€compelling€reason€for€holding€that€Mr.ÏManess€transferred€this€property€with€a€fraudulent€intent€was€the€cloak€ofÏsecrecy€under€which€the€transfer€was€made.€€After€employing€an€attorneyÏto€prepare€the€deed€Mr.€Maness€through€his€attorney€requested€a€daughter„in„law€to€find€two€persons€to€ð ðwitnessðð€the€execution€of€the€deed.€€SheÏdid€so€by€arranging€a€meeting€at€the€friendsðð€home,€where€the€deed€wasÏsigned€by€Mr.€Maness€in€their€presence€and€notarized€by€the€attorney.€€TheÏarranging€for€the€execution€of€a€warranty€deed€before€third„partyÏwitnesses€is€in€essence€a€nullity€and€adds€to€the€mystery.€€Ìà àThe€desire€for€secrecy€by€Mr.€Maness€and€his€intent€to€insure€that€hisÏwife€knew€nothing€about€this€transaction€is€further€spelled€out€by€hisÏpresenting€the€deed€after€execution€to€his€son€Willie,€with€a€specificÏadmonition€that€no€one€was€to€be€told€about€this€deed€(including€his€otherÏtwo€sons)€and€Willieððs€instruction€to€his€wife€that€she€place€the€deed€inÏtheir€lock€box,€which€she€did.€€There€it€remained€until€some€four€or€fiveÏdays€after€the€death€of€Mr.€Maness€nine€years€later,€when€it€was€recorded.€ÍÔ€ÔOnly€then€was€plaintiff€advised€about€the€existence€of€this€document€andÏits€effect€upon€her€life.€Ìà àWe€reverse€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€hold€that€thisÏconveyance€by€Acie€Lee€Maness€was€a€fraudulent€conveyance€insofar€as€hisÏspouse,€the€plaintiff,€was€concerned.€€It€is€hereby€set€aside€and€declaredÏvoid.€€As€a€result€thereof,€the€property€sought€to€be€conveyed€becomes€aÏpart€of€Acie€Lee€Manessðð€estate.Ìà àThere€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€indicate€whether€Acie€Lee€ManessÏdied€testate€or€intestate.€€While€it€would€appear€that€he€died€without€aÏwill,€this€court€is€certain€that€the€status€of€his€estate€will€be€made€clearÏto€the€trial€court€upon€remand.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Henderson€County€for€the€determination€of€what€plaintiffððsÏmarital€rights€are€and€what€her€Ìdistributive€share€of€the€estate€as€the€surviving€widow€would€amount€to.€ÏCosts€in€this€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€defendants,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.€€€€€€€€(CONCURS)ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌÌÌ