WPC bh lk5b[l$O`*#[m=ך߲%Lpw˓S5 O #K>wϴX|-ɴOv!pXz$0?NjgU*gΩ)ea;wJ OԣVAmqFyEȎyoõ펾뜌sQPwMD͞nrk5xɄo=OfXRma-yoE5>qB>n_)B~'Lx^_XMP/c`s6]MdY!9rk!gX9,bWrOKxkqNjD#aCP]z7Q2A@)H= VJŃ:E'^ȻȔo.5v#V/-ҲDOmB&<@˳gnvJN!J3#NdaLRr(+qNb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  Ng 0DiUNEb 0 B 0# D3 D- 0K'' ASr 0 0D/ AsrV+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK+C18Ǡ3|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.wptU HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  Rf$      1     _Theuseoftheword saidwasapparentlyintendedtoreferbacktotheaddressof 2676StanleyValleyRoad,  _Surgoinsville_,Tennesseefoundinthewillspreamble.Wereachthisconclusionbecause,ascanbeseen,nootherreal t propertyisreferredtointhebodyofthewillbeforetheuseoftheword said.Furthermore,thetestimonyattrial 8 indicatedthatthiswastheonlyrealpropertyownedbythedecedentatthetimeofherdeath.(#$  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular  - -(|G2f$ !.8d d 8         0  bP d(|3$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8d d8     _  q8x,XXdd 8  OY@ 0qINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#q0#Ԉ &   July13,2001Session L XNXq #qXXN#DENNISMAUKv.DEBRAPERRY,etal.XNXq  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHawkinsCounty  J @@No.PC3142ThomasR.Frierson,II,Chancellor  6 FILEDOCTOBER22,2001    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200100485COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Theplaintiffseeksajudicialdeclarationregardingtheproperinterpretationofawill.Thetrialcourt x  foundawillprovisionleaving realpropertyandcontentstothedecedentsson,theplaintiffDennis d Mauk,isnotambiguousandthattheword contentsincludesa27yearoldmobilehomeonthe P decedentsproperty.Thedecedentsotherfourchildrenappeal,contendingthewillisambiguous. < Theyarguethetrialcourterredinfailingtoconsiderparolevidenceastothemeaningofthesubject (x language.Theyfurthercontendthetrialcourterredinorderinga$6,000bequesttotheappellants d tobepaidintocourt,thusmakingitsubjecttothedebtsoftheestate.Wemodifythetrialcourts P judgmenttoprovidethattheshareofpersonalpropertybequeathedtoeachofthedecedentschildren < shouldbeburdenedwithonefifthofthedecedentsdebts.Inallotherrespects,thetrialcourts ( judgmentisaffirmed.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  AffirmedasModified;CaseRemanded     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich#qXNw#XNX.qHoustonM.Goddard, ` P.J.,andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined. L  DouglasT.Jenkins,Rogersville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,DebraPerry,DonnaBurchfield,Kim $"t! Richards,andGarnieMauk. #`" PhillipL.Boyd,Rogersville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DennisMauk,ExecutorofEstateofHelen $8 $ Mauk. %$!%   OPINION #qXXNa #XNXq '"' I. )$) #qXXNu #XNXq    Thedecedent,HelenMauk,diedtestateonMay20,1999.Herwillwaspreparedbyanon \+&+ lawyer,BettyLesterMauk,whowasrelatedtoherbymarriage.BettyLesterMaukhadworkedin H,', alawoffice.Aspertinenttotheissuesonthisappeal,thewillcontainsthefollowingprovisions: 4-(-   8 ` I,HELENMAUK,2676StanleyValleyRoad,Surgoinsville,  Tennessee,beingofsoundmindanddisposingmemory,andrealizing  theuncertaintyofthisfrailtransitorylife,doherebymake,publish  anddeclarethismyLastWillandTestament,herebydisposingofall t thepropertyofeverykind,realandpersonal,tangibleandintangible ` inexpectancyorexistence,whichIownormayhaverighttodispose L  ofbywill,herebyrevokinganyandallotherwillsand/orcodicils 8  madebymeatanytimeheretofore.$ t` x` x   8 ` FIRST:Idirectthatallmyjustdebts,includingfuneralexpenses,be  L  firstpaidfrommyestate; 8 ` x` x   8 ` SECOND:Ideviseandbequeathsaid #  1      ׀realpropertyandcontentsto   mysonDennisMaukforwhichheistopaythesumofSixThousand   Dollars($6,000.00)withinoneyearofmydeath; ` x` x   8 ` THIRD:TheSixThousandDollars($6,000.00)istobedivided p betweenmyotherchildren,KIMRICHARDS,GARNIEMAUK,Jr., \ DEBBIEPERRY,andDONNABURCHFIELD,toshareandshare H alike;4` x` x @%***  \   8 ` FIFTH:Iherebygive,deviseandbequeathtomybeloveddaughter, 4 DONNABURCHFIELD,myoakdinning[sic]roomsui[te]; ` x` x   8 ` SIXTH:Iherebygive,deviseandbequeathtomydaughter,KIM  RICHARDS,myantiquemaplebedroomsuit[e];` x` x @%*** l   8 ` EIGHTH:Iherebydirectthattheremainderofmypersonalproperty D! besoldandthemoneydividedbetweenmybelovedchildren, 0"  DENNISMAUK,KIMRICHARDS,DEBBIEPERRY,DONNA #l! BURCHFIELDandGARNIEMAUK,JR.,shareandsharealike;$X"` x` x Atthetimeofdecedent'sdeath,sheownedrealpropertyat2676StanleyValleyRoad,Surgoinsville, %0!$ Tennessee,onwhichwaslocatedamobilehomeandsomeoutbuildings.Shewasthemotheroffive &"% OY    children.Sheissurvivedbyherchildren,thefourappellantsandason,DennisMauk,herexecutor,  whofiledthissuitagainsthisfoursiblings.InthewordsoftheComplaint,DennisMaukseeksthe  followingrelief:    8 ` ThattheCourtenteradeclaratoryjudgmentdeterminingtheintentof ` theTestatrixastotheland;L ` x` x   8 ` ThattheCourtenteradeclaratoryjudgmentastowhetherthetrailer $ t shouldbeadevisepassingwiththelandorwhetheritpass[sic]tothe  ` residuaryclause. L ` x` x (NumberinginComplaintOmitted).Theplaintiffexecutorcontendsthewords realpropertyand $  contentsincludethemobilehome,which,thetestimonyindicated,hadbeenonthepropertyfor18   years;was sittingonblock;andwashookedtoasepticsystemandasourceofelectricity.The   appellants,ontheotherhand,arguethemobilehomeshouldbesoldandtheproceedsfromthesale   dividedamongthefivechildrenunderprovision EIGHTHofthewill.   @)II. \   Atthehearingbelow,thetrialcourtdetermined [t]hatthelastwillandtestamentofthe 4 decedentisclearandspeaksforitselfinthatitstatesrealpropertyandcontentswhich,therefore,  p includesthemobilehomedevisedandbequeathedtoplaintiff.Accordingly,thecourtheldthe  \ mobilehomewasthepropertyofDennisMauk,opiningthat thecontentsbeingthoseitemswithin H theperimeterboundariesofthatrealproperty. 4   Followingthefilingofaposttrialmotionbytheappellants,thetrialcourtsupplementedits   earlierdecree,asfollows:    8 ` The$6,000whichwastobepaidbythebeneficiaryofthereal  propertyandmobilehomeistobepaidintotheestateaccount.The l assetsoftheestate,includingthe$6,000,aretobedistributedtothe X  heirsinaccordancewiththetermsofthewillafterpaymentofalljust D! debtsoftheestate;...0" ` x` x   Theappellantsraisetwoissues.First,theycontendthatthewords realpropertyand $X" contentsareambiguousandthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoconsiderparolevidenceastotheir $D # meaning.Theyalsocontendthetrialcourterredinorderingthe$6,000bequesttobepaidintocourt, %0!$ thusmakingitsubjecttothedebtsoftheestate. &"%   Theissuesbeforeusonthisappealraisequestionsoflaw.Hence,ourreviewisdenovowith (#' nopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsjudgment. UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston,  )$( 854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993). |*%)  h+&* @vv(III.    Wearecalledupontoconstruethemeaningofthedecedentswill.See Presleyv.Hanks ,  782S.W.2d482,487(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)( constructionofawillisaquestionoflawforthe t court) Thecardinalruleinconstructionofallwillsisthatthecourtshallattempttodiscoverthe ` intentionofthetestatorandwillgiveeffecttoitunlessitcontravenessomeruleoflaworpublic L  policy. ThirdNat'lBankinNashvillev.FirstAm.Nat'lBankofNashville ,596S.W.2d824,828 8  (Tenn.1980).Ourinquiryissubjecttothefollowing: $ t   8 ` Theintentionofthetestatorcontrols,intheconstructionor  L  interpretationofhiswill,whichistobeascertainedfromthelanguage  8  ofthewill,everypartofwhichmustbeconsideredinrelationto $  everyotherpart,takingintoconsiderationthesituationofthetestator   andthefactsandcircumstancessurroundinghimatthetimethewill   wasexecuted,therelationsbetweenhimandhisintended   beneficiaries,andtheamountandnatureofhisestate.  ` x` x Treanorv.Treanor ,152S.W.2d1038,1040(Tenn.Ct.App.1941)(citationsomitted).Moreover, X whereawillhasbeendraftedbyanonlawyer,thecourt shouldconstruethelanguageofthewill D withliberalitytoeffectuatewhatappearstobethetestamentarypurpose. Davisv.Anthony ,384 0 S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.Ct.App.1964). l   Ordinarily,parolevidenceisinadmissibletoaddto,vary,orcontradictthelanguageused D inawill, Treanor ,152S.W.2dat1041,and [o]rdinarily,declarationsofatestatorareinadmissible 0 toaidintheconstructionofhis[orher]will,exceptinexplanationoflatentambiguities. Id .  #qXXN #XNXq@ll)IV.    Theappellantsurgeustofindthewilltobeambiguous.Suchafinding,theyargue,should | promptconsiderationofthetestimonyofBettyLesterMauk.ThelatterMs.Mauk,thepreparerof h thewill,testifiedthatthedecedent wantedthetrailersoldwithherpersonalpropertyandthatthe T  decedentsaid,atthetimesheexecutedthewillthat [s]hewantedDennistohavethelandonly. @! Whilethistestimonywaspresentedtothetrialcourt,therecordisclearthatthecourtdidnot ,"|  considerit,havingfoundthemeaningofthewords realpropertyandcontentstobeclear. #h!   Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecisiontolookonlytothelanguageofthewillforthe $@ # meaningofthewords realpropertyandcontents.Thisisbecauseanyambiguityinthewordsused %,!$ bythedecedentis [a]patentambiguity,forwhichextrinsicevidenceisnotadmissible. Estateof &"% Burchfielv.FirstUnitedMethodistChurchofSevierville ,933S.W.2d481,482(Tenn.Ct.App. '#& 1996).Apatentambiguityhasbeendefinedasone (#'   8 ` [p]roducedbytheuncertainty,contradictoriness,ordeficiencyofthe x*%) languageofaninstrument,sothatnodiscoveryoffacts,orproofof d+&* declarations,canrestorethedoubtfulorsmotheredsensewithout  addingideaswhichtheactualwordswillnotthemselvessustain...  ambiguitythatmayberemovedbyparolevidenceisnotadoubt  thrownupontheintentionofthepartyintheinstrumentbyextrinsic t prooftendingtoshowanintentiondifferentfromthatmanifestedby ` thewordsoftheinstrument.Itmustgrowoutofthequestionof L  identifyingthepersonorsubjectmentionedintheinstrument.8 ` x` x  Id .at48283(quoting Weatherheadv.Sewell ,28Tenn.(9Humph.)272,295(1848)). Extrinsic  ` evidenceisnotadmissibletoexplain[atestators]useoflanguage. EstateofBurchfiel ,933  L  S.W.2dat483.Anyambiguityinthewillnowbeforeusispatentinnature.Thetrialcourtdidnot  8  errinrefusingtoconsiderthetestimonyofBettyLesterMauk,whichtestimonywasobviously $  offered toexplain[thedecedents]useoflanguage. Id .   @)V.     Thedeclaratoryjudgmentactionfiledbytheplaintifffocusedthetrialcourtsattentionon p themeaningoftheword contents.Whileacknowledgingthatthelanguageemployedbythe \ decedentwasa uniquewayofphrasing,theattorneyfortheplaintiffurgedthecourttofindthat H theword contentsincludedthemobilehomewithinitsambit. 4     Contentshasbeendefinedasfollows:  \   8 ` content ...n... 1. often contents .Somethingcontainedinareceptacle 4 ...$` x` x WebstersIINewRiversideUniversityDictionary304(1994)(italicsandboldinoriginal).#qXXN.#XNXqThelaw  teachesthatwearetointerpretawillusingtheordinaryandusualmeaningofthewordsatissue.   Moseleyv.Goodman ,138Tenn.1,1516,195S.W.590,593(1917).However,whenawillis  preparedbyanonlawyer,wemustconstruethelanguagewith liberalitysoasto effectuatewhat p appearstobethetestamentarypurpose. Davis ,384S.W.2dat62. \    Wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyinterpretedthemeaningofthewords real 4"  propertyandcontentstoincludethemobilehome.Ithadbeenonthedecedentslandfor18years.  #p! Itwasmoreorlesspermanentlyaffixedtotheground.Itiseitherapartofthe realpropertyorit  $\" is contentswithintheboundariesoftherealproperty.Ineithereventitisincludedinthelanguage $H #  realpropertyandcontents.Thetrialcourtwascorrectinsoholding. %4!$ @ll)VI. ' #&   Thesecondissueraisedbytheappellantsisthatthetrialcourterredindirectingthatthe )$( $6,000bequeathedtotheappellantsshouldbepaidintocourtandutilizedforthepaymentofthe *%) debtsoftheestate.Webelievethiswaserror.Wefindthatthetestator,inrequiringDennisMauk l+&* topay$6,000inconnectionwiththebequesttohimofthe realpropertyandcontents,intendedfor  thesefundstogotothefourappellantstoachievesomemeasureofequalityamongherfivechildren.  Inotherwords,DennisMaukgets therealpropertyandcontents!effectivelyreducedinvalueto  himbythepaymentofthe$6,000!andeachoftheotherchildrenget$1,500.Thisdesirefor t equalitycanalsobeseenintheeighthprovisionofthewillwhereinthetestatorlefttheresiduaryof ` herestatetoherfivechildren.Inviewofthis,wefindthatthetotalshareofpersonalpropertyleft L  toeachofthechildren!beitbywayofaspecificbequestorbyvirtueoftheresiduaryclause! 8  shouldbeburdenedwithonefifthofthedebtsoftheestate. $ t #qXXN=#XNXq@MM(VII.  L    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtismodifiedtoprovidethattheshareofpersonalproperty $  bequeathedtoeachofthefivechildrenshouldbeburdenedwithonefifthofthedecedentsdebts.   Inallotherrespects,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedonefifthto   eachofthefivechildren.Thiscaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.   #qXXNG#XNXq   `     h     _______________________________ 4    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE