WPC>= eewsiNFmc{6y+w A]%|ݸp~{M2L4|R/x505#Oe.jF˹"f3ap53uC! n^NP|$6+mV` Hl^t_<>Y휱+D@'ǃ̄0Ҕ3P@v1TpwM( 6?bh`ޔ.)M/tN1JwWv2=,'/=p 5OY©ٝ_Ќ6aTe:`G}EIQ=_tbb %\^ b 0nU NwD4H\ zk m # % J 0 DNZ*vEN !..A166666666666666666b181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818 0 98989898 B$9$9 0A9 D59 D-: 0KG:G: AS:: 0; 0DO< A<U[1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1: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.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0  RG0$      5    _Inthisorder,thetrialcourtalsodirectedtheAdministratortodistributetheremainingseventy(70%)percent  oftheestate,retainingfundsnotlessthanthetotalof(1)30%oftheestate,(2)theestimatedexpensesofadministration, t (3)anyobligationsstemmingfromtaxes,costsandlitigationexpenses,and(4)anyotherdebtsoftheestate. 8 ЁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   P RG0$      3    _TheentitiesweretheFirstUnitedMethodistChurchofBullsGap;theCityofBullsGap;_Tieke_Ԅ_McCullough_  Cemetery,forupkeepofthecemetery;ThompsonCancerCenter;theUniversityofTennessee;theMasonicLodge;the t EasternStarLodge;andtheUnitedWayor anyworthy[_c]harity_Ԁ[_f]und_.  RG0$      7    _The antilapsestatute,codifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.323105(2001),prevents,undercertain  circumstances,agiftfromlapsingwhenthedeviseeorlegateepredeceasesthetestator.Thestatuteprovidesasfollows: t     8 ` Wheneverthedeviseeorlegateeoranymemberofaclasstowhichanimmediate L deviseorbequestismade,diesbeforethetestator,orisdeadatthemakingofthe  will,leavingissuewhichsurvivesthetestator,theissueshalltaketheestateor  interestdevisedorbequeathedwhichthedeviseeorlegateeorthememberofthe H  class,asthecasemaybe,wouldhavetaken,hadthatpersonsurvivedthetestator,  \ unlessadifferentdispositionthereofismadeorrequiredbythewill. ` x` x Tenn.Code.Ann323105(a)(emphasisadded). Issuecontemplatesdirectdescendantsofthedeceaseddeviseeor X   legatee. SeeWhitev.Kane ,159S.W.2d92,94(Tenn.1942).Sincethedeceasedbeneficiariesintheinstantcaseleft  l  nosuchissue,thetrialcourtfoundthatthecommonlawgovernsandtheantilapsestatuteisnotimplicated.Theparties  2  donotcontestthetrialcourtsholdingonthispoint.   D RG0$      4    _Tenn.R.App.P.9(a)provides,inrelevantpart,asfollows:    8 ` [_A]n_Ԁappealbypermissionmaybetakenfromaninterlocutoryorderofatrialcourt 8 fromwhichanappealliestotheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppealsorCourtof L CriminalAppealsonlyuponapplicationandinthediscretionofthetrialand  appellatecourt.  RG0$      8    _Thewillprovided,inrelevantpart,that Iherebywill,devise,andbequeathfiftypercentofalltherest,residue  andremainderofmyestate... Davis ,384S.W.2dat61.Althoughthelanguageemployed! alltherest,residueand t remainder!issometimesusedtosignalaresiduaryclause,thecourtinthecitedcaseinterpretedittosimplymeanthat : thetestatorswifewouldreceivefiftypercentoftheestateafterthepaymentofdebtsandfuneralexpenses. Id. at63. N   RG0$      2    _AlthoughtheUniversityofTennesseesstatusonthisappealisthatofanappellee,itsupportsthe  Administratorspositionthattheconclusionreachedbythetrialcourtisinerror,andthat,consequently,thelapsedgifts t shouldbedistributedprorataamongtheremainingresiduarybeneficiaries. RG0$      10    _Inadditiontocitingtherulesetforthin Ford ,the Davis courtmadenoteofaprovisionofAmerican  Jurisprudenceinsupportofitsholdingthatalapsedgifttoaresiduarybeneficiaryshouldbedistributedtothetestators v heirsatlaw. Davis ,384S.W.2dat63.Thatprovisionprovides,inrelevantpart,asfollows: :   8 ` Itis,ofcourse,clearthatifaresiduarygifttoasinglebeneficiarylapsesorbecomes  ineffective,thesubjectmatterthereofwillpasstothetestatorsheirsasintestate  property,andinmostcasesunderaresiduarygifttoseveralpersons_nominatim_,or L  incommon,andnotasaclass,alapsedportionoftheresiduarydeviseorlegacy  ` doesnot,intheabsenceofstatute,inuretothebenefitoftheotherresiduary  $ deviseesorlegatees,unlesstheintentionofthetestatortothateffectclearly    appears;...\  ` x` x 57_Am.Jur_.Wills1453(1948)(citationsomitted).However,theUniversitydirectsourattentiontoanotherportion  4  ofthisprovision,whichreads,inrelevantpart,asfollows:     8 ` Theprinciple[thatalapsedportionoftheresiduarypassesbyintestacy]hasevoked 0  considerabledissatisfaction,evenamongthosecourtswhichrecognizeandfollow D  it,andinafewjurisdictionsithasbeenchangedbystatute.Somecourts,inthe   absenceofanystatutorychange,haverefusedtoaccepttheruleand,instead,have |  adoptedtheviewthatinthecircumstancesoutlined,thelapsedportionofthe @ residuarygiftmustbeheldtopasstothesurvivingresiduarydonees.T` x` x  Id. (citationsomitted).Todemonstratethesubsequentchangesinthelaw,theUniversitycitesthecomparableprovision  inthemostrecentvolumeof_Am.Jur_.2d,whichprovidesasfollows: R   8 ` Iftheresidueisdevisedtotwoormorepersons,theshareofaresiduarydevisee *   thatfailsforanyreasonpassestotheotherresiduarydevisee,ortootherresiduary  deviseesinproportiontotheinterestofeachintheremainingpartoftheresidue. b Thus,whenabequesttoaresiduarylegateelapses,hisinterestpassestotheother &v residuarylegateesinproportiontotheirinterests. p :` x` x 80_Am.Jur_.2dWills1452(2002)(citationsomitted).Althoughothercourtsmaybemodifyingtheirtreatmentofthis r issue,wedeclinetodosoforthereasonsarticulatedherein.   RG0$      6    _Tenn.CodeAnn.323101providesasfollows:    8 ` Awillshallbeconstrued,inreferencetotherealandpersonalestatecomprisedin 8 it,tospeakandtakeeffectasifithadbeenexecutedimmediatelybeforethedeath L ofthetestator,andshallconveyalltherealestatebelongingtothetestator,orin  whichthetestatorhadanyinterestatthetestatorsdecease,unlessacontrary  intentionappearbyitswordsincontext.  RG0$      9    _ԀArecent_A.L.R._Ԁannotationdefinesthemajorityruleasfollows:    8 ` Itwouldseemtobeanotunreasonableviewthat,primafacie,byagiftofallhis 8 residuarypropertytodesignatedpersonsatestatorintendsthatwhateverassets L happentofallwithintheprovisionshallgotothosepersonsasbeingtheones  preferredbyhiminanyeventasagainstthewholeworld.Nevertheless,...therule  whichprevailsinmostjurisdictions,intheabsenceofstatuteordistinctlydisclosed H  intentionorjustifiedconstructionofthewilltothecontrary,isthatiftheinstrument  \ disposesofresiduarypropertyorfundstotwoormorepersonsandoneorsomeof   them...predeceasethetestator...thesharesaffecteddonotinuretotheother    _reisduary_Ԁbeneficiariesinaugmentationoftheirsharesbutonthecontrarypassas X   incaseofintestacy. h  l ` x` x   W.W.Allen,Annotation,DevolutionofLapsedPortionofaResiduaryEstate,36A.L.R.2d1117,2[a](2004). e  , RG0$      1    _Whenwediscuss,ingeneralterms,relevantprinciplesoflaw,wewillusethemaledesignationof testator.  Wedosoforeaseofreferenceonly.- -(|G2G0$ !.8Add8         0   d(|3$ !.8Add8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Add8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Add8     _  A8XXdd8  O @ J\AINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#AJ\#Ԉ &   May11,2004Session L XXA #AXX#ԀINRE:ESTATEOFMERLE_JEFFERS_Ԁ_MCFARLAND_XXA  J  AppealbyPermissionfromtheChanceryCourtforHawkinsCounty  J @@No.3554ThomasR._Frierson_,II,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200301833_COA_ԄR9CVFILEDOCTOBER27,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     WegrantedtheapplicationofStephenD._McFarland_Ԁ( theAdministrator)#AXX#XXA,theAdministrator x  _C.T.A._ԀoftheEstateofMerle_Jeffers_Ԁ_McFarland_Ԁ( theTestatrix),foraninterlocutoryappeal d pursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.9,toanswerthequestionofwhetheragiftofapercentageofthe P residuary,whichlapseswhenthebeneficiarypredeceasesthetestator, #  1      ׀passestotheotherresiduary < beneficiariesortothetestatorsheirsatlaw.Thetrialcourtheldthat,insuchasituation,thebequest (x passestotheheirsatlaw.Weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtandremandforfurther d proceedings. P  Tenn.R.App.P.9AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed; ( CaseRemanded.     #AX#XX.ACharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._,  andWilliamH._Inman_,_Sr.J._,joined.  CharlesR.Terry,_Morristown_,Tennessee,andDouglasT.Jenkins,Rogersville,Tennessee,forthe ` appellant,StephenD._McFarland_,Administrator_C.T.A._ԀoftheEstateofMerle_Jeffers_Ԁ_McFarland_. L  GeneP.Gaby,_Greeneville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JamesCox. $"t! J.RobertWalker,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,theUniversityofTennessee. #  2       #L#   OPINION #AXX #XXA %$!%   &"& _I.  #AXXF#  XXA  OnNovember14,1994,theTestatrixexecutedaholographicwill.Inherwill,sheprovided,  ingeneralterms,asfollows:that$3,000beplacedintoacemeteryfunddesignatedfor(1)expenses t relatedtoherburialintheTiekeMcCulloughCemeteryand(2)theerectionofherheadstone;that ` anyexpensesincurredbyheratahospitalornursinghomebepaid;andthat [t]herestoftheestate L  bedividedintopercentagesharesassignedtoalistoftenpeopleandeightentities. #  3      ׀Threeofthe 8  individualsrecognizedfortheTestatrixslargessintheresiduaryclause!MinnisRankinJeffers, $ t WillieLeeJeffers,andMaryLouiseMcFarland(collectively, thedeceasedbeneficiaries)!  ` predeceasedtheTestatrix.Eachofthedeceasedbeneficiarieswastohavereceivedtenpercentof  L  theTestatrixsestateaftertheestablishmentofthecemeteryfundandthepaymentofoutstanding  8  hospitalandnursinghomebills. $    TheTestatrixdiedonOctober21,2001.TheAdministratorwasappointedbythetrialcourt,   andthewillwassubsequentlyadmittedtoprobate.OnJuly19,2002,theAdministratorfiledthis   suit,beingacomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgment.Heseeksdirectionastohowthegiftstothe   deceasedbeneficiariesshouldbedisposedof.Specifically,heaskedthetrialcourttodetermine p whetherthesharesoftheestatebequeathedtothedeceasedbeneficiariespasstotheotherresiduary \ beneficiariesprorata,orwhethertheTestatrixdiedintestateastothe30%lefttothedeceased H beneficiaries,therebyrequiringthatthis30%oftheestatewouldpasstotheTestatrixsheirsatlaw. 4 TheAdministratorarguesfortheformerposition.  p   ThetrialcourtmemorializeditsdecisioninamemorandumopinionfiledJanuary16,2003. H ThecourtheldthatthelapsedgiftsshouldbetreatedasiftheTestatrixdiedintestateastothat 4 portionofherestate.Consequently,thetrialcourtheldthat30%oftheresiduaryestatewouldpass   totheTestatrixsheirsatlawratherthanproratatotheotherbeneficiariesnamedintheresiduary   clause.ThetrialcourtenteredanordertothiseffectonApril8,2003,andtheAdministratorwas  instructedtoascertaintheidentityoftheTestatrixsheirsatlawfordistributionofthelapsedgifts.    TheAdministratorsoughtpermissionfromthetrialcourttofileaninterlocutoryappeal l pursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.9 #  4      .OnJuly8,2003,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingthemotion X   andcertifiedtheissueof whetherthe[c]ourterredinconcludingthatthirty(30%)percentofthe D! estateshouldbedistributedtotheheirsatlawof[theTestatrix].  #  5      ׀WegrantedtheAdministrators   applicationforaninterlocutoryappeal.WealsograntedthemotionoftheUniversityofTennessee  ( theUniversity),asanamedbeneficiaryintheresiduaryclause,tofileamemoranduminsupport  oftheAdministratorspositiononthisappeal. t @)II. L    Thesingularissueinthiscaseiswhether,asheldbythetrialcourt,theremaining30%ofthe $ t residuary,whichwasbequeathedtothedeceasedbeneficiaries,shouldbetreatedasiftheTestatrix  ` diedintestateastothisportionoftheresiduarysuchthatthe30%wouldpasstotheTestatrixsheirs  L  atlaw.Asthispresentsonlyaquestionoflaw,ourreviewistaken underapuredenovostandard  8  ofreview,accordingnodeferencetotheconclusionsoflawmadebythelowercourt[]. S. $  Constructors,Inc.v.LoudonCountyBd.ofEduc. ,58S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2001).     The cardinalruleregardingtheconstructionofawillisthatthecourtshall seekto   discovertheintentionofthetestatorandgiveeffecttoitunlessitcontravenessomeruleoflawor   publicpolicy. Presleyv.Hanks ,782S.W.2d482,487(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Theintentionisto p be ascertainedfromtheparticularwordsusedinthewillitself,fromthecontextinwhichthose \ wordsareused,andfromthegeneralscopeandpurposesofthewill,readinthelightofthe H surroundingandattendingcircumstances. Id. Thereisacommonlawpresumption,codifiedin 4 Tenn.CodeAnn.323101(2001) #  6      ,thatapersonwhocreatesawilldoesnotintendtodieintestate.  p  See  InreWalker ,849S.W.2d766,768(Tenn.1993).Yet,thatpresumptionisonly applicable  \ whenthewordsused,byanyfairinterpretation,willembracethepropertynototherwisedevised, H unlessacontraryintentionappearsfromthecontext. Id. (quoting McDonaldv.Ledford ,205S.W. 4 312,313(Tenn.1917)).Therefore,acourtshouldlookat thatwhich[thetestator]haswrittenin   thewillandnotwhatthetestator maybesupposedtohaveintendedtodo. Id. (quoting Nichols   v.Todd ,101S.W.2d486,490(Tenn.Ct.App.1936))(internalquotationmarksomitted).Asan  additionalconsideration,whereawillisdrafted,asintheinstantcase,bythetestator,andthetestator  wasneitherwellversedinthelawnoractingwithlegalassistance,thecourtshouldconstruethe  languageoftheinstrumentliberallysoastodiscernthetestamentarypurpose. Davisv.Anthony , l 384S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.Ct.App.1964).Itiswiththeseprinciplesinmindthatweturntothe X  narrowissueoflawbeforeus.  D! Ї@vv(III.    Commonlawdictatesthatalegacylapseswhenadeviseeorlegateediesduringthelifetime  ofthetestator,asisthecasebeforeus. #  7      ׀ Dixonv.Cooper ,12S.W.445,446(Tenn.1889).The t generalpropositionisthatwhenaspecificlegacyordeviselapses,thebequestpassesunderthe ` residuaryclauseinthewill. Milliganv.GreenevilleCollege ,2S.W.2d90,93(Tenn.1928). L  However,thislawtakesapeculiartwistwhenthatlegacyordeviseisnotaspecificbequest,but 8  ratherisonesetforthintheresiduaryclause.Thislattersituationwasfirstaddressedinthecaseof $ t  Fordv.Ford ,31Tenn.431(Tenn.1852). Ford wasfollowedinasubsequentcaseinwhichtherule  ` wasstatedasfollows:  L    8 ` [W]herethegiftwhichfailsofconsummationiswithinthetermsof $  theresiduaryclause,intheabsenceofstatuteorsomeotherprovision   ofthewill,itcannotbedividedamongtheotherresiduary   beneficiariesbutgoestotheheirsatlawofthetestator. ` x` x  Davis ,384S.W.2dat63(Tenn.Ct.App.1964).   p   Thesedivergentprinciples,andthemannerinwhichtheyareapplied,areclearlyillustrated H inthe Davis case.Inthatcase,thetestatorswillcontainedtwoprovisionsrelevanttothecourts 4 analysis:first,aprovisionleavingthetestatorswife50%ofhisestate,J  #  8      ׀andanotherprovisionsetting  p forthalistofnamedbeneficiariestowhomthetestatordevised theremainingfiftypercentof[his]  \ estate. Davis, 384S.W.2dat61.Asthewifediedsimultaneouslywiththetestator,thecourtheld, H pursuanttotherulethataresiduaryclausedisposesoflapsedorvoidlegacies,thatthetestators 4 bequesttohiswifepassedtothebeneficiariesintheresiduaryclause. Id. at63(citing Milligan ,2   S.W.2dat93).However,astooneofthebeneficiariescontainedintheresiduaryclausewho  predeceasedthetestator,hisgiftpassedtothetestatorsheirsatlaw. Id. Similarly,uponfindingin  theinstantcasethatthedeceasedbeneficiariesbequestwascontainedinaresiduaryclause,as  evincedbythelanguage, therestoftheestateIwishtobedividedtothefollowing,thetrialcourt t appliedtherulesetforthin Davis toholdthefollowing: `   8 ` [TheTestatrix]intendedtobequeathportionsofherestateto[the 8  deceasedbeneficiaries]ascomponentsofherresidualestate.With $ t respecttothelapsedlegaciesrelatingto[thedeceasedbeneficiaries],  ` asthesegiftsfailedofconsummationunderthetermsof[the  L  Testatrix]sresiduaryclause,therebeingnootherprovisionofthe  8  willtothecontrary,theportionof[theTestatrix]sestaterelatingto $  suchlapsedlegaciesmustbedividedamongherheirsatlawandnot   theremainingresiduarybeneficiaries. ` x` x Weconcurwiththetrialcourtsdecision.First,thelanguageemployed! therestoftheestate!   signalsaresiduaryclause.Courtshavefoundresiduaryclauseswheresimilarlanguagewas p employed. Seeid. at61,62(aphrasesuchas theremain[der]ofmyestatewouldconstitutea true \ residuaryclauseeveninlightoftheliberalconstructionaffordedtoawilldraftedbythetestator H himself).Therefore,sincethegiftstothedeceasedbeneficiariesareclearlycontainedinthe 4 residuaryclause,weadheretotheclearprecedentsetforthinthe Davis and Ford decisionsthat,  p whereabequestintheresiduaryclauselapseswhen,forinstance,thebeneficiarypredeceasesthe  \ testator,thatbequestpassestothetestatorsheirsatlawandnottotheotherresiduarybeneficiaries. H Ѐ  TheAdministratorandtheUniversityattempttoimpressuponusthecourtsobligationto   discerntheintentofthetestator,astheycontendintentcontrolsandshouldnotbedefeatedbythe  holdingsof Davis and Ford .Astheyargue,sincethewillaswrittencontainsacarefullyselected  listofpeopleandentitieswhoweretoreceiveportionsoftheTestatrixsestate,itfollowsthatshe  didnotdesireforherheirsatlawtoinheritanything.Theyurgeustodisregardtheholdingsof l  Davis and Ford andinsteadfindthattheTestatrixclearlyintendedthatonlythoseenumeratedinthe X  willwouldreceiveaportionofherestate.Consequently,sotheirargumentgoes,herfailureto D! accountforthedeathsofthethreebeneficiarieswithanalternativedispositiondemonstratesthatshe 0"  believedtheassetswouldbedividedequallyamongtheotherbeneficiaries. #l!   Asfurthersupportforthisargument,theAdministratorandtheUniversityseektodistinguish $D # the Ford and Davis cases,arguingthattheyappliedtherulemechanicallyand,particularlywith %0!$ respecttothe Davis case,failedtocontemplatethetestatorsintent.TheAdministratorandthe &"% University  directustothe Ford courtsdiscussionofthetestatorsintentinsupportoftheir '#& argumentthattheresultinthatcasewasbaseduponananalysisofthetestatorsintentandnoton (#' thesubjectrule. )$(   |*%)   The Ford caseconcernsarevocationofabequestbycodicil;thetestatorhadprovidedinhis   willthathisproperty notheretoforedevisedelsewhereinthewillwouldpassequallytohissix  children. Ford ,31Tenn.at433.However,whenoneofthedaughtersmarriedagainsthiswishes,  heincludedacodicilthatrevokedherlegacy. Id. Thecourtheldthattheportionoftheestate t assignedtothatdaughterlapsed,and,consequently,herlegacypassedtothetestatorsheirsatlaw ` andnottotheotherchildrencontainedintheresiduaryclause. Id. at436.Thecourtnotedthat L  uponrevokingonechildslegacy,itwouldbereasonabletosupposethatifthetestatorwantedto 8  enlargethelegaciesoftheotherfivechildren,hewouldhavedoneso;for,  asthecourtstated, itis $ t difficulttoseehowthefivechildrencouldhavehigherclaimsuponthebountyofthetestatorthan  ` hisremainingchild. Id. However,despitethisdiscussionofintent, itdoesnotappeartobethe  L  basisofthe Ford courtsdecision  .Thecourtin Ford notedthat [b]ethat,however,asitmay,itis  8  veryclearthattheshareof[thedaughter]isnotdisposedofbythewill,andthatitgoestothenext $  ofkin,asincaseofintestacy,forthisiscommensuratewiththe wellsettledrulesofconstruction   thatprovidethatwhere abequesttoseveralbeoftheresidue,anditfailastopartbyreasonof   lapse...suchpartcannotfallintotheremainingresidue,butwillbeundisposedofandgotothenext   ofkin. Id. at435,436.     The Davis courtdidnotdiscussthetestatorsintentionregardingthedisposalofthedeceased \ beneficiarysbequest.  Therulefollowedbythatcourtiswellestablishedinthejurisprudenceofthis H state,aswellasinotherjurisdictions. #  9      ׀  Weholdthatthecourtintheinstantcasefollowed 4 controllingprecedent.Withoutexplicitlanguageprovidinganalternativemethodfordisposingof  p thedeceasedbeneficiariesgifts,theprecedentbeforeusisclear:alapsedlegacycontainedina  \ residuaryclausepassestothetestatorsheirsatlaw. Ford ,31Tenn.at435.Thefactthatthecourt H in Ford foundfurthersupportforitsdecisionbylookingtothetestatorsintentdoesnotchangethe 4 factthatitrelieduponawellsettledruleoflaw.     Asanalternative,theUniversitysuggeststhatweabrogatetheholdingsofthe Davis and   Ford courts.Itarguesthattherulepronouncedinthosecasesdoesnotrepresenttheprevailingview  inmodernAmericanjurisprudence.Instead,theUniversitydirectsustothetreatisecitedbythe   courtin Davis anditscomparableprovisiontoday. #  10      ׀Regardlessofhowwemightbepersuadedby  thisargument,weareconfinedtotheprecedentbeforeus.SupremeCourtRule4providesthat   [o]pinionsreportedintheofficialreporter,...,shallbeconsideredcontrollingauthorityforall  purposesunlessanduntilsuchopinionisreversedormodifiedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction. t Sup.Ct.R.4(H)(2).Wefindthattheholdingof Ford anditssubsequentapplicationin Davis is ` wellestablished,controllingauthorityandconsequentlywedeclinetorevisittheholdingsofthose L  courts. Ford representsaproperinterpretationoftherule,whichhasnotbeenalteredinanyway 8  bysubsequentlegislation,and,althoughtheAdministratorcontendsthatthisisararelycitedrule, $ t hedoesnotciteanyTennesseeauthorityabrogatingtherule.Anypolicyargumentsrelativeto  ` changingtherulethatlapsedlegaciescontainedinaresidualclausepasstotheheirsatlawaremore  L  appropriatelyaddressedtothelegislativebranch,see Jonesv.Crumley ,No.E200301598COAR3  8  CV,2004WL2086330,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.E.S.,filedJune7,2004),ortheSupremeCourt. $      @ll)IV.    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurther  proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAdministrator.󀀀 t    `     h     _______________________________ $ t    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE