WPCH P7"n 33vI;@DQG*f|br+}Au afE8^3 n:G[/30@GJB>$:كۥGa_27i^쨤;_*nڷyWiʖtշ/ek&((F2_QTU 51 &@`8BuH.4J kk^X泟\dNjf|ƫ![7폗>ݯB KWpD,4e,Ev J2vA|XVމ-Ĩx8؁Af|ʼnbyjκvfp|عu(i0>";wc*m2}QoyDŽ)b֕p|6uߎq#2 @;(* ;Jﰼu&ғwα/ ]b#\ % 0# 0 U0NK U2N 1u z\  72 ^ w 4   PN%' m)E@B 0D 1V 72 0 crUN$rrsb==================================== 0EEEE B00 0M D3 D-$ 0KQQ AS 0 0DY AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) 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.wpti)sJ) ;)wpdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU RB$      1    _Mr._Biron_Ԁisnotapartytothisappeal.(#$  0  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(;3$2#  0  .3  0    RB$      2    _InNovemberof1995,Mrs.YatesexecutedacorrecteddeedconveyingthissamepropertytoMr._Biron_.This  deedisidenticaltothepreviousdeedexceptthatthe_habendum_Ԁclauseofthepreviousdeedwaslinedout.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  RB$      5    _While Ashleyv._Volz_ involvedajointwill,wenotethat Danielv._Aharonian_ involvedamutualwill.Wefind  theseguidelineswouldapplyequallyineithercase.   RB$      4    _WhilethecommonlawmayaffectthemethodsbywhichMrs.Yatesobtainedanysuchproperty,it doesnot  precludecontractsinmutualwillsbindingthesurvivortoagivendisposition[ina]will. Ashleyv.Volz ,404S.W.2d t 239,244(Tenn.1966). i RB$      3    _Theterm mutualwillshasbeendescribedasseparatewillsoftwopersonsthatarereciprocalintheir  provisions. See,e.g.,InreEstateofHurdle ,868S.W.2d627,629(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).- -(|G2B$ !.8@=dd8         0   d(|3w$ !.8@=dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8@=dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8@=dd8     _  @=8 XXdd8  @ S@=INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#@=S #Ԉ &   July11,2000Session L X X@= #@=XX #JUNEYATESMERRITTv.AILEENBIRONYATES,etal.X X@=  J  DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.971350IIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199900775_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober10,_2000_   AV) ` dE<` A        ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenPlaintiffJuneYatesMerritt( Ms.Merritt)and   DefendantsAileenBironYates( Mrs.Yates)andClaireBiron( Mr.Biron)regardingtheproper x  interpretationorconstructionofmutualwillsexecutedinAprilof1985byMrs.Yatesandher d husbandThomasHarryYates( Mr.Yates),whowasthefatherofMs.Merritt.Afterthedeathof P Mr.YatesinDecemberof1985,Mrs.YatesdeededcertainrealpropertytoMr.Biron,giftedcertain < personalpropertytoMr.Biron,andestablishedarevocabletrustusingmoneyreceivedasaresult (x ofherhusbandsdeath.InanactionfiledbyMs.Merrittchallengingthesetransactions,thetrial d courtdeterminedthattherewerenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandenteredajudgmentinfavor P ofMs.Merritt.Additionally,thecourtdeniedMs.Merrittsmotionfordiscretionarycosts.Mrs. < YatesappealsthecourtsordergrantingajudgmentinfavorofMs.MerrittandMs.Merrittappeals ( thecourtsrulingregardinghermotionfordiscretionarycosts. #  1      ׀Forthereasonssetforthbelow,we  affirmtherulingofthetrialcourt.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and t Remanded.  `   #@=X t#X X.@=DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., $"t! andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. #`"    `     h   RobertA.Anderson,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellantAileenBironYates. %$!% JohnJ.Archer,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappelleeJuneYatesMerritt. '"' 4  OPINION #@=XX c #X X@= \+&+ Ї#@=XX #X X@=  X XXX    Ms.Merritt(formerlyJuneYatesFlesch)isthestepdaughterofMrs.Yates,whomarried  Ms.Merrittsfather,Mr.Yates,in1959.Mr.BironisthebrotherofMrs.Yates.#X XXX #X XXX #@=XX #X X@=InAprilof1985,  Mr.Yatesexecutedawillprovidingasfollows: t 8  MyWife,AileenBironYates,isexecutingsimultaneouslyherewithaWill L  containingprovisionssimilartothosesetoutherein,andoursaidWillsareexecuted 8  eachinconsiderationoftheotherandpursuanttoouragreementastothedisposition $ t ofourrespectivepropertiesatourdeaths,thatis,thataftercertainspecificbequests  ` madebyeachofusassetoutinourrespectiveWills,theremainderoftheestateof  L  thefirsttodiewillpasstothesurvivorofus,andonthedeathofthesurvivorhisor  8  herestatewillpasstoJuneYatesFlesch. $    #@=XX u#X X@=#X XXX 3#X XXX Onthesamedate,Mrs.Yatesexecutedawillcontainingaprovisionthatisidenticaltotheone   quotedabove,exceptthattheword HusbandandthenameThomasHarryYatesissubstitutedfor   theword WifeandnameAileenBironYates.#X XXX ^#X XXX #@=XX #X X@=Mr.YatesdiedinDecemberof1985,atwhichtime   themajorityofhisproperty,includingapieceofrealpropertylocatedat4929RoselawnCircle, p passedtoMrs.Yatesbyrightofsurvivorship(notthroughhisprobateestate).#@=XX #X X@=#X XXX #X XXX InJanuaryof1991, \ Mrs.YatesdeededtheRoselawnCirclepropertytoMr.Biron,reservingalifeestateintheproperty H forherself. #  2      ׀#X XXX #X XXX #@=XX T#X X@=Additionally,inSeptemberof1994,Mrs.Yatesgaveallofherfurniture,furnishings, 4 andotherpersonaleffectstoMr.Bironbutretainedtherighttousetheseitemsofpersonalproperty  p fortheremainderofherlifetime.#@=XX #X X@=#X XXX #X XXX Finally,inMarchof1996,Mrs.Yatescreatedarevocabletrustand  \ placedassetstotaling$174,770.17intothetrust.#X XXX #X XXX #@=XX h#X X@=Thetrust H @instrumentcontainsspecificinstructionsregardingthedispositionofthetrustpropertyfollowing 4 thedeathofMrs.Yates.#@=XX #X X@=#X XXX x#X XXX Undertheseinstructions,noneofthetrustpropertypassestoMs.Merritt.   #X XXX #X XXX #@=XX #X X@=  InAprilof1997,Ms.MerrittfiledacomplaintagainstMrs.YatesandMr.Bironaskingthe  courttosetasidethetransferoftheRoselawnCirclepropertytoMr.BironandenjoinMrs.Yates  frommakinganyfurtherconveyancesofherpropertythatwoulddefeatorimpairtheintentionof  thewillsthatsheandMr.Yatesexecutedin1985.Ms.Merrittfiledanamendedcomplaintin l Octoberof1997askingthecourttodeterminetherightsofthepartieswithrespecttothefurniture, X  furnishings,andotherpersonaleffectsthatMrs.YatesgiftedtoMr.Bironandthepropertycontained D! inthe#@=XX #X X@=#X XXX #X XXX revocabletrustthatMrs.Yatesestablishedin1996.InJanuaryof1998,thetrialcourtentered 0"  amemorandumandorderfindingthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactbetweentheparties #l! andthatMs.Merrittisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.ThereafterinSeptemberof1999, $X" thecourtenteredorderssettingasidethedeedsthatMrs.YateshadexecutedinfavorofMr.Biron, $D # thetransferofMrs.Yatesfurniture,furnishings,andpersonaleffects,andtherevocabletrust %0!$ establishedbyMrs.Yates#X XXX C #X XXX #@=XX  #X X@=.Ms.Merrittsubsequentlyfiledamotionseekinganawardof &"% discretionarycosts,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.ThisappealbyMrs.Yatesfollowed. '#&  (#'   Theissuesraisedbythepartiesonappeal,asweperceivethem,areasfollows:   (5h83"3"  8  3)%25h  I  .3  0`     WastheagreementbetweenMr.andMrs.Yatesregardingthedispositionof  theirpropertyattheirdeathsvoidforlackofconsideration?3)%h%݌t` `  Ќ  ! !"3"  8  3&25h  II  .3  0`     Underthetermsofthisagreement,wasMrs.Yatesprohibitedfrom L  transferringcertainrealproperty,tangiblepersonalproperty,andintangible 8  personalpropertythatdidnotpasstoheraspartoftheprobateestateofMr. $ t Yates?3&'݌ `` `  Ќ  "3"  8  3(25h  III  .3  0`     AssumingthattheagreementdidprohibitMrs.Yatesfromtransferringthis  8  property,istheamountbywhichthepropertyincreasedafterthedeathofMr. $  Yatesalsosubjecttothetermsoftheagreement?3()݌ ` `  Ќ  "3"  8  3*25h  IV  .3  0`     DidthetrialcourterrindenyingMs.Merrittsmotionfordiscretionarycosts?3**݌ ` `  Ќ  #X XXX "#X XXX Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de p novo withapresumptionofcorrectnessandthuswemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindings \ unlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937 H S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);T.R.A.P.13(d).Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions, 4 however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyder  p v.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,FurenandGinsburg,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);  \ T.R.A.P.13(d).#X XXX +#X XXX #@=XX :##X X@= H   Mrs.YatesfirstcontendsthatheragreementwithMr.Yatesthatthesurvivorofthetwo   wouldleavehisorherestatetoMs.Merrittisvoidforlackofconsideration.Insupportofthis   argument,Mrs.Yatesclaimsthat,becausenopropertypassedtoherunderMr.Yateswillthatshe  wasnotalreadyentitledtoreceivebyrightofsurvivorship,shedidnotreceiveabenefitasaresult  oftheexecutionofthiswill.Inordertobeenforceable,acontractmustbesupportedby  consideration. Smithv.PickwickElec.Coop. ,367S.W.2d775,780(Tenn.1963); FrankRudy l HeirsAssocs.v.Moore&Assocs.,Inc. ,919S.W.2d609,613(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); Pricev. X  MercurySupplyCo. ,682S.W.2d924,933(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Itiswellsettledthatthemutual D! promisesofthepartiestothecontracttoeithertakesomeactionorrefrainfromtakingsomeaction 0"  canserveasconsiderationforacontract. SeeBuraczynskiv.Eyring ,919S.W.2d314,322n.6 #l! (Tenn.1996); Rodgersv.SouthernNewspapers,Inc. ,379S.W.2d797,800(Tenn.1964); Squibb $X" v.Smith ,948S.W.2d752,755(Tenn.Ct.App.1997); Pearsonv.GarrettFin.Servs. ,849S.W.2d $D # 776,779(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Intheinstantcase,Mr.andMrs.Yatesbothpromisedeachother %0!$ thattheywouldexecutewillsdisposingoftheirpropertypursuanttotheiragreementthatthelastto &"% diewouldleavehisorherpropertytoMs.Merritt.Thisisevidencedbythestatementinbothof '#& theirwillsthat oursaidWillsareexecutedeachinconsiderationoftheotherandpursuanttoour (#' agreementastothedispositionofourrespectivepropertiesatourdeaths.Thus,themutual )$(  promisesofMr.andMrs.Yatesservedasconsiderationfortheiragreementregardingthedisposition |*%) oftheirproperty.WethereforerejectMrs.Yatesargumentthattheagreementisunenforceablefor  lackofconsideration.     TheremainingtwoissuesraisedonappealbyMrs.Yatesbothrequireustodeterminethe t precisetermsoftheagreementbetweenMr.andMrs.Yates.Whentwopersonsexecutemutual ` wills" #  3      ׀pursuanttoanagreementregardingthemannerinwhichtheirpropertyistobedisposedof, L  thetermsoftheagreementmustbeascertainedbyexaminingthecontentsofthewillsthemselves. 8   See 1JackW.Robinson,Sr.&JeffMobley,PritchardonWillsandAdministrationofEstates 25 $ t (5thed.1994).Thus,#X XXX G/#X XXX #@=XX /#X X@=thisCourtmustattempttoascertainandenforcetheintentionofMr.andMrs.  ` Yatesasexpressedbythelanguageofthewillsthattheyexecutedin1985. SeeWilliamsv.Estate  L  ofWilliams ,865S.W.2d3,56(Tenn.1993)#X XXX <#X XXX #@=XX ]<#X X@= ;Wrightv.Brandon ,863S.W.2d400,402(Tenn.  8  1993);   Daughertyv.Daugherty ,784S.W.2d650,653(Tenn.1990). $    Asstatedabove,thewillsofMr.andMrs.Yatesstatethat aftercertainspecificbequests   madebyeachofusassetoutinourrespectiveWills,theremainderoftheestateofthefirsttodie   willpasstothesurvivorofus,andonthedeathofthesurvivorhisorherestatewillpasstoJune   YatesFlesch.ItisMrs.YatespositiononappealthatheragreementwithMr.Yatesappliesonly p topropertythatpassedthroughtheestateofthefirsttodieandthereforedoesnotapplytoproperty \ thatshereceivedbyrightofsurvivorshipuponthedeathofMr.Yates! #  4      ׀ortoanyincreaseinvalue H tothispropertythatoccurredsubsequenttoMr.Yatesdeath.Wethink,however,thatthis 4 contentioniscontrarytointentionexpressedinMr.andMrs.Yateswills.Thereisnolanguagein  p thewillslimitingthescopeoftheagreementtotheprobateestateofthefirsttodie.Rather,thewills  \ statethat onthedeathofthesurvivorhisorherestatewillpasstoJuneYatesFlesch.Thus,Mr. H andMrs.YatesagreedthattheentireestateofthelasttodiewouldultimatelypasstoMs.Merritt, 4 regardlessoftheoriginoftheassetscontainedintheestate.Theestateofthesurvivor,Mrs.Yates,   containspropertythatshereceivedthroughtheprobateestateofMr.Yates,propertythatshe   receivedbyrightofsurvivorshipuponthedeathofMr.Yates,andtheamountbywhichthevalue  oftheseassetshaveincreasedfollowingMr.Yatesdeath.BecauseMrs.Yatesisboundbyher  agreementwithMr.YatestodevisetheentiretyofthispropertytoMs.Merritt,weconcludethatthe  trialcourtproperlysetasidethedeedsthatMrs.YatesexecutedinfavorofMr.Biron,thetransfer l ofMrs.Yatesfurniture,furnishings,andpersonaleffectstoMr.Biron,andtherevocabletrust X  establishedbyMrs.Yates#X XXX =#X XXX #@=XX =#X X@=.Wethereforeaffirmtherulingofthetrialcourtwithrespecttothese D! matters. 0"    Withthisruling,webynomeanssuggeststhatMrs.Yatesmaynotreasonablyuseforher $X" ownbenefitthepropertywhichshereceivedfromMr.Yates.Wemerelyrecognizethatthemutual $D # willsmadebyMr.andMrs.Yatessimplylimitheruseofthepropertyto reasonable use,andthat %0!$ Mrs.Yatesmaynotdisposeofthepropertyinamannerinconsistentwiththeobviousintentofthe  wills.    TheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthisrationalein Ashleyv.Volz ,404S.W.2d239 t (Tenn.1966).QuotingtheRhodeIslandcaseof Danielsv.Aharonian ,7A.2d767(R.I.1939),the ` supremecourtstated: L  8  ifthatpartoftheagreementwhichbindsthesurvivingparty[,themutualwill,] $ t containsnoprovisiondefiningsuchpartyspowersoverthewholepropertyduring  ` thesurvivorship,butonlyprovidesthatheshallbywilldisposeofhispropertyathis  L  deathtocertainbeneficiariesacertainway,thenitseemstobewellsettledthathe  8  holdsallthepropertysubjecttoatrusttocarryouttheagreement,butmayusenot $  onlytheincomebutreasonableportionsoftheprincipalforhissupportandfor   ordinaryexpenditures,andmaychangetheformofitbyreinvestmentandthelike,   [_b]ut_Ԁmustnotgiveawayanyconsiderableportionsofitordoanythingelsewithit   thatwouldbeinconsistentwiththespiritortheobviousintentandpurposeofthe   agreement.p    Ashleyv._Volz_ ,404S.W.2d239(Tenn.1966)(quoting Danielv.Aharonian ,7A.2d767R.I.1939). #  5       H Wefeelthatthisrulingprovesclearandfairguidelinesfortheuseofpropertyobtainedthrougha 4 mutualwilland,assuch,limitMrs.Yatesuseofthepropertytoreasonableusenotinconsistentwith  p theintentorpurposeoftheagreement.  \       Finally,Ms.Merrittarguesonappealthatthetrialcourterredinrefusingtogranthermotion 4 fordiscretionarycosts.Rule54.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichauthorizesthe   courttoawarddiscretionarycosts,providesinpertinentpartasfollows:   8  Costsnotincludedinthebillofcostspreparedbytheclerkareallowableonlyinthe  court'sdiscretion.Discretionarycostsallowableare:reasonableandnecessarycourt  reporterexpensesfordepositionsortrials,reasonableandnecessaryexpertwitness l feesfordepositionsortrials,andguardianadlitemfees;travelexpensesarenot X  allowablediscretionarycosts.D!   _T.R.C.P._Ԁ54.04(2).Thus,Rule54.04expresslyauthorizesthetrialcourt,initsdiscretion,toaward #l! asdiscretionarycostsonlycertaintypesofexpenses.Trialcourtsareaffordedagreatdealof $X" discretionwhenconsideringwhethertoawardcosts. See,e.g.,Placenciav.Placencia ,3S.W.3d $D # 497,503(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Absentaclearabuseofdiscretion,appellatecourtsgenerallywill %0!$ notalteratrialcourt'srulingwithrespecttocosts. See,e.g.,Placencia ,3S.W.3dat503(citing &"%  Perduev.GreenBranchMiningCo. ,837S.W.2d56,60(Tenn.1992)).Inhermotionfor '#& discretionarycosts,Mrs.Yatessoughtreimbursementintheamountof$2,467.77fortheexpense (#' offilingaNoticeofLisPendensagainsttheRoselawnCircleproperty,theexpenseofobtainingan  appraisaloftheRoselawnCircleproperty,andcertaincourtreporterexpenses.Withrespecttothe  feeforfilingaNoticeofLisPendensandthefeeofthepropertyassessor,wedonotthinkthatthese  typeofexpensesqualifyasdiscretionarycostswithinthemeaningofRule54.04.Courtreporter t fees,however,maybeawardedasdiscretionarycostsinthetrialcourtsdiscretion. See #X XXX G##@=XX =H#X X@=X XXX T.R.C.P. ` 54.04(2).InitsorderdenyingMrs.Yatesrequestforsuchfees,thetrialcourtstated,andweagree, L  that thislitigationwasprosecutedbybothsidesingoodfaith.Undersuchcircumstances,we 8  concludethatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingMrs.Yatesmotionfor $ t discretionarycostsandthereforeaffirmthecourtsrulingwithrespecttothismatter.#X XXX [#X XXX #@=XX [#X X@=  ` QR  Basedontheforegoing,therulingofthetrialcourtisinallrespectsaffirmed.Thecosts  8  ofthisappealareassessedagainstAileenBironYatesandhersurety,forwhichexecutionmay $  issueifnecessary.       Ӏ________________________________ p    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE \ _ @ #X XXX ^##@=XX H^#X X@= @`  @  @  @h  @  @  @p