ÿWPC  :# <UNG %• 0G›U:âBw@^4ž²ÁLÉ 0— 0D¬ðU:ø 0J2 0T| 0^Ð 0h. 0r– 0| 0†„ 0 1uš 0@ D3O 0d‚ Bæ AQ ÆT 0D 0D^ D/¢ BÑ U>î U*,B)VDC AMÂfS|v~ÏvÓM˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ŠU‹ŒgîŽUg‘Ó€ B\J#ƒ3|x C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(G(2‡L$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€XÇXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóÿ"Arial Regular2 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)("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'''''ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd* 3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ôÔThe€issues€at€trial€may€have€been€muddied€by€Decedentððs€death.€€Upon€the€death€of€Decedent,Ïthis€lawsuit€survived€and€continued€in€the€name€of€Alma€Lane€Morris,€the€Executrix€of€Decedentððs€estate.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€20„5„102;€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€25.€€Accordingly,€the€issues€in€this€case€should€have€been€tried€as€ifÏthe€Decedent€were€still€alive.€€òòLeffew€v.€Mayesóó,€685€S.W.2d€288,€291„92€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)(whereÏjoint€tenants€differed€on€ownership€of€funds€and,€during€their€lifetime,€brought€suit€to€establish€theirÏrespective€interests€therein,€ownership€of€funds€should€have€been€determined€as€if€both€claimants€wereÏstill€living).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€0ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ X ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Œ¾XXdðXXdð7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€453A1-j|M-` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌALMA€LANE€MORRIS,€Executrixà à)Ìof€the€Estate€of€RAYMOND€ALFREDà à)ÌMORRIS,à àà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Trial€Court€No.€T„10156Ìà àà àó óà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9610„CH„00236Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVOIL€MORRIS,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€GIBSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€TRENTON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€R.€ELLIS,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMITCHELL€G.€TOLLISONó óÌò òHAWKS€&€TOLLISONÌó óHumboldt,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌò òL.€L.€HARRELL,€JR.ó óÌò òHARRELL,€HARRELL€&€AGEEó óÌTrenton,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óœà àÌÌÌÓÓà àAlma€Lane€Morris€(ð ðExecutrixðð),€substitute€plaintiff€and€Executrix€of€the€estate€ofÏÑ7€å3XXdðXXdð7ÑRaymond€Alfred€Morris€(ð ðDecedentðð),€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€entering€aÏjudgment€in€favor€of€Voil€Morris€(ð ðDefendantðð).€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€judgmentÏbecause€we€hold€that€the€partiesðð€pleadings€conclusively€established€that€funds€inÏDefendantððs€possession€were€held€in€trust€for€Decedent€and€that€Decedent€wasÏentitled€to€the€return€of€approximately€$50,000€in€trust€funds.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àò òòòFactsÌÓ  Óó óóóà àOn€June€25,€1992,€Decedent€filed€a€complaint€seeking€the€return€of€trust€fundsÏin€the€possession€of€Defendant.€€Thereafter,€on€July€23,€1992,€Defendant€filed€anÏanswer€wherein€Defendant€admitted€that€he€was€holding€the€funds€in€trust€for€€ÏDecedent€and,›€œfurther,›€that€Decedent€was€entitled€to€approximately€$50,000€of€theÏtrust.€œDefendant€contended€that€$3,500€of€the€funds€belonged€to€him.€€On€page€2,Ïparagraph€8,€of€Defendantððs€answer,€he€stated:€ð ðThe€defendant€admits€that€there€wasÏan€agreement€that€he€was€only€holding€the€money,€and€that€he€has€paid€over€money€toÏhim€(Decedent)€each€and€every€time€that€he€has€asked€for€it.ðð€€Additionally,€on€page€9,Íparagraph€11,€Defendant€stated:€ð ð.€.€.€€but€no€records€were€kept,€since€at€all€times€it€wasÏunderstood€that€the€defendant€was€holding€the€money€in€trust€so€that€it€would€be€keptÏfree€and€clear€of€creditors€and€any€wife€that€he€might€acquire.ðð€€Finally,€on€page€3,Ïparagraph€11,€of€Defendantððs€answer,€he€stated:€ð ðThe€defendant€for€answer€toÏParagraph€11€alleges€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€approximately€$50,000.00,Ïbecause€$3,500.00€that€is€in€the€present€certificate€of€deposit€belongs€to€theÏdefendant,€and€was€added€to€that€in€order€to€get€a€more€advantageous€rate€of€interest.ðð€€€Ï›ÌÌà àAlthough€Decedent€filed€this€lawsuit,€œhe€died€during›€the€pendency€of€theseÏœproceedings,›€and€his€wife,€Executrix,€was€substituted€as€plaintiff€in€this€action.€ÏDecedent€did€not€testify€at€trial;€however,€on€January€4,€1994,€€Decedent€gave€hisÏdeposition€which€was€introduced€at€trial€without€œobjection.›€€òòò òÌÌà àóóó óDecedent€and€Defendant€are€brothers.€€Decedent€testified€in€his€deposition€thatÏhe€had€saved€$82,000€from€working€at€a€mop€mill.€€œOriginally,›€Decedent€placed€theÏmoney€in€a€savings€account€solely€in€his€name.€€œThereafter,›€Decedent€changed€theÏsavings€account€to€be€held€jointly€by€Defendant€and€himself.€€œSubsequently,›€DecedentÏamended€the€account€so€as€to€be€held€solely€in€the€name€of€the€Defendant€within€aÏcertificate€of€deposit€(ð ðCDðð).€€œDecedent›€testified€that€his€reason€for€switching€theÏsavings€account€was€because€he€was€fearful€that€his€previous€wife€and€her€brothersÏwould€defraud€him€of€his€money.€€œEighty›€thousand€dollars€($80,000)€was€placed€in€theÏCD€in€Defendantððs€name€with€the€other€$2,000€being€split€between€Decedent€andÏDefendant,€each€receiving€$1,000.€€œAt›€the€time€of€trial,€approximately€$51,000Íremained€in€the€œCD.€›Ìà àÌà àAt€trial,€the€evidence€focused€on€the€œintent›€of€Decedent€concerning€the€moneyÏentrusted€to€Defendant.€€According€to€Decedentððs€deposition,€Decedent€originallyÏintended€for€the€Defendant€to€receive€the€money€that€was€entrusted€to€him.€€œDecedent›Ïstated€that€he€thought€Defendant€would€outlive€him€and€receive€the€money.€€œAlong›Ïthese€lines,€Decedent€and€Defendantððs€niece,€Nana€Laverne€Duncan,€testified€that€sheÏspoke€with€Decedent€on€three€separate€occasions€within€the€last€six€months€ofÏDecedentððs€life€concerning€the€lawsuit€and€the€money.€€œDuncan›€stated€that€on€all€threeÏoccasions€the€Decedent€relayed€to€her€that€he€wanted€his€money€to€stay€just€like€it€wasÏbecause€ð ðif€anything€happens,€Voil€will€take€care€of€me.ðð€€œHowever,›€Decedent€testifiedÏthat€on€two€occasions€he€asked€Defendant€for€the€return€of€his€money€from€the€accountÏbefore€he€filed€this€lawsuit.€€œDefendant›€never€complied€with€Decedentððs€request€onÏeither€occasion.€€œDecedentððs›€wife€and€Executrix€testified€œthat,›€at€one€point,€DefendantÏdid€return€$22,000€of€the€money€in€order€for€Decedent€to€purchase€a€home.€ÏœAdditionally,›€Decedent€stated€that€when€he€got€married,€he€believed€œDefendant›€wouldÏdivide€the€money€between€Defendant€and€himself.€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€œforegoing›€evidence,€œat€the€end€of€the€Executrixððs€proof,€the›€trialÏcourt€œruled€in›€favor€of€Defendant€as€to€the€proper€disposition€of€the€trust€œfunds.€ÏDefendantððs€counterclaims€were€dismissed€without€prejudice.›€€Executrix€hasÏappealed,€contending€that€the€trial€court€erred€œin€finding›€for€Defendant.Ñ€6ÑÇÌœò òòòÓ  ÓLaw›€and€œDiscussionÌÓ  Óà àóóó óThis€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€without€a€jury,€and€at€the€conclusion€ofÏExecutrixððs€proof,€the€court,€upon€Defendantððs€request,€granted€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict.€€We€feel€compelled€to€digress€for€a€moment€to€comment€on€the€procedureÏutilized€in€this€case.€€Motions€and€orders€for€directed€verdicts€are€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€50€and€are€appropriate€only€in€jury€trials.€€òòCity€of€Columbia€v.€C.F.W.ÏConstruction€Co.óó,€557€S.W.2d€734,€740€(Tenn.€1977);€òòScott€v.€Pulleyóó,€705€S.W.2d€666,Ï672€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòRoberts€v.€Robertson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€692€S.W.2d€863,Ï874€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€They€have€no€place€in€nonjury€trials.€€òòId.óó€€If€a€party€desiresÏto€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof€in€a€nonjury€trial,€it€must€file€a€motionÏfor€involuntary€dismissal€at€the€close€of€plaintiffððs€proof€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï41.02(2).Ìà àÌà àThe€respective€standards€of€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€disposition€of€theseÏmotions€is€markedly€different.€€In€the€case€of€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€the€trial€courtÏmust€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€against€the€directed€verdict€andÏmust€deny€the€motion€in€any€case€where€reasonable€persons€would€not€reach€theÏsame€conclusions.€€òòGoode€v.€Tamko€Asphalt€Prods.óó,€783€S.W.2d€184,€187€(Tenn.Ï1989);€òòMaddux€v.€Cargill,€Inc.óó,€777€S.W.2d€687,€691€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€However,Ïin€the€case€of€a€motion€for€involuntary€dismissal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€41.02(2),Ïthe€trial€court€must€impartially€weigh€and€evaluate€the€evidence€as€it€would€after€theÏpresentation€of€all€the€evidence€and€must€deny€the€motion€if€the€plaintiff€has€made€outÏa€òòprima€facieóó€case.€€òòCity€of€Columbia€v.€C.F.W.€Constr.€Co.óó,€557€S.W.2d€at€740.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€reviews€the€evidence€varies€depending€onÏthe€type€of€motion€that€has€been€filed.€€Motions€for€directed€verdict€require€moreÏcertainty€in€the€proof€than€do€motions€for€involuntary€dismissal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€41.02(2).€€Ìà àThis€case€was€a€nonjury€trial€wherein€Defendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€direct€aÏverdict€in€its€favor€at€the€close€of€Executrixððs€proof.€€Procedurally,€this€was€anÏinappropriate€motion.€€The€appropriate€motion€was€one€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï41.02(2),€a€motion€for€involuntary€dismissal.€€Nevertheless,€whether€Defendant€movedÏthe€trial€court€for€a€directed€verdict€or€an€involuntary€dismissal€in€this€case€is€of€noÏconsequence.€€Regardless€of€which€standard€applies,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€dismissing€the€Executrixððs€action€because€the€partiesðð€pleadings€conclusivelyÏestablish€that€Defendant€was€holding€the€funds€in€trust€for€Decedent€and€thatÏDecedent€was€entitled€to€approximately€$50,000€in€trust€funds.€€€€ò òòòÌÌà àóóó óPleadings›€prepared€and€filed€by€counsel€œrepresenting›€a€party€are€òòprima€facieóóÏregarded€as€being€authorized€by€the€party.€€òòPankow€v.€Mitchellóó,€737€S.W.2d€293,€296Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòSeeóó€œòòalsoóó€E.›€Cleary,€òòMcCormickððs€Handbook€of€the€Law€ofÏEvidenceóó€ðð€265,€at€œ783„84›€(3d€ed.€1984).€€Thus,€factual€statements€contained€inÏpleadings€filed€on€behalf€of€a€party€may€be€considered€as€admissions.€€òòId.óó€€FactualÏstatements€in€pleadings€are€conclusive€against€the€pleader€in€the€proceedings€inÏwhich€they€were€filed€until€they€have€been€amended€or€withdrawn.€€œòòPankowóó,›€œ737ÏS.W.2d€at›€296€(quoting€òòJohn€P.€Saad€&€Sons,€Inc.€v.€€Nashville€Thermal€TransferÏCorp.óó,€642€S.W.2d€151,€152€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)).€€Hence,€when€the€allegations€in€aÍcomplaint€are€admitted€in€the€answer,€the€subject€matter€of€the€allegations€is€removedÏas€an€œissue›€and€no€proof€is€necessary.€€òòIrvin€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóó,€767€S.W.2d€649,€653Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)(quoting€òòRast€v.€Terryóó,€532€S.W.2d€552,€554€(Tenn.€1976));€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòWilson€v.€Maury€County€Board€of€Educationóó,€302€S.W.2d€502,€507€(1957).€€œÌÌà àIn›€the€case€at€bar,€œDefendant›€filed€an€answer€in€which€he€admitted€to€holdingÏfunds€entrusted€to€him€by€Decedent€in€trust.€€œFurther,›€Defendant€admitted€œthatÏDecedent€was›€entitled€to€a€return€of€approximately€$50,000€from€the€trust€œfunds.›ÏDefendant€did€not€withdraw€or€amend€his€œpleadings;›€hence,€œthese€admissions›€œin›€theÏpleadings€œwere›€œconclusive.€€Based€on€the€partiesðð€pleadings,€therefore,€the€issues€ofÏwhether€a€trust€was€established€and€whether€Executrix€was€entitled€to€approximatelyÏ$50,000€from€said€trust€were€no€longer€issues€in€this€matter.€›ÌœÌà àAs€mentioned€above,€the€evidence€at€trial€focused€on€the€intent€of€the€DecedentÏconcerning€the€funds€in€the€CD.€€However,€this€emphasis€was€misplaced.€€As€a€matterÏof€law,€the€partiesðð€pleadings€not€only€established€the€existence€of€a€trust€but€also€thatÏDecedent€was€entitled€to€approximately€$50,000€from€such€funds.€€Accordingly,ÏDecedentððs€intent€regarding€disposition€of€the€funds€upon€his€death€was€irrelevant€toÏany€issues€in€this€lawsuit,€and€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€dismissed€this€matter€at€trialÏby€granting€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Executrixððs€proof.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌà àWe›€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€œjudgment›€œand›€hold€that,€with€the€possible€exceptionÏof€Defendantððs€claim€for€$3,500€from€trust€funds,€Executrix€is€entitled€to€the€funds€heldÏin€the€CD.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€shall€adjudicate€Defendantððs€claim€for€$3,500Ïand€award€the€remaining€trust€funds€to€Executrix.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionÌÓ  Óó óóóà àœThe€trial›€courtððs€judgment€œis€reversed€and›€œthis›€œmatter€is€remanded›€for€furtherÏproceedings€œnecessary€and€consistent›€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€Defendant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.òòò òÌœÓÓóóó óÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌ›