ÿWPC® ;]ä¬Äá&2Þ&GެŧÜ7‰æŠ-uq©–çØœÀ?¸8OH˜}{aý^dèž•þ‰)ÙÛùË®›æßÊþb~£¾…A lnÊŠ¤x²˜Îa$Ü>…ܱ ·/,køÓŽ  ›óI—<%ŒûÓ~Áúd«ÿ.3u×$‚ §9 â­ì忣ÙLuã6§Á¨Ûhy—™¤10Á¸ VfR¨‡¼ì׎”5ùjS>&ƒ[‘ò€\C¾ ‹ÃG½£YÏâ z-Ón難PÕ)T߯óÅHö-™ƒ‚®e\ÿŠÒÂ_"@û„²²0|#ó)]ÜgL$¿à ¯÷(®¼0?R™á`À%Â{ï«-a0úWG ®ú^Jˆcä`´aº;/W•Ë`ðFiÈ_§áý™oF6oJ•¢^Ãlª)ïz¬I³Ý°Q眦åÝ,ê§=%JØX•Ø lUrkF3|Ó7}JÌâ om½××f»;Á¢q+$ *i¥Nðªâ.øJ¬,NÜ€Çh­µ·°é½¹èŽQé{ªgœV[áåÈàžÄ¶ÛR#{o ¤D¼1Ñc«Šé+1'©Ñ A¾¬ð1£Ø ™8ÍtC º¿Ï=b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w@ 4M za ÒÛ ­ ¼ m¾ UNÕ Æ# Æé ƯÆu 0D;N2³EÉ:ËËjboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0ëwwww Bbb 0¤ D3# D-V 0Kƒ 04Î ASÆU 0¤ 0D¿ A«˜HP LaserJet 5ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Ev-1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular deDfghi{jkElmYU}*1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xmÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Pritchardthusly Ñ e Ñ 0Ý ƒRÙ›$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XE©X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðOnly€in€legal€writing€may€persons€be€objects.ðð€€òòA€Dictionary€of€Modern€Legal€Usageóó,€2òòndóóÐ e ÐEd.€Ô_ÔGarnorÔ_Ô,€p.607). `Ý ƒRÙ›$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XA1X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPlaintiff€did€see€his€father€from€a€distance€a€few€times€at€family€reunions,€but€was€notÐ ° Ðallowed€to€talk€to€him.€€They€also€spoke€briefly€at€plaintiffððs€uncleððs€funeral.Ô‡î±õ ìXXA1Ô- ù-(|G2Ù›$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XMX»»Ô d(|3Gs$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&c$"ð"ðà0 à^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gs$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€e»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ U»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ U»»»ÔÑ8€A1XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€ïOÑà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ZZìàAugust€12,€2004€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XA1X»¼ UÔÌò òÔ#†¼ U»XXA1²#ÔÓ  ÓIN€RE:€THE€ESTATE€OF€DILLARD€PHILLIPS,€Deceased,€LEROYÐ Ò" ÐPHILLIPS,€v.€CORA€Ô_ÔCHITWOODÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XA1X»¼ UÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓøÓÌà@­ ­ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Probate€Court€for€Scott€CountyˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@5 5 ìàNo.€796„P€€€€€€Hon.€James€L.€Cotton,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2004„00116„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€ˆÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌIn€this€action€to€contest€a€Will,€the€Trial€Court€granted€proponent€summary€judgment.€€On€appeal,Ð P  Ðwe€vacate€and€remand.Ð <Œ ÐÌÔ#†¼ U»XXA1#ÔÔ‡XA1X»¼ UÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Probate€Court€Vacated€and€Remanded.ó óÐ P ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€P.Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,Ð Ä ÐJóó.,€and€ñmñòòñmñSharon€Lee,€J.ñmñóóñmñ,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌÔ#†¼ U»XXA1|#ÔÔ‡XA1X»¼ UÔÌBrian€J.€Hunt,€and€Mark€S.€Ô_ÔCizekÔ_Ô,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant.Ð tÄ ÐÌJohnny€V.€Ô_ÔDunawayÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLaFolletteÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ U»XXA1 #ÔÔ‡XA1X»¼ UԈРü#L# ÐòòÌóóÔ#†¼ U»XXA1t#ÔÔ‡XA1X»¼ UÔà0  àà0` (#(#àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€Will€contest,€the€Trial€Court€granted€proponent€of€the€Will€summary€judgment.€Ð À&"& ÐPlaintiff€has€appealed€on€the€grounds€that€the€Trial€Court€granted€summary€judgment€beforeÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdiscovery€had€been€completed€and€that€there€was€material€evidence€that€the€Will€was€invalid€becauseÐ ˜(è#( Ðof€testatorððs€lack€of€testamentary€capacity.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÔ‡ X(óXXXA1ÔÔ#† ¼~·»X X(óÓ#ÔÔ‡ S0×R» ¼~·Ôà  àà ` àDeceased€died€on€February€3,€2003,€at€the€age€of€93.€€The€Will€was€executed€onÐ \+¬&+ ÐSeptember€16,€2002ñfñ€ñfñand€his€sister€was€named€executrix€of€the€estate.€The€Will€was€probated€inÐ D,”', Ðcommon€form€and€letters€testamentary€issued€on€February€10,€2003.€€Plaintiff,€decedentððs€son,€€filedÐ ,-|(-ý ÐÔ_Ôa€Petition€to€Contest€the€Will€on€April€9,€2003€alleging€the€deceased€was€either€incompetent€or€underÐ ° Ðundue€influence€at€the€time€the€Will€was€executed.€€The€Executrix€filed€a€Motion€for€SummaryÐ ˜è ÐJudgment€which€the€Trial€Court€granted€on€December€11,€2003.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€one„page€Will€bequeaths€the€entire€estate€in€equal€shares€to€the€executrix€CoraÐ P  ÐChitwood€and€two€of€decedentððs€nieces.€€No€objections€were€raised€in€the€Trial€Court€regarding€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðformalities€of€the€execution€of€the€Will€or€the€attesting€witnesses.€€Plaintiff€relies€on€two€facts€toÐ  p Ðsupport€his€claim.€€Plaintiff€is€the€son€of€the€deceased€and€an€heir€at€law;€yet€the€decedent€recited€inÐ  X Ðthe€Will€that€he€had€no€children.€€The€other€assertion€is€that€the€executrix€held€a€durable€power€ofÐ ð @ Ðattorney€given€by€the€deceased€on€November€15,€1999.€Ð Ø (  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€executrix€€initially€denied€that€plaintiff€is€in€fact€decedentððs€son,€but€does€notÐ ¨ø  Ðdispute€it€for€purposes€of€the€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€According€to€Phillipsðð€birth€certificate,Ð à  Ðhe€was€born€in€1936€to€Dillard€E.€Phillips€and€Deborah€Stanley€Phillips,€who€were€divorced€in€1940.€Ð xÈ  ÐThe€divorce€decree€recites€that€one€child€was€born€of€the€marriage,€Leroy€Phillips,€and€grants€soleÐ `°  Ðcustody€of€the€child€to€the€mother.€Plaintiff€went€by€the€name€of€his€stepfather,€Saveley,€for€most€ofÐ H˜  Ðhis€childhood,€but€changed€his€name€back€to€Leroy€Phillips€after€the€tenth€grade€and€leaving€schoolÐ 0€ Ðbriefly€to€join€the€Air€Force.€€€Plaintiff€has€a€criminal€and€incarceration€record€and€used€both€namesÐ h Ðat€various€times€during€adulthood.€Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€shows€that€Plaintiff€had€no€personal€relationship€with€his€father,€theÐ Ð  Ðdecedent.€€He€could€recall€only€two€occasions€of€personal€contact€with€Dillard€Phillips€after€the€ageÐ ¸ Ðof€14€or€15.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€was€contact€in€1957,€in€decedentððs€store.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€he€visited€withÐ  ð Ðhis€father€about€half€an€hour,€and€the€last€time€Plaintiff€visited€decedent€was€at€his€home€in€1998,Ð ˆØ Ðabout€five€years€before€the€latterððs€death.€€It€was€a€casual€visit€lasting€about€an€hour€and€a€half;€theyÐ pÀ Ðdid€not€discuss€decedentððs€personal€matters.€€At€that€time€decedent€appeared€well€and€healthy€andÐ X¨ Ðin€possession€of€his€mental€faculties€according€to€Plaintiff.€€Plaintiff€did€not€attend€his€fatherððsÐ @ Ðfuneral€because€he€was€not€aware€of€it.€Ð (x ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€what€was€going€on€in€decedentððs€life€or€thatÐ øH Ðhe€€was€incompetent€or€subject€to€undue€influence€when€the€Will€was€executed.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€standard€of€appellate€review€on€summary€judgments€is€well€established.€Ð °!  ÐSummary€judgment€motions€present€only€questions€of€law,€and€therefore€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€withÐ ˜"è! Ðno€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)òò;óó€òòEdwards€v.Ð €#Ð" ÐHallsdale-Powell€Utility€Dist.€Knox€County,€Tenn.,€óó€115€S.W.3d€461,€464€(Tenn.€2003).€€SummaryÐ h$¸# Ðjudgment€proceedings€are€appropriate€in€most€civil€cases€that€present€only€legal€issues,€including€willÐ P%  $ Ðcontests.€€òòKeasler€v.€Estate€of€Keasler,óó€973€S.W.2d€213,€217€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð 8&ˆ!% ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€if€ð ðtheÐ (X#' Ðpleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€theÐ ° Ðaffidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€partyÐ ˜è Ðis€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€€€The€court€adjudicating€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ €Ð Ðviews€the€evidence€"in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party,"€and€draws€all€reasonableÐ h¸ Ðinferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor,€and€discards€all€countervailing€evidence.€òòStaples€v.€Ô_ÔCBLÔ_ÔÐ P  Ð&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.,€Incóó.,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000).€€At€that€point,€if€a€dispute€remains€as€to€any€materialÐ 8 ˆ Ðfact,€or€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€that€fact,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€òòByrdÐ  p Ðv.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€208,€at€211.€Ð  X ÐÌà  àà ` àA€non„moving€party€facing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€may€present€an€affidavitÐ Ø (  Ðexplaining€why€further€discovery€is€necessary€before€ruling€on€the€motion.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.07;òòÐ À   ÐByrd,óó€847€S.W.2d€at€215€n.6.€€òòóóThe€opponent€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€possesses€noÐ ¨ø  Ðabsolute€right€to€additional€time€for€discovery,€and€if€there€has€been€a€reasonable€opportunity€forÐ à  Ðdiscovery,€the€party€is€obliged€to€make€an€affirmative€showing€that€there€is€some€evidence€notÐ xÈ  Ðpresently€before€the€court€and€why€more€time€and€additional€discovery€is€needed.€€òòÔ_ÔHarwellÔ_Ô€v.Ð `°  ÐAmerican€Medical€Systems,€Inc.,óó€803€F.€Supp.€1287,€1294€(M.D.€Tenn.€1992).€€Waiting€until€the€dayÐ H˜  Ðof€the€hearing€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€to€seek€additional€time€is€usually€too€late.€€òòHardenÐ 0€ Ðv.€Ô_ÔDanekÔ_Ô€Medical,€Inc.,óó€985€S.W.2d€449,€453„54€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€Ð h ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€contends€the€executrix€set€the€motion€for€hearing€and€subsequently€filedÐ è8 Ðobjections€to€his€request€for€production€of€decedentððs€bank€records€and€he€was€therefore€thwartedÐ Ð  Ðin€obtaining€discovery.€€The€record€does€not€indicate€what€admissible€evidence,€if€anything,€wouldÐ ¸ Ðbe€obtained€or€that€would€lead€to€the€discovery€of€admissible€evidence.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€theÐ  ð Ðrecords€ð ðpresumably€fell€under€Appelleeððs€Power€of€Ô_ÔAttorney,ñgñððñgñÔ_Ô€and€that€he€hoped€their€discoveryÐ ˆØ Ðwould€support€his€claim€of€undue€influence.€He€had€not€attempted€to€subpoena€the€records€or€takeÐ pÀ Ðthe€deposition€of€the€records€custodian.€€Moreover,€the€executrixððs€objections€to€producing€theÐ X¨ Ðrecords€were€filed€October€9,€2003,€some€two€months€before€hearing€on€the€motion€for€summaryÐ @ Ðjudgment.€€Plaintiff€did€not€file€a€motion€for€an€expedited€hearing€on€the€objections,€nor€any€requestÐ (x Ðfor€an€extension€of€the€summary€judgment€hearing.€€Failure€to€file€a€motion€for€a€continuance€of€theÐ ` Ðsummary€judgment€hearing€followed€by€a€notice€of€expedited€hearing€on€the€motion€precludes€raisingÐ øH Ðon€appeal€a€lack€of€opportunity€to€complete€discovery.€€òòÔ_ÔWarmathÔ_Ô€v.€Payne,óó€3€S.W.3d€487,€491„92Ð à0 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ð È  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€cites€òòMontague€v.€Ô_ÔKellumÔ_Ô,óó€2001€WL€523364€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€whereÐ ˜"è! Ðthis€Court€held€that€it€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€to€hear€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€€beforeÐ €#Ð" Ðdiscovery€was€complete.€€òòMontagueóó€is€inapposite€because€in€that€case,€the€Court€had€issued€an€orderÐ h$¸# Ðprohibiting€discovery,€which€is€not€the€situation€here.€€Plaintiff€simply€did€not€act€timely€inÐ P%  $ Ðcompleting€discovery€with€no€good€cause€shown.€€Discovery€was€conducted€by€both€parties,€and€fiveÐ 8&ˆ!% Ðmonths€passed€between€the€filing€of€the€original€petition€and€the€filing€of€the€motion€for€summaryÐ  'p"& Ðjudgment;€three€more€months€passed€between€the€motion€and€the€hearing.€€Plaintiff€has€offered€noÐ (X#' Ðexplanation€of€why€the€proper€motion€for€continuance€and€supporting€affidavits€were€not€broughtÐ ð(@$( Ðbefore€the€Court€as€required€under€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€and€offers€us€no€justification€for€theÐ Ø)(%) Ðfailure€to€otherwise€diligently€pursue€discovery.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€Ð À*&* ÐÐ ¨+ø&+ ÐÑïOÑâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€argument€regarding€decedentððs€incompetency€is€based€upon€the€inaccurateÐ e Ðstatement€in€decedentððs€Will:€ð ðI€acknowledge€and€declare€that€I€am€a€widower,€and€I€have€noÐ Mè Ðchildren.ðð€€Plaintiff€asserts€that€this€statement€creates€a€ð ðsuspicious€circumstanceðð€that€deceased€wasÐ 5Ð Ðsuffering€from€an€insane€delusion€that€he€was€childless€when€he€was€not.€€Ð ¸ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€statutory€prerequisites€for€making€a€valid€Will€are€that€the€person€be€of€soundÐ íˆ Ðmind€and€18€years€of€age€or€older.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„1„102.€The€authorities€hold€the€testatorÐ Õ p Ðmust€be€of€sound€and€disposing€mind€and€memory.€€òòPritchard€on€Wills€and€Administration€ofÐ ½ X ÐEstatesóó,€6òòthóó€Edition,€poses€the€issue€thusly:Ð ¥ @ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àðð101.€€The€question€is€not€so€much€what€was€the€degree€of€memory€possessed€by€theÐ u   Ðtestator,€as€this;€had€he€a€disposing€mind€and€memory?€€Was€he€capable€ofÐ ]ø  Ðrecollecting€the€property€he€was€about€to€bequeath,€the€manner€of€distributing€it,€andÐ Eà  Ðthe€objects€of€his€bounty?׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€To€sum€up€the€whole€in€the€most€simple€and€intelligibleÐ -È  Ðform€„€were€his€mind€and€memory€sufficiently€sound€to€enable€him€to€know€and€toÐ °  Ðunderstand€the€business€in€which€he€was€engaged€at€the€time€he€executed€his€Willðð.Ðý˜ ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àðð€101ñ^ñ,€page€165.Ðå€` (#` (# Ðñ^ñÌA€natural€ñ_ñobject€ñ_ñof€the€testatorððs€bounty€is€defined€inÔ#†SW=RR S"ïž #ÔÔ‡ S"ïRRSW=ÔÔ#† ¼f»R S"ïà #ÔÔ‡ S"ïR» ¼fÔ€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionary,€6òòthóó€Edition:€€Ð µP ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àóóIn€testamentary€law,€term€comprising€whoever€would€take,€in€the€absence€of€a€will,Ð …  Ðbecause€they€are€the€persons€whom€the€law€has€so€designated,€and€in€the€ordinaryÐ m Ðcase,€the€law€follows€the€normal€condition€of€neñ`ñwñ`ññañarñañ€relationshipñbñsñbñ.ÐUð` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€executrix€relies€upon€òòHammond€v.€Union€Nat.€Bk.,€óó189€Tenn.€93,€222€S.W.2d€377Ð %À Ð(1949).€€In€that€case,€the€deceasedððs€will€made€no€mention€of€his€only€daughter€or€her€child.€TheÐ  ¨ ÐCourt€in€that€case€essentially€held€that€the€failure€to€mention€the€daughter€did€not€establish€a€disputedÐ õ Ðissue€of€material€fact€as€to€testatorððs€capacity€to€make€a€will.€€In€this€case,€the€testator€neitherÐ Ýx Ðdisinherited€the€son,€nor€acknowledged€his€existence,€but€factually€stated€that€he€had€no€child.€ñcñClearly,€ñcññdñTñdññcñtñcñheÐ Å` ÐWill€itself,€may€be€considered€along€with€other€evidence€in€deciding€the€issue€of€mental€capacity.€Ð ­H ÐòòHammondóó,€p.€380.€€A€concise€explanation€as€to€capacity€to€make€a€will€is€stated€in€Am.€Jur.€2d.Ð •0 ÐòòWills,€óóðð66,€p.322:€€Ð }  ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àBroadly€speaking,€a€person€who€is€capable€of€transacting€ordinary€business€is€capableÐ M"è! Ðof€making€a€valid€will,€but€in€exceptional€cases,€one€may€have€capacity€to€attend€toÐ 5#Ð" Ðthe€ordinary€business€affairs€of€life€and€yet€be€without€capacity€to€make€a€will,€as,€forÐ $¸# Ðexample,€where€the€testator€is€insane€with€reference€to€the€subjects€connected€withÐ %  $ Ðthe€testamentary€disposition€of€his€property€and€the€natural€objects€of€his€bounty.Ðí%ˆ!%` (#` (# ÐÌWe€conclude€that€the€testatorððs€denying€that€an€object€of€his€bounty€existed,€as€set€forth€in€his€Will,Ð ½'X#' Ðis€an€adequate€basis€to€raise€as€a€disputed€issue€of€material€factñiñ€ñiññeñas€toñeñ€ñkññhñAñhññjñSñjññkññlñas€to€Ô_ÔñlñhisÔ_Ô€competency€to€make€a€will,Ð ¥(@$( Ðsince€the€cases€are€replete€in€holding€that€the€maker€of€a€will€must€know€the€objects€of€his€or€herÐ e Ðbounty.€Ð Mè ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€pretermit€the€remaining€issues,€vacate€the€summary€judgment€and€remand€forÐ ¸ Ðfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€The€cost€of€the€appeal€is€assessed€against€theÐ   ÐEstate.Ð íˆ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†SW=RR S"ï‰7#ÔÔ#†¼•»RSW=Ë7#ÔÔ‡XE©X»¼•Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð ]ø  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€P.J.óóÔ#†¼•»XXE©æB#ÔñeñÔ‡ ¼{»»¼eÔñeñÔ‡SW=R»¼•ÔñeñÔ#†SPe RR S%ÝD#ÔñeñÔ#†¼•»RSW=OD#ÔÔ‡XE©X»¼•Ôòòóó