WPC ?L!,ޣ`SHKQ<΢sv--@Hoo93IM=Ed$*rMxD4mqɐ@@P,(,^c CX,ct(; ez߮tBu[Tk>c>t9 CMt^ڹZ=(PMĀT9#Jp8S2y@zVw _Ko{TOp,vs;yl\ M}kEDv_uhb暥&ʌ,\I;41CD|Ҙ|+ЖQ4&solR:֎l-lJ 6Y!Jީo%#;a|=IbdrۇR(C6+kc(o [+t(L4f&VfT=}$_9ynwp˸AUMG/!t[0Ǚ-7 Chi1 Kiu_@N(bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m  #  _ %  9N 0DUN0E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b 0 Bss 0 D34 D-g 0K AS2 0 0D A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Әd+ HE*bk4^3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 / Rb$      1     _XHX  ` # XXH~#NoassertionismadethatthesignatureonthechangeofBeneficiarieswasnotthatofMr.Johnson.(#$  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2b$ !.8<d d 8         0  EQ d(|3$ !.8<d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8<d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8-d d8     _  8C]XXdd 8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ &   July12,2001Session L XHX #XXH#PROVIDENTLIFEANDACCIDENTINSURANCECOMPANYv.TINA J JOHNSONSHANKLES,etal.XHX   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  ^ @@No.99C696W.NeilThomas,III,Judge  J FILEDAUGUST28,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002073COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisisaninterpleaderbillfiledbyProvidentLifeandAccidentInsuranceCompanyagainstfour  namedBeneficiariesinapolicyofinsuranceissuedtotheirfather,ArnoldJoeJohnson.Twoofthe x BeneficiarieswerechildrenbyaformermarriageofMr.Johnson,whowereaddedassuchshortly d beforehisdeath.ThetwoBeneficiariesbyasubsequentmarriageinsistedthattheprovisionsofa P divorcedecreeprecludedMr.JohnsonfromaddinghisothertwochildrenasBeneficiaries.TheTrial < Courtfoundthatallfourshouldshareintheproceedsofthepolicyequallyandenteredasummary (x judgmenttothateffect.Wevacateandremand. d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated;  <  CauseRemanded  (   #XH#XHX.HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand  D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined.  S.RogerYork,Crossville,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,KristyJoJohnsonandArnoldJoeJohnson, t  Jr.#XXH#XHX `!  #XXH #XHXDavidW.Wallace,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,#XXHk #XHXTinaJohnsonShanklesandGordon 8#" LeeJohnson $$t# q OPINION #XXH #XHX %L!% #XXH #XHX    ProvidentLifeandAccidentInsuranceCompanyinitiatedthesuitgivingrisetothisappeal '$#' byfilingabillofinterpleaderagainstfournamedBeneficiariesinalifeinsurancepolicyissuedby ($( ProvidenttotheBeneficiariesfather,ArnoldJoeJohnson.TheywereTinaJohnsonShanklesand )$) GordonLeeJohnson,childrenofMr.Johnsonbyapreviousmarriage,andKristyJoJohnsonand *%* ArnoldJoeJohnson,Jr.,childrenofMr.Johnsonbyasubsequentmarriage.Mr.Johnsonandhis +&+ formerwife,PauletteJohnson,whoisthemotherofKristyJoJohnsonandArnoldJoeJohnson,Jr., p,', weredivorcedbydecreeenteredonOctober17,1995.Thepertinentprovisionofthisdecreeisa \-(- sectionoftheMaritalDissolutionAgreementwhichwasincorporatedinthedecree,andreadsas  follows:   CHILDCUSTODY,VISITATIONandSUPPORT:Wifeshallhave t custodyofthepartiesminorchildren,withreasonablevisitationprivileges ` awardedtoHusbandasfollows:everyotherweekendfrom6:00p.m.onFridays L  until6:00p.m.onSundays,alternatinglegalholidays,FathersDay,Husbands 8  Birthday,andthree(3)weeksofsummervacation.TheWifeshallhavethe $ t childrenonMothersDayandWifesBirthdayregardlessofwhoseweekendsaid  ` dayfallson.Husbandshallpay$552.00permonthinchildsupportinaccordance  L  withtheTennesseeChildSupportGuidelinesthroughtheClerksofficeviaa  8  WageAssignmentwithHusbandpayingthe5%Clerksfee.Wifeshallcontinue $  toprovideinsurancefortheminorchildrenthroughheremployment.Husband   shallberesponsibleforanyandallmedicalexpensesnotcoveredbysaid   insurance,includingdeductibles.Bothpartiesshallmaketheminorchildren   beneficiariesontheirlifeinsurancepolicies.     TheaffidavitoftheformerwifeofthedeceaseddisclosesthatsheandMr.Johnsoneachhad \ onelifeinsurancepolicywithProvidentLifeandthattheonlyminorchildrenofthepartieswere H KristyJoJohnson,d.o.b.8/18/80,andArnoldJoeJohnson,Jr.,d.o.b.9/24/85.Theothertwo 4 BeneficiariesinthepolicywereadultchildrenofMr.Johnsonbyaformermarriage.  p   AfterthedivorcetheminorchildrenabovenamedweremadeBeneficiariesofMr.Johnsons H policy.ByinstrumentdatedJune24,1998,Mr.JohnsonchangedtheBeneficiariesofhispolicyto 4 includehistwoolderchildrenbytheformermarriage.Thisdocumentwasnotpromptlymailedto   Provident,butwaslatermailed,inOctober1998,byhissonofthepreviousmarriage,whowas   namedasaBeneficiary,priortothedeathofMr.Johnson,butwasnotreceivedbyProvidentuntil  afterhisdeath. #  1      ׀    TheTrialCourtfoundthatallfourchildrenwereBeneficiariesofthepolicybyvirtueofthe l instrumentheretoforereferencedandwereentitledtoshareequallyintheproceedsofthepolicy. X  ItthereuponenteredasummaryjudgmentagainsttheoriginalBeneficiaries. D!   ArecentopinionofourSupremeCourt,Staplesv.CBL&Associates,15S.W.3d83,89 #l! (Tenn.2000),hasrestatedthestandardforourreviewofsummaryjudgmentsgrantedbyatrial $X" court: $D # Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummaryjudgment &"% contextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewtheevidenceinthelightmost '#&   (#' favorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesin   thenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.  Hall,847S.W.2dat21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhen  boththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonable t persontoreachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153 ` (Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). L    Wedeemthefollowingundisputedfactssignificantinourresolutionofthisappeal: $ t 1.ThefollowingstatementsinMs.Johnsonsaffidavit:  L  2.Atthetimeofourdivorce,ArnoldJoeJohnsonandIeachhadonelife $  insurancepolicywithProvidentLife.   3.Theonlypeopletobeasbeneficiariesofeachpolicywasourtwochildren,   KristyJoJohnsonandArnoldJoeJohnson,Jr.   2.Atthetimeofthedivorcetheminorsonwasnotquite10yearsoldandminordaughternot \ quite15. H 3.Mr.Johnsonwasobligatedtopay$552permonthaschildsupport.  p   Uponapplyingthestandardhereinbeforesetout,webelievethatMs.Johnsonsaffidavit H statingthattheminorchildrenweretheonlyonestobeBeneficiariesunderthepolicy,coupledwith 4 thefactthatthechildrenwereminors,itisreasonabletoinferthatMr.Johnsonwouldwantthem   toreceivetheproceedsofhispolicyinlieuofchildsupportwhichwould,ofcourse,terminateathis   death.    Consequently,weconcludethatuponindulgingtheforegoinginference,theTrialCourt  improperlygrantedthesummaryjudgmentanditshouldbevacatedandthecauseremandedfora l trialonthemerits. X    Inreachingourconclusion,weareawarethattheprovisionsofthedivorcedecreedidnot 0"  specificallyprohibitMr.JohnsonfromchanginghisBeneficiariesbut,aswassuggestedinoral #l! argument,ifhewasatlibertytodothishecouldnameanynumberofBeneficiarieswhichcouldin $X" effectreducethemoniescomingtotheoriginalBeneficiariestoapittance. $D #   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedandthecauseremanded &"% foratrialonthemerits.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstTinaJohnsonShanklesandGordon '#& LeeJohnson. (#'  h+&*    `     h   __________________________________________     `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE