ÿWPCŸ 2# ÌUN× %% 0(+w@S4“§¶ 0D¾ 0l 0Dn 0J² 0Tü 0^P 0h® 0r 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1u 0d AQó ÆD B 0@' 0Dg D/« U>Ú B D35 B)h DC‘ AMÔ U*! ýK Hv~NvÓ̘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ >?V@DADBCDDEFTeGÓ€ê‚_#3|xP(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ! #$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New RomanüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  ÝÔ€-ÔÔ€-ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔÌÌNovember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝUnder€the€will,€Locke€was€the€sole€beneficiary€still€alive€and€would€inherit€the€entireÏestate.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€'ÔÝ  Ý›ò òÑ\R AØ'\ќـ!ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€,.+A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌIN€RE:€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òESTATE€OF€ALLA€MAE€LOCKE€à à)à àó óDavidson€Probate€No.€93P„908€Ìò òSIMMONS,€DECEASED.à àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òALFORD€T.€LOCKE,ó óà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àAppeal€No.€01A01„9608„PB„00366Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àPetitioner/Appellee,à àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌCHRISTINE€LOCKE€FOSTER,€ET€AL.,€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óà àDefendants/Appellants,ò òà à)Ìòòó óÌò òóóÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PROBATE€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€FRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Defendants/Appellantsóó:òòà àà àFor€the€Petitioner/Appelleeóó:òòÌóóÌAllen€Shoffner€€€€€€à àà àà àà àJohn€C.€Shofner€€€€€€€€€€ÌShelbyville,€Tennesseeà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Shelbyville,€TennesseeÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓò òÓ  ÓÑ7€ †XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€case€involves€the€petition€of€the€administrator€of€an€estate€to€probate€an€allegedlyÏstolen€will.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€will€had€been€stolen€and€admitted€the€will€to€probate.€€WeÏaffirm.Ìà àIn€1991,€the€decedent,€Alla€Mae€Locke€Simmons€(ð ðDecedentðð)€and€her€husband,€an€elderlyÏcouple,€were€cared€for€by€a€nurse,€Ann€Moore€(ð ðMooreðð).€€The€Decedent€gave€Moore€a€power€ofÏattorney€to€help€her€manage€her€affairs.€€During€this€time€period,€on€August€5,€1991,€the€Decedent€Ïexecuted€a€valid€will.Ìà àSubsequently,€a€police€investigation€revealed€that€Moore€had€defrauded€the€Decedent€out€ofÏmost€of€her€liquid€assets.€€She€misused€the€Decedentððs€credit€cards,€wrote€large€checks€for€her€ownÏbenefit,€and€cashed€out€some€of€the€Decedentððs€life€insurance€policies,€pocketing€the€proceeds.€ÏSubsequently,€the€Decedent€and€her€husband€were€admitted€to€the€hospital.€€Both€Decedent€and€herÏhusband€were€in€poor€condition;€Decedent€was€unable€to€speak.€€The€Decedent€died€on€June€18,Ï1993.€€Moore€absconded€and€has€not€been€located.€Ìà àShortly€after€the€Decedentððs€death,€Appellee€Alfred€T.€Locke€(ð ðLockeðð),€her€survivingÏbrother,€filed€a€Petition€for€Appointment€of€Administrator,€in€which€he€prayed€to€be€appointedÏadministrator€of€Decedentððs€estate.€€In€the€petition,€he€swore€that€a€diligent€search€had€been€madeÏfor€a€will,€that€none€had€been€found,€and€that€Decedent€had€died€intestate.€€Locke€subsequentlyÏfiled€an€accounting.€Ì€à àIn€1995,€a€distributee€of€the€estate€filed€a€petition€to€compel€distribution€of€the€estate.€€TheÏpetition€alleged€that€Locke€was€stalling€distribution€of€the€estate€because€he€believed€a€will€existedÏwhich€would€give€him€a€greater€share€of€the€estate.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Citing€this€as€a€conflict€of€interest,€theÏpetitioner€also€asked€that€Locke€be€removed€as€administrator.€€Locke€subsequently€filed€a€petitionÏto€probate€a€lost€or€stolen€will.€€Nineteen€distributees€(ð ðDistributeesðð)€joined€in€filing€an€answerÏand€counter„petition,€once€again€seeking€Lockeððs€removal€as€administrator.Ìà àAt€the€bench€trial€in€this€cause,€the€parties€stipulated€that€the€Decedent€had€executed€a€validÏwill€on€August€5,€1991.€€Over€objection€from€the€Distributees,€Locke€read€into€evidence€portionsÏof€a€deposition€taken€from€Decedentððs€sister„in„law,€Eleanor€Simmons€(ð ðSimmonsðð).€€SimmonsÏtestified€in€her€deposition€that,€on€August€6,€1991,€she€rode€with€Decedent€and€Moore€to€the€bank,Ïwhere€Decedent€had€a€safety€deposit€box.€€Simmons€stated€that€Decedent€and€Moore€entered€theÏbank€with€Decedentððs€will€and€came€out€without€it.€€On€cross„examination,€Simmons€stated€thatÏDecedent€had€a€temper€and€had€been€known€for€writing€new€wills€when€angered.€€She€alsoÏtestified€that€Decedentððs€practice€was€not€to€tear€up€a€will€when€she€wished€to€revoke€it,€but€ratherÏgo€to€her€attorney€to€have€a€new€one€drafted.€€Simmons€acknowledged€that€she€was€not€certain€thatÏthe€will€had€been€taken€into€the€bank€or€deposited€in€the€safety€deposit€box.€€Ìà àNashville€Metropolitan€Police€Detective€Patricia€Goodman€(ð ðGoodmanðð)€testified€at€trial€Ïthat€she€investigated€Mooreððs€treatment€of€Decedent€and€Decedentððs€husband.€€In€her€investigation,Ïshe€discovered€that€Moore€had€defrauded€Decedent€out€of€most€of€her€liquid€assets,€misusing€creditÏcards,€writing€large€checks€for€her€own€benefit,€and€obtaining€the€cash€value€of€life€insuranceÏpolicies.€€Goodman€testified€that€Decedent€and€her€husband€were€both€in€poor€shape€when€she€firstÏsaw€them;€the€Decedent€was€incoherent€at€the€time.€€When€Goodman€saw€them€again€on€May€15,Ï1992,€Decedent€could€not€speak.€€Goodman€called€paramedics,€and€both€Decedent€and€herÏhusband€were€admitted€to€the€hospital.€€Moore€was€to€be€prosecuted,€but€she€absconded€and€couldÏnot€be€found.€Ìà àLocke€introduced€into€evidence€safety€deposit€box€access€records€indicating€that€on€AugustÏ6,€1991,€Moore€had€opened€Decedentððs€box.€€Locke€argued€that€this€was€done€to€place€the€willÏinside.€€The€records€also€showed€that€Moore€subsequently€opened€the€box€on€August€20,€1991.€ÏFinally,€on€September€20,€1991,€Moore€cleaned€out€the€box€and€closed€the€rental€contract€with€theÏbank.€€Ìà àAt€the€trial,€the€Distributees€read€into€evidence€part€of€the€deposition€of€Wayne€Detring,€theÏattorney€who€had€prepared€the€August€5€will€for€Decedent.€€Detring€had€a€copy€of€the€August€5Íwill€in€his€files.€€Detring€testified€that€he€never€saw€Decedent€again€after€execution€of€the€will.€€TheÏcourt€also€admitted€into€evidence€an€order€dated€May€12,€1992,€appointing€a€conservator€forÏDecedent.Ìà àFrom€this€evidence,€Locke€argued€that€Decedent€executed€a€will€on€August€5€and,€withÏMoore,€placed€it€into€the€safety€deposit€box€on€August€6.€€At€some€point€after,€Moore€stole€theÏcontents€of€the€safety€deposit€box,€including€the€will.€€The€will€was€never€found€because€it€hadÏbeen€stolen€by€Moore,€not€because€it€had€been€revoked.€€In€addition,€as€of€May€12,€1992,€until€theÏtime€Çof€her€death,€June€18,€1993,€Decedent€was€mentally€incompetent€and€therefore€could€not€haveÏlegally€revoked€the€August€5€will€during€that€time€period.Ìà àThe€Distributees€argued€that€Simmons€was€not€certain€that€the€will€was€placed€into€theÏsafety€deposit€box€on€August€6€and€had€no€idea€whether€it€was€later€removed€by€Moore€or€theÏpurpose€for€which€it€was€removed.€€The€Distributees€argued€that€Moore€may€have€removed€it€at€theÏDecedentððs€behest€and€given€it€to€her.€€The€Distributees€also€maintained€that€Moore,€named€asÏexecutrix€of€Decedentððs€estate€in€the€August€5€will,€had€no€motive€to€steal€the€will.Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€ruled€from€the€bench.€€The€court€found€thatÏthe€will€had€been€placed€in€the€safety€deposit€box€and€that€it€could€have€been€removed€by€Moore€onÏAugust€20€or€September€20.€€The€court€also€found€that,€as€of€May€of€1992,€Decedent€wasÏincompetent.€€The€court€then€posed€the€question,€ð ð[D]id€she€[Decedent]€with€sound€mind€revokeÏthe€will€sometime€between€August€20€of€ðð91€and€May€of€ðð92?ðð€€The€court€answered€its€ownÏquestion:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€evidence€is€clear€to€me€that€Ann€Moore€was€a€disloyal€servant€and€engaged€inÏcriminal€activity€and€clearly€did€not€have€the€best€interest€of€Mr.€or€Mrs.€SimmonsÏ[Decedent].€€I€am€convinced€that€if€she€withdrew€documents€from€the€decedentððsÏsafety€deposit€box€for€ill€motive,€that€she€would€have€had€no€motive€to€take€the€willÏto€Mrs.€Simmons€[Decedent]€for€her€future€action.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àIððm€of€the€opinion€that€she€[Moore]€closed€it€[the€safety€deposit€box]€not€forÏthe€benefit€of€the€decedent,€and€Iððm€convinced€that€the€criminal€activity€of€AnnÏMoore€interceded€in€this€matter€and€clearly€rebuts€the€presumption€that€the€decedentÏintentionally€and€competently€revoked€a€will€that€she€had€written€previously.ÌÌÓÓThe€court€credited€Simmonsðð€deposition€testimony€that€Decedent€always€had€a€new€will€writtenÏwhen€she€wished€to€revoke€an€earlier€one€and€the€deposition€testimony€of€Wayne€Detring€that€heÏnever€saw€Decedent€again€after€the€execution€of€the€August€5€will€as€further€evidence€that€DecedentÏhad€never€revoked€the€August€5€will.€€The€court€accepted€the€will€into€probate.€€From€this€decision,Ïthe€Distributees€now€appeal.€Ìà àThe€Distributees€raise€several€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€they€contend€that€the€court€erred€byÍadmitting€Simmonsðð€deposition€into€evidence€rather€than€requiring€Simmons€to€testify€in€person.€ÏThey€also€assert€other€evidentiary€issues,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€answers€toÏleading€questions€in€Simmonsðð€deposition€to€be€read€into€evidence,€by€reading€and€considering€aÏletter€written€by€Simmons€containing€hearsay€and€inadmissible€opinions,€and€by€allowing€certainÏtestimony€by€Goodman€which€the€Distributees€claim€was€hearsay.€The€Distributees€claim€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€were€not€supported€by€the€evidence€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÏthe€will€to€probate.€€Finally,€they€argue€that€Locke€should€have€been€judicially€estopped€fromÏoffering€the€will€for€probate€and€should€have€been€removed€as€administrator€of€the€estate.Ìà àOur€review€of€this€case€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€ofÏthe€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Absent€error€of€law,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€will€beÏaffirmed,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€factual€findings.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€ÏNo€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€€òòò òSee€Carvell€v.ÏBottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Rulings€on€the€admissibility€of€evidence€areÏnormally€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€only€to€be€reversed€upon€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€Ïòòò òDockery€v.€Board€of€Profððl€Responsibility€of€the€S.€Ct.€of€Tenn.ó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€863,Ï866€(Tenn.€1996).Ìà àThe€Distributees€argue€first€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Simmonsðð€depositionÏtestimony.€€Without€Simmonsðð€testimony,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€will€was€placed€in€the€safetyÏdeposit€box.€€A€trial€court€may€under€some€circumstances€admit€a€non„partyððs€deposition€testimonyÏas€substantive€evidence€instead€of€requiring€the€witness€to€testify€in€person.€€Rule€32.01€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà àAt€the€trial€or€upon€the€hearing€of€a€motion€or€an€interlocutory€proceeding,Ïany€part€or€all€of€a€deposition,€so€far€as€admissible€under€the€rules€of€evidenceÏapplied€as€though€the€witness€were€then€present€and€testifying,€may€be€used€againstÏany€party€who€was€present€or€represented€at€the€taking€of€the€deposition€or€who€hadÏreasonable€notice€thereof,€in€accordance€with€any€of€the€following€provisions:ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà à(3)€€The€deposition€of€a€witness,€whether€or€not€a€party,€may€be€used€byÍany€party€for€any€purpose€if€the€court€finds:€.€.€.€(C)€€that€the€witness€is€unable€toÏattend€or€testify€because€of€age,€illness,€infirmity,€or€imprisonment€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓIn€admitting€Simmonsðð€deposition€testimony,€the€trial€court€remarked,€ð ðI€will€allow€theÏintroduction€[of€Simmonsðð€deposition€into€evidence]€because€of€the€fact€that€her€deposition€revealsÏthat€she€[Simmons]€is€of€some€years,€and€upon€Mr.€John€Shofnerððs€[Lockeððs€attorneyððs]Ïrepresentation€that€her€health€and€years€would€make€her€present€attendance€unreasonable.ðð€€UnderÏRule€32.01(3)(C),€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€SimmonsððÏdeposition€testimony€into€evidence.Ìà àThe€Distributees€also€allege€that€the€trial€court€should€have€sustained€their€objection€toÏcertain€questions€in€Simmonsðð€deposition€as€being€leading.€€While€the€Distributeesðð€brief€does€notÏstate€clearly€the€questions€in€dispute€on€appeal,€from€the€pages€in€the€record€cited,€they€apparentlyÏappeal€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€the€following€question:€ÌÓÓà8 àà àMR.€JOHN€SHOFNER:€€ð ðAnd€you€[Simmons]€were€with€them€[DecedentÏand€Moore]€on€this€occasion?ððÌÌà8 àà àAnswer:€€ð ðOf€course.€€I€didnððt€read€the€will.€€I€didnððt€see€it,€but€I€knew€theÏpurpose€of€it.ððÌÌà8 àà àð ðYou€had,€to€your€knowledge,€just€„„€she€[Decedent]€had,€to€yourÏknowledge,€just€executed€a€will?ððÌÌà àà àMR.€ALLEN€SHOFFNER:€Thatððs€leading,€Your€Honor.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€found€that€the€question€to€be€ð ðborderlineðð€leading€but€permitted€it€nonetheless.Ìà àOn€appeal,€it€must€be€noted€that€ð ð[i]t€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€whetherÏto€allow€a€party€to€examine€a€witness€by€leading€questions.ðð€€ò òòòWilkerson€v.€Altizeró óóó,€845ÏS.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€On€review,€ð ðunless€(the€appellate€court)€can€see€that€theÏquestion€was€not€only€clearly€leading€but€clearly€prejudicial,€the€action€of€the€(trial€court)€will€notÏbe€interfered€with.ðð€€ò òòòHale€v.€Stateó óóó,€198€Tenn.€461,€476,€281€S.W.2d€51,€58€(1955);€ò òòòseeóóó ó€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b)€(ð ðA€final€judgment€from€which€relief€is€available€and€otherwise€appropriate€shallÏnot€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€moreÏprobably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð).€€ÍThe€only€question€objected€to€on€the€pages€of€the€record€cited€was€whether,€at€the€time€of€theÏAugust€6€trip€to€the€bank,€the€Decedent€had€ð ðjust€executed€a€will.ðð€€However,€the€parties€stipulatedÏthat,€on€August€5,€the€Decedent€executed€a€valid€will.€€Therefore,€the€Distributees€cannotÏdemonstrate€prejudice€from€the€admission€of€this€testimony€into€evidence.€€€Ìà àThe€Distributees€also€objected€to€a€letter€by€Simmons€which€Locke€attempted€to€enter€intoÏevidence.€€The€letter€was€not€filed€as€a€trial€exhibit,€but€the€trial€court€read€parts€of€it€in€order€to€ruleÏon€the€Distributeesðð€hearsay€objections.€€Although€the€Distributees€can€point€to€no€part€of€theÏrecord€which€indicates€that€the€trial€court€was€influenced€by€the€letter€in€making€its€ruling,€theyÏargue€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€sustained€their€hearsay€objection€without€reading€any€portionÏof€the€letter.€€In€the€absence€of€any€demonstrated€prejudice,€the€Distributeesðð€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€€In€addition,€from€a€practical€standpoint,€it€is€difficult€to€see€how€the€trial€court€could€haveÏruled€on€the€Distributeesðð€objection€without€reading€any€portion€of€the€letter.€€The€trial€court€isÏaffirmed€on€this€issue.€€€Ìà àThe€Distributees€assert€that€the€trial€erred€in€allowing€Goodman€to€testify€that€herÏinvestigation€into€Mooreððs€treatment€of€Decedent€was€prompted€by€a€phone€call€alerting€her€to€theÏproblem.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€statement€was€not€hearsay€because€it€was€not€admitted€forÏthe€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€Rather,€the€statement€merely€indicated€what€prompted€Goodman€toÏinvestigate.€€In€response€to€the€trial€courtððs€question,€Goodman€stated€that€she€would€haveÏinvestigated€the€alleged€mistreatment€regardless€of€the€veracity€of€the€phone€call.€€Thus,€the€phoneÏcall€was€not€hearsay€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€it.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c);Ïò òòòAnderson€v.€Nicholsóóó ó,€39€Tenn.€App.€503,€518,€286€S.W.2d€96,€103€(1955)€(holding€thatÏhearsay€rule€does€not€bar€testimony€that€is€relevant€regardless€of€its€truth€or€falsity).€Ìà àThe€Distributees€also€contend€on€appeal€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€support€theÏtrial€courtððs€€findings€of€fact€and€rebut€the€presumption€that€the€will€had€been€revoked.€€When€aÏwill€cannot€be€found€at€a€testatorððs€death,€a€presumption€arises€that€the€will€has€been€revoked.€€ò òòòInÏre€Westóóó ó,€729€S.W.2d€676,€678€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€This€presumption€can€be€rebutted,€however,Íby€showing€ð ðthat€the€testator€did€not€have€custody€and€control€of€the€will€after€execution,€or€that€heÏhad€lost€his€testamentary€capacity€for€a€period€before€his€death€and€that€the€will€was€in€existence€atÏthe€time€the€loss€of€competency€occurred.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€The€loss€or€destruction€of€a€will€by€means€otherÏthan€revocation€by€the€testator€can€be€proven€by€positive€or€circumstantial€evidence.€€ò òòòHaven€v.ÏWrinkleóóó ó,€29€Tenn.€App.€195,€212,€195€S.W.2d€787,€794€(1945).€€To€set€up€a€lost€or€stolen€will,Ïthe€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€the€testator€executed€a€valid€will,€show€that€the€testator€did€notÏrevoke€the€will,€show€that€the€will€cannot€be€found€after€a€diligent€search,€and€prove€both€theÏcontents€and€the€substance€of€the€will.€€ò òòòSee€Shrum€v.€Powelló óóó,€604€S.W.2d€869,€871€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1980).€€Finally,€the€proof€necessary€to€establish€a€lost€or€stolen€will€must€be€clear,€cogent,Ïand€convincing.€€ò òòòSee€id.óóó óÌà àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€dispute€as€to€the€validity€of€the€will€or€as€to€its€contents€andÏsubstance.€€The€Distributees€contend€that€the€evidence€presented€was€inadequate€to€rebut€theÏpresumption€that€the€will€was€revoked.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Simmonsðð€deposition€testimony,Ïthe€safety€deposit€box€access€records,€the€fact€that€Decedent€never€wrote€a€new€will,€and€MooreððsÏobvious€criminal€behavior€were€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€Moore€or€Decedent€placed€theÏwill€in€the€safety€deposit€box,€that€Moore€later€removed€it,€and€that€the€will€could€not€be€found€laterÏbecause€Moore€either€kept€or€destroyed€it.€€The€Distributees€note€that€the€order€appointing€aÏconservator€for€Decedent€made€no€finding€of€incompetency.€€However,€Detective€GoodmanÏtestified€that€when€she€first€saw€the€Decedent,€she€was€incoherent,€and€when€she€saw€the€DecedentÏagain€on€May€15,€1992,€the€Decedent€was€unable€to€speak.€€Viewing€the€evidence€as€a€whole,€weÏfind€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€the€evidence€clear€and€convincing€that€the€Decedent€didÏnot€revoke€the€August€5€will.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àThe€Distributees€also€maintain€on€appeal€that€Locke€was€judicially€estopped€from€offeringÏthe€will€for€probate.€€In€his€sworn€€Petition€for€Appointment€of€Administrator,€Locke€stated€that€heÏhad€searched€diligently€for€a€will€and€none€had€been€found.€€Subsequently,€Locke€petitioned€theÏtrial€court€to€admit€the€stolen€will€for€probate.€€At€the€trial,€the€trial€court€asked€Lockeððs€attorneyÍwhy€Locke€changed€positions€on€the€issue€of€the€existence€of€a€will.€€Lockeððs€attorney€explainedÏthat€Locke€had€not€known€of€the€will€or€of€Mooreððs€activities€until€his€appointment€as€Ïadministrator€of€the€estate.€€In€closing€arguments,€Lockeððs€attorney€began€arguing€the€issue€ofÏjudicial€estoppel.€€The€trial€court€interrupted€him€and€stated,€ð ðI€agree€with€you.€€Iððm€going€to€letÏyou€off€the€hook€on€that€part€of€your€argument.ðð€€The€Distributees€did€not€object€to€the€fact€thatÏLocke€did€not€take€the€stand€to€testify€on€this€issue.Ìà àJudicial€estoppel€prevents€a€party€from€denying€the€truth€of€a€former€sworn€statement€inÏany€later€proceeding,€plea,€or€motion.€€ò òòòSee€Terox€Corp.€of€Am.€v.€Carróóó ó,€52€Tenn.€App.Ï595,€602„03,€376€S.W.2d€735,€738„39€(1964).€€But€ð ð[i]t€is€well€settled€that€judicial€estoppel€doesÏnot€apply€where€there€is€an€explanation€showing€such€statement€was€inadvertent,€inconsiderate,Ïmistaken€or€anything€short€of€a€willfully€false€statement€of€fact.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€603„04,€376€S.W.2d€atÏ739.€€Lockeððs€attorney€explained€to€the€trial€courtððs€satisfaction€that€Lockeððs€original€swornÏstatement€that€no€will€could€be€found€and€that€Decedent€died€intestate€was€due€to€lack€ofÏknowledge,€not€an€attempt€at€fraud.€€On€appeal,€The€Distributees€argue€that€Locke€himself€shouldÏhave€been€called€to€testify€to€that€effect.€€However,€the€Distributees€point€to€no€place€in€the€recordÏin€which€their€counsel€objected€to€the€trial€courtððs€acceptance€of€the€explanation€given€by€LockeððsÏattorney€without€Lockeððs€testimony.€€If€the€Distributees€failed€to€object€at€trial€to€the€trial€courtððsÏruling€in€the€absence€of€testimony€by€Locke,€this€issue€will€not€be€considered€on€appeal.€€ò òòòSeeóóó óÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(ð ðNothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€aÏparty€responsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€toÏprevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð);€ò òòòAmmons€v.€Bonillaóóó ó,€886€S.W.2d€239,€243Ï(Tenn.€App.€1994);€ò òòòGuess€v.€Mauryóóó ó,€726€S.W.2d€906,€922€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ìà àFinally,€the€Distributees€contend€that€the€trial€court€should€have€removed€Locke€asÏadministrator€of€the€estate€because€as€the€beneficiary€of€the€will€had€a€conflict€of€interest.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€€ò òòòSee€Nutting€v.€Alsupóóó ó,€60€Tenn.€App.€467,€474„76,€448€S.W.2d€77,Ï80„81€(1969)€(removal€not€necessary€when€ð ðthe€actions€of€the€administrator€are€not€adverse€to€theÍinterests€of€the€estate€or€its€distributees€òòas€suchóó,€but€it€is€adverse€to€other€interests€of€theÏdistributees€arising€outside€the€personal€estate,€i.e.,€their€rights€to€a€share€of€the€surplus€of€theÏrealty€after€payment€of€debtsðð).Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€Appellants,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó ó