ÿWPCˆ jh÷—J*é#>fó(jÞ‘õ3ªm5¤\šbýÊp¥jc¢NƦÜEýÉE -×úWZб_yÑczùT=·dBQf‘•ÄšæåFŽT¥ù ôz:Å€ì—{­¬ åf½h˜lI¨_XÎ% ¹µ"¿ŠAø½²é½hŒ(rBVmègƯ‹á©¥´Qä Ü÷Ô!v¡#;Cÿ‚eð3ÏaÂ@Aôó©Ï,–ŒÀ^׉ñŽ^i¸©¿®ŸƒüØ ©Ý1mTgUÛhÇ»DéöGß–¯`„ Ä©m0Þ Ã2±t£ÌÄxt)(pôߣ֨Ô0¦FÏ#‹N£AŠÏWµ­V‹áàøÒ µ'õ,+¦ °xn5]2ûBð¸êÅ‚/PLG˜œoaáŽt”oS‡˜Îa.Ï>^¿~é,‚™qèk*s6'#xRyõHÙìñºK¯ß—N`k=+¶¤=ÂÿH½¯Û®8#q/v0bÁà¦ßàZY®¹Î±`sªéu†!W¶–õ» ÿSþ£2#)‹R ÓŽâ’•E©®ÿú`¾lz}«Z±z¦¢¡¼!Þ&¤æ{…ðŠÈU›;Ôå“©‰n¥ç5;uaä¦h*»½Õ÷‡ây 4øN{ÂŒ)# >UNI %— 0(w@Å4( 0D0 0lt 0DàUN$)r›U:° )ê U:              AQM Æž 0Dd B¨ 0DÅ Å D/   B8 D3U˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ R S T U EV W DX Y Ó€e h n~<$3|xh (3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XˆXXXXÔÔ€WXXˆXÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆXXWÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€21,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÓôXXˆXÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ó  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€32„3„101€provides€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àA€will€shall€be€construed,€in€reference€to€the€real€and€personal€estate€comprised€in€it,Ïto€speak€and€take€effect€as€if€it€had€been€executed€immediately€before€the€death€ofÏthe€testator,€and€shall€convey€all€the€real€estate€belonging€to€him,€or€in€which€he€hadÏany€interest€at€his€decease,€unless€a€contrary€intention€appear€by€its€words€in€context.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XˆXXXXÔÔ€WXXˆXÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XˆXXWÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€17,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÓôXXˆXÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ! #%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñY ñ›ñY ñÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñe ññY ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð ÕrßñY ññe ññh ññe ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßñe ññh ññh ññh ññY ñ›ñY ñÌò òÔ‡ X XXXXÔà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ  ð Ðà@kk%ìàò òAT€JACKSONˆÐ ŒÜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð xÈ Ðñh ñœßt€(>.*jxÞü` `€€@E¦ñ` ttx$Þdð a tß›ñh ñÌóóIN€THE€MATTER€OF:à  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð P   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌTHE€LAST€WILL€AND€TESTAMENT€€à À àà  à)à p àÐ ( x ÐOF€GLADYS€G.€TIPLER,€Deceasedà À àà  à)à p àÐ  d Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌGLORIA€G.€VAN€MOORLEGHAN,€CHARLES)ÌJ.€GAIA,€PATRICIA€G.€GUSTAFSON,€JAMESà  à)Ð Ø(  ÐEDWARD€SCOTT,€JR.,€LOUISE€G.€ENSIGN,à  à)Ð Ä  Ðand€ROGER€SCOTT,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à h àà À àà  à)Ð °  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àœó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,ò ò›à h àà À àà  à)à p àó óShelby€Probate€No.€œB„2498„1›€€€Ð ˆØ  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò ò)Ð xÈ Ðvs.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€Ð d´ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌROBERT€L.€TAYLOR€and€EUGENE€B.€€€€€€€€€à  à)à p àó óAppeal€No.€€02A01„9707„PB„00173Ð <Œ Ðò òGIBSON,€Executors€of€the€Estate€of€Gladysà  à)Ð ,| ÐG.€Tipler,€Deceased.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð h Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò ò)ó óÐ T Ðà  àà ` àDefendants/Appellants.à À àò òà  à)à p àÐ ð@ Ðó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌà@  ìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PROBATE€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTY€ˆÐ à Ðà@%% ìàAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÌÌà@ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€LEONARD€D.€PIEROTTI,€JUDGE€€€€€ˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appelleesóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendants/Appellants:Ð Ü&,"% ÐóóÌCharles€G.€Black€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àErnest€G.€Kelly,€Jr.€€€Ð ´($' ÐMemphis,€Tennessee€€à  àà h àà À àMemphis,€TennesseeÐ  )ð$( ÐÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDÐ x+È&* ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÐ <.Œ)- ÐÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð Ä3/3 ÐÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÔ#†XìÕXX X XŸ#ÔÌÐ  x7È27 ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ìÕXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThis€is€a€will€contest.€€The€decedent€executed€a€will,€and€later€executed€a€holographicÏcodicil€to€the€will.€€The€holograph€directed€that,€if€her€husband€predeceased€her,€her€propertyÏshould€be€distributed€in€accordance€with€his€will.€€The€decedentððs€husband€predeceased€her.€ÏEnforcement€of€the€holographic€codicil€was€challenged€in€court€by€the€decedentððs€heirs.€€The€trialÏcourt€applied€the€doctrine€of€facts€of€independent€significance€and€ordered€the€decedentððs€assetsÏbe€distributed€in€accordance€with€her€deceased€husbandððs€will.€€We€affirm.Ìà  àMrs.€Gladys€S.€Tipler€œ(ñR ñð ðñR ñTestatrixñS ñððñS ñ)›€executed€a€formal€will€on€April€2,€1982.€€This€willÏleft€the€bulk€of€her€estate€to€her€husband,€James€Tipler€(ð ðHusbandðð),€upon€the€contingency€thatÏhe€survive€her.€€The€will€did€not€address€the€distribution€of€the€estate€in€the€event€that€HusbandÏpredeceased€Testatrix.€€Two€days€later,€Testatrix€executed€a€holographic€codicil€to€the€formalÏwill.€€The€codicil€reads€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8  àShould€my€husband€predecesse€[sic]€me€I€hereby€declair€[sic]€that€his€last€Will€andÏtestament€upon€his€death€is€our€agreement€here€to€four€[sic]€made€between€us€inÏSection€III€of€my€Will.€€With€the€exception€Mr.€Tipler€or€myself€can€elect€to€makeÏany€changes€as€we€desire€depending€upon€which€one€predeceasest€[sic]€the€other.€€If€Ïno€changes€are€made€by€either€of€us€this€will€be€our€last€will€and€testament.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓThus,€the€codicil€indicated€that€if€Husband€predeceased€Testatrix,€his€last€will€and€testament€wouldÏcontrol€the€disposition€of€her€estate.€€At€the€time€the€codicil€was€executed,€Husband€had€not€yetÏexecuted€a€will.€€Husband€died€in€1990.€€His€will,€executed€six€months€prior€to€his€death,€created€aÏtrust€for€Testatrix,€and€directed€that€upon€her€death€the€property€be€distributed€to€his€relatives.€ÏTestatrix€died€in€1994.€€Ìà  àThe€beneficiaries€under€Husbandððs€will€sought€enforcement€of€Testatrixððs€codicil€in€ShelbyÏCounty€Probate€Court.€€This€action€was€challenged€by€Testatrixðð€heirs,€who€would€otherwise€takeÏunder€the€Tennessee€intestacy€statute.€€The€Testratixðð€heirs€asserted€that€the€holographic€codicilÏshould€not€be€enforced€because€it€referred€to€a€document€not€yet€in€existence,€i.e.€Husbandððs€will.€ÏThey€argued€that€Tennessee€law€requires€that€for€a€holographic€will€to€be€enforceable,€ð ðall€itsÏmaterial€provisions€must€be€in€the€handwriting€of€the€testator.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„1„105Ïœ(1984).›€€Since€Testatrixðð€holograph€referred€to€Husbandððs€will,€Testatrixðð€heirs€maintained€thatÏmaterial€provisions€were€not€in€Testatrixðð€handwriting.€€Ìà  àœAt›€the€trial,€the€beneficiaries€under€Husbandððs€will€introduced€evidence€regarding€TestatrixððÏintent.€€The€testimony€indicated€that€Testatrix€was€not€close€to€her€family.€€One€witness€stated€thatÐ ;`6:  ÐTestatrix€described€her€sisters€as€ð ðgreedy,ðð€indicating€that€œñK ñð ðñK ñif›€œanything›€happened€to€her€œ[Testatrix],ñL ñððñL ñ›Ïœher›€sisters€would€be€like€ð ða€bunch€of€vulturesðð€or€ð ða€bunch€of€barracudas.€.€.€.ðð€€Evidence€indicatedÏthat€Testatrix€ð ðthought€of€Mr.€Tiplerððs€family€as€her€family.ðð€€Witnesses€testified€that€Testatrix€lovedÏher€husband€dearly€and€frequently€said,€ð ðwhatever€Tippy€[Husband]€wants€is€what€I€want.ððÌà  àAfter€the€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€issued€a€Memorandum€Opinion.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€issue€of€incorporation€by€reference€was€not€applicable€because€Husbandððs€will€was€not€inÏexistence€at€the€time€Testatrixðð€codicil€was€written.€€The€trial€court€then€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àThe€relevant€inquiry€is€whether€the€doctrine€of€facts€of€independentÏsignificance€applies€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Tennessee€recognizes€the€doctrine€ofÏindependent€significance.€€ò òòòSmith€v.€Weitzeló óóó,€338€S.W.2d€628,€637€(Tenn.€1960)€(ð ðAsÐ ° Ðto€the€proposition€of€independent€significance.€.€.€€we€call€attention€to€Sec.€54.2€ofÏScott€on€Trusts).Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àò òòòScott€on€Trustsó óóó,€4th€Edition,€Section€54.2,€page€9,€states:ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òSection€54.2:€Where€disposition€is€determined€by€facts€ofÐ P  Ðindependent€significance.ó ó€€There€is€another€doctrine€of€the€law€ofÐ @ Ðwills€that€is€sometimes€confused€with€the€doctrine€of€incorporation€byÏreference.€€Even€though€a€disposition€cannot€be€fully€ascertained€fromÏthe€terms€of€the€will,€it€is€not€invalid€if€it€can€be€ascertained€from€theÏfacts€that€have€a€significance€apart€from€their€effect€upon€theÏdisposition€in€the€will.€€Indeed,€it€is€frequently€necessary€to€resort€toÏextrinsic€evidence€to€identify€the€persons€who€are€to€take€or€theÏsubject€matter€of€the€disposition.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àTherefore,€under€the€doctrine€of€independent€significance,€a€court€may€refer€toÏextrinsic€evidence€to€identify€the€persons€who€are€to€take€under€the€will.€€In€the€caseÏat€bar,€Mrs.€Tipler€left€her€residuary€estate€in€Section€III€to€her€husband.€€However,Ïin€her€holographic€codicil,€she€stated,€in€her€handwriting,€that€if€her€husbandÏpredeceased€her,€her€residuary€estate€would€pass€according€to€their€agreement€asÏindicated€in€his€will.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà@  'ìà*€*€*€ˆÌÌà8  àA€testator€œmayñU ññT ñ€ñT ññU ññV ñ€[ñV ññW ññV ñsicñV ññW ññV ññV ññX ñhaveñX ññV ñ]ñV ñ›€intended€for€his€property€to€go€the€same€persons€who€areÏnamed€in€another€personððs€will,€and€the€gift€of€the€testatorððs€property€by€his€will€canÏbe€upheld€on€the€ground€of€independent€significance.€€This€doctrine€of€independentÏsignificance€is€an€escape€mechanism€from€the€strict€requirements€of€incorporation€byÏreference.€€2€Bowe„Parker:€ò òòòPage€on€Willsó óóó,€Section€19.34,€page€119.Ðà.0*-Ð Ð  ÐÌà@  'ìà*€*€*€ˆÌÌà8  àà ` àIn€the€case€bar,€Mrs.€Tipler€left€her€residuary€estate€to€Mr.€Tipler€in€her€LastÏWill€and€Testament,€on€April€2,€1982.€€Like€the€ò òòòKleinó óóó€case,€she€modified€thatÐ 3à.2 Ðprovision€in€her€holographic€codicil€two€days€later€in€order€to€give€Mr.€Tipler€theÏprivilege€of€naming€the€persons€who€would€take€his€part€of€her€estate€should€he€dieÏfirst.€€The€doctrine€of€independent€significance€is€satisfied€because€Mr.€Tiplerððs€willÏhad€an€independent€significance€of€distributing€his€estate€and€was€not€written€withÏthe€intention€of€distributing€Mrs.€Tiplerððs€estate.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓœñO ñÐ   :p59 ÐñO ñAfter›€noting€that€the€testatorððs€intent€controls€in€construing€a€will,€the€trial€court€then€considered€theÏwitnessesðð€testimony€to€determine€Testatrixðð€€intent.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€testimony€indicatingÏthat€Testatrix€ð ðdid€not€like€her€family.ðð€€œIt›€found:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àThis€Court€finds€that€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Meredith€and€Mr.€May€reveals€theÏconditions,€situations€and€surroundings€of€Mrs.€Tipler€when€she€used€the€termÏð ðagreementðð€in€her€holographic€codicil.€€This€Court€further€finds€that€althoughÏneither€Ms.€Meredith€nor€Mr.€May€testified€as€to€an€exact€ð ðagreementðð€between€Mrs.ÏTipler€and€Mr.€Tipler€regarding€their€estates,€the€facts€and€circumstances€reveal€thatÏMrs.€Tipler€considered€Mr.€Tiplerððs€family€her€own€and€that€she€did€not€want€herÏrelatives€to€receive€any€portion€of€her€estate.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓœThe›€trial€court€then€ordered€that€Testatrixðð€residuary€estate€be€distributed€in€accordance€withÏHusbandððs€will,€concluding€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà ` àThe€Court€finds€and€holds€that€Mrs.€Tiplerððs€codicil€contained€all€of€theÏmaterial€provisions€necessary€to€determine€how€her€residuary€estate€would€beÏdistributed.€€Her€estate€is€to€be€distributed€according€to€an€agreement€which€sheÏidentifies€in€her€own€handwriting.€€The€identity€of€the€beneficiaries€agreed€upon€canÏbe€determined€from€the€facts€of€independent€significance€contained€in€Mr.€TiplerððsÏWill€as€well€as€from€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Meredith€and€Mr.€May.€€The€Court€furtherÏrules€that€Mrs.€Tipler€intended€to€dispose€of€her€residuary€estate€to€her€husband;€ifÏher€husband€predeceased€her,€she€intended€to€dispose€of€her€estate€to€Mr.€TiplerððsÏrelatives€in€the€manner€in€which€Mr.€Tipler€distributed€his€estate€in€his€will.€ÏTherefore,€this€Court€further€finds€and€so€holds€that€Mrs.€Tiplerððs€handwrittenÏdocument€dated€on€April€4,€1982€was€a€valid€holographic€codicil.€€This€Court€furtherÏfinds€and€holds€that€the€identity€of€the€beneficiaries€and€the€percentage€of€their€sharesÏunder€Mrs.€Tiplerððs€estate€are€found€in€Article€V€of€Mr.€Tiplerððs€Last€Will€andÏTestament.€€This€Court€finds€and€holds€hat€this€extrinsic€evidence€found€in€Mr.ÏTiplerððs€Will€is€incorporated€into€Mrs.€Tiplerððs€will€under€the€Tennessee€recognizedÏdoctrine€of€independent€significance.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓœTestatrixðð›€heirs,€who€would€receive€Testatrixðð€residuary€estate€if€the€codicil€were€invalid,€now€appealÏthe€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ìà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellants€note€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€32„1„105€requires€that,€forÏa€holographic€will€to€be€valid,€ð ðthe€signature€and€all€its€material€provisions€must€be€in€theÏhandwriting€of€the€testator.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„1„105€œ(1984).›€€The€appellants€argue€that€theÏholograph€in€this€case,€which€refers€ambiguously€to€an€ð ðagreementðð€between€Testatrix€and€herÏhusband,€does€not€have€ð ðòòallóó€its€material€provisionsðð€in€Testatrixðð€handwriting€since€it€attempts€toÐ À0,/ Ðincorporate€Husbandððs€will.€€They€contend€that€the€holographic€codicil€would€not€be€valid€if€itÏincorporated€by€reference€a€document€already€in€existence,€and€argue€that€it€would€be€error€then€toÏconclude€that€the€holographic€codicil€could€validly€incorporate€a€document€not€yet€in€existence€whenÏthe€codicil€was€executed.€€ÌœñP ñÐ   :p59 ÐñP ñ›à  àThe€issue€presented€in€this€appeal€is€a€question€of€law;€therefore,€the€scope€of€review€is€òòò òdeÐ ° Ðnovoó óóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòò òUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.Ð à ÐHuddlestonó óóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).Ð pÀ Ðà  àA€number€of€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€involve€facts€somewhat€similar€to€this€case.€€òòò òSeeÐ P   ÐBaxley€v.€Birmingham€Trust€œNatððl›€Bankó óóó,€334€œSo.€2d›€848€(Ala.€1976);ò òòò€€Rogers€v.€Waltonó óóó,€39€A.2dÐ 0 € Ð409€(Me.€œ1943);òòò ò›€Leary€v.€Liberty€Trust€Co.ó óóó,€171€N.E.€828€(Mass.€1930);€œòòò òIn€re€Piffardððs›€Estateó óóó,€18Ð `  ÐN.E.€718€(N.Y.€1888).€€€In€œòòò òPiffardððs›€Estateó óóó,€a€fatherððs€will€contained€an€absolute€devise€and€bequestÐ ð@  Ðto€his€daughter.€€In€a€later€codicil,€the€testator€provided€that€should€the€daughter€predecease€him,€theÏdevise€and€bequest€from€his€estate€should€be€distributed€according€to€the€terms€of€her€will.€€TheÏdaughter€predeceased€the€œfather.€€ñL ñò òó óñL ñThe›€daughterððs€will€was€not€written€at€the€time€of€the€codicil;Ïtherefore,€there€was€no€incorporation€by€reference.€€The€court€found€that€the€doctrine€of€facts€ofÏindependent€significance€applied€and€distributed€the€assets€of€the€testatorððs€estate€according€to€theÏterms€of€the€daughterððs€will.€€The€court€of€appeals€stated€that€the€testatorððs€will€refers€to€theÏdaughterððs€will,€ð ðnot€as€transferring€the€property€by€an€appointment,€but€to€define€and€make€certainÏthe€persons€to€whom,€and€the€proportions€in€which,€the€one„fifth€should€pass€by€the€fatherððs€will€inÏcase€of€the€death€of€the€daughter€in€his€lifetime.ðð€œòòò òIn€re€Piffardððs›€Estateóóó ó,€18€N.E€718,€719.€€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àIn€an€Alabama€case,€the€testator€executed€a€codicil€to€her€will€that€provided€that€in€the€eventÏher€son€predeceased€her,€a€portion€of€her€residuary€estate€would€be€distributed€according€to€the€termsÏof€her€sonððs€œwill.€€ò òòòFirst›€œNatððl›€Bank€v.€Kleinó óóó,€234€œSo.€2d›€42,€44€(Tenn.€1970).òòò ò€€óóó óThe€appellate€courtÐ p&À!$ Ðfound€that€the€devise€ð ðshould€be€given€effect€under€the€doctrine€of€ððfacts€of€independentÏsignificance,ðð€a€doctrine€recognized€when€the€facts€may€not€justify€the€application€of€the€doctrineÏof€ððincorporation€by€reference.ðððð€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€œ45„46.›€€The€court€stated€that€the€doctrine€of€facts€ofÐ ,`'* Ðindependent€significance€was€created€to€provide€an€œð ðescape›€œmechanismððdeviceñM ñððñM ñ›€in€order€to€give€effectÏto€the€intention€of€the€testator,€while€preserving€the€integrity€of€the€statute€of€œwills.ñL ñ›ñL ñ€€›€ò òòòId.€óóó óÐ Ð/ +. Ðà  àHowever,€in€these€œcases,€the€court€did€not€indicate€that›€the€codicils€at€issue€œwereñN ñ€ñN ññL ñœñL ñ›€holographs.ÏœñL ñò òó óñL ñConsequently,›€the€facts€are€distinguishable€from€this€case.€€In€this€case,€we€have€a€holographicÏcodicil€which€seeks€to€incorporate€the€distribution€plan€of€another€will,€not€in€the€handwriting€of€theÏtestator.€€Tennessee€law€provides€that,€to€be€valid,€all€the€material€provisions€of€a€holographic€willÏmust€be€in€the€handwriting€of€the€testator.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€32„1„105€œ(1984).ò ò€€ó óTherefore,›€we€mustÐ 09€48 Ðdetermine€whether€the€holographic€codicil€in€this€case€contains€all€material€provisions€in€TestatrixððÏhandwriting.€€Only€then€will€the€doctrine€of€facts€of€independent€significance€apply.€€Ìà  àThe€codicil€in€this€case€must€be€considered€in€light€of€€two€important€common€law€principlesÏregarding€will€construction:€the€presumption€against€intestacy€and€the€weight€given€to€€the€testatorððsÏintent.€€The€common€law€presumption€against€partial€intestacy€was€codified€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€32-3-101€(1984).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€presumption€ð ðis€applicable€when€the€words€used,€òòby€any€fairÐ `  Ðinterpretationóó,€will€embrace€the€property€not€otherwise€devised,€unless€a€contrary€intention€appearsÐ ð@  Ðfrom€the€context.ðð€€òòò òMcDonald€v.€Ledfordó óóó,€140€Tenn.€471,€475,€205€S.W.€312,€313€œ(1917)€(citingÐ Ð  Ðò òòòOldam€v.€Yorkó óóó,€99€Tenn.€68,€41€S.W.€333€(1897)€(emphasis›€added).€€This€rule€operates€to€preventÐ ° Ðtestamentary€gifts€from€lapsing€or€failing€through€the€incomplete€drafting€of€the€will.€Ìà  àThe€intent€of€the€testator€is€the€most€important€factor€in€will€construction€cases.€€œThe›€courtÏmust€give€effect€to€that€intent€unless€it€contravenes€some€rule€of€law€or€public€œpolicy.ñG ñððñG ññH ñ€€ñH ñòòò òñI ñ›€›€ñI ñThird›€Nat'lÐ P  ÐBank€v.€First€American€Nat'l€Bankó óóó,€596€S.W.2d€œ824ñJ ñ,€828ñJ ñ›€(Tenn.€1980).€€€ð ðThe€testator's€intentionÐ 0€ Ðis€to€be€ascertained€from€the€particular€words€used€in€the€will€itself,€from€the€context€in€which€thoseÏwords€are€used,€and€from€the€general€scope€and€purposes€of€the€will,€read€in€the€light€of€theÏsurrounding€and€attending€circumstances.ðð€òòò òPresley€v.€Hanksó óóó,€782€S.W.2d€482,€487€(Tenn.€App.Ð Ð  Ð1989)€(citing€òòò òMoore€v.€Neelyó óóó,€212€Tenn.€496,€502-03,€370€S.W.2d€537,€540€(1963);€€òòò òFisher€v.Ð °"  ÐMalmoó óóó,€650€S.W.2d€43€(Tenn.€App.€1983)).€€Other€than€a€small€bequest€to€a€niece,€€Testatrix€didÐ $à" Ðnot€provide€for€her€family€members€in€her€will.€€Testimony€at€trial€established€that€Testatrix€was€notÏon€good€terms€with€her€family€members€and€felt€that€her€husbandððs€family€was€her€family.€€UnderÏthese€circumstances,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏTestatrix€intended€that€her€estate€be€distributed€to€her€Husbandððs€family€through€his€will€andÏaccording€to€his€wishes.€€The€evidence€of€Testatrixððs€intent€was€properly€considered€by€the€trialÏcourt.ÌœñQ ñÐ  °1-0 ÐñQ ñ›à  àIn€determining€whether€this€codicil€contained€ð ðall€material€provisionsðð€in€TestatrixððÏhandwriting,€we€must€note€that€the€identity€of€the€beneficiaries€is€obviously€an€important€item€in€aÏwill.€€In€this€case,€the€witnessesðð€testimony€in€this€case€does€not€indicate€that€Testatrix€wanted€herÏestate€to€be€distributed€to€particular€members€of€Husbandððs€family.€€Rather,€it€indicates€that€TestatrixÏwanted€her€estate€to€be€distributed€to€whomever€Husband€wished.€€Under€these€circumstances,€aÏholograph€which€bequeaths€her€estate€to€persons€named€as€beneficiaries€under€Husbandððs€will€wouldÏcontain€all€material€provisions€in€Testatrixðð€handwriting,€and€therefore€would€be€valid,€even€thoughÏthe€specific€identity€of€the€beneficiaries€is€contained€in€another€document€not€in€TestatrixððÏhandwriting.€€œñJ ñò òó óñJ ñ›Ìà  àIn€sum,€then,€the€doctrine€of€facts€of€independent€significance€is€applicable€in€this€case€toÏpermit€Testatrixðð€codicil€to€refer€to€Husbandððs€will,€provided€the€document€is€a€valid€holographicÏcodicil.€€To€determine€whether€the€holograph€contains€all€material€provisions€in€TestatrixððÏhandwriting,€the€trial€court€properly€considered€Testatrixðð€intent.€Evidence€preponderates€in€favorÏof€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Testatrix€was€estranged€from€her€family€and€wanted€her€estate€to€goÏto€Husbandððs€family.€€Since€Testatrix€wanted€her€estate€to€go€to€whomever€Husband€wished,€theÏcodicil€contained€all€material€provisions€in€Testatrixðð€handwriting,€even€though€it€stated€only€thatÏher€estate€should€go€to€the€beneficiaries€under€Husbandððs€will€and€did€not€specifically€nameÏbeneficiaries.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€distributing€Testatrixðð€estate€to€the€beneficiariesÏunder€Husbandððs€will.€Ìà  àFor€the€above€reasons,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessedÏagainst€the€Appellants,€for€which€execution€shall€issue,€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓÔ‡ X«;XXXÌ–Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ð-@), Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð Ü.,*- Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð x3È.2 ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð d4´/3 ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ (7x26 ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÐ 8d37 ÐÔ#†XÌ–XX X«;,U#Ô